two extremes

It seems to me there are two extremes when determining if something is true.
There is the gullible extreme where a person accepts everything. Or there is the other extreme of scepticism whereby nothing is believed without a high level of evidence.
The problem with the first is that it switches the brain off. It doesn't use the gifts of intellect we have all been given and encouraged to use.
The problem with the second is that it is founded on a false premise. The sceptic says that I won't believe it unless there is lots of evidence. But how does one determine what evidence is credible. In the end the sceptic makes an assumption that for example 'seeing is believing'. But where is the evidence for this?
In the end I believe we should seek to avoid both extremes. We should seek to believe those things that seem reasonable while we continue to probe and challenge and test.
I like that idea that Francis Schaeffer puts forward. That we need to test our beliefs against the experience of how we live life. For example we believe in gravity because it matches our everyday of experience.
I personally believe in that Jesus is God and follow him as such because my reading of the bible makes sense of my everyday life.
I find it hard to understand the how a person who believes we are just the result of chance can get upset when they find themselves lonely, because surely if we are merely an accident then truly we are alone in the universe.