One of the commenter’s on Dan’s blog asks a very interesting question. “If you assume your reasoning is corrupt without ‘revelation.,’ how can you use your corrupt reasoning to determine the validity of the given ‘revelation’?” (I hope the poster will forgive me for not using his name. It is not easy for me to remember and gives me a “huh?” reaction just looking at it.)
The question illustrates a very important point. Each person must assume his reasoning is valid before he can proceed. One cannot even argue for “preconditions” to said reasoning without first assuming the one’s reasoning valid even in the absence of those preconditions because one must use his reasoning even in arguing for the preconditions.
This brings up something I have said before. Calling on someone to “justify” his reasoning is dishonest. Everyone starts with the validity of his reasoning as a premise. Some fundamentalist christians pretend to have a “basis” for their reasoning. But… fundamentalist christians gotta lie.