As far as you succeed in describing what you experience you move the conversation forward, in what could allow us to experience that thing as fact. Whether or not you are successful is not, in my estimation, the most important quality of the conversation. The most important part is that we are able to converse at all.

Again I’ll recite, “This is not to say that reason abhors religion.” That would be like saying that poetry abhors metaphor. Or that satire sans similes is superior. I would offer this:

Faith steps in to fill the gaps between the frames. But it neither replaces the image, and more importantly, the purpose of the image.

If faith is correct in what it believes it has the virtue of being correct. If I ask what the thirteenth letter of the alphabet is and you respond correctly, I have no way of knowing whether you knew the answer or got lucky guessing. Teaching that 2 divided by 2 is equal to one doesn’t assume that the student understands the process that gives a truthful answer simply because the teacher receives the correct answer once.

But I know what the 13th letter of the alphabet is. And, I know why 2 divided by 2 equals 1. With knowledge it could be asserted comes perfect faith. But if the converse were true, Las Vegas would be an empty desert.

And I’ve always been a big fan of the apodictic argument. I’ve written about it here
and here.

Again, I’m no enemy of religion. It has been our religions that have given us so much meaning, so much poetry, so many ways of looking at the world around us. Life without religion, or religious views and beliefs would be pretty hard to describe. In fact I believe the biggest gift religions have endowed upon mankind is simply our ability to converse, to view the unknowable and provide more than mute substantiation. It is the power of religion that moves conversation between the unknown and the knowable.

Far from being a bug, it’s a feature.

If faith is correct in what it believes it has the virtue of knowledge. In other words, if one comprehends and holds to a fact that cannot be proven, it has the same power as knowledge in that person’s life.

The key is that faith must be representative of something that really exists, faith must founded on an invisible truth and nothing more or nothing less.

Reason alone cannot do what it can when it is combined with faith. Invisible principles must first be comprehended and believed in before reason can become a voice for their cause.

On the other hand, one can have faith in almost anything and their reason will follow. The difference however, is the fruit that comes from faith in something that is true is evidence that faith is not misplaced. ”We hold these truths to be self-evident”

The fruit of delusion tends to be a destructive force, although, those who have faith in a falsehood are very pragmatic in their reasoning, but it will fail them.

Now consider this, reason is only perfect where knowledge is perfect. However, reason may also be perfect where faith is perfect. Faith is perfect where it trusts in a truth that cannot be physically proven.

It is essential then that faith be not misplaced, otherwise reason is shipwrecked.

The false dichotomy that is often drawn between faith and reason is this; Faith is a belief. Reason is not a belief, but it is a system of thought to arrive at a belief. Once a belief is established one’s reasoning will tend to serve that belief whatever it is.

The fruit that follows is evidence whether that faith is worthy of service. – Skarbutt

Game. Set. Match.

Not that I’m saying anything about faith, normative values and your assumptions are, by any sort of definition, bad in-and-of-themselves.

Simply that belief is not knowledge. It can be good, reassuring, even uniting. Just not the same thing.

Loved your website. Wish I was an artier guy.

“Thus, religions that base their actions on the establishment of a kingdom in the physical realm have more in common with communists, fascists, and other secular collectivists who seek to do the same, than they do with those who base their faith on an everlasting omnipotent Creator who has endowed men with a free will and inalienable rights!”

I agree.

I don’t think I agree with this:

“Reason alone did not bring freedom, it did not create rights, nor did it bring justice; it did the opposite. Reason was used as a servant of faith to bring invisible principles into a physical world, not that they would become physical, but that they would remain as a constant. For if we are to avoid catastrophe we must balance faith with reason, reason with faith, but the redeeming virtue of these two comes from faith.”

It is true that “reason was used as a servant of faith”, yet I would posit that that “type” of reason, best displayed by Berkeley, was most often in error.

This is not to say that reason abhors religion. It falls more into the category of the objective versus the normative. If you are going to argue normative values then any basis you use to butress your arguments can be accepted or rejected simply as that. You must offer that all homes are more attractive with white picket fences along their borders. But any argument qua argument is based purely upon an aeshetic appreciation that is yours, and yours alone. Repetition, volume, accolytes make your opinion more valid than any other opinion. And while I myself may agree that white picket fences are cute as all get out, doesn’t move to validate either your or my opinion.

Ulitimately, the dichotomy of Faith and Reason remains the biggest obstacle to meaningful argument.