Right, I have some free time so let me give my sober thoughts.
@Quod
If one is not truly prepared to examine beliefs on the basis that they could be false, how can one ever know they are true?
All I'm saying here is if you refuse to accept your religion could be wrong then any examination of your belief is futile.
Not sure what the problem is?
Reading the above quotes makes me think I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. What came to mind was, for example, someone who has parts of their belief that don't sit right but manage to find a way to make sense of them, usually by ascribing an alternative meaning, usually taking the view that it's just metaphor or poetry or whatnot.
I don't really have a problem with your phrasing here:
All I'm saying here is if you refuse to accept your religion could be wrong then any examination of your belief is futile.
I actually agree with you. However the initial wording
If one is not truly prepared to examine beliefs on the basis that they could be false, how can one ever know they are true?
came across quite different for me, in a way you may not have meant.
"If one is not truly prepared to examine beliefs on the basis that they could be false, how can one ever know they are true?" <------ The way I read this was what prompted my reply. The fact you can reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution doesn't make your religious beliefs any more or any less true. The fact you can come up with a way of viewing them as true does not make them real.
Convincing yourself something is true isn't the same as something being true. It's one of those lines that sound good in an 80's pop kind of way but that ultimately have no value. The sentence itself is worthless because the assumptions given are worthless.
So did I just completely misunderstand what you were saying?