Faith's dilemma

IN SO FAR AS FAITH IS POSSIBLE, IT IS IRRATIONAL; IN SO FAR AS FAITH IS RATIONAL, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

This dilema is a consequence of the fact that reason and faith cannot simultaneously be offered as grounds for belief. A belief can be based on reason or faith, but not both This makes it impossible for the Christian to maintain the rationality of faith, because as soon as a belief is rationally demonstrated, it ceases to be an article of faith.
Consider the alleged resurrection of Jesus. Either this belief can fulfill the requiremets of knowledge or it cannot. Either is is based on evidence, is internally consistent as a belief, and is capable of integration with one's previous knowledge, or it is not. If the belief in the ressurection can fulfill these standards, it should be accepted as true, but it has then become a proposition of reason and can no longer be accepted on faith. On the other hand, if the belief in the ressurection cannot meet the requirements of reason, it may be accepted on faith, but it can no longer claim the status of rational. And so it goes with every article of faith.
By appealing to faith, the Christian wishes to claim the status of knowledge for beliefs that have not fulfilled the mimimum requirements of knowledge. This is the only context in which the appeal to faith makes sense. But to label as "knowledge" that which has not been rationally demonstrated is a contradiction, because reason demands that nothing be designated as knowledge except that which can fulfill its fundamental requirements.
This is the essence of faith: To consider an idea as true even though it cannot meet the test of truth, to consider an idea as having a referent in reality while rejecting the process by which a person knows reality. Faith is possible only in the case of beliefs that lack rational demonstration.
Since faith must entail belief in the absence of rational demonstration, all propositions of faith, regardless of their specific content, are irrational. To believe on faith is to believe in defiance of rational guidelines, and this is the essence irrationalism.
Because of this inherent irrationalism, faith can never rescue the concept of God or the truth of the Chritian dogmas. Faith is required only for those beliefs that canot be defended. Only if one's beliefs are indefensibility, and only if one wishes to retain these beliefs in pite of their indefensibility, is the appeal to faith necessary. If the Christian wishes to argue for the rationality of his convictions, they should stick with presenting evidence and arguments, and they should never appeal to faith in the first place. The Christian who calls upon faith has already admitted the irrationality of their belief, and he has already conceded that their beliefs cannot be defended through reason.
If we cannot understand the concept of God, we do not come closer to understanding it through faith. If the doctrines of Christianity are absurd, they do not lose thier absurdities through faith. If there are no reasons to believe in Christianity, we do not gain reasons through faith. Faith does not erase contradictions and absurdities, it merely allows one to believe in spite of contradictions and absurdities.
The appeal to faith solves nothing and explains nothing, it merely diverts attention from the crucial issue of truth. In the final analysis, ont only is the concept of faith irreconcilably opposed to reason, but it is evasive and quite useless as well.

Please cite your sources. The OP is an excerpt from Atheism: The Case Against God, by George Smith.

edit: my linking sucks

Faith is to suspension cables as reason is to bridges. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]