[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;315937]Find a person with a consistent belief system and you've found someone who doesn't believe anything.[/QUOTE]

There is no evidence for this.

[QUOTE=xilman;315930]I believed in the Fermat conjecture long before it was proved by Wiles. I believe in the truth of the Goldbach conjecture.

I believe that there is life elsewhere in the Universe --- in our galaxy even --- though no-one has yet proved its existence.

Consider this an existence proof.[/QUOTE]

There were/are very good reasons to believe the above, even absent a formal proof. A better analogy to religion would be a thousand different conjectures about a mathematical topic, all mutually contradictory to some greater or lesser extent, and none having a shred of evidence for their core novel claims.

Getting away from silly religion/math analogies, if with religions we were talking about just a collection of origin stories dating back to times when even the most basic facts about nature and man's place in it were unknown that would be fine - harmless just-so stories to fill the void of our ignorance.

The problem is, millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of those just-so stories. By their very contradictory nature, at most one or a handful can possibly "be right" about even the most basic claims (say, number of deities), and since if one discards "subscriber numbers" as a valid measure of likely correctness, there's no good reason to believe one over the others.

But we humans do objectively share one strong common trait which predisposes us to religiosity, namely awareness of our own mortality. Fear is a powerful motivator, and false comfort is still a form of comfort. Ergo, religion.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;315977]So then you hold it in faith that the base, that reason itself, is "correct"?[/QUOTE]

No to the "in faith", yes to the "reason is correct" part.

But what are reason and faith? As long as one reverses their
importance and tries to elevate faith, one gets nowhere.

[QUOTE=davar55;315981] yes to the "reason is correct" part.[/QUOTE]

Either you must take it on faith, or you must be able to prove it without reference to reason itself (which would then be a circular tautology). I would love to see the latter, if you please.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;315982]Either you must take it on faith, or you must be able to prove it without reference to reason itself (which would then be a circular tautology). I would love to see the latter, if you please.[/QUOTE]

Well, faith means sans reason, meaning without evidence or
argumentation. So there's no issue AFAIC, throw out faith.

To prove logic is based on reason without circularity,
you have to start with metaphysics and its explication
based on the basic axioms of existence. This leads
to how do we know type questions, in epistemology.
All knowledge is ultimately based on our perception,
which is integrated by the faculty of reason.

This is brief, I know.

[QUOTE=davar55;315984]
based on the basic axioms of existence.[/QUOTE]

Then you take it on faith that these axioms are true? (That is, after all, the very definition of the word "axiom".)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;315986]Then you take it on faith that these axioms are true? (That is, after all, the very definition of the word "axiom".)[/QUOTE]

No, the basic axioms of existence precede the derived concept of faith,
whose definition I gave earlier.

They are described and validated using words and reasoning.

Axioms of existence can and must be validated.
They can not and must not be left to faith or doubt.

I have faith that humankind needs no religion based prerequisite to commit assault, murder, genocide, or wage war. However, religious tenets can be contorted and used for recruitment, and cover for such acts.

[QUOTE=davar55;315988]
They are described and validated using words and reasoning.[/quote]
But you can't use "reasoning" to validate those axioms, since "reason" is derived from those axioms, or so you said.
[QUOTE=davar55;315988]
Axioms of existence can and must be validated.[/quote]
How?
[QUOTE=davar55;315988]
They can not and must not be left to faith or doubt.[/QUOTE]
I suggest you look up what the meaning of the word "axiom" is.

[Quote]Originally Posted by [B]davar55[/B]
[I]They are described and validated using words and reasoning.[/I][/Quote] [quote]But you can't use "reasoning" to validate those axioms, since "reason" is derived from those axioms, or so you said. [/quote]No, reason is the faculty by which we integrate our perceptions
into knowledge. The axioms of existence (in metaphysics) are
understood by a process of reason, they do not generate reason per se.
They can be validated non-circularly, unlike the axioms of a
mathematical/logical schema which are considered free to mean
anything so long as they don't lead to a contradiction.

[Quote][I]Axioms of existence can and must be validated.[/I][/Quote] [quote]How?[/quote]Identify them by examining reality, then demostrate their
fundamentalness, universality, and truth.

It's not easy, but it can be done.

[quote][I]They can not and must not be left to faith or doubt.[/I][/quote] [quote]
I suggest you look up what the meaning of the word "axiom" is.

[/quote]I suggest there's a difference between math and philosophy on this.

[QUOTE=davar55;315978]There is no evidence for this.[/QUOTE]

There is no evidence that (all thinking) people hold inconsistent beliefs?

Find me a single person who doesn't. ;-)