Just providing the source in case anybody wanted to easily pass it on.
I think the discussion is mostly about how important it is to carefully unpack what seem to be 'simple statements.' I find the thesis a generally useful heuristic and, like most rules of them, there will be situations in which it does not apply. Emerson's quote about 'a foolish consistency' comes to mind.
Only a tremendous self could think god is reality? I believe you are erroneously attaching arbitrary and negative attributes the concept of self. It is the grouping of cells in our heads, locally, that allows for logic and reason to exist and you are saying that the denial of reality is centered around the thing that makes reason and logic possible.
Unless you are talking about some Freudian shit, or a improperly inflated sense of self.
I see my ability to 'run' my causal mental machinery, as an ego, is what makes me strong and human. And that faith, or willful ignorance, has more to do with surrendering one's reasoning mind to emotion, through god, or turning it away from reality.
I will concede that all people, at one time or another, have a limited sense of self-awareness, some more than others, whether over or under inflated, that can lead to error and hubris. This is very far removed from the irrational statement that ego equals faith. Ego is good. Faith is bad. Over or under-inflation of one's sense of self are both bad, but thinking from a distinct identity's point of view is implicit in humanity and the only way one can think. And while our viewpoints are subjective, we can, in fact have contextually valid objective concepts about things and ideas in the world. This is how we form knowledge, by integrating groups of things with similar essential characteristics, while omitting their measurements (concept formation) without contradiction.
When a singular brain opens its eyes, it sees the world, not itself, unless it is looking into a mirror and even then it is picture of that brain's partial self and other parts of reality. It is impossible to see only one's self. In fact, our senses tell us about the world and how we interact with it. It is only after putting lots of things together mentally do we come up with our identity. What are you guys trying to get at? That the ego is mystical. Or selfishness leads to faith? I guess you believe that selfishness is bad?
I completely reject this idea. You are abjectly conflating two very different things. Ego is or equals or if defined by the self. And faith is belief in the absence of evidence or reason. To have a thought, one must be an individual brain. And certain presumptions about the world are necessary and real, lest the rest of the world could not exist, nor could cognition. You defined your own terms and then you just throw them away, like most postmodern subjectivists, i.e., according to you---> Ego is trust in confidence, often without evidential proof. This is missing the one essential and sufficient characteristic of ego that gives it its identity. Self. Which is implicit in all thought, even reason. And it also adds in arbitrary meaning that belongs somewhere else--->faith.
One side of your coin had a T and the other an F. Heads and tails. In this world, a two sided coin, if equally balanced and tossed randomly, will come up with one particular side up 50% of the time and I know this through reason and logic, not faith. You say I presume the two sides, fine, so what. If someone rigs the coin game, then the odds will be calculable and might be different than 50/50. Simply put, a coin will come up heads trending towards 50% of the time, on average and the odds each time will always be 50%, unless you add variables. The more variable you add the more complex the game. If you tell me that it is not a real coin or it is something I don't know about, I will not tell you that there is a 50% chance. I would tell you that I must research the situation more. You need zero faith to play the coin toss game. My ability to predict is knowledge I have.
"A non-faith based answer would be "assuming a standard coin 50/50"".
What do you think this means?
"In this world, a two sided coin, if equally balanced and tossed randomly, will come up with one particular side up 50% of the time and I know this through reason and logic, not faith."
So, you will never completely reject and idea? What about invisible pink unicorns? Do you save some possibility for them? Or do you just have faith that they do not exist?
No matter how many people look at a coin toss, if random, and, by their observation, they cannot change the outcome.
There are axiomatic concepts that must be assumed for one to even think. This does not mean that I faith, or belief in them without evidence. They are not only logically consistent and coherent, but necessary. Faith is only necessary for religion and mysticism.