Faith is irrational

Thank you everyone for taking the time to read this debate. For the resolution, stating that "Faith is irrational", I contend the following points for this debate: 1) Faith is rational to the believer 2) Evidence can be provided in either qualitative of quantitative forms 3) Without sufficient quantitative evidence, qualitative evidence is logically used to show the rationality of a belief 4) New factual discoveries are founded in faith and supported by evidence I offer an alternative definition of faith as a "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing," as stated in the American Heritage dictionary. Additionally, I would like to offer the definition of evidence as "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment", again, from the American Heritage Dictionary. First, I contend that most 5 year old children in western Christian culture believe in Santa Clause. They have faith that on Christmas Day, a man from the North Pole with a team of flying reindeer will come to their house to bring them presents to them and to all the good children in the world based upon two things; they're told that this effect will occur, then it happens. Their evidence that Santa exists is based upon their faith that an event would happen and then it actually did. For the 5 year old, this is a completely rational belief that would otherwise be debunked by other evidence later in life. Perception is personal, commonly said to be from the "eye of the beholder". If a person sincerely feels that something is true, then they have faith in its existence. Commonly, however, this perception may be altered, but that does not change the fact that the believer truly has faith that something exists. A good example of this quandary is schizophrenia. A schizophrenic person honestly believes that they hear voices in their head. They have perceptual evidence (the fact that they believe they heard a sound) that someone was talking to them. Society claims these people as being irrational, since this cannot be backed up by additional evidence that can be shown to another person as being material. In other words, for something to be rational it must provide evidence to more than one person. This leads me to my second point of contention that faith is rational. To provide this evidence to another person, it must be determined to be either qualitative of quantitative. In terms of hearing something; qualitative evidence would be the fact that something can be heard, quantitative evidence proves how loud, at what pitch, etc. Typically, quantitative evidence does, at the same time, provide for qualitative evidence. But without the presence of quantitative evidence, we are left only to qualitative evidence. An example of this would be pills or medication in general. If I have a headache, I will go to my medicine cabinet and take a Tylenol. I have faith that Tylenol does in fact cause my body to stop feeling pain. Alternatively, an South American tribesman would not have faith in my Tylenol if he had a headache. Instead, he would go to his shaman and seek whatever treatment had previously alleviated his headache. The tribesman has faith in his shaman, as I have faith in my Tylenol. The difference lies in the fact that quantitative evidence can be given to support my confidence in Tylenol. This is essentially the placebo effect, and anyone who's fallen victim of it, had faith that the sugar pill they had taken actually caused what the experimenter sought to study. Again, it is perception that a caused b gave enough cause for the person to have faith. In the absence of quantitative evidence, we must rely on our perception (qualitative evidence) that something exists. I personally have never seen an atom through an electron microscope. However, I have faith in what I learned in my chemistry classes based upon the fact that all matter is made up of atoms that have specific properties. I have done scientific, quantitative experiments that are supported by my faith in chemistry and my belief in the atom. Prior to the electron microscope, many scientists had faith in the existence of an atom without ever actually visualizing one. Throughout history, many things that people had faith in have stood as logical until proved otherwise. The fact that the earth is round was considered irrational until Christopher Columbus returned with substantial proof he went somewhere that possessed the same goods that could be found in Southeast Asia. In refuting my opponent's arguments, I do not disagree that 2:500 odds would not be good by rational standards. However, the common appendectomy had to have been practiced with some failure before it was successful. The faith a person has that a surgery will work in completely dependent upon the consequences. If there alternatives, I would place my faith (and my life) in what was most commonly successful. However, if I had no other option and for whatever reason, this was the only surgery available, I would opt to have it done, since I value my own life. Regarding teaching faith: Every high school chemistry teacher first teaches with the belief that atoms exist. The teacher must instill faith in their students that if two chemicals are mixed together, a predictable result will happen. This is observable and measurable. However, faith must be instilled first, then it is supported by what happens.