I don't know if I'd call that faith, though. It's really just making decisions based on previous experience, knowledge, and pattern recognition. Most people make decisions based on probability - choosing what they think will lead to the most beneficial outcome. Things go wrong because we sometimes operate on a faulty set of information, or we interpret that base info incorrectly, or some unknown variable pops up.
The problem, like someone else said, is that we use the term 'faith' when we should use 'confidence', and theists (deliberately?) try to conflate their meaning of the word with ours in order to reduce them as being equal. I have confidence in science, particularly, because it's a process, which is wholly unlike religion. When done correctly, science is inherently self-correcting. And that's exactly where theists go wrong when they try the old, "See? You employ faith, too! Just like me!" tactic. I don't need faith to believe in science. The results of science are in me, given all the surgeries I've had. Those rods in my back, the plates in my hips... that's real. The same goes for the keyboard at my fingertips, my ability to craft something tangible out of code written in a computer, etc. And, even beyond that, if I had the money and time I could recreate the experiments other scientists executed and compare my results with theirs.
You can't do that with god.
Every theist argument that goes down this path can ultimately be described as "belief in god makes me feel good, which is why I believe in him." Well, feelings aren't evidence because they're not evident to others. And to try to bring that simplistic psychosis into the realm of rationality by painting everything in the same way is laughable.
The problem, like someone else said, is that we use the term 'faith' when we should use 'confidence', and theists (deliberately?) try to conflate their meaning of the word with ours in order to reduce them as being equal. I have confidence in science, particularly, because it's a process, which is wholly unlike religion. When done correctly, science is inherently self-correcting. And that's exactly where theists go wrong when they try the old, "See? You employ faith, too! Just like me!" tactic. I don't need faith to believe in science. The results of science are in me, given all the surgeries I've had. Those rods in my back, the plates in my hips... that's real. The same goes for the keyboard at my fingertips, my ability to craft something tangible out of code written in a computer, etc. And, even beyond that, if I had the money and time I could recreate the experiments other scientists executed and compare my results with theirs.
You can't do that with god.
Every theist argument that goes down this path can ultimately be described as "belief in god makes me feel good, which is why I believe in him." Well, feelings aren't evidence because they're not evident to others. And to try to bring that simplistic psychosis into the realm of rationality by painting everything in the same way is laughable.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
