This is a subject that came up in a different thread, but I thought it deserved more delving into. Looking at Creationism and other theories, such as that of random convergance, there came the idea that something that requires less faith is more reasonable. This is a very interesting/odd idea, and I was wondering what you all thought of it. In general, I define faith as something that doesn't require the backing of reason. I realize negative definitions aren't generally the most reliable, but in this case I find it apt. This is the secondary definition at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith Because of this, I see faith and reason as generally unrelated. However, "People" often construe them as at odds, when it's more often then not that the people themselves are at odds. Just looking for different opinions here, watcha think? General question: origin/validty/assessment of the statement "Something that requires less faith is more reasonable" Addition: What is your natural characterization of the word "reasonable". What connotations do you associate with it? Note: The word require in my definition is important.