What's Wrong With Randal Rauser?

Rauser is among the best Christian theologian/philosophers. He has a Ph.D. whereas I don't. He's written a few scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals. He's also written books for Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, and Paternoster Press. But when it comes to faith and probability he stumbles badly. Perhaps he can edumacate us, but something is clearly amiss when he argues for faith against the probabilities and I think I can show this in a short reply.

Just look at the contortions Rauser has to go to in order to deny what seems obvious. He wrote:
If John's view is that every belief has to be shown to be probable before one can assent to it then he has to show that that belief is probable before he can assent to it. Link.
My view is that probabilities are all that matter. So why does Rauser think this is a criticism? It's nothing more than delusional thinking. All we have to ask Rauser is what is the alternative to the probabilities? Now I don't deny that I hold to propositions that are improbable and don't know it. But my view is that I SHOULD only hold to propositions that are probable. Rauser wants to say such a view as this is self-defeating but I don't see it at all. Again, all we have to do is ask what is the alternative, believing against the probabilities? That's what he wants and that's why my definition of faith as an "irrational leap over the probabilities" fits him perfectly.

Rauser might want to argue that such a view commits me to an impossible infinite regress, but this is not how the brain works. We are not machines. We do not compute chess moves as if every chess move has equal merit. We see patterns. We see the whole which helps justify the pieces of the whole. And the whole of that which we think is true forms our background knowledge. I have amassed a great deal of it in my life. It forms the basis for what I think is probable, and I think it is more probable than not. I don't take my background knowledge on faith even though I could be wrong about it. I learned it through my studies and experiences.

He even asks if I have to recompute what I think is probable every morning when I wake up. But again that's just silly. It's very probable that my short-term memory is correct. Until he can show me that my memories are improbable I still think I'm probably right about my background knowledge. I can't think any other way.

What he's asking is for me to prove with certainty that probability is all that matters. Well nothing is certain. So? No one can criticize any viewpoint because it cannot be shown to be certain. In fact, my view denies this since I'm only talking about probabilities. Again, probabilities are all that matter. What's his alternative?

Sheesh. Are we talking past each other? I am baffled.