Replies

"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.

Self evidence is NOT a good guide to scientific concepts . . .

It is certainly not the only guide, but it serves as a foundational one. All science operates with givens, and those givens are, to the observer, self-evident.

The fact that something (the bible) is old does not mean it is right.

You are correct. The age of a document is not a singular indication of its veracity, but it may be considered as one of many evidences to consider it worthy of acceptance intellectually.

The point was that you ridiculed someone for reading books when they could not personally verify what was in them . . .

I would be remiss if I ridiculed someone just for believing what they read in books. My point is that we should not kid ourselves concerning the indirect nature of much of the evidence presented to our reason and senses. If science is unwilling to claim for itself the ability to determine absolute facts or truth, then it must assume the mantle of faith alongside all human observers.