Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
If I understand you correctly, you regard logical deduction itself as something people must have faith in to acknowledge. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I nevertheless find the point of view fascinating.

I would personally regard knowledge based on logical deduction as something that does not require faith. If faith is classed as statements we reasonlessly believe in, it feels kind of wrong to class "the belief in reason" as something one reasonlessly has faith in. Reason is not something that requires faith - in fact, you needed the notion of reason to define faith in the first place, which suggests reason exists above faith. Reasoning is a process you partake in innately. You have to choose to have faith in things, but reason occurs to you naturally.
Logical, step-by-step deduction is indeed something that I believe requires faith to believe in, and this is more easily highlighted in the way that as one conclusion is logically deducted from available data, as new, ground-breaking information potentially comes in, the false conclusion is discarded and loses that logical quality which made it worthy of faith or belief, and a new deduction begins, with a new paradigm then adopted.

faith
To believe; credit.
n. The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general.
n. Specifically Firm belief based upon confidence in the authority and veracity of another, rather than upon one's own knowledge, reason, or judgment; earnest and trustful confidence: as, to have faith in the testimony of a witness; to have faith in a friend.

I also do not believe faith is accurately defined as something that is accepted without reason, or at the very least I am not using it in such a way, I'm saying that reason requires faith, because faith is required to adopt a certain line of reasoning, although reason can conceptually judge the nuances of what exactly faith is in strictly definitive terms, though it is a reflection of the actual substance or quality of faith. Faith is not its definition according to the accepted dogma regarding diction, rather the accepted dogma is a literary reflection of the ethereal quality that is faith, diction is a way to conceptually mirror it in words to make it easier for metacognition to comprehend.

Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
Put another way, you don't have the "free will" to accept or reject reasoning itself. You may use fallacious reasoning or reject a perfectly reasoned argument, but reason itself is something you innately understand to be true, even if you claim otherwise.
I disagree, you can reject reasoning itself, you can accept a temporally sound line of reasoning internally and choose to do the exact opposite of what reason should dictate you do next externally, what is the internal relevance of reason if it is not drawn from and tried in the external world? If it is never expressed, from theory to action, can the line of reasoning be said to have ever existed? Furthermore, do infants exercise reason? Did reason come first for infants, or did trust/faith come first? If infants can be said to have no reasoning capabilities, does this mean from this line of argumentation, they are non-persons? Reasoning can be rejected I think, what can't be actively rejected whilst you're still alive however is cognition, which can only be validated by faith it is occurring, reason does not need to be employed to validate consciousness, rather reason is employed by human consciousness that is capable of it in varying magnitudes or depths to more clearly comprehend intuition/imagination, physical existence, and subsequent natural law. However, faith is required to believe that you have a consciousness or cognitive experience.