Regarding the convergence of Faith and Reason.

 Removing this to a separate thread.

 I maintain my view that faith and reason are incompatible.

However, I in NO way maintain that people of faith are incapable of reason.  Nothing could be farther from my mind.  Much good has come from people of faith.

 I bear no hostility towards religion, except when such religion should affect me adversly, particularly in the case of neo-conservatism.

 As libertarians generally don't go around pushing religious agendas, it is a moot point in the libertarian community.

I don't really want to make a big thread out of this, just wanted to make that clarification.

What if your Faith is Reason? 

I would argue (probably wrongly) that Buddhism is based on that principle -- they pretty much preface all their writings with 'all I'm about to tell you is not True'.

But yeah, I'm also pretty sure I'm completely wrong on this matter. Not telling the Truth for sure...

 Reason and faith are both processes, rather than ends in and of themselves.  Reason cannot be faith, since it operates in an entirely different manner.  I may have faith in Christianity, or whatever religion.  That is the process by which I determine that religion is the one true religion, to the exclusion of all others and may be a process of observing said religion.  Reason is the process whereby the scientific method <or in the case of praxeology, logical a prorism> is used to formulate a hypothesis and later a theorum.  Reason can be used in the sciences and praxeological fields.  It cannot be used in religion, because there is no scientific or logical way by which the tenents of the religion or the existence of deity can be proven, or disproven.  Reason cannot validate or invalidate religion.  I, myself, would not be so bold as to declare that there is a deity or no deity, I can prove or disprove neither concept.  Faith is the process whereby people self validate religion to their own satisfaction.

 Also, praxeologically, having faith is not irrational, in an of itself, even if it is not a rational process.  Praxeology indicates that any action which makes us happier is a rational action.  If being a Christian makes you happier, then your action is rational.  Faith is an irrational process.  But the Christian's ACTION in resorting to faith IS rational, if that action brings him happiness.

As a side note, probably wouldn't have gone off in that other thread, if I hadn't just recently been involved in a "intelligent design" thread in another forum.  Parading intelligent design as science is one of those things that just puts me on the warpath, so I was edgier than I should have been. :)  I will have to count to 100 in the future after crushing somebody in an I.D. debate. :) 

"I maintain my view that faith and reason are incompatible." I don't think "incompatible" is the word you are looking for. It would seem, based on what you said in your second post, that they are not incompatible. I agree that you cannot prove any aspect of faith by using reason, else it would cease to be faith. However, for many, faith and reason work together to make a more perfect whole. I think we pretty much agree on this, just don't think incompatible is the right word to use when talking about the relationship.

With the exception of logical truths and some other properly a priori ( in the extreme cartesian form) everything else has to have an element of faith in it; the question is it reasonable. History is the best case in point: I believe Murray Rothbard died in 1995. I wasn't there and did not know he existed then. Lots of people claimed to know him and I have read some obituries  of him. It is possible that he didn't die in 1995 or he never existed and those people claiming his existence are actually lying and the books attributed to him are not his. Now I have no evidence to confirm the the former position however it is possible. I have evidence for his existence which I believe: I have faith based on reason. It is not logically incontesable that Murray Rothbard existed. Further I believe that you, Mark B, exist and that what you wrote is what you meant and is not a figment of my imagination. The evidence for this is that I am responding to you.

So a religions truth can be ascertained by normal methods- logical theorising and empirics. So in practice it will be mainly History and the logical content of the religion or its text- so if it claims to be divine and it contradicts itself then evidently it cannot be, assuming the divine being cannot contradict himself.

Physiocrat:

With the exception of logical truths and some other properly a priori ( in the extreme cartesian form) everything else has to have an element of faith in it; the question is it reasonable. History is the best case in point: I believe Murray Rothbard died in 1995. I wasn't there and did not know he existed then. Lots of people claimed to know him and I have read some obituries  of him. It is possible that he didn't die in 1995 or he never existed and those people claiming his existence are actually lying and the books attributed to him are not his. Now I have no evidence to confirm the the former position however it is possible. I have evidence for his existence which I believe: I have faith based on reason. It is not logically incontesable that Murray Rothbard existed. Further I believe that you, Mark B, exist and that what you wrote is what you meant and is not a figment of my imagination. The evidence for this is that I am responding to you.

So a religions truth can be ascertained by normal methods- logical theorising and empirics. So in practice it will be mainly History and the logical content of the religion or its text- so if it claims to be divine and it contradicts itself then evidently it cannot be, assuming the divine being cannot contradict himself.

This has been my understanding as well. My definition of faith is, "That which resides in the gulf between one's acceptance of a proposition and apodictic certainty." (i.e., that which is required to overcome the uncertainty inherent in virtually all propositions so as to reach functional acceptance)

[EDIT: In this sense, it could be said that even relying on the scientific method assumes some measure of faith, as the validity of the scientific method itself as a rational proposition is by no means an apodictic certainty.]