Keep in mind I was talking about logic itself.
Me too. Logic. The invention of a single half insane species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.
Is logic useful for very many things? Yes, proven beyond doubt. Are the rules of logic binding everywhere in all of reality? Not proven at all. Logic says a thing can not both exist and not exist and yet arguably space, the vast majority of reality, does just that.
Again the is a difference between hard and soft is if one is putting forward a claim of non-existence versus a rejection of a claim.
Rejection is based on something, a reference to an authority of some kind. If a fundamentalist Christian rejects gay marriage, they are doing so by referencing their chosen authority, probably the Bible. By trying to sell their point of view they are making a claim that their chosen authority is qualified for the subject at hand. If that claim can not be proven, they are operating from faith.
If this person has a very deep and sincere yet unexamined faith in their chosen authority, they may not realize they are making a claim, as they may take the qualifications of their chosen authority to be an obvious given. This is often the case with many atheists, they may believe without questioning that the rules of human reason are binding everywhere, and thus they sincerely don't realize that they are making a counter claim when they reject religious beliefs, or at least when they try to sell their rejection.
Which brings us back to this. Even though this inquiry has been searching for The Answer for thousands of years, we are still in a position where all claimed answers
from every side can be successfully challenged. If one should listen to that huge pile of evidence, the theist vs. atheist debate begins to fall away, as it starts to become clear that debate serves no useful purpose beyond entertainment.
There is no direct evidence of God.
Nor any proof that the rules of human reason are binding everywhere, the scope of the god proposal. And without such proof, a lack of evidence means little. If the rules of poker can not be shown to be binding in all of reality, then the fact that some God idea violates a poker rule is of little use to us.
Nope, faith is to believe in something without evidence.
Yes, like the belief that the rules of human reason are binding in all of reality, even though we don't even know what "all of reality" actually refers to.
We have trust in various systems as there is evidence that these systems are reliable. We have trust in math and logic for this reason. We have faith in religion since it uses neither and mostly relies on revelation and subjective experience. We can test the reliability of the former, we can not do so with the later.
I can see you are intent on participating in a theist vs. atheist debate. As you can see by now, I'm neither a theist or an atheist, and see little evidence that debate is going anywhere. I'm not arguing against the theist or atheist position so much as I am arguing against the contest between them. In other words, I am a party pooper.
But given all my too many words, perhaps I am more accurately labeled a Fundamentalist Party Pooper.
Both rationalist and empiricist share observations as evidence.
If we discard a search for The Answer, we no longer need evidence. However we may need evidence that discarding such a search is the best course of action.
For example if I found a piece of pottery I do not need evidence of the pottery maker directly. I can use the mind and previous data to conclude there has to be a pottery maker.
This is of course a leading argument for God. Sorry, cheap shot, my bad.
Have you considered that "need" can become so overwhelming that it overrides the ability for one to accept what observation provides for us? For some people the need to have a purpose of their life is so strong that they will turn to any answer which resolves this need. An answer which goes beyond observation.
Yes, imho, this is pretty much the situation for both committed theists and atheists. There is a strong need for some authority which can be trusted, something which can be relied on, a rule book to follow, an answer. And thus, participants may choose to ignore the fact that the qualifications of their chosen authority have not been proven.
Assuming that the beliefs they derive from their chosen authority aren't hurting anybody else, and are enhancing their own lives, such a faith based operation can be considered reasonable, if not meeting the highest most ideal standards of investigation procedure. Life is short, life can be hard, everybody gets through however they can.
Could your own need be classified in this way?
It appears my primary need is to keep the keyboard keys a clacking, to trumpet the glorious sound of my own little voice throughout the nerdosphere, for I am Typist.
I should try to type more clearly, for we are talking past each other to a degree. You wish to participate in a theist/atheist debate it seems, while my goal is to discard what I see to be a proven failed process in order to continue the age old inquiry by hopefully more promising methods. But this is just a goal, not a demand, and Rome wasn't built in a day as they say.
Well, we're on page five already, and there hasn't been a big shootout among participants yet. Good for us, free beers for everybody!