Hi everyone! I had a few questions to ask that if answered, would really help me write my upcoming philosophy speech. I'm wondering how radical it would be if I attempted to prove that Nietzsche's idea of faith is hypocritical of his disbelief of opposite values in good vs. evil. He seems to constantly believe that faith and reason is good vs evil. Is there anything in the text of good vs. evil to help me prove my point that can be further explained because the only time he really brings faith up is to bash it with his anti christian world-view. When he says "...it is much rather the faith of pascal, which resembles in a terrible manner a continious suicide of reason" Is he speaking of christian faith or faith in general? Also, he says "there is an innocence in lying which is the sign of good faith in a cause".. What exactly does he mean by this. But the main reason for my arguement is what he says on number 191 about faith. I have several reasons why i want to argue his idea's... the first being whenever he brags about Socrates laughing at the noble men who couldn't give a good enough reason for feeling the way that they did.... as if having a reason makes the truth any more truer than if a feeling made you feel the same way
"Socrates himself, to be sure, with the taste of his talent--that of a superior dialectician- had initially sided with reason; and in fact what did he do his life long but laugh at the awkward incapacity of noble Athenians who, like all noble men, were men of instinct and never could give sufficient information about the reasons for there accusations"
he goes on to say that Socrates laughs at himself as well because in himself he feels feelings of difficulty and incapacity just as the ones who have blind faith
he also describes Plato and how Plato believes that faith and reason both lean toward one goal the good ... "God". and since Plato all theologians and philosophers are on the same track-that is, in moral matters it has so far been instinct, or what the Christians call "faith," or "the herd," as i put it, that has triumphed. perhaps Descartes should be excepted, as the father of rationalism (and hence the grandfather of the revolution) who conceded authority to reason alone: but reason is merely an instrument, and Descartes was superficial.
even though he says moral matters when he describes faith he isnt talking about faith as a moral matter alone. I'm wondering if my paper is going to have any obvious loopholes because I've tried to research for weeks and haven't gotten as many answers as I'd hoped for so I would greatly appreciate any help.
Also... If this helps any... my intro sentence is along the lines of why does a claim, that cannot be proven by reason, have to be false?

I would greatly appreciate any help!

Cory