Is reason a good enough basis for belief/non-belief?

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...od-enough-basis-belief-non-8.html#post1584647
Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage

Then those gods you mention will by defintion be inferior to the concept of a single, omnipotent, Necessarily existing Creator. And I have no 'personal religious belief', but am simply demonstrating a logical position.

By your definition. Your definition is not based on logic, but aesthetics.

Aesthetic preferences are not logical positions (by definition .) You like that god concept best, so to you all other god concepts are inferior. I like arbutus best, so to me all other trees are inferior. "But trees are all variations on the same thing - none are better or worse than any other" you say. "None of the others are so red and bendy" I reply, "therefore it is logical that the arbutus is the supreme tree among trees".
I’m guessing that in using that analogy to address what I’ve written above you’re not being entirely serious?
Anyway, it’s not my definition, and it most certainly is not based on aesthetics. It’s simple logic: if Jayne is taller than Sue, and Sue is taller than Chloe, then Jayne is the tallest of the three. My views on the attractiveness, or not, of tall women does not in the least alter the conclusion that Sue and Chloe are shorter than Jayne. So it is with the concept of an omnipotent, necessarily existent Supreme Being. If such a God exists, then other gods, which by definition cannot have that same identity, will necessarily be inferior. And my (or your) preferences have no bearing on that self-defining, necessary truth.

That's not what you're saying. You're saying Jayne is taller than Sue, and Sue is taller than Chloe, so only Jayne necessarily exists, and she is a superior emblem of womanliness to Sue and Chloe.
I’m saying no such thing in that example! Read it again! I’m saying Jayne being the tallest, Sue and Chloe are therefore the shorter, irrespective of any personal preferences or subjective view of womanhood.
Plus it's all a moot point when all three ladies are figments of your imagination anyway. You could just as easily imagine Sue to be taller than Jayne.
<groan!> The three ladies are a figment of my imagination!! It was a metaphor to show the truth of the premise is not decided by subjectivism. 'Jayne is the tallest' is true or false, notwithstanding my preferences.

You've decided the attribute of creating the universe is better, more important and more necessary than the attribute of (for example) flying the sun across the sky in a chariot.
No I have not! Tell me, what on earth made you come to that view.
The Greeks would emphatically disagree with you (because if the sun doesn't rise, the crops will die). Their disagreement would be based on culture and aesthetics, not logic. But if your god doesn't exist, and their gods don't exist, none of them are necessary and all their imagined attributes are moot. There's nothing there, so there's nothing to compare.
I’m amused at the way you say ‘your god’, as if I’m a theist arguing for the existence of a deity. Also you’re attributing views to me that I do not recognise and may even disagree with. I think perhaps you might have got the wrong handle on this argument?

 

[strange]

I think you have completely missed my point. I was trying to tell you that many gods are NOT "creators", and many cultures and religions do not have a "first cause" god at all, let alone struggle to understand it.

I don't think you'll understand me though, since it sounds like you are starting with a firm assumption your personal concept of god actually exists, or could exist, then trying to use reason to understand it. I am coming from a perspective where I know your god is a figment of your imagination, as is everybody else's god, which is a conclusion I reached not by contemplating first causes, but by the careful observation of humans. First causes don't interest me at all. That's not to say I am not interested in empirical research into the origins of life and the universe, but if empirical research into our origins never comes up with a testable theory, I won't miss it. And I certainly won't turn to religious belief to fill in the details.

For a religious belief to designate or define God for me is to establish that man has the knowledge to understand God. My knowledge of God comes from being able to witness all of creation that exists for me to see, smell, hear and touch. My existence tells me that there is a God, first cause, not a religion or any other belief system.

A figment of my imagination is exactly how I and any other human being defines God. It is all we have, our imaginations. Sorry to hear that you depend on observing humans to come to this conclusion. Far to many humans really have no clue.

Religion does not dictate to me, God.

 

[strange]

"If by absurb, you mean unbelievable, then I would disagree with your premise. But is by absurb you mean amazing, then I have to agree with your premise that it is unbelievable; only in that it takes an act of faith, "leap of faith" to get our minds to believe.'

Kierkegaard's "absurd" is that Jesus Christ was God in human flesh; an "objective insecurity". Also it is not my "premise"; I was quoting Kierkegaard.

And I was only quoting Kierkegaard's "leap of faith." As for "Jesus Christ was God in the human flesh," that is restating what Christianity believes, speaking of the Trinity. That is another topic.

 

[strange]

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are thousands of gods who are not creators of the universe (Kali, Kokopelli, Diana, Guan Yin, etc), and plenty of religions that have a god or gods but none of them are an omnipotent creator (Taoism, some forms of Buddhism, Wicca, Shamanism, Paganism, etc). So your definition of "God" is subjective. You are conveniently defining the word to conform to your own personal religious belief, despite the fact there's no basis in human culture (taken as a whole) for this interpretation.

Then those gods you mention will by defintion be inferior to the concept of a single, omnipotent, Necessarily existing Creator. And I have no 'personal religious belief', but am simply demonstrating a logical position.

The point that I make is that there is only one God. Whether you call that God Buddha or any other name there is still only one God. Man's attempt to understand God is through objectification and/or subjectification. We do so, whether we are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other religion; by the only means at our disposal, our existence.

Look, how you were brought up affects how you see things. What education also affects how you see things. What part of the world, your culture affects how you see things. Every moment of time, past and present helps you to see things. And everyone sees things differently.

God exists in us through existence. God is existence. God is the first cause. God does not exist in time. We exist in time. Beyond existence we have no clue.

 

[strange]

Human reason is the only thing that we have to go on. It is the basis of everything we experience in this world, even our own emotions.

Stated very simply and right on.

 

[Alceste]

Then those gods you mention will by defintion be inferior to the concept of a single, omnipotent, Necessarily existing Creator. And I have no 'personal religious belief', but am simply demonstrating a logical position.

So it is with the concept of an omnipotent, necessarily existent Supreme Being. If such a God exists, then other gods, which by definition cannot have that same identity, will necessarily be inferior. And my (or your) preferences have no bearing on that self-defining, necessary truth.

<groan!> The three ladies are a figment of my imagination!! It was a metaphor to show the truth of the premise is not decided by subjectivism. 'Jayne is the tallest' is true or false, notwithstanding my preferences.

Tell me, what on earth made you come to that view.

"Inferior" is a qualitative judgment. "Taller" is a quantitative judgment. Qualitative judgments are aesthetic, quantitative judgments are empirical.

If "inferior" is not really what you meant, perhaps you could come up with another word that is empirical rather than aesthetic?

I&#8217;m amused at the way you say &#8216;your god&#8217;, as if I&#8217;m a theist arguing for the existence of a deity. Also you&#8217;re attributing views to me that I do not recognise and may even disagree with. I think perhaps you might have got the wrong handle on this argument?

It seems quite obvious to me that you're a theist. Nobody but a theist (and the occasional agnostic) argues that belief in god can be even remotely logical. And, as a theist or an agnostic, you have a concept in your mind of the god you believe in (or are not sure whether or not you believe in). That god concept is "your god", from my godless perspective. I've never met two theists who have the same god concept, so I call them all "your god" (or gods).

If I've got the wrong handle, please set me straight. Are you an atheist?

 

[Alceste]

For a religious belief to designate or define God for me is to establish that man has the knowledge to understand God. My knowledge of God comes from being able to witness all of creation that exists for me to see, smell, hear and touch. My existence tells me that there is a God, first cause, not a religion or any other belief system.

A figment of my imagination is exactly how I and any other human being defines God. It is all we have, our imaginations. Sorry to hear that you depend on observing humans to come to this conclusion. Far to many humans really have no clue.

Religion does not dictate to me, God.

Well, kudos for the "for me". That's all I'm trying to say. My existence tells me something else entirely, and there's nothing wrong with that, since spirituality is an aesthetic-subjective experience rather than an empirical-objective one.

 

[Alceste]

The point that I make is that there is only one God. Whether you call that God Buddha or any other name there is still only one God.

FYI, Buddha is not a god. You think there's only one God - that what makes you a "monotheist". But there are also polytheists, pantheists, panentheists, non-theists, atheists, mystics, apophatics and pagans in the world.

As I said somewhere else, there's nothing wrong with seeking out the fundamental characteristics that mind humanity together - it's an admirable pursuit - but some things actually are different. Buddhism, for example, is completely unlike monotheism in every possible way, but for a few shared ethics relating to the undesirability of suffering, and the desirability of finding a way to be free of it.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...od-enough-basis-belief-non-9.html#post1584858
Then those gods you mention will by defintion be inferior to the concept of a single, omnipotent, Necessarily existing Creator. And I have no 'personal religious belief', but am simply demonstrating a logical position.

So it is with the concept of an omnipotent, necessarily existent Supreme Being. If such a God exists, then other gods, which by definition cannot have that same identity, will necessarily be inferior. And my (or your) preferences have no bearing on that self-defining, necessary truth.

<groan!> The three ladies are a figment of my imagination!! It was a metaphor to show the truth of the premise is not decided by subjectivism. 'Jayne is the tallest' is true or false, notwithstanding my preferences.

Tell me, what on earth made you come to that view.

Please read on:

"Inferior" is a qualitative judgment. "Taller" is a quantitative judgment. Qualitative judgments are aesthetic, quantitative judgments are empirical.
If "inferior" is not really what you meant, perhaps you could come up with another word that is empirical rather than aesthetic?
You are missing the point entirely. None of this concerns the empirical world or subjective notions of appearance; it is a purely logical argument:
The concept of the tallness is quantitative: it is not up for dispute that Jayne is the tallest, or that the Supreme Being is the most powerful. And Jayne’s tallness and God’s power obtain regardless of any subjective, qualitative, opinion. If God is necessarily existent and omnipotent he/it has the power to do and sustain anything and everything. His powers are without end, which means there are no quantitative limits. Now, logically there can only be only one omnipotent, Necessary Being, from which it follows that other gods will not be the equal of God, which is to say that by definition they will lack God’s (qualitative) means and abilities and hence they will be lesser beings, and therefore demonstrably inferior in every way.


Quote:
I’m amused at the way you say ‘your god’, as if I’m a theist arguing for the existence of a deity. Also you’re attributing views to me that I do not recognise and may even disagree with. I think perhaps you might have got the wrong handle on this argument?

It seems quite obvious to me that you're a theist. Nobody but a theist (and the occasional agnostic) argues that belief in god can be even remotely logical. And, as a theist or an agnostic, you have a concept in your mind of the god you believe in (or are not sure whether or not you believe in). That god concept is "your god", from my godless perspective. I've never met two theists who have the same god concept, so I call them all "your god" (or gods).

If I've got the wrong handle, please set me straight. Are you an atheist?
The old adage Never Assume is a good one. I’m a sceptic – I don’t believe in any religions or any gods. As I said in another post I tend to avoid the term ‘atheist’ because of the many variations and the disagreements as to what the term should mean. But I am, nevertheless an a-theist, (without belief) one who sees no need for God or gods. And I have to inform you that God, a Supreme Being, the Creator, call him or it what you like, is logically possible. We cannot argue intelligently while denying that. You are absolutely wrong to say ‘nobody but a theist argues that god can even be remotely logical.’ Literally billions of words have been written by philosophers, who acknowledge the logical possibility of God while looking for unsoundness or invalid premises or inferences in the arguments. (I’m rather surprised you didn’t know that.)
__________________

 

[Alceste]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Then those gods you mention will by defintion be inferior to the concept of a single, omnipotent, Necessarily existing Creator. And I have no 'personal religious belief', but am simply demonstrating a logical position.

So it is with the concept of an omnipotent, necessarily existent Supreme Being. If such a God exists, then other gods, which by definition cannot have that same identity, will necessarily be inferior. And my (or your) preferences have no bearing on that self-defining, necessary truth.

<groan!> The three ladies are a figment of my imagination!! It was a metaphor to show the truth of the premise is not decided by subjectivism. 'Jayne is the tallest' is true or false, notwithstanding my preferences.

Tell me, what on earth made you come to that view.

Please read on:

"Inferior" is a qualitative judgment. "Taller" is a quantitative judgment. Qualitative judgments are aesthetic, quantitative judgments are empirical.
If "inferior" is not really what you meant, perhaps you could come up with another word that is empirical rather than aesthetic?
You are missing the point entirely. None of this concerns the empirical world or subjective notions of appearance; it is a purely logical argument:
The concept of the tallness is quantitative: it is not up for dispute that Jayne is the tallest, or that the Supreme Being is the most powerful. And Jayne&#8217;s tallness and God&#8217;s power obtain regardless of any subjective, qualitative, opinion. If God is necessarily existent and omnipotent he/it has the power to do and sustain anything and everything. His powers are without end, which means there are no quantitative limits. Now, logically there can only be only one omnipotent, Necessary Being, from which it follows that other gods will not be the equal of God, which is to say that by definition they will lack God&#8217;s (qualitative) means and abilities and hence they will be lesser beings, and therefore demonstrably inferior in every way.


Quote:
I&#8217;m amused at the way you say &#8216;your god&#8217;, as if I&#8217;m a theist arguing for the existence of a deity. Also you&#8217;re attributing views to me that I do not recognise and may even disagree with. I think perhaps you might have got the wrong handle on this argument?

It seems quite obvious to me that you're a theist. Nobody but a theist (and the occasional agnostic) argues that belief in god can be even remotely logical. And, as a theist or an agnostic, you have a concept in your mind of the god you believe in (or are not sure whether or not you believe in). That god concept is "your god", from my godless perspective. I've never met two theists who have the same god concept, so I call them all "your god" (or gods).

If I've got the wrong handle, please set me straight. Are you an atheist?
The old adage Never Assume is a good one. I&#8217;m a sceptic &#8211; I don&#8217;t believe in any religions or any gods. As I said in another post I tend to avoid the term &#8216;atheist&#8217; because of the many variations and the disagreements as to what the term should mean. But I am, nevertheless an a-theist, (without belief) one who sees no need for God or gods. And I have to inform you that God, a Supreme Being, the Creator, call him or it what you like, is logically possible. We cannot argue intelligently while denying that. You are absolutely wrong to say &#8216;nobody but a theist argues that god can even be remotely logical.&#8217; Literally billions of words have been written by philosophers, who acknowledge the logical possibility of God while looking for unsoundness or invalid premises or inferences in the arguments. (I&#8217;m rather surprised you didn&#8217;t know that.)
__________________

Would you mind using the quote function? Basically, type [ quote ] at the start and [ / quote ] at the end of each chunk of text you want to quote, without the spaces, or select the text you want to quote and use the button that looks like a speech bubble. It makes it much clearer.

Let's say my god is the Sun, and your god is the omnipotent creator of the universe. Your god is not the Sun, and can not have created the Sun, because the Sun is another god. (I'm sure you'll concede that being the Sun is not an attribute of the Abrahamic god.) Now you can compare the Abrahamic god - an ineffable god, omnipotent in the minds of his devotees but whose workings are utterly absent from observable reality, an un-necessary creator god, the vast majority of whose purported works are demonstrably spontaneous manifestations subject to the basic laws of chemistry and physics - to the Sun. The Sun is directly responsible for the flourishing of every living thing on this whirling rock. It literally, empirically and observably has the power to create or destroy life. My god, the Sun, is so immediately accessible to us that if we bask in his glory for too long we are burned to a crisp, and rather than being a "first cause" who subsequently vanished, he is a continual presence whose creative works are never-ending.

To me, it's wildly illogical that your invisible, theoretical god could be "superior" to my visible, empirical god, even if - in your imagination - your god made my god to start with, before vanishing for all the rest of eternity. My god is superior because your god exists only in the minds of his believers, while mine is enthroned for all to see, and is alternately feared and worshiped by everyone on earth regardless of which imaginary gods they believe in.

Hmm... I think the Sun IS my god. I've convinced myself anyway, if not you. I think I am going outside to worship.

 

[cottage]

Alceste: Let's say my god is the Sun, and your god is the omnipotent creator of the universe. Your god is not the Sun, and can not have created the Sun, because the Sun is another god. (I'm sure you'll concede that being the Sun is not an attribute of the Abrahamic god.)
Now you can compare the Abrahamic god - an ineffable god, omnipotent in the minds of his devotees but whose workings are utterly absent from observable reality, an un-necessary creator god, the vast majority of whose purported works are demonstrably spontaneous manifestations subject to the basic laws of chemistry and physics - to the Sun. The Sun is directly responsible for the flourishing of every living thing on this whirling rock. It literally, empirically and observably has the power to create or destroy life. My god, the Sun, is so immediately accessible to us that if we bask in his glory for too long we are burned to a crisp, and rather than being a "first cause" who subsequently vanished, he is a continual presence whose creative works are never-ending.

To me, it's wildly illogical that your invisible, theoretical god could be "superior" to my visible, empirical god, even if - in your imagination - your god made my god to start with, before vanishing for all the rest of eternity. My god is superior because your god exists only in the minds of his believers, while mine is enthroned for all to see, and is alternately feared and worshiped by everyone on earth regardless of which imaginary gods they believe in.
Cottage: The universe, to include the sun, does not logically have to exist (every particle of matter can be conceived to be annihilated). The Argument from Contingency says that there must, therefore, be a reason for its existence. So if ‘The universe exists’ is only contingently true, something must account for the fact that it is true, and we may finally account for the existence of the universe when we arrive at something for which there is no possibility of its non-existence, and this will be a necessary existence. As an unbeliever it is not for me to argue for God’s supposed works, but the fact of existence, the continuity of the world, is entirely consistent with the concept of a necessarily existent Supreme Being who caused and sustains the world’s existence. In sum, it follows that if there is such a necessarily existing, omnipotent Being, all contingent things will be subordinate in every possible way, since they are dependent upon him/it for every minute of their continuing existence. Thus humans, and other gods, are lesser or inferior beings.


__________________

 

[strange]

It's pointless to use the word "god" and then talk about any of this supposed being's attributes as "self evident" considering that there is no god and if there was then there is absolutely nothing about him that can be considered "self-evident" since everything that people think about him is based on what people think about him and not based on a "self" that has interacted with these people. No two people seem to be able to agree on what this deity is actually like. If you're a jury member in a trial wherein no two witnesses agree on what actually happened then you have to acquit the defendant. In a discussion about god, you have to dismiss the concept entirely.

The error in your thinking is that there is nothing self-evident revealing a god's existence. What is self-evident is our existence. Everything else is a "leap of faith."

 

[strange]

FYI, Buddha is not a god. You think there's only one God - that what makes you a "monotheist". But there are also polytheists, pantheists, panentheists, non-theists, atheists, mystics, apophatics and pagans in the world.

As I said somewhere else, there's nothing wrong with seeking out the fundamental characteristics that mind humanity together - it's an admirable pursuit - but some things actually are different. Buddhism, for example, is completely unlike monotheism in every possible way, but for a few shared ethics relating to the undesirability of suffering, and the desirability of finding a way to be free of it.

It matters not what Buddhism is about. Whatever religion being discussed is about a god. I fully doubt that there is more than one Creator. The Jewish religion, before it was a religion, was polytheistic. Any religion is an attempt at some reasonable explanation about some aspect of our existence.

 

[strange]

Would you mind using the quote function? Basically, type [ quote ] at the start and [ / quote ] at the end of each chunk of text you want to quote, without the spaces, or select the text you want to quote and use the button that looks like a speech bubble. It makes it much clearer.

Let's say my god is the Sun, and your god is the omnipotent creator of the universe. Your god is not the Sun, and can not have created the Sun, because the Sun is another god. (I'm sure you'll concede that being the Sun is not an attribute of the Abrahamic god.) Now you can compare the Abrahamic god - an ineffable god, omnipotent in the minds of his devotees but whose workings are utterly absent from observable reality, an un-necessary creator god, the vast majority of whose purported works are demonstrably spontaneous manifestations subject to the basic laws of chemistry and physics - to the Sun. The Sun is directly responsible for the flourishing of every living thing on this whirling rock. It literally, empirically and observably has the power to create or destroy life. My god, the Sun, is so immediately accessible to us that if we bask in his glory for too long we are burned to a crisp, and rather than being a "first cause" who subsequently vanished, he is a continual presence whose creative works are never-ending.

To me, it's wildly illogical that your invisible, theoretical god could be "superior" to my visible, empirical god, even if - in your imagination - your god made my god to start with, before vanishing for all the rest of eternity. My god is superior because your god exists only in the minds of his believers, while mine is enthroned for all to see, and is alternately feared and worshiped by everyone on earth regardless of which imaginary gods they believe in.

Hmm... I think the Sun IS my god. I've convinced myself anyway, if not you. I think I am going outside to worship.

Interesting analogy; except that your god the sun becomes as experienced as the first cause having created the sun and therefore can give life and destroy life as creation takes it's course. All of creation as we experience it comes from a first cause, God. Without a first cause we do not exist. We do not see God because the first cause existence is beyond our understanding. The first cause does not exist in our time and space. The first cause's creation is perfect and warrants no interference by the first cause.

 

[Alceste]

Interesting analogy; except that your god the sun becomes as experienced as the first cause having created the sun and therefore can give life and destroy life as creation takes it's course. All of creation as we experience it comes from a first cause, God. Without a first cause we do not exist. We do not see God because the first cause existence is beyond our understanding. The first cause does not exist in our time and space. The first cause's creation is perfect and warrants no interference by the first cause.

Not if I also believe there was never a time when the universe did not exist in some form. No beginning, no need for a "first cause". My existence demonstrates that everything that is always has been and always will be, better than it demonstrates that at some time there was nothing, the something came to be. And an infinite universe that has always existed, if you really insist on getting into a ******* contest about it, is "superior" to a temporally limited universe created by a god.

At any rate, there's no need for a "first cause" even if there was a "before" the existence of the universe. (Which there wasn't. Hawking will back me up on that.)

I don't know how it is that you didn't get the memo, as you seem to be well read, but the standard and decisive undoing of the "first cause" argument is "What made God?"

 

[Alceste]

The error in your thinking is that there is nothing self-evident revealing a god's existence. What is self-evident is our existence. Everything else is a "leap of faith."

Well there you go. A "leap of faith" is not based on reason. Would you agree?

 

[cottage]

Not if I also believe there was never a time when the universe did not exist in some form. No beginning, no need for a "first cause". My existence demonstrates that everything that is always has been and always will be, better than it demonstrates that at some time there was nothing, the something came to be. And an infinite universe that has always existed, if you really insist on getting into a ******* contest about it, is "superior" to a temporally limited universe created by a god.

At any rate, there's no need for a "first cause" even if there was a "before" the existence of the universe. (Which there wasn't. Hawking will back me up on that.)

I don't know how it is that you didn't get the memo, as you seem to be well read, but the standard and decisive undoing of the "first cause" argument is "What made God?"

The First Cause argument is a good one, but it is not without its problems. God, being necessarily existent is said to be the uncaused cause, which successfully rebuts any argument for a further cause, and a cause of that cause, ad infinitum.

But cause and effect is a feature of the universe, and it seems to me rather presumptuous to view all other worlds (God) to be as ours, and it means the Supreme Being is dependent upon the same phenomena that is found in the physical world. And that presents a problem! For there is no law of cause and effect. Nothing in the material world is necessary. The sun need not rise tomorrow morning, lead could be buoyant in water, and cork might sink. So if we can deny the necessity of cause and effect then 'God is the First Cause' can also be denied without contradiction. And we cannot make the special plea: 'Oh but God's causal powers are different'. For even God is constrained by logic. The Supreme Being is omnipotent, and to say otherwise (irrespective of whether there is such a Being) is a contradiction. But for all his omnipotence, he cannot change history, make me my brother, or create the proverbial rock that is too heavy for him to lift.

 

[PureX]

Well there you go. A "leap of faith" is not based on reason. Would you agree?

I wouldn't necessarily agree. It is reasonable that when we find ourselves constrained by our lack of knowledge, and yet required to make a decision to move ahead, that we then rely on faith, and move ahead without sufficient knowledge. And in fact we practice some degree of this scenario all the time, as we never have ALL the information required to be CERTAIN of the outcome of our decisions. And for what information we are missing, we fill in with our faith in what information we have. It's called acting on probability. Which is basically how we all live.

 

[cottage]

I wouldn't necessarily agree. It is reasonable that when we find ourselves constrained by our lack of knowledge, and yet required to make a decision to move ahead, that we then rely on faith, and move ahead without sufficient knowledge. And in fact we practice some degree of this scenario all the time, as we never have ALL the information required to be CERTAIN of the outcome of our decisions. And for what information we are missing, we fill in with our faith in what information we have. It's called acting on probability. Which is basically how we all live.

And in our everyday lives upon what do we depend in order to reason from probability? I'll answer that, if I may: empirical knowledge! That's not a leap of faith, but a referal to past experience considered in the light of the present.

 

[PureX]

And in our everyday lives upon what do we depend in order to reason from probability? I'll answer that, if I may: empirical knowledge! That's not a leap of faith, but a referal to past experience considered in the light of the present.

So faith and reason are actually part and parcel of each other. Faith is how we reason that our past experiences will predict our future experiences (given the fact that we can never know with certainty that they will).