Resolved: All but the nihilist shares an operative form of faith.

Welcome to debate.org. You have offered five grueling rounds of debating the meaning of the word "faith." It's a nasty job, but somebody has to do it, so I'll have a go at it. I think the debate arises from equivocation on the word "faith." "Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings. ... The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound. " http://www.fallacyfiles.org... The type of faith that atheists have is not the same type as that which religious people profess when they refer to their religious faith. 1. Induction The first task is to try to pin down what Pro means by "an operative form of faith." If it means "belief that induction is valid," then everyone, including the nihilist, shares that as an operative belief. No one wakes up in the morning and really wonders if gravity will be working throughout the day. Perhaps in philosophical discussions a person may raise the point that there is no absolute guarantee that anything will continue as previously experienced, but no one seriously worries about staying anchored during the day lest gravity suddenly cease. Richard Dawkins, Nietzsche, and the Jehovah's Witness at your door all share that form of "faith." But that form of faith is not like religious faith, because it derives from the evidence of past experience. What is at issue with induction is not whether there is evidence, but what we may draw from the evidence. Gravity is observed directly to exist. The "faith" aspect arrives at the secondary level of what may be deduced from the evidence, not whether there was evidence in the first place. It may be that our "faith" in induction is a consequence of the biological programming that runs us as organisms, but no one fails to operate in accordance with that programming, but whatever it is, it is not doubted as we go about our business. 2. Values derived from the nature of mankind Pro's definition is "Faith is a decision to act as if something were true. Faith accepts its subject's existence as an axiom. Faith holds essential truths to be self-evident. Faith is fiat of the will." Pro gives the example, "Faith in the value of individual human life and dignity flows from philosophy or is accepted as self-evident." It's fair to say that every human being is programmed to place some value on human life. Even serial killers place some value on their own lives, at least up to the point go completely made and become indifferent to even the value of their own lives. It seems that Pro's definition of faith is something like, "Faith is the operative acceptance by people of their genetic instincts as a cause for their actions." That type of faith is tricky. If the doctor says, "This is going to hurt." we are likely to overrule our genetic predisposition to avoid pain is rational consideration of our broader instinct to want good health to prolong our lives. We have conflicting instincts and resolve the conflicts using reason as best we can. So humans do behave in accordance with their instincts, and they somehow resolve conflicts among their instincts. That's a "faith" different from induction, but it is operative and it guides action. There is no "fiat of the will" involved in choosing to take your hand off a hot stove. 3. Leaps of faith Pro then asserts, "Atheists make their own broad leaps of faith. Their faith, like the faith of a Christian, is that humanity matters." Now we are at the point of departure. A creature living in accordance with its instincts is not making a broad leap of faith. It isn't a broad leap of faith to observe that humans have a nature and live in accordance with that nature. A plant that turns towards the sun does so, but does so without a leap of faith. Humans have complex instincts. A "leap of faith" implies that some cognitive act takes them out of their instincts and beyond what is inductively derived to do something other than obey their instincts. Believing in a god or gods requires a "leap" of faith, because it requires belief in something beyond experience. There is no leap in conforming to instinct. We have conflicting instincts, and resolving those instincts is problematic, but Christians choose to make leaps of faith that atheists need not make. 4. Religious and quasi-religious faith Atheists need not make leaps of faith, but they sometimes do so. Life is too complex to analyze every situation from scratch, so people adopt guiding principles. Some ideologies, the 'isms of politics and culture, operate in a way similar to religions. For a believer in communism, all the evils of the world are believed to flow from capitalism. That overarching principle then short-circuits rational evaluation of evidence. I think that everyone holds some short-circuit principles they use to simplify making judgments. The test is not that people have such beliefs, the test is whether they cling to them despite all evidence to the contrary. If they admit no contrary evidence when cornered, then they have something comparable to religious faith. It is a faith held beyond all questioning or doubt. I call an unshakable faith that does not concern the supernatural a quasi-religious faith. An atheist who believes that all of the social problems of the world can be traced to religion, and who cannot be shaken of that belief, has a quasi-religious faith. Various strong ideologies also fill that role. Atheists need not be quasi-religious, so that is not a defining characteristic. I don't see the particular relevance of the status of agnostics. What counts relative to the debate here is whether a leap of faith is made in the acceptance of beliefs. That divides the world into believers and non-believers, that casts the agnostics as non-believers. There is a common "faith" at the non-religious levels, if you want to call belief in induction and acknowledgment of the nature of mankind as types of faith. The departure in faith comes at the level of the "leap of faith." Atheists need not make any leap of faith if they allow questioning of their operative principles and will change their principles upon showing of good reasons. The measure of religious faith is intransigent belief, and that is not shared. The "operative form of faith" that religious people have is not shared by atheists. I challenge Pro to clarify what he means by "operative form of faith" and especially "leap of faith" in the context of what I have presented. "Everyone has to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer." -- anonymous equivocation