I'm not going to read the book. As I said previously, I don't care enough. Bein g made uncomfortable by an argument is not the same as being convinced by an argument -- whence my reference to Aquinas. His arguments concerning God are extremely compelling and the best counterarguments for the first two are (to me) tedious and unsatisfactory.
Even though I am not now nor have I ever been a lawyer, I fully accept that eye-witness testimony is problematic and usually quite unreliable. In my own experience I have seen simple things that I believed I understood very clearly but later discovered I did not understand and in fact, was quite wrong. I can easily multiply that by any number of billions. Observer's comments maybe cumulative into a correlatively useful argument, but are not causational.
But do let us look at observation as a tool of understanding. It has brought us both the ptolemaic and copernican systems. If we dwell on just Ptolemy and discard observations because of that erroneous system, then we would never have arrived at Copernicus. Because Copernicus' system was based on observation, too.
Thus, I would argue that billions of people over thousands of years are right about something, just as Ptolemy was right about something. Don't discount all observations simply because one derived answer appears flawed.
Didn't expect you to read the book. I doubt it's in a library. The point is that if you're not careful, you can let people 'fool' you into believing something by providing evidence that sounds logical but in reality is fallacious.
And an appeal to the masses - "Billions of people over thousands of years are right about something" - is probably the most nauseating of all logical fallacies. That type of thinking has been proven wrong over and over again. Flat earth ring a bell? FFS...
As a species, we seem completely incapable of dealing with uncertainty - so much so, that we'll fabricate
answers to questions, just so that they don't bother us anymore. Happens all the time.
The existence of religions serve to proactively answer the questions that any modern human being would eventually be dying to ask - where did we REALLY come from, originally? I'd imagine this starts as early as age 5 or so, maybe younger, and on. Tough questions, because we don't KNOW. We have to make GUESSES. It takes EDUCATION, and it's COMPLICATED.
Religion offers an easy way out as it applies to answering those questions...either for adult individuals, or for their children. In no way can any of that be construed as an accurate account. The more we learn about the past, the more trouble religious texts offer. If you cannot rely on what the religious texts say, what then is the purpose of following them?