Do we expect too much from human reason?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The foundation of atheism is the assumption that the
rules of human reason are binding upon the area the god
claim is being made about, all of reality, everything.

There is no proof that the rules of human reason are
binding on all of reality, an arena we can not yet
define in even the most basic manner.

Where the hypothetical deity interacts with reality, there should be an effect, susceptible to examination, in our reality. If there is no effect at all, then it cannot be said that an interaction has taken place.

Reason is much more successful in interrogating and describing reality than is faith. We find that to be the case no matter which investigation you choose to ponder. When we want to solve a crime, we use detectives and evidence, not prayer. When we want to investigate the nature of subatomic particles, we use colliders and observations and formulæ, not Biblical research or meditation or a smoke lodge.

Reason need not be binding upon all reality (indeed, I pointed out prior to your joining this thread that there are aspects of human existence which do not submit to reason). But -- it describes objective reality very well, and because of that, the assumption that we should use reason to investigate new aspects of reality is not based on faith, but rather, on experience.

That is why your argument is flawed.