Seeing is believing?

There are times when one is confronted with facts that do not seem to completely "add up."  Or so one thinks they are facts.  And we think facts should "add up," or at least be self consistent.  We think of facts as observations from reliable persons based on some kind of sensory evidence.  The more persons that concur with the interpretation of the evidence, especially if we consider those persons to be reliable and reasonable, the better our confidence in those facts.  It's even better usually if the sensory evidence is our own, direct observation.  Reading in the conclusion of the Gospel of Matthew, there is a curious dissonance of interpretation of sensory evidence - or at least it's documented that way:

"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:17)

Some doubted?  Didn't they see him?  But what they were seeing did not "add up" perhaps.  Yesterday's very brief discussion of 1 Corinthians 15 covers a related topic: corruptibility and incorruptibility.  The writers of the New Testament are not dodging the very fundamentals of human understanding and human reasoning.  This is a lot to process, but it is fundamental.  And today we read in the newspaper the fascinating news (to me, anyway) that another hominid has been found, Australopithecus sediba.  Stars, galaxies, an ancient creature, and the resurrection of the dead.  Does it all add up?