Some argue that both reason and faith can be reconciled. The argument is this: when you get into your car you are not 100% certain you will survive. So you must have faith that the car will start up and that you won’t wreck. The argument then tries to show itself as a reasonable defense to believe in God.
I find this argument misleading. When you put your faith in your car, you have a 99% chance of surviving the drive. Rather, when you put your faith into God… what is the percent that you are right? Can this even be assessed?
When you pick a god to worship, you are defying all the other gods. And if one of them happens to be real, instead of the one you picked, you are doomed (I discussed this in my post about Pascal’s Wager). But back to the argument. The proportions for trusting your car and trusting your particular god don’t match.
When you trust your car, you are near certain it will work. You can even examine all its parts to make sure nothing will fail. But when you trust in a particular god, you have no way to assess the probabilities. The argument shows that to an extent we all have faith in something we aren’t guaranteed of, but it also shows that some things are far more reasonable than others and evidence to be the biggest factor.
The amount of faith and evidence for believing in god is largely disproportionate. It needs more faith than we would have for anything else. Probability arguments for religion need to be put to rest. No matter what god(s) you worship, there is someone out there who is certain you are going to hell.