@iconoclast,
Iconoclast.. No offense taken. Thanks for a thoughtful response. The problem is that I believe that faith is far more than an irrational belief in some religion. Since my definition is rather complex and based on biology, it is up to me to explain and support my position. Though in this case, it is
a simpler situation than most.
I study biology and genetics primarily, so I define faith from that perspective. It is known that there is a genetic foundation to faith. I believe from my studies that what we call faith in humans
would be called basic survival instinct in other animals. It is the irrational basic source of our will to live. It is what makes an animal fight a trap and chew off its leg to escape rather than give in. Now since humans are dependant on learned survival strategies (moralities) to survive as opposed
to primarily instincts (the mark of a human), the question arises, do we have an instinct to use moralities? It seems so as people are willing to fight to the death over them. Again, I think that instinct is what we would call faith. That suggests another dimension to faith then. It suggests that it can use the human intellectual component to make survival judgements rather than just having to rely on instinct. This is why I always say that truth must satisfy the head and the heart. You use both to judge everything.
Now morality is how we judge right from wrong. Faith is what makes us care enough to make that judgement.
I admit that this is a more complicated description of faith than is common, but I think it is correct and also it necessary to be able to understand the importance of faith to human survival. It is far more than the blind loyalty that prompts one to accept the irrational aspects of the teachings of a regligion.
By the way, I have tested this. If you get in a discussion with a person about values, when you get into it, you will find that a person's values supersedes everything else, including religion... Talk about values to a person in a way that illuminates their values and they will tolerate anything. I used to be intentionally rude and a couple times I was eating onions (scallions) while talking. They still listened.
So back to the original question. I would say that we have the same primary obligation to future generations as we have to our children, make sure that they have a chance to survive. But again, based on what? The question to consider is why have children at all? It's a lot of work, resources and stress. We must largely give our lives over to them. Why do it at all. There is no RATIONAL reason (aside from entertainment value). It is our deepest survival instinct, which I have reason to call faith.
By the way, since this is an important part of my studies, I'd appreciate a critique. Does it sound reasonable?