Actually . . . .
Actually, isn't this about the point in the faith discussion where an atheist can rightly pull back to the applicability of faith?
Certes, there is no objective center to human logic and reason in the Universe, but just as a syllogism need not be true in order to be proper, a logical process need not lead to logical action; the illogic is in the beholder.
I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. What? I can easily gamble against the extinguishing of the sun next Friday, but there's always the outside chance that God will arrive, complete with a sense of humor.
Ray Bradbury comes to mind, a story from
The Illustrated Man that I believe is called, "The Last Night of the World." Those familiar with the story can draw what connections they might from it, those who are not need not worry about it, although I recommend the book anyway.
I have faith in people. Sometimes that faith blinds me to reality, but so far I think I'm the only one I've hurt like that, so .... And, on the other hand, those who are familiar with my lamentations of a bitter relationship with my partner might see that faith even more apparently; she challenges my faith in people, on every level--we're a unique pair, it seems, in that we haven't killed each other yet or simply gone our separate ways at least. But aside from that, faith in people has proven useful. And part of that faith in people includes mistaken perceptions and presumptions, but it's a hopeful--if reactionary--faith, so hopefully it can learn from those mistakes.
I have faith in my belief that peace and social harmony are advantageous to the human species. This belief is one of the most fundamental I hold. And certainly I can point to the fact that humans come together in society
at all to support that belief, but it's not, in the end, a concrete point. It presumes
cooperative society; perhaps competitive society is what humanity needs, to farm out the gene pool and optimize the Darwinian potential. And here we come again to what has become my classic inquiry:
Why is murder wrong?
If we assume the role of Huxley's "Martian eye," and watch humanity as a species, it may eventually come about that murder and war serve to human advantage similarly as plague; the strong survive, the species advances.
So I can't say that peace and social harmony are definitively and objectively advantageous to the human species, no matter how clearly I see it some days. It's still faith.
In November, 2004, millions of Americans will cast ballots from a perspective of faith.
While "ants" seems an extreme rhetorical proposition, an utter and complete lack of faith in humanity could very easily result in a society devoid of emotion and passion. Emotions are illogical. Passion is acute faith.
At some point we have to acknowledge faith.
But I would expect the godless to
properly pull back to a simple assertion.
Wesmorris nailed it pretty squarely with the idea of faith in reason. We might ask, "How far does that faith extend? How deeply does it run?" But the conditions whereby
Wes' faith in reason becomes a detriment to himself and others is much farther out along the voyage than faith in God tends to be.
A side note is that an aspect of that very idea is, well, not quite under scrutiny, but is intended to be. I have an
unfortunately fizzling topic that's running out of room to go anywhere but in circles going on elsewhere in the Religion forum. But seriously--contradicting medical standards for faith when advising people on health issues that can prove mortal? Faith in reason doesn't hit such problems until something else goes haywire in the system.
In that dimension, take religious faith. Certain strains of Catholic logic are rather tight, except for the presuppositions, which tend to send the "reason" askew. But religious faith is merely faith in reason in which something has gone haywire and seriously limited the range of natural possibility.
I am an American. This only means
anything if we accept the widely-accepted notion of nations. I am a post-postmodern Sisyphan Camusite theist. This only means
anything if we accept that such declarations matter at all about anything. Within their confines, they're perfectly reasonable and seemingly-objective ideas. But when we get right down to it, neither one means anything outside their confines.
At any rate, two cents won't buy me wishes.