I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

Biblical literalism is a relatively new phenomenon, perhaps 500 yrs old. Really taking hold with the Puritans. Prior to the wide spread availability of a printed bible that people could actually read the practice of Christianity was based on ritual and symbolism. The idea that the bible was meant to be taken literally is ridiculous and, therefore, criticizing it from a literal standpoint is also missing the point.

I am sure that you are familiar with what it looks like when a digital signal begins to break up. Say there is a picture of a face and then one eye goes all blocky and the picture freezes. You instinctively know that the picture is not right. You know this by trying to integrate the information with what you already know.So when you hear a story about a talking snake you know that it is a metaphor because snakes don't talk. Not now and not ever. When you hear a story about a 900 yr old man you can be pretty sure that there was an accounting error. The man may have existed but you can be pretty sure that he was not still alive when he was 900 yrs old.The metaphorical parts are the parts that look like a metaphor. It takes a fairly complete disconnect from reality to think that the world was created in 6 days. I do not see how any rational person could dismiss all that we have learned about the universe in the last 2500 yrs in favour of a story written by folks who never even heard of gravity.Contrary to popular belief, it is not fine to believe whatever makes you feel good.

I don't see how the two processes could be any more fundamentally different. One includes a method to know when you are right or wrong and the other does not. One is bound by logic and reason where the other is not.The differences are greater than the differences between a video game and reality. The rules are different and the consequences are different.

Doesn't that bother you?

Deciding that you are right is not a method for determining the truth. Which makes them illogical to use if you are trying to determine the truth and therefore not bound by logic and reason.

That's funny. So then standing up would be a method for sitting down that just wasn't rooted in reality? Come on back towards the light ringo. I always thought that logic and reason were more like universal standards as opposed to being like your favourite colour. How does that go, 'you can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts'.You can't have your own meanings for words either. So the word bound does not mean 'without boundaries' and the word logic does not mean 'whatever seems right at the time'.

You have a point about speaking in terms of absolutes but there is a lot of evidence to support the idea that the rules logic and reason apply across the universe. If they don't then I would bet that there is a reason for it.

The reason that it is not sound is because sound reasoning requires sound premises. Starting with a sound premise is part of the reasoning process. Thinking that you can know something that you can not support with any empirical evidence is faulty reasoning.

Within the context of trying to understand reality, what other kind is there?

The premise must be falsifiable in order to be worked on by the reasoning process. This is the first boundary if you are bound by logic.

I agree that reality is what it is regardless of whether or not we can 'prove' it. The only part that we can 'know' is real is the part that we can 'prove'. If the phenomenon is wholly and entirely non-empirical then there is nothing to investigate and no way to investigate it.

A separate reasoning event but the process is the same.

My point is that I disagree with you when you said, Foundations are fundamental. Rational thinking should begin when you formulate your premises not after. Sure but my point is that a bad premise will yield an unreliable conclusion. If you only start reasoning after you have settled on a premise then you are not actually bound by the dictates of logic or reason. Being partially reasonable is not the same as being completely reasonable.

Yes sir and if you don't then take what you have learned and adjust some part of your argument then you are not being rational. Part of the logic train never gets out of the station.That is the fundamental difference that leads some to believe some pretty crazy shit.

But logic tells us that belief should only come in when you do not need to make any more adjustments. The religious mind refuses to adjust the faulty premise.