Re: Point 1

I was referring to the hidden non-rational component buried in any true onto-theological statement. I don't see a leap of faith as necessary to the exercise of pure reason, nor of the senses. To say that it does puts the mind perpetually two steps from the door of self-induced logical catatonia.

Re: Point 2

The necessity of using reason, which is natural to man, to discover the proper standard of interpersonal conduct, should only be more obvious to you then. We need not use the theory of natural law ethics to understand an attack by wild animals, as it does not apply. We're dealing strictly with human beings. The metaphysics and ethics of toasters, mussels and socialites will have to wait for another day, when we cast our gaze upon non-human things. However, even then, we'll still have to use reason to understand it, as it's a necessary component of any functional sapient consciousness.