This is a very interesting statement to me because you seem to presuppose a dichotomy between faith and reason, protraying faith as irrational, blind, or absurd, and opposed to reason. But faith is not only thoroughly reasonable, it is the very foundation of reason because reason itself would be impossible without it.
All that is necessary to illustrate that faith is the precondition of reason is to ask you, do you have evidence for everything that you believe? How would that even be possible for a finite creature? Not even skeptics like you can proceed intellectually without certain assumptions or prove everything you believe by independent demonstration.
If you are implying that Christianity is irrational simply on the basis that it allows for something to be accepted without independent demonstration, then you end up refuting yourself because you inconsistently require something of Christian believers that you do not and cannot live up to yourself. If you required objective evidence for everything that you believe it would make knowledge of anything whatsoever impossible for a finite being, which ironically ends up being very unreasonable.
Moreover, your claim that there is no objective evidence really entails a claim of omniscience, since you would have to have had to have searched everywhere and looked at all things at the same time to be able to make the claim, at least according to a presupposed standard of not believing anything unless there is independent, objective evidence for it.
If God subsists (and He does) and has revealed Himself in His Word then we are entitled to believe Him on His authority, His authority being proper justification and ground for our belief that His Word is sufficient, as it claims.
The bottom line is that to criticize the Christian's irrational "faith" on the grounds that "there is no objective evidence" for it is itself nothing more than an expression of a different religious faith - a faith in which you presume the ultimate authority and self-sufficiency of your own finite human mind instead of the ultimate authority and self-sufficiency of the infinite God, a presumption that cannot help but result in futility, arbitrariness and irrationality.
Cordially,
Oh, sure, talking donkeys and other kinds of biblical magic is the very "foundation of reason..."
All that is necessary to illustrate that faith is the precondition of reason is to ask you, do you have evidence for everything that you believe?
If I have to believe something, it's safe to say I don't have evidence. If I do have evidence, then I know it for a fact and I don't have to have faith that it is so.
Moreover, your claim that there is no objective evidence really entails a claim of omniscience, since you would have to have had to have searched everywhere and looked at all things at the same time to be able to make the claim
Your sophism is taking you in the wrong direction. I have asked for evidence on many an occasion by those who believe and I got excuses or worse, but no evidence. So far this lack of demonstrable evidence is 100%. If you think about it, rationally, it's a tall order to ask anyone to believe something just on your word. So I don't.
If I say I can levitate wouldn't you expect me to demonstrate it? Wouldn't you be skeptical and wouldn't you look for "tricks"? Sure you would, if you are reasonable, because levitation Harry Potter style doesn't happen in the real world. But, I suppose a six-year old might find it perfectly believable.
If God subsists (and He does)...
God "subsists"? What does God supposedly subsist in?
and has revealed Himself in His Word then we are entitled to believe Him on His authority
What evidence do you have that God revealed himself? If you have such evidence then please produce it. I am particularly interested to know how does one know it is God, and not the insanity, or better yet what is God (what is divine) so that we may positively identify him.
The bottom line is that to criticize the Christian's irrational "faith" on the grounds that "there is no objective evidence" for it is itself nothing more than an expression of a different religious faith
No, it's valid criticism. rejecting claims that cannot be backed with evidence is rational and justifiable.
a faith in which you presume the ultimate authority and self-sufficiency of your own finite human mind instead of the ultimate authority and self-sufficiency of the infinite God, a presumption that cannot help but result in futility, arbitrariness and irrationality.
That would be true if such were the case. But it's not. Ignorance of absolute truth does not allow us the freedom to invent truth, to create invisible and undetectable things and claim they exist. Our proofs must be compatible with our nature. We can't presume something exists unless we have evidence of it that is not only in our heads, but clearly demonstrable directly or indirectly.