<p>Your essay is essentially says that Reason is to be on top. But Reason has no beliefs. Reason can be used to deduce the results of assumptions, not to find truth. Reason can get rid of the logical flaws in your system, but it cannot propose things outside the system. Example: Your system assumes the absence of God. In the absence of God, where do you get moral standards? You state that we are no different from any other form of life, objectively. So why should we be punished for murder, when we are just doing what animals do? Why can’t we draw conclusions about how we should live from the other animals? They have no ideals and no morality. They eat and breed. They care nothing for the “good of society”. Why should man be any different? You can say that he has developed a moral sense. But in that case, anything that man does or develops must be through the evolutionary process, pure and blind chance. You attack utilitarianism, but it is, in fact, the only possible system of morality for an atheist. You can say that whatever is good for your species is a “moral” good, because we learn that through observing evolution. Helping evolutionary progress must be your highest good.
You attack authority. But all real-world morals are based essentially on authority, on the belief that x is wrong and y is right, not based on reasons but based on “You shall not murder”, or “You shall not steal”. Evolution depends upon the survival of the fittest, so what rational reason is there for the disabled being allowed to live? They are worthless from an evolutionary standpoint, and if they were animals they would not be cared for. All you can do is to cite some vague abstract principle which you cannot prove to be of worth if you do not take it on faith, as a given. The real reason you spare the disabled is your own instinctive knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. Even your efforts to raise Reason on a pedestal are based on faith, faith that order is better than chaos, faith that we should have reasons for our actions.
Here is what reason can teach us. To identify what is false, not what is true. Reason can cleanse inconsistencies from a system. To worship the cleanser is an act of faith, because how do you prove that inconsistency is bad? You assume it because you inherently feel it to be the case. You take it a step further and decide to create a society where there are no inconsistencies. You decide that God does not rule through reason, so you eliminate Him from the system. You realize that ultimately all authority, and not just God, do not rule through reason. So you get rid of it. At the end, what do you have left? </p>
<pre><code> In closing, let me say that other people assume there is a God because they inherently feel it to be the case. You assume that order is better than chaos, and then you further assume that that order is the highest good because you inherently feel it to be the case. You both have your faiths. You are right to say that the burden of proof is on the positive. So prove that faith in God and faith in reason have a fundamental difference.
</code></pre>