>>You just measure the shadow of fixed length stick in different parts of the world... That also requires independent measurement of long distances (can't rely on maps). A close sun can produce different angles as well. But then, since we accept that atmospheric lensing can make purely geometric experiments unusable (allowing us see around the curve, why can't lensing also distort those results? >>Our brains are not designed to comprehend vast amounts... I like your skyscraper example, but I disagree with the conclusion. The aesthetic of the universe being beyond any kind of human intuition and being completely indifferent is not the result of modern science, but motivation behind it. You do not need that aesthetic to build skyscrapers, and the engineering calculations only make easier what is intuitively understood. You do not even need vast amounts of calculations if you take advantage of scale and repetition. In fact, it is illogical than any feat of engineering or scientific discovery should give rise to that aesthetic, because those things are the result of understanding. Only one's own ignorance and compliance compel him to surrender understanding to magic. And there is a lot of people who do that else they wouldn't have pull off 9/11 and the War on Terror. The atheist's aesthetic is propaganda. Whether the motivation behind is to gain better division of labor, or if it is the reflection of deep seated fears behind those who rather God not exist, one can speculate. On skepticism: Skepticism is the critical analysis of new ideas in the frame and context of existing wisdom. It is why most people initially reject FE immediately. The problem is that we do not really have existing wisdom, because we live in a post-racial, 1984 clown world, where everyone is atomized and reprogrammed on an ever more rapid basis. Among the very first programming is to reject previous wisdom. They tell us traditional beliefs are outdated and the result of flawed thinking. They tell us to reject wisdom altogether, and that there is only truth in the ever changing present. I agree that skepticism must be applied from multiple perspectives. In my post, I tried to adopt the one nowadays less frequently adopted. I am thoroughly indoctrinated in the other, and I am not convinced either way. However, the criteria for a conspiracy theory also includes the size and strength of potential motives, because with enough resources any fraud is possible. Personally, I think the FEers win in this regard.