Yes, this is VERY COMMON internet atheist dogma. Everyone should acknowledge their position is faith based, except for the atheist. There is a factory assembly line somewhere which cranks out such identical thinkers, each one thinking they are unique and special. — Hippyhead

Why do you seek to characterize your interlocutors arguments as something to be dismissed rather than addressing them directly?

Please provide us with the proof that the rules of reason created by a half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies are automatically binding on questions about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, a realm we can't currently define in even the most basic manner.

Submit your ideas to critical scrutiny. — Hippyhead

This is a self-defeating question. What could critical scrutiny possibly be based upon if not on reason?

Reason is a faculty. If you don’t have the faculty of reason, then no experience will provide it. Creatures lacking in reason, such as goats or dogs, are not going to acquire it through experience. The faculty of reason operates by the apodictic apprehension of intelligible truths.

According to Buddhism prajna is also a faculty, namely, that of insight into the interdependent nature of all phenomena. It is not the same as reason.

Why do you seek to characterize your interlocutors arguments as something to be dismissed rather than addressing them directly? — Janus

You typed this sentence instead of addressing any of my arguments. You are dismissed. Good luck Wayfarer.

This is completely irrelevant to the subject of the origin and development of human reason. Humans have the capacity to learn language; animals or most animals probably don't. Humans have the capacity to learn to reason. Some animals arguably do as well (although probably not the self-reflective reasoning enabled by language). The ability to reason is, in any case, developed through experience.

According to Buddhism prajna is also a faculty, namely, that of insight into the interdependent nature of all phenomena. It is not the same as reason. — Wayfarer

Right, so it doesn't yield the kind of knowledge ('knowing that') that reason does. It doesn't yield what is usually counted as discursive or propositional knowledge. Basically that's all I've been arguing, and now you're making my case for me.