Revelation vs Reason

[AgnosticBoy]

In another thread, I recently explained that I could not become a Christian because I don't see it being compatible with the processes of reason and verifiable evidence. Of course, Christians can use reason and evidence, but they often do so after the fact by trying to validate their preconceived conclusions (the details in the Bible). A rational person would use reason before reaching a conclusion.

In response to this, LittleNipper seemed to have used revelation as justification for his beliefs. That line of thinking ties into the discussions on faith vs reason - here's one such perspective in regards to the faith side:

A conflict between knowledge derived through natural human faculties and knowledge derived from divine revelation occurs only if an apparent contradiction arises.
...
If we are going to understand better the relationship between faith and reason, we must have a clearer understanding of these two words. The word faith is used in several different ways by Christian thinkers. It can refer to the beliefs that Christians share (the “Christian faith”). The word faith also can refer to our response to God and the promises of the gospel. This is what the Reformed Confessions mean when they speak of “saving faith” (for example, the WCF 14). This faith involves knowledge, assent, and trust. Finally, many philosophers and theologians have spoken of faith as a source of knowledge. As Caleb Miller explains, “The truths of faith are those that can be known or justifiedly believed because of divine revelation, and are justified on the basis of their having been revealed by God.”

- Ligioner Ministries

Here's what I want to know:
1. Why is Revelation better than reason or even on par with it?
2. If revelation is useful and reliable, then why are there so many different Christian denominations and Bible canons throughout history? Why did the Church wrongly condemn Galileo for his heliocentric theory?

[alexxcJRO]

You are saying the same things over and over. You’ve offered no argument against my premise.

But my issue is not with the premise it self but with the fact that such logic: "Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from God" can and was used to commit atrocities.
This is serious thing.
Off course you want to ignore this because its points to how useless such argument is.

What is that “clump of cells”? That’s right, it’s a very young human. What’s another word for a young human? That’s right, baby. Instead of laughing, deal with the logic.

1. All very young humans are babies
2. A five day old embryo is a very young human
3. Therefore, a five day old embryo is a baby
It's not religious people saying it. In my last post I provided quotes from medical and health care organizations that use the term baby interchangeably with other medical terms such as embryo and fetus.

Still stupid.
Did you missed the whole "5 days embryo is-a blastocyst" ... "A blastocyst consists of two types of cells, those that will develop into fetal tissues, and those that will develop into the placenta.""
Some part of the blastocyst will clearly not develop into a baby. Therefore you are wrong.

Many of those very people do not reason abortion is wrong. If all you are saying is that some humans reason that abortion is wrong, well, okay. But what’s your point then? How does that overturn my premise?

1. Its important to note I am not not talking of all abortions. But only of the late ones.
Some of our brightest people do say its wrong. Some use Kantian logic and ethics. This issues are often discussed.
My argument is there will always be logical, smart and knowledgeable people even if its just one, who deem actions wrong before they are socially acceptable.

2. You were the one bringing irrelevant things like the abortion topic after I said: "human reason(punishing and killing babies and animals, committing genocides is wrong)"
Human reason in the quote does not mean all humans reason(as in all humans). Its irrelevant if some morons and/or some ignorant psychopath do not deem it wrong.
Logic and philosophy(human reasoning) tells us that punishing and killing babies/infants, animals is wrong for they are non-moral agents and therefore blameless.
Punishing an innocent with a death penalty is wrong.