ToukaOone posted...
You're saying that answering a question of fact a certain way is unreasonable?
Yes! There are laws of reasoning that you have to obey and if you violate them you are being unreasonable.
Why not?
Because you cannot independently arrive at the conclusion that god exists using any of our evidence gathering tools right now. If you had an agent who could reason using evidence perfectly, it would not be able to derive the existence of any deity. You can only arrive at religion if you made an error in reasoning: A fundamental attribution error if you were a caveman, not changing your mind when new evidence comes in if you were alive during the enlightenment or simply weighing irrelevant evidence such as what you were told when you were young or what simply feels good if you're in a cult.
Honestly, I've known people in science (holding PhD) who were deeply religious, and found ways to avoid a worldview conflict. I knew a girl who went into astronomy because Biology offended her, and is currently living in Israel; I think she has her PhD now. I've known Biologists who claimed that almost everyone who goes into embryonic science ends up believing in God, because the things that embryos do are just so damn mind-blowing that it's very hard not to believe in a guiding greater power. It seems to happen routinely enough that it's quite doable to be both deeply religious and hold a PhD in science without feeling that your scientific expertise conflicts with your religious beliefs.
Merely because such people exist does not mean that their method of compartmentalization is reasonable. You'd have to show me what they're doing in order to achieve that state before I can change my mind.
what the hell dude chill out