I agree that feelings and intuition are a crucial part of decision making, and I hope that I didn’t give a different impression from what I wrote. Without feelings and emotion, there is no reason for action. I use them all the time to guide what I do!

But I see “faith” as being different from simply acting based on feelings. Faith imposes a certain reality on the world that is beyond the subjective experience of feelings and emotions. I don’t think that imposition is justified, as I argued above.

Let me repeat, though, that feelings are crucial to everything we do. I’m not saying they should be ignored or discredited.

I disagree that faith is “necessary.” Religious faith, for example, is far less common now than it was 1000 years ago, and I expect that trend will continue. If you mean that it’s necessary to make some assumptions about about the world will behave, then I agree with you there, but I wouldn’t call that “faith.” I may assume that things will continue be a certain way, but that doesn’t mean I won’t change my mind if contrary evidence arises.

Let’s take your definition and work from that.

Faith=’a strong feeling that something IS true’;

my point was that, over time, we morph those feels into either out scientific realm (as in that the sun will come up tomorrow) or if more ‘mystical’ in nature, they stay in the religious world. Its a continuum but one that’s important to how people operate. That’s how I got into the evolution thing and survival advantages. So rather that faith being either a good or bad thing, I assert that its a necessary thing. Its a part of who we are.

We are in danger of a cyclical debate, survival advantage is always good, by definition, otherwise its moot. Anything that’s not a survival advantage leads to less of us around to ask the question, and eventually none of us. That might be a good thing I suppose. I’m sure there are a lot of dolphins that would go along with that.

You can argue that nuclear bombs are a good thing, and that’s fine if you think that. (I’m skeptical!) My point was only that the fact that something bestows a survival advantage on a group does not by itself make it a good thing. Some “us-vs-them” versions of morality may bestow advantages on groups, but that doesn’t make them good.

I think that we may indeed be talking about different things when use the word “faith.” I don’t think that “assuming” things that are true now will “mostly” continue to be true is faith, as you seem to be saying. That’s a pretty weak definition of faith Faith, at least in a religious sense, is based on a strong feeling that something IS true, not that it’s “mostly” or “probably” true. It asserts, without doubt or need for evidence, the absolute reality of something. I’m fine with what you call “faith,” but I wouldn’t use that word to describe it. In any case, arguing over definitions of words is pointless.

I most certainly would like people to co-exist peaceably too, but I just don’t think that would last very long because sooner or later someone with a big stick comes along.

I didn’t (or didn’t intend to) say “morality cannot exist without faith”, that I fully agree with you. In fact arguably it might be better off without the notion of faith coming into it.

The survival advantage case though I think is a little more complex, arguably, having nuclear bombs is a good thing.

Planning for unfortunate eventualities is the pragmatic side of faith, I think that a fundamental faith that the systems that make the world ‘work’ (water cycles, wind, weather, nitrogen and oxygen cycles etc …) will most likely produce bountiful crops if I plant, hoe, tend, water etc, but storing a reserve of food just-in-case certainly makes a lot of sense. Its no great surprise that churches are both a place to pray and store food. Although some of that comes from the he-who-controls-the-food-gets-to-call-the-shots school of thought.

I bought up science because I think faith is a trait of humanity, its the ability to make leaps of understanding without fully comprehending all the pieces in the middle. Its very important I think for critical thinking. I you can sketch an idea in your head without being overly worried about the pieces all hanging together and then over time go back and complete your understanding then you have science at work, and faith holding it all together.

faith that things will continue to be much as they are is a fundamental requirement of my day. If I had to get up and prove over and over that the floor will hold my weight, that the kettle will boil water if all I do is switch on the gas, then I’d be unable to do anything. We have to have faith (didn’t George Michael say this way long ago?) in order to get things done.

Or possibly we’re both using a different definition. To me, its the assumption of what I think I know, being as I think I know it to be, and continuing, mostly, to be.

I also consider myself a moral person (with minor discretions) and like you, faith has no part in that. At least not at any conscious level.

First, no, I am not talking about any specific kind of faith, in God or otherwise. Second, yes, I agree that faith can, in some cases, be a survival advantage for groups of humans. But that doesn’t mean that it therefore is a good thing. To give a ridiculous example, think of atomic bombs. Yes, having them is a “survival advantage” for some groups of humans, but does mean they’re a good thing? No, it doesn’t.

I disagree that morality cannot exist without faith. I am a moral person. I behave in a moral way, and I encourage others to do so as well, and no faith is involved — I don’t have faith that my principles of morality reflect some deep reality of the universe. They *could*, of course, but I don’t have faith that they do.

Your examples of faith (like “having faith that the crops will produce food”) don’t seem particularly objectionable to me (I’m fine if someone wants to have such faith). But such faith isn’t necessary, useful, or even beneficial for living. Sure, I think the crops will probably produce food (given that they have usually in the past), but I don’t have faith that they WILL produce food. After all, they might not — there could be a drought. And it would be good to plan for such an event rather than just having faith that it won’t happen.

As for your last point (about understanding and peaceful coexistence), I couldn’t disagree more strongly. I want humans to understand each other and coexist peaceful, and I’ll do what I can to make that happen. I don’t claim that science supports me in this view, and in fact, I never mentioned science at all in my article. Where’s the faith in my viewpoint?

As for understanding each other and peaceful co-existence, I think those are qualities that only someone with faith can hold dear. Scientific evidence suggests that aggressive, cohesive human sub populations are actually the most likely to survive, so where as, within a sub group it is necessary to have harmony, it’s definitely not so between subgroups. Believe otherwise is faith in an ideal, that science does not support.