Discussing Reason & Evidence With An Apologist

Here's a good discussion I had with a Christian Apologist:

APOLOGIST:

Consider. If an atheist like yourself claims to be using "reason" why do you trust it? For no doubt you thought you were using "reason" when you believed Christianity was true. What reason do you have now to suppose your reason is leading you to the truth? If it deceived you before, why would you think it was trustworthy now? 

Thanks, John! 

----

ME:

To answer your question, the reason why I previously reasoned incorrectly was because I was not reasoning based on sufficient evidence. I treated faith as a virtue not a vice when it came to historical claims of unevidenced miracles.

In my opinion what you describe is not a problem at all. Let's just consider our basic alternatives: 1. Reasoning based on sufficient evidence. 2. Reasoning based on sufficient evidence. 3. Reasoning based on...

In other words, what is the alternative? Reason tells us there is no better alternative. Or, are you going to use reasoning to show something better than reasoning is a better alternative?

What you hope to show is that faith is an alternative. But look what faith has done? Almost every single decision or claim of knowledge that depends entirely on faith is grounded in nothing but quicksand, which has resulted in falsehoods, vices, and harm.

This isnt to say that using 1,2,3, above hasn't gotten it wrong and caused some harm. But at least we know that the reason why we got it wrong was because we didn't have sufficient evidence, or that we were not reasoning properly. 

But when faith gets it wrong then it requires reasoning based on sufficient evidence to understand why it was wrong.

-----

APOLOGIST:

I would guess you reasoned you had sufficient evidence when you were a Christian. And I would have to conclude you used your reason to determine that the evidence was sufficient. But now, it seems, your reason has told you the evidence is not sufficient. 

It seems the issue is not finally a matter of evidence at all, but instead a matter of your own reasoning about the evidence. So you're still facing the challenge of relying on reasoning faculties which had for many years led you astray. It still appears you have no good reason to trust your reason, as I see it. 

Doesn't prove you're wrong, it just should give you pause about trusting in your own reasoning processes. 

----

ME:

It is never unreasonable to seek after and rely on conclusions derived from reasoning based on sufficient evidence. What else needs to be said? Why are you beating a drum with an obviously faulty line of questioning?

-----

APOLOGIST:

You haven't given me a reason to trust that your reasoning is trustworthy. "Sufficient" is like "extraordinary." It's an adjective. What may or may not be "sufficient evidence" for you, does not establish that Christianity is false. 

To put this on me, if I say "the universe is sufficient evidence for me that God exists" I think you would heartily agree that my claiming the universe is for me sufficient evidence of God's existence does not establish that God exists, correct? 

So if X, Y, and Z are not sufficient bits of evidence for you, it does not establish your claim that there actually is not any sufficient evidence.  It is just your personal/subjective opinion. 

----

ME:

On the one hand we're talking about epistemological standards, and I offered the only one capable of producing knowledge about the world of nature, how it works, and it's origins. Since you cannot possibly dispute this, you want a different discussion having to do with which one of us is reasoning correctly based on sufficient evidence.

Well I am, of course!!