Theistic Inclinations

[Whateverist]

...don't you think it useful to at least bear in mind that we carry our psychological limitations everywhere. especially into our attempts to look beyond them?  I don't think it is reductionist to accept the provisional nature of any conclusions reached in such attempts.  It is merely prudent.

Even within the Christian worldview there is the acknowledgement that our rationality has been corrupted by sin, so of course, a measure of humility is required. The question is how far does one extend this notion. There seem to be no lower limit to skepticism. Unless there is a counterbalancing trust in something beyond one's own cognitive abilities, local perspective, and immediate desires then skepticism devours every pretense of rationality and intelligibility.I feel like every time I press the issue someone will object that ultimately reason cannot be trusted, that our senses deceive us, and that objective knowledge cannot be attained. To my mind these are self-defeating position. When confronted with this, many skeptics just shrug their shoulders and appeal to pragmatism like "Meh, good is good enough. I don't need certainty." Perhaps that is true. Many people go through life without wrestling with the puzzles of philosophy and are none the worse for it. At the same time I take issue with those who will say that belief in God is irrational/illogical but base their objections on notions that undermine the ability to attain knowledge.

And I've certainly witnessed what you complain of here. For what it's worth, I don't say belief in God is illogical because that would depend on one's premises. But surely it is to some degree non-rational. While you may cobble together the best justification possible with logical aplomb, from whence comes the apprehension of a god? The initial hunch that a non-detectable god is in play must benefit from something beyond mere reason. Of course the usual route by which the kernel of god apprehension arrives is direct teaching on the part of parents and the 'tribe'.

Next, my preemptive response to the objection that math and logic are merely descriptive was placed ahead of the part you quoted, which is this:

...the central mystery of mathematics which is how consistently abstract principles model external phenomena. If math and logic do in fact describe phenomena then what is it about reality  that they are describing?

I think your earlier response to this falls into the "they just do" category.

You're right about how I regard logic and math, that they are descriptive and as Jor would say map onto the world of objects. In this they are like everyday language, although they are much simpler. I had thought to respond to that point too but posted at first without doing so. I didn't want to rush it so I left it out. Let me think about it some more.