>>12260027>How can one evaluate a framework fully when constrained from within it?This is an excellent point. You actually can't, Godel's incompleteness theorem tells us you can't. But the only way you can combat reason this way is to refuse to accept it at all. So you have to abandon it entirely (and then when I watch you use math to resolve a problem I can call you a hypocrite).
>Also, reason alone is not the essence of life. Assuming modern evolutionary theory, reason developed as a tool, alongside socialization, which enabled our species to become dominant. Yet, the greatest diversity of life is within animals, plants, fungi, bugs, bacteria, etc. If humans were wiped out, there would remain a massive amount of life and even some amount of intelligence. Reason is an incredibly useful tool, but it is not a god.True, if you want to live like any other animal, I suppose I cannot compel you to use reason. But if you wish to do anything other than wander and eat on whatever scraps of food you stumble upon, you must use reason. Reason is how you build a spear, a bow, an arrow, a firearm, or a nuclear weapon. It is the basis of everything humans do, even socialization requires reason. Language without reason is random sounds.
>For me, my faith is partly based on relationship and from observation. I've seen things play out time and again, in lockstep with the principles of human nature and of natural laws found in the Bible. It's a framework that extrapolates out to explain a very significant amount of my human experience.>I don't simply create an imagined reality with no basis.If you believe in god you absolutely have. It is one thing to say "some of the things christianity says are useful", that is not a controversial statement, in fact, I think there are many nuggets of wisdom in the bible. But to say "some of the bible is useful, therefore god exists" is an illogical leap, it is faith, not reason.
