Using reason to attack reason

Hi, Dr. Richard!

Your post is interesting, but I am fuzzy on what it is about. This is because the example is not clearly an instance of reason attacking reason. This leaves me wondering whether the question itself or rather the story in the example better represents the essence of your post. 

I'll work as if the example better represents your post. The example is not explicitly fallacious arguing because it could be interpreted as a case of arguing that belief in certain kinds of statements should rely on faith. So far, this is coherent arguing because the statement in the conclusion of the argument, and the kinds of statements to which the statement in the conclusion of the argument alludes to, are two different statement sets.

I say "not explicitly" fallacious because were the arguer concluding that belief in any statement whatever should be accepted on faith, the argument would be self-refuting. However, although this interpretation is available, it is not forced by what the arguer has said. That interpretation is uncharitable, too. 

Thank you, Dr. Richard.

From, Kaiden 

On the surface, this looks like conflicting conditions . If the point here was to prove that reason is always unreliable, I think this would be the case.

However, I think there are cases where this wouldn't be a bad argument. Faith (or "trust" for the more secular among us) and reason are two different methods of reaching a conclusion. No one can possibly use one exclusively over the other, and they are not necessarily in conflict.

For example, a civil engineer takes a vacation to a foreign country. Every time he comes to a bridge, he stops, gets out of his car, and inspects the bridge before continuing. After doing this a dozen times, he has found that every single bridge has exceeded standards. After this, he decides to stop inspecting bridges because he trusts that they are safe, and concludes that he is wasting his time by inspecting each one. He has determined that putting faith in this country's bridge construction is the superior option, but he has come to that conclusion using reason.

Or, if your car is having problems, you might take it to a knowledgeable mechanic. While you could attempt to use reason to deduce what's wrong with your car, you know that your lack of knowledge, experience and equipment is more likely to lead you to the wrong answer, so you're better off taking the mechanic at his word.

By the way the original question is phrased, it would seem that the person is trying to make a case for the existence of god. I think that "What is the nature of god?" and "How do you evaluate the nature of god?" are two different questions which can be treated with two different approaches, so I don't think it's necessarily fallacious to use reason to justify faith in this respect.