Trust and Skepticism, Faith and Reason Part 2: Who to Trust

This is part 2 of a 3 part piece that focuses on the dangers of the fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority".

Once we have identified our biases,

Our dishonesty and illusions,

We must replace those with non-bias,

With honesty and reality.

But how do we go about doing that?

How do we make ourselves honest?

This is where our next act of skepticism comes in.

After we have become skeptical of ourselves,

We must then be skeptical of others,

Especially those who would provide us with information.

Whether your friends or family, even parents,

Teachers or leaders, whether religious or secular,

Celebrities, scientists, the news, the paper, the internet,

And me.

But skepticism without rhyme or reason is just paranoia.

How do you sort through those who are reliable,

And those who are not?

Let us look back at the previously defined faith and reason:

"...faith requires the belief in something,

Despite proof obtained through logic or evidence,

While reason is the tool through which one obtains knowledge,

And is the mechanism of logic itself."

Setting aside honesty, which is more reliable?

Let us look back at how each works:

"Reason as a mechanism serves the purpose of seeking evidence for something,

Whether that evidence is found through logic or the natural world,

It must be self-apparent."

"Faith is a system which works only when one has accepted a certain set of assumptions,

These assumptions having priority over any appeal to reason, logical proof, or verifiable evidence.

If one is asked to ignore all reason, logic, and evidence for a certain set of assumptions,

There are no tools in which one can use to verify the validity of those assumptions,

Other than the assumptions themselves."

Reason's foundation is only that which can be logically proven or veritably evident,

Which is then used to examine new information to test its validity.

Through this, reason develops a stronger and more credible wealth of conclusions over time.

Faith's foundation is based upon a certain set of pre-established assumptions,

Assumptions that also are pre-deterministic in that one must assume they are true.

Through this, faith has no foundation other than the strength of one's dedication to these assumptions.

Of these two ways of thinking, which one do you think is more reliable?

Anything that is reliable and true would not need the crutches of dedication,

And would not require the ignorance of free thought.

How does one hope to sort through those who would help you,

And those who would betray you, if one can not set aside the

Assumptions that would ask you not to question it?

One can only hope to discover actual enlightenment through

That of a lion, and not of a paper tiger.

That lion is reason.

That tiger is faith.

Who was it that taught you how to have faith?

Who was it that also gave you life?

Who was it that also taught you everything?

Who was it that also loved you unconditionally?

So why would you even question faith?

They may not be liars. You have to know you're lying.

They may not be stupid. Your mind has to be empty.

They may not be bad people. Your intentions have to be bad.

Yet they are dishonest, for they do not fully understand what they claim.

And they are fools, for they make claims they can not deliver upon.

But most of all, they are dangerous, for their teachings are dire.

How can you trust them, if they can't even trust themselves?