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

Thank you for the welcome and I look forward to the debate. I will restate my argument and, hopefully, in the process, clear up some of the ambiguities. My premise is that both the theist and atheist have a form of "operative" faith. I took the word operative from Sam Harris who uses it to show that various verses from the Muslim holy texts mean what they say. My only point was that the type of faith I am describing guides the way we live. Faith in a higher power (i.e. God) or faith in a higher principle ("we hold these truths to be self-evident…") are operative. Indeed, these types of higher faith, if you will, guide much of our lives. The faith I ascribed to the atheist from my observation from spending time on the Dawkins board was that atheists do believe that how we treat each other matters. However, I do not believe that you can arrive at that conclusion through reason and/or observation. Therefore, I call this faith because it does require a leap without reason. Now on to Mr. Latham's excellent argument: 1. Induction: The form of faith I raised does not rely on reasoning. 2. Values derived from the nature of mankind. Con states as a fact that even a serial killer at least values his own life. Con then redefines faith in this context as, "[f]aith is the operative acceptance by people of their genetic instincts as a cause for their actions." This is one of the mechanisms of faith which atheists often reference; however, I contend that it really goes nowhere in establishing a higher principle that humanity matters. There is nothing sacred about our evolutionary heritage which was the product of four billion years of brutal planetary contest. To the contrary, our ability to protect our Pale Blue Dot may very well depend on being able to overcome some of our evolutionary heritage such as the highly selective nature of our empathy. As we reach a technological inflection point in this century, we will desperately need the software of intelligence and culture to override some elements of our internal architecture. If humanities' morals flow entirely from evolutionary hard coding, there is nothing wrong with overriding that code for good, bad or no reason. Mr. Latham does not attempt to explain why acting morally matters or why acting outside of that moral coding is "wrong." However, I believe most atheists have an inchoate form of faith which would say that Ted Kaczynski was morally wrong. Stanley Milgram, the Stanford Prison Experiment and much of the last century illustrate the danger in relying only on "values derived from the nature of mankind." Submission to authority and dehumization of the other once served their purpose in our evolutionary heritage. Survival often depended on being able to act swiftly to the order of a leader and mercilessly towards non-tribe members. Even today, armed forces necessarily tap into this automatic obedience which can be conditioned deeply into our species. Much progress has been made but we seek a belief system which will stand up to authority when the spirit of the age is not so kind. If we are relying on the herd instincts we either evolved or somehow assimilated from early human cultures, we are in trouble. In any event, our evolved evolutionary heritage is not sacred, trustworthy, and cannot by itself provide a reason for concluding that human beings matter. "Moral genes" do not provide a basis for believing that human beings matter, that they have inalienable rights, and that crossing the evolutionary hard coding is a feat to be despised, not admired. Moral Genes is an argument for why most atheists act as morally as theists; it is not an argument as to why they should especially care if they fall short of any higher standard. A leap without logic is required. 3. Leaps of faith Please allow me to ask a question: Why were the actions of Theodore John Kaczynski wrong, unethical or immoral? Within the 232 numbered paragraphs and 36 footnotes of the Unabomber's manifesto, the only attempt to justify his actions was in a single sentence in paragraph 96. Dr. Kaczynski wrote: "In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people." The manifesto is the product of a disturbed, singularly brilliant, mind. Perversely, we cannot blithely dismiss the value of some of Kaczynski's message for which he was willing to sacrifice other people's lives. Many share Kaczynski's concerns about the future implications of technologies such as genetic engineering. Bill Joy, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems and the co-author of the Java language, is no luddite. While detesting Kaczynski, Joy agrees with Kaczynski's central premise that the pace of technology needs to be slowed or that scientists at least have a moral obligation to think about the consequences of humanities' technological creations. "In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people." We dismiss this justification out of hand because the lives of Hugh Scrutton, Thomas J. Mosser and Gilbert P. Murray were more precious than some brainiac's epiphany even if correct in some respects. "Precious" is not the word. If true, the Unabomber's message could have saved countless precious lives. Nonetheless, Kaczynski's quest to publish his message did not justify the taking of three individual lives. "Sacred" is the word which best applies to the way our beliefs operate towards individual life. Each life is sacred so that, unless all society breaks down or war erupts, we do not make the calculation that three specific innocent lives can be destroyed to possibly save unknowable multitudes. The theist has faith that Dr. Kaczynski had no right to "play God." The non-believer, likewise, has faith that Dr. Kaczynski was wrong even if his message was right. We do not want to learn anything from a Kaczynski or a Mengele. If are morals are entirely a product of genetic hard coding, the Unabomber did nothing wrong. In fact, he might be admired for not being a slave to his kinder genetic impulses. I find this an unsatisfactory answer. 4. Religious and quasi-religious faith Mr. Latham contends, "[a]theists need not make leaps of faith, but they sometimes do so." Little support is provided for the former assertion. Mr. Latham then argues, "[l]ife is too complex to analyze every situation from scratch, so people adopt guiding principles." He then goes on to detail some of the various 'isms of politics and culture. The existence of complex systems does not dispute that at the core of any system in which a good society can develop is that humanity matters. An ancillary but important point is that we are held accountable for how we treat each other even when, or perhaps especially when, it is against our genetic predispositions. I would never present "a faith held beyond all questioning or doubt." Most theists would say that doubt is a precondition for faith. My presentation of this argument for debate is evidence of my own doubts about atheistic and theistic faith. A "leap" is required because logic alone cannot take us to a point where we can say human life is precious, indeed sacred, even when all of our genetic impulses are urging us to obey the authority figure and turn the dial up one more notch. Theists have faith in a higher power. Atheists have faith in a higher principle that overriding our genetic code to harm another person without cause is immoral. Both require a leap without the benefit of reason.