Again, you seem to think I am arguing it is a matter of the intellect alone. My first post makes clear that we need the supernatural gift of faith to help us accept what our reason tells us. “What was the difference?” you ask. Those who didn’t believe probably didn’t have the supernatural gift of faith to help them accept their reason. Or their reason was flawed. As I point out in the Monty Hall thread, superior minds still have lapses in reason. But even if not, we need God’s grace for any part of ourselves to operate properly, including our reason. Faith is the supernatural gift that allows us to accept what reason tells us.
So again, I’m not arguing that reason alone gets us there. When you point out examples (including yourself) of people failing to get to faith through reason alone, I have no argument with you. That isn’t the case I’m making. Never have.
I’m responding very specifically to the fact that I wrote:
And you disagreed with me.
So I’m arguing that faith and reason must work together. You are arguing that faith can be absent of reason or proof.
So again, my questions:
How would you investigate your children’s claims to believe in Vishnu or the Book of Mormon?
Would you investigate the claims of Jesus as God if you heard about him (say from a neighbor) for the first time?
How would you investigate it?
Would you be acting virtuously for believing in Jesus after hearing about it for the first time, even if you had no reason or proof to compel you (other than that the neighbor is generally a good guy and trustworthy)?
If so, why wouldn’t you put the same immediate trust in what your children told you? Why would you feel the need to investigate?