living by faith or fact? which is more reliable?

On a more serious note... there was no world-wide flood as the bible reports. This article is representative of the kind of material that I find fascinating. Years of following the evangelical mindset prohibited me from reading this sort of thing. Today I am amazed and disappointed to an extent that for so many years I was brainwashed and didn't have any idea of it. How can I say this? Maybe I'm brainwashed today?

The difference is that today I am making a choice based on knowledge gathered from investigation. Basing one's world view on one book is risky at best. What if the book is not totally reliable? What if it is a collection of myths gathered from earlier cultural myths? Building on what is believed from previous civilizations is all we can do, I suppose. This is how science works. I'd say religion is no different. The difference in religion is that the method of testing for factual reliability is not carried out. It's all a matter of faith.

Living a life based on faith seems scary to me now. It was scary when I was in the evangelical church. The idea of "trusting God" was given lip service for the most part. Exhibiting fear and anxiety about life's events was never acceptable, so you had to say that you were trusting God. In actuality taking things into my own hands is what I usually did and still do today. It was the times when I was trusting God and things turned out totally bad which initiated the gradual breakdown of my belief system. Was it God's problem or was it me not hearing clearly. After all, I'm only human. Years and years of disillusionment can only go so far. Right?