One reason to encourage the teaching of proper reasoning is that properly interpreting the Consititution demands it. Legal reasoning is a little unique, but you have to know how to reason properly to apply the law correctly, and also to defend a strict constructionist view of the constitution. That's why some Catholics are great people to have as judges. If you have ever heard Judge Scalia debate a liberal, it is really impressive. (For the record, the right wing of the Supreme Court is all Catholic, and I include Kennedy here. Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia are all Catholic.)

Chuck, more to your question about logic/reason leading us to a Judeo-Christian ethic, it is interesting that the Chinese have realized they have a problem, in that the Marxist/materialist foundation of their thinking really leaves no room for ethical behavior. In their system it is definitely true that the only reason to follow the rules is because of what happens to you if you get caught. They also realized that as they move to somewhat of a more free market system this will cause a problem, as there will be little incentive to be ethical. It is a misunderstanding of capitalism that it is based on pure selfishness. If the system doesn't have an ethical system much like the Judeo-Christian system, it won't work. Interestingly, at least in some places the way the Chinese have attempted to remedy this problem is to teach the Bible. At least the Bible stories we learned as a kid. They could have chosen just Aesop's fables or some other stories, but they chose Bible stories. It wasn't a wholesale adoption of Christian faith, but they could see that ethical conduct within a capitalist system naturally followed from the Judeo-Christian ethic. Insightful on their part.

As far as reasoning toward faith goes, I disagree with the commonly held belief that idea that you can't prove the existence of God. Now, true faith is more than just rational proof. But the rational proof is there. The modus tollens syllogism I wrote about recently is one example, but here is another one. I fully expect this to cause some dissent, so feel free to argue with me. Rustin and I talked about the ontological argument when we got together a few weeks ago. I'm going to present the syllogism a little differently this time.

It is possible that a being than which no greater being can be conceived exists.
Therefore, a being than which no greater being can be conceived exists.

OK. Let's unpack that a little. This is Anselm's form of the argument. I once heard of a student in a philosophy class writing a little satire of this, proving that he could find a date. Because he could conceive of a date, a date must exist. When I first heard this myself I thought it was absurd. I can conceive of a giant, green slime monster. That doesn't mean a giant, greem slime monster exists.

But the difference between dates and giant, green slime monsters and this being Anselm spoke of is that the idea of 'existence' entails itself in Anselm's being in a way that it doesn't in the other cases. If you can conceive of the greatest possible being, but it doesn't exist, then it isn't the greatest possible being. A being that is just like it but actually exists would be greater.

On the surface this seems almost childish, yet after you have thought about it for a while it is quite elegant. Remember what deductive logic tells you. If an argument has a conclusion that follows from the premises, it is valid. If an argument is valid and has true premises, it is sound. That means the truth of the argument is guaranteed. In this case there is only one premise. The conclusion clearly follows. And the premise is clearly true. There you have it.

Things like this give me a deeper appreciation for God, and a deeper understanding. I don't need this proof for my faith. But does help me understand that God has engrained all of creation, including our rational minds, with clear evidence of Him. To me, the ontological argument for God's existence is just as beautiful as seeing a spectacular sunset and marveling at God's creation.

There is a story that one time Bertrand Russell, the great atheist philosophy, was walking down some steps and out into the yard at Cambridge (I'm pretty sure it was Cambridge). He was over heard saying, "Great God in boots! The Ontological Argument is valid!" Apparently he went on his way thinking other things and never pondered that. Our hearts need to follow our minds, and without God stirring our hearts we are blinded and won't come to true faith. But for those of us who have been so stirred, things like sunsets and the Ontological Argument are some of God's little gifts.