Atheist struggling to answer a question i often propose to myself

[Whateverist]

To point out some limits to reason is hardly the same thing as concluding the world is not intelligible.

Of course there are epistemological limits to what reason can and cannot reveal. My point is about the efficacy of reason as a tool. i.e. that there are truth preserving forms, such as syllogisms, and inviolate rules of thought, such as the principle of non-contradiction. You cannot rationally prove these are valid, you either recognize them as self-evident and believe they are true or you don't. Similarly, you either believe that the world has a rational order or you don't. No one can prove that it does; the world could be absurd.

Nevertheless, both of these foundational beliefs are fundamental to Christian theism.  Believers' reliance on these as absolute principles is repeatedly attacked when atheists dispute the main logical demonstrations for theism, such as First Cause and Necessary Being. And indeed those objections work because the absolute principles on which those demonstrations rest are beyond the epistemological limit. But that kind of victory comes at great cost. In so doing, the skeptics are either denying reason's efficacy and/or asserting absurdity. Both approaches are nihilistic in nature.

In my opinion, when it comes to empirical facts, you can't discover those through the exercise of pure reason. Reason may turn up logically consistent connections which feel plausible. But you still need confirmation to be certain.

Do we always insist on 100% certainty to act on a hunch? Of course not, at least not where acting is necessary and the penalty for choosing incorrectly is trivial. But where is the necessity in choosing where one stands on god belief? If one already believes, perhaps 'hell fire' will be persuasive. Otherwise no choice is required and one may acknowledge their inclination is either toward or away from belief without investing a lot more thought in the matter. All the importance believers place on god belief is based on hypotheticals which follow from the possibility that this non-confirmable uber being is out there doing things you can't detect and judging you for how often you spank the monkey. But from the perspective of those of us who are disinclined toward belief, that's just silly.

---

I see Chad's trying to logic his gawd into existence again.

Painful to watch, isn't it?  Can't help but want to tell him there is an easier way.