No human, religious or otherwise, has ever proven the existence of God; but all religions claim to be instruments of God. Which one, if any, can one trust?
In answer to that question, I'd tend to select the religion that gives God the benefit of highest respect while acknowledging man's inability to explain the nature of God -- The Jewish religion.
how can we be certain that reason will lead us to the truth?
The alternative question is has the same answer because man is not capable of total certainty. What we can be almost certain of, however, are those things we've learned for survival. "Look, there's a truck coming! Get out of the way." "I'm hungry, so I need something to eat." "My sister's children need something to eat (Jean Valjean in Les Miserables), but I'd have to steal to get it and stealing is immoral." To that Jean Valjean example, I'd say, the culture that considers that type (from the bakery) stealing immoral has an inflexible, perhaps evil, moral code much like that found in most religions today.
When someone comes to power in your nation telling people to throw off the 'bondage' of faith in God, run, don't walk!
The founding of the United States comes close to exemplify the condition you describe, in that the founders refused to permit a validity sanction to any religious faith.
With respect to your point #2. That at most one religion could be true at each point of disagreement.
There is nothing within articles of faith that are "true" in any respect, truth being the recognition of reality.
That all of the world religions must therefore be wrong.
Wrong, yes; totally wrong, no. No matter how good any religion is, no religion can claim credit for the natural goodness in Man, nor can any evil religion totally destroy that natural goodness.
you would do well not to lean too heavily on your reason.
I'll let Ayn Rand answer that one.
"They, you decide, will tell you what to do.
You are never heard from again.
... This is the way most men live their lives here, on earth."
That in bold is excerpted from Ayn Rand's lost astronaut story in the opening paragraphs of her 1974 speech to West Point cadets: "Philosophy: Who needs it."
Kyrie: When someone comes to power in your nation telling people to throw off the 'bondage' of faith in God, run, don't walk!
thinktwice: The founding of the United States comes close to exemplify the condition you describe, in that the founders refused to permit a validity sanction to any religious faith.
Nonsense! You are apparently equating my phrase "faith in God" with the establishment of a particular Christian denomination. You should know better. I'm sure you have already seen many quotes from the founding fathers that not only prove that many of them were ardent in their own faith, but actually enjoined others to believe likewise. Would you kindly point out how this could be close to "telling people to throw off the 'bondage' of faith in God"?
If you haven't seen those quotes, let me know. I'm sure you have. But let's continue...
yendu bwam: Reason can lead to discovery of the falsehood of authoritarian claims. But reason alone cannot always lead to the truth, and does not lead to morality.
thinktwice: No human, religious or otherwise, has ever proven the existence of God; but all religions claim to be instruments of God. Which one, if any, can one trust?
Your reply seems not to directly address the issue. Let's try it again. Please consider these points.
Regarding #2, the issue is not quite so clear-cut as it seems. This is the way reason is supposed to operate. All too often, however, it is used after the fact to justify an irrational decision, to make it seem reasonable. Even in the human institutions of science and philosophy.
Regarding #3, we have known for some time that technology is a two-edged sword. Thanks to antibiotics we now have at least one laboratory strain of tuberculosis that is resistant to all known antibiotics. We have so many time-saving devices, why are our lives so harried? But the larger issue is this: we have no idea how well reason is doing in the realms we cannot directly observe and measure. For example, you most likely would assert that rational ethics (a product of reason) is better than, say, Judaism (the religion you find the most palatable). But hypothetically suppose that God actually did reveal to Moses and the Hebrew prophets exactly what they claim He revealed. Then Judaism would be Truth, while the rest of us were stumbling around in the dark. Then the articles of faith for Judaism would be objectively true. Now, can reason give us a way to measure the truth or falsity of the hypothetical above? Can we by reason measure the effectiveness of reason in a metaphysical or spiritual realm?
And then regarding #4, if the effectiveness of reason cannot be measured in a metaphysical realm, we have no reason to believe that it will be effective there.
Although if reason were my religion, perhaps I would have faith that it would succeed. But this faith would go against the religion of reason, so where does that leave us?
And if we would set reason up as God, we must deal with another issue. Most philosophies--not only rational ethics--claim to be the product of pure reason. This would be an exact analogue for religions claiming to speak for God. The philosophies of the world are in no better agreement than the religions of the world. You claim that your religion, excuse me, philosophy--Randian ethics--speaks for Reason. But Kant, Heidegger, Schlegel, Wittgenstein, etc., would all claim the same thing. So, by your logic concerning religions, you are all wrong. Right? (But not totally wrong. Does that make you feel better?)
And please note that while one may switch philosophies, each philosophical system is fairly fixed. In other words, you may switch from socialism to Randian ethics and consider that a victory for Reason, but socialism and Randian ethics are both fixed systems. In the same way, people convert from one religion to another while the religious system remains fixed. Some people even claim that it was purely reason that propelled them out of one religion into another.
So, regarding philosophies, "which one, if any, can one trust?"
And finally,
Kyrie: you would do well not to lean too heavily on your reason.
thinktwice: I'll let Ayn Rand answer that one.
Two comments. First, don't lean too heavily on Ayn Rand, either. She also is fallible. Second, the sentence from which you took my comment is a conditional sentence. Stripped of the condition, it appears to be a universal declaration. Let's restore it to its proper state:
Kyrie: At any rate, if you cannot see the gap in this logic, you would do well not to lean too heavily on your reason.
So...could you see the gap in that logic (post #87)? If you could, the rest of the sentence is inoperative as its condition has not been met. But would you place your trust in an ability to reason that was unable to see the gap in that logic?