Do we expect too much from human reason?

[Thoughtage]

1. You're assuming that 'human reason' is the cause of the atheism. As has been pointed out to you, that's not necessarily the case: some of the pagan religions are atheist but not because of 'reason', other atheists are simply 'not wired that way' and belief in god-claims are beyond their capabilities (instinct, not reason).

Apologies but, you're quibbling. The overwhelming vast majority of atheists use reason to come to their position. I don't want to argue about what fraction of 1% gets there some other way.

2. You conflate the definitions of 'faith' and 'trust': 'faith' addresses 'belief without evidence' whilst 'trust' addresses 'belief with evidence'.

If we believe that the rules of human reason are binding on all reality, without proof that it is so, we are using faith. And to spare you some typing, we can not calculate the probability that human reason is binding everywhere, as we have not a clue what our sample size is.

Trust has to be earned whereas faith doesn't thus you would be justified in saying that the users of 'human reason' trust in its efficacy due to repeated demonstration of real-world results.

You're stumbling in to the most common form of confusion in atheism. This is the unexamined assumption that because human reason is qualified for very many things, it is therefore automatically qualified to analyze all issues, even where there is no proof of ability.

We can't have "trust" that human reason is binding on all reality, because we don't even know what the phrase "all of reality" refers to. If we can not have trust, all that's left is faith.

Instead you've misdefined the evidence-based approach as 'faith' which is why I called you out for the 'tarring with the same brush' fallacy in my previous post.

You have no data upon which to build your "evidence based approach".

We can measure the area we can observe, but we have no idea what the relationship is between that area and the area claims about being made about. The evidence we have from observing the universe could be 85% of reality, or it could be a percent so small that we don't yet have math adequate to express the relationship. Thus, we have no idea how useful our observation is, in regards to claims and counter claims about the fundamental nature of reality.

You're building a strong opinion, on pretty much nothing.

Just like the theists.