Very cool, if true

The problem being that what is obviously unreasonable to me may not be the same as it is to you, and is clearly very different from what is obviously unreasonable to Rick Perry.

And brings me back to my original point, I think* which is that given a book in which large chunks are obviously unreasonable, why take any of it as fact?

To use an analogy that's simplified to the point of silliness, imagine if people took Narnia as a religion, with The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe as their religious text. There would be your strict Narians, who believed that the whole thing was literal fact, passed down by Aslan. And there would be those who said that _obviously_ it was unreasonable to think that the children literally passed through the wardrobe into Narnia - that bit was metaphor, but the Pevensie children still existed and visited that house during the blitz, and that bit was fine, because it's not obviously unreasonable.

And I'd be wondering why we'd take a book where 3/4 of it was agreed to be metaphor/myth and take 1/4 of it seriously, just because there was an actual Blitz, and houses like that really did exist in the 1940s.

*Or at least, I'm going to segue there anyway.