Replies

. . . I understand that we were born with a brain that enables us to reason.

I never claimed that you have come to whatever beliefs you have by apart from either reason or evaluating evidence. Evaluating evidence is not the same as direct observation. How many people claim to know the earth revolves the sun, when in fact they have no evidence except what is written in scholarly books?

"But I have fairly well verified there exist the heavens and the earth, and that these demonstrate an order and arrangement far above my capacities as an intelligent being." . . . How did you verify this? And how does this verify ANYTHING in the Bible, a book whose events you have never witnessed firsthand yet you believe anyway. . . .

With respect to the first set of knowlege, I verified these things the same way you verified you were born with a brain that enables you to reason. I didn't have to read about it in a book. Some things appear to be self-evident and are capable of direct observation. The presence of earth and sky happen to be two examples. The condition of the center of the earth has never been the subject of direct observation on my part, though I am told orionblamblam has visited the place. My reason tends to reject his report as fictitious.

With respect to the second set of knowledge, namely those things written in the canonical scriptures, I believe them for four reasons. 1.) They have been delivered to me after a history of careful preservation (thus indicating they are not intended as a Dr. Suess book, and 2.) I have yet to find any of their statements to be wholly contrary to possibility. There are other reasons, but I'd rather be short on the math since, in some intelligent circles, 1 + 1 = 4.

"Some things appear to be self-evident and are capable of direct observation. The presence of earth and sky happen to be two examples."

What is that is self-evident though? Is it self evident that the stars are light-years away and are suns like ours? (yes, I know that there are many kinds of stars). Self evidence is NOT a good guide to scientific concepts, because what is often taken to be self evident (flat earth, earth centered universe, stars are small and completely different than the sun...) is totally wrong.

"With respect to the second set of knowledge, namely those things written in the canonical scriptures, I believe them for four reasons. 1.) They have been delivered to me after a history of careful preservation (thus indicating they are not intended as a Dr. Suess book, and 2.) I have yet to find any of their statements to be wholly contrary to possibility. "

The fact that something (the bible) is old does not mean it is right. The Iliad is old too, in many parts older than the bible, yet I do not take it as historical (however much it may be based loosely on early Greek historical events). Authority is not advanced through the age of the book. The point was that you ridiculed someone for reading books when they could not personally verify what was in them, but when you defend the absurdities of the creations stories in Genesis, you resort to blind faith because the book was what you were told to believe even though parts defy logic (the ark, flood, Cain and Abel's wives, the whole human race coming from 2 people when genetic inbreeding would have quickly killed them off...). If the Bible said 1+1=4, you would have no choice but to accept it.