As a one time student of literature(which taught me critical evaluation of evidence in far more depth than my science lessons ever did though I was proficient at both) I was introduced to the idea of willing suspension of disbelief. From practical experience I note that when I am willing to do this (e.g. when I go to the theatre the action play is both fact and fiction) then I become aware of things outside of myself and inside of myself and the relationships between them that change me. I am not under any illusion that the play is ‘real’ except in as much as it is happening now and I am experiencing it. It’s reality lies in the fact it is a piece of theatre but that doesn’t mean it isn’t truthful or without meaning.

Belief, as far as I can see, is always a choice. Even when we actually experience things there are always choices about what we believe about the experience. as so much of our information about the world is taken on trust it would be nonsense to suggest otherwise. have you ever had an experience of something that later it seems that you either dreamt it or imagined it? I have. Accurate to the last detail (or at least it accords with other people’s perceptions of the event). Yet I wasn’t there and couldn’t have known about it from anyone else. Does that mean it wasn’t true? What should I now believe about it?
Thankfully life doesn’t seem to be quite as black and white as you suggest. If it were I think I’d rather be happy to be eaten by tigers. At least it would be over quickly.

“The question is, are you willing to believe something that is outside of your own experience? If not, isn’t that a severely limited worldview?”

I am sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by this. “willing to believe” is an odd expression. I don’t think it is possible to “will to believe”. One either believes or one does not believe. Willing doesn’t come into it. It’s redundant.

So leaving out the “willing” what does it mean to “believe something outside of your own experience”. If I haven’t experienced it, how would I ever know it. I think you mean something more like “experienced first hand”. I agree that if one only believed what one experienced first hand, you wouldn’t be a normal functional human being. We all believe things not experienced first hand, thats a normal education.

But part of any good education is an appreciation of critical evaluation of evidence that teaches us to pick the most plausible of alternative explanations. Those that fail to learn this useful skill end up being eaten by tigers.

That the second story is more plausible is, of course, the point. The question is, are you willing to believe something that is outside of your own experience? If not, isn’t that a severely limited worldview?

I agree that there was an unnecessary amount of gruesomeness in the book. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!