Is logic ultimately constructed on faith?

[Werg22]

To me, there is no doubt that logic cannot be constructed if it isn't initiated by a set of unprovable 'rules', axioms, to be more precise. For example, I can't prove that a statement is either true or false under any circumstances, but I do assume this is consistently true - if a statement is not false, it is necessarily true and vice-versa; there is no 'other' state. Hence one might say that logic is a product of some sort of faith, faith in the veracity of base principles. What is interesting is that logic is constructed, but also self-constructed. Namely, it possesses self-identification; it can be expanded on the basis of its own postulates. We could say logic starts as a set of rules and can then use itself to grow larger - a curious machinery. But this is only my own, isolated, analysis; I still have to develop it. I'd like to hear the opinions of other members of this forum. Are there others who are engaged in such a line of thought?

 

[JoeDawg]

Hence one might say that logic is a product of some sort of faith, faith in the veracity of base principles.

First you should define what you mean by faith. The word is used in many contexts, some more precise than others.
Second, you should give examples of axioms which logic is based on.

Faith by any standard definition is: strong belief regardless of evidence.
Logical systems are based on premises, but I'm not sure you're on such solid ground claiming logic itself is. We have developed logic based on observation, I think it would be very difficult to separate 'logic' from the human context.

 

[out of whack]

To me, there is no doubt that logic cannot be constructed if it isn't initiated by a set of unprovable 'rules', axioms, to be more precise.

Logic is little more than language to me, the axioms in question being common agreement on meaning. For example, when I say A AND B, it means that you have A and you also have B, and if you agree with this definition of "AND" then we can communicate. If I say A IMPLIES B then it means that A requires B, so that if you don't have B then you cannot have A either, and if you agree with this definition of "IMPLIES" then we can communicate. And so on. There is no proof of these definitions, only common agreement about what the terms mean. Once you have common agreement on these terms then you can discuss intelligently and reach the same conclusions from the same premises. No magic or faith is necessary, only agreement on language.

 

[mikelepore]

We can easily check some evidence for the validity of logic. For example, if logic is valid then a calculator can be designed such that, when used to add two numbers, it will give the correct sum, regardless of the two numbers.

 

[Gear300]

I agree with you. Logic is ultimately constructed on faith. Ultimately, when you analyze human society, there is nothing to be logical over. People are logical over an icon of faith upon something...whether it is the belief that god is inexistant or anything else.

 

[Rade]

Logic is the "science of non-empirical reasoning"
Reasoning is a mental activity called "inferring".
To infer is to draw conclusions from true premises (e.g., data, information, facts).
Logical reasoning always results in drawing non-contradictory conclusions from true premises.
It is the task of logic to distinquish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning.

There are two ways to infer, via inductive logic or deductive logic.
Inductive logic draws probable though fallible conclusions from true premises.
Deductive logic results when truth of premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion.

The truth of a premise used in logic is never based on faith, since faith does not require that one establish evidence of (data, information, facts).

 

[Violator]

Logic is, of nessecity, predicated on a faith in the basic tenets of logic. To claim that logic can be proven true because we can either a) observe its working or b) create machines which demonstrate its working, is to use logic, specifically inductive reasoning, to demonstrate the validity of logic. Also, logic assumes the uniformity of nature, a concept which cannot be proven, but merely inferred, again based on the tenets of logic itself. At some point, one must accept the foundations of logic as true, without being able to defend their truth.

 

[JoeDawg]

Logic is, of nessecity, predicated on a faith in the basic tenets of logic. To claim that logic can be proven true because we can either a) observe its working or b) create machines which demonstrate its working, is to use logic, specifically inductive reasoning, to demonstrate the validity of logic. Also, logic assumes the uniformity of nature, a concept which cannot be proven, but merely inferred, again based on the tenets of logic itself. At some point, one must accept the foundations of logic as true, without being able to defend their truth.

You're really abusing a lot of well defined concepts.

'Inductive reasoning' is based on the assumption that there is consistency in the universe. We certainly can't prove that this is so, but we can observe quite a lot of consistency, and that IS evidence for further consistency. Evidence is not proof.

Faith is something completely indifferent to evidence and proof.
It is 'strong belief' without the need for, or in spite of the evidence, even in spite of proof to the contrary.

The fact something can't be proven, doesn't mean one requires faith to accept it is a reasonable assumption. The fact something can't be proven, doesn't mean there isn't quite a lot of evidence for it. The fact someone accepts something as true, because it reasonably appears to be so, doesn't mean they have faith in it.

If all of a sudden the weight of evidence points in a different direction, then it would take faith to still believe the original direction, but believing what is supported by evidence, requires no faith.

 

[Violator]

To the contrary you are using the very method of inductive reasoning to demonstrate inductive reasoning works. Hence, before you ever start considering its validity you have already accepted it, on faith. I am not saying Logic doesn't work, merely that one must accept its most basic tenets with no evidence whatsoever, because they cannot be evidenced. A perfect example is this: Prove 2+2=4, show your work. It cannot be done, because it is an axiomatic statement. We merely accept that 2+2=4.

 

[JoeDawg]

To the contrary you are using the very method of inductive reasoning to demonstrate inductive reasoning works. Hence, before you ever start considering its validity you have already accepted it, on faith.

Again, you are abusing definitions. Simple belief is not faith.
Inductive reasoning appears to work quite well. Sometimes it doesn't.
I don't have faith that it will, it just seems like a good assumption to make. Sometimes that ends badly. I don't claim induction always works or that it must work. No one does.

A perfect example is this: Prove 2+2=4, show your work. It cannot be done, because it is an axiomatic statement. We merely accept that 2+2=4.

The only truth value in that statement is whether it describes reality or not. If it describes reality, then it is true, by definition. Math is a generalization based on observation. Its a rule system.
3-4=2 is true if it describes reality, it doesn't. It is false, by definition.

 

[Violator]

I am not abusing definititions. I never said belief was faith. I said you use inductive reasoning to support inductive reasoning. If one says, I have seen many white swans and never seen a black swan, I therefore conclude that all swans are white, he is using induction. If you say, induction has worked well for me in the past, and has rarely or never failed me, I therefore believe induction to be a valid reasoning system, you are also using induction. The problem is, the only proof of induction lies in induction. Therefore, to escape the circular logic, one must at some point assert an axiomatic statement. This statement will, of nessecity, be based on no evidence beyond its assertion.

A math equation can never describe reality. Simpyl put show me a "real life" exampel of 2+2=4. You can't because 2's and 4's are not found in nature. Objects are found in nature to which we ascribe symbols. Having created a self consistent language for manipulating those symbols we impose that language on the natural order and it works. But your 2 could just as easily have been a 010 or a * or any other convenient symbol so long as the system is self consistent.

 

[JoeDawg]

The problem is, the only proof of induction lies in induction.

No, the problem is there is 'no proof' at all with regards to induction. Inductive reasoning doesn't prove anything, not even itself. Inductive reasoning is useful, nothing more. You may have faith in it, you may believe it works even when it doesn't, but induction doesn't demand faith. All it demands is that one accept an assumption, even tentatively. People do this all the time without believing that thing is true.

A math equation can never describe reality.

Sure it can, just not with complete accuracy... because math is, by definition, a generalization. To expect math to be able to describe reality in its entirety is simply misundertanding math.

To describe something in its entirety, you would literally have to recreate it. I see no reason to do that, and math is useful mainly because its a very precise form of 'shorthand'.

 

[Violator]

No, the problem is there is 'no proof' at all with regards to induction.

So to believe in induction, without proof, demands an act of faith, no matter how tentative.

 

[JoeDawg]

So to believe in induction, without proof, demands an act of faith, no matter how tentative.

No it doesn't.

EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF.

You are equivocating.

If I let a ball go from my hand a thousand times and every time it falls to the ground, I can use that as evidence that balls fall to the ground when I let them go.

THAT IS NOT PROOF.
It is however induction.

 

[JonF]

We can easily check some evidence for the validity of logic. For example, if logic is valid then a calculator can be designed such that, when used to add two numbers, it will give the correct sum, regardless of the two numbers.

You just committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent while trying to defend logic.

But in response to the OP, the only faith that you really need to have to affirm logic is faith in the principle of non-contradiction. Faith in predicate calculus wouldn’t hurt, but even that probably isn’t necessary.

 

[Violator]

You are completely correct to say the induction isn't proof its evidence. We are arguing over the meaning of the word evidence it seems. I have been using proof and evidence interchangeable which is my mistake. Let me rephrase my point. The only evidence one can find for logic depends on induction. Therefore, without assuming the validity of inductive reasoning, we can have no evidence to support logic.


"Faith is something completely indifferent to evidence and proof.
It is 'strong belief' without the need for, or in spite of the evidenc"

Since all evidence for logic depends on induction, one must start from a point of belief int he absence of evidence. This is not nessecarily a bad thing, and faith is not a dirty word. Nor does it mean I reject logic or its implications. It just means that one must accept certain axioms based on faith. Or if you prefer Descartes term, "The Light of Reason".

 

[JoeDawg]

Since all evidence for logic depends on induction, one must start from a point of belief int he absence of evidence.

No. One starts with observation. From the evidence of observation, one can see that induction has worked in the past. Whether it will continue to work is an open question.

We know however, that induction has worked. Induction works. There is evidence that induction works. And we know for a fact that it has worked often, and for a long time.
There is evidence that induction works. Since it has worked for a long time, it is a reasonable assumption, its probable, it seems likely, based on the evidence of the past, that it will continue. No proof, mind you.

The problem of induction is not about what is likely, or probable. Its not about not being able to make a decision based on the evidence of the past. The problem of induction is about 'certainty'. Its about skepticism in the face of that uncertainty.

And if you refer to Descartes, you probably know, there were people being burned at the stake in his time for heresy. Faith is pretending ignorance is a virtue.

 

[Violator]

Induction is the argument that because something has happened in the past it is probable to continue happening. That is what inductive reasoning means. You are using inductive reason to support its validity. When you say induction has worked and probably will, that's i inductive reasoning. It is totally valid reasoning, completely logical. And that's the point.There is no point from outside of logic which is a starting point for an examination of logic.

Your statement about Descartes time period is as meaningless as me refuting Relativity by telling you that in Einstein's day they burned people for being Jewish.

Your definition of faith is arrogant, ignorant, and offensive.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Your definition of faith is arrogant, ignorant, and offensive.

None of the above. You should not attack people who are trying to help you by pointing out problems in your argument. In fact, you should thank them.

 

[Noone]

LOL! na logic would dictate that it is not constructed on faith,
Which came first the chicken or the egg?
1.Chicken's come from egg's=True
2.Egg's come from chicken's=True

So by these two things we know that are true, and do not need faith to know that there true.

The only logical answers to which came first a chicken or an egg, would have to be the chicken, because the chicken most have not allways laid egg's because #1&2 are true.

3.a chicken didnt allways lay egg's because #1&2 and true=true

so that would logicaly mean that at one point a chicken had the reproduction of a (A)-sexual, which then logicaly at one point it's DNA must of had a genitical mutation, for a chicken to lay egg's. And that would be logic that's not ultimately constructed on faith.

But #3&4&5 would be false if you belived in >.< i won't dare to say it I,m sure everyone here know's that answer...

 

[Noone]

Faith, only is used when there is no proof that chicken come's from the egg.


(hence having faith in a logical outcome)----> would be unlogical...

 

[JoeDawg]

Your definition of faith is arrogant, ignorant, and offensive.

I feared it would end this way. You're not making any arguments about induction. You're out to abuse induction to justify your irrational beliefs. You clearly don't understand induction or the problem of induction. You couldn't even get 'proof' and 'evidence' straight.

You're simply trying to defend 'faith'.

And, for the record, its not my definition:

American Heritage Dictionary
http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

 

[vanesch]

Simpyl put show me a "real life" exampel of 2+2=4.

Eh: there are two apples on the left side of the table, and two apples on the right side of the table. On the table, there are four apples.

It is based upon the conservation of baryon number

 

[Noone]

Line's the root of all

Eh: there are two apples on the left side of the table, and two apples on the right side of the table. On the table, there are four apples.

It is based upon the conservation of baryon number

with out word's or name's it would just be ll+ll = llll and that's 2+2=4


pure line's i got 2line's of hair in my left hand, and 2line's of hair in my right, in my hands i have 4 line's of hair :)

 

[JoeDawg]

pure line's i got 2line's of hair in my left hand, and 2line's of hair in my right, in my hands i have 4 line's of hair :)

I have 2 lines of coke on the table... and two lines of coke in my nose.

Add that up, and you have a 1 drug problem... and two friends for life.

2 + 2 = 3

 

[Violator]

Right, your American Heritage dictionary contains none of the offensive and abusive sarcasm that the phrase "Faith is pretending ignorance is a virtue" does. I like how I am accused of attacking a person when I attacked a definition.

I find it interesting that you think I am defending faith. I am not. I merely state that logical argument is based on the idea of logic. You say this belief is irrational. I say it is realistic. If you can show me an argument for logic that does not assume logic works I will concede you are correct. However, I honestly don't think you understand how induction works. Induction is the process by which one says since this has worked in the past, or this has occurred multiple times, we can assume it will continue to. That is induction. To say logic has worked in the past and so I believe it to be accurate, is to induce.

For the record, I have yet to, and will never, say that I don't think logic is true and functional. I am a reasonable, rational person, and so I believe in the power of reason. If I didn't I would choose to mock and degrade the beliefs of people I disagree with rather than discuss.


In regards to the 2+2=4 examples. You do not have examples of numbers or equations, you have a pile of apples. You have chosen to mentally assign them signifiers. The signifier is not inherent in the signified it is created. We, human beings, created math and logic and all the rules that go along. They work remarkably well, but they are not inherent.

 

[Violator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning


http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php


These two links explain inductive logic. I think there may be some legitimate confusion of terms going on because there is also mathematical induction, of which I know nothing. I just want to make sure everyone is clear what I am talking about when I say logic, both inductive and deductive, is defended using inductive reasoning.

 

[JoeDawg]

Right, your American Heritage dictionary contains none of the offensive and abusive sarcasm that the phrase "Faith is pretending ignorance is a virtue" does.

No sarcasm in the dictionary, true, its a dictionary after all.
But its saying exactly the same thing I did.
And you provided the exact response I was expecting when I rephrased it sarcastically.
No surprise, really, just disappointment.

I find it interesting that you think I am defending faith.

You are. Its exactly the kind of backwards argument that you are using, which 'people of faith' use all the time, to equivocate belief based on evidence to belief based on... well... no evidence. They are two different things.

I am not. I merely state that logical argument is based on the idea of logic.

No, you said it was based on faith.
And its not, its based on evidence.
We use logic because it works. The fact it might stop working doesn't negate the evidence that it has, in the past, worked. A system that has worked in the past is a more reasonable system to use, than just blind guessing... what you call faith. The fact its more reasonable doesn't prove diddly.

If you can show me an argument for logic that does not assume logic works I will concede you are correct.

Logic is based on observation, but there is no logic in an observation. It simply occurs. You are doing back flips trying to insert 'faith' into something that has none. You have faith in faith. I don't. And I don't need to have any, and certainly not to reason. If I said induction proves anything that would be untrue, it doesn't even prove itself. It provides evidence, not certainty.

And evidence is what we need, or its faith.

To say logic has worked in the past and so I believe it to be accurate, is to induce.

No, to say logic will work in the future, that is inductive reasoning. To say it worked in the past is simple observation. You don't need logic to observe something. You just need to look around. Whether it will work in the future I don't know... I remain skeptical. Its the best system I have seen in the past, so why not use it. I HAVE NO FAITH in induction. It just seems to work. And when it stops working... well that will be the end of that... not that we will likely know it.

We, human beings, created math and logic and all the rules that go along.

Well of course. Not sure what your point is here.

Oh and thanks for the references, although, I'm pretty sure most on this forum know how to use wikipedia. In future, you might want to actually quote the specific part that you think supports your claim. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[Violator]

This conversation has drifted towards a place I would rather not go. JoeDawg, both of us have begun trading barbs that are edging closer and closer to personal attacks and I would sincerely like to prevent that. I find your counterpoints interesting and I think you intelligent, so I would like to carry on this conversation. To that end, I am going to leave behind the various rude things we have said to each other, and I admit I have been less than cordial. I hope you will do that same. Let's focus on the issue raised, and leave the mudslinging to the politicians?

So, that said, this is the issue as I see it. Faith is the belief in something in the absence of evidence. I argue that acceptance of logic as a system depends on faith, because one cannot provide evidence for logic, without appealing to logic. To say that we have observed logic working in the past, is not to provide evidence for logic as a system, but merely to make a statement about an observed incident. To move from a specific observation, or a series of specific observations, to an argument of evidence for a general theory is inductive reasoning. Because of this, no matter how many specific incidents of logic working that we see, we cannot propose the events as evidence of the system, without using the system we are trying to support.

 

[out of whack]

Violator, if I may interject, your position seems to follow this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction][/PLAIN]
The law of non-contradiction is alleged to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the ground that any proof or disproof must use the law itself, and thus beg the question.

If one of the fundamental laws of logic cannot be logically proven then sure, you could decide to call belief in logic "faith". But then you also have to consider the nature of a proof, which is nothing more than a convincing argument. All arguments are not equally convincing so some proofs are stronger than others. Few proofs are absolute since you can always question the premises of what looks like a strong proof and discover that it isn't as strong as you thought. There may be no definite line where faith stops being called so, it's a personal interpretation.

As for the law of contradictions, I am convinced by the argument presented in that same article:

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.

...and that's proof enough for me!

 

[JoeDawg]

So, that said, this is the issue as I see it. Faith is the belief in something in the absence of evidence. I argue that acceptance of logic as a system depends on faith, because one cannot provide evidence for logic, without appealing to logic. To say that we have observed logic working in the past, is not to provide evidence for logic as a system, but merely to make a statement about an observed incident. To move from a specific observation, or a series of specific observations, to an argument of evidence for a general theory is inductive reasoning. Because of this, no matter how many specific incidents of logic working that we see, we cannot propose the events as evidence of the system, without using the system we are trying to support.

When you make an observation, you observe a pattern. Our system of reasoning did not pop out of thin air, it has an origin. Hume called it 'a habit', and I won't go any further than that. We observe a pattern, we have evolved to recognize patterns. Its how we survive, its why we survived. There are patterns in the universe. Seeing the pattern, seeing the consistency, we have developed 'inductive reasoning'. We see the pattern and create the system based on it. The pattern proves nothing about the system, it simply points the direction. Faith requires no such observation.

Just like we have a thing and we put some thing similar beside it, we have two similar things... 1+1=2.

This of course is derived from observation, not logic. The logic is the result. Its on the level of abstraction... a rule... derived from observation.

Faith would require no such observation, no initial pattern, no evidence.

Faith is about 'revealed truth'. It requires nothing.
This is not where inductive...or any reasoning... comes from.

Yes, inductive logic comes from inductive thinking, but this is derived from the observation of a pattern. It is not revealed from on high. It doesn't pop into existence because a god says so, and for no other reason. Faith makes no requirement of any pre-existing observation. We are told it is so, period, end of story.

Inductive reasoning is developed, faith, you either have or not.

 

[Violator]

I like your point here, however, I think it is an important distinction between the wsay logic is developed, and the way it is taught. I agree with you that the normal human experience of seeing patterns and such requires no faith. When I say logic requires faith I mean more so the system of logic as taught. I am referring more to the formalized rules that one must accept in order to take reasoning beyond the simple.

I think the mathematic example lends itself to this point very well. While anyone can see that placing two similar object near each other yields more similar objects than we had prior, and anyone can see if we call each object 1 object, it is a far jump from 1+1=2 to calculus. My point earlier in bringing up the created nature of mathematics is that, for math to make sense, one must simply accept the rules of math. To me, that is an act of faith. Faith in math perhaps, more likely faith in the person teaching you math.

 

[JoeDawg]

My point earlier in bringing up the created nature of mathematics is that, for math to make sense, one must simply accept the rules of math. To me, that is an act of faith. Faith in math perhaps, more likely faith in the person teaching you math.

Faith is really just an extension of irrational stubbornness, which can be a very useful survival mechanism. It can allow us to ignore the facts and push ourselves beyond what we see as our limits, but it can just as easily get us killed when we should have known better.

Some may have faith in their teachers, in systems, gods, or in facts, and you are right, quite a lot do, and many will accept what is taught to them, by people in authority, simply because it is given to them by authority. I am told, so it must be thus.

However, one always chooses one's teacher, or at least, one chooses which teachers to pay attention to. If all I did was regurgitate what my professors/teachers told me, then yes, that requires nothing more than faith, belief without evidence. I am told, I believe. But I would not call that 'learning'. A computer can record facts.

Rather, I choose my teachers, I choose those who I will believe, based on evidence, based on what I can see they know, and what others have said about them, I choose to believe them, even if I don't understand this or that. The important part is that I rely on some kind of evidence for my belief. I may be wrong, the evidence might lead me astray. But I shouldn't accept it simply because we are told. Revealed truth is unquestioned truth, it requires faith, acceptance without qualification. Most people actually question authority these days, they lack faith.

Also, I suck at calculus, never understood it, tried to learn it, didn't work out. I can't say it works, but I've been told its useful. If I had learned it, and understood it, then I would be in the same position as I am with 1+1=2. I'm not with regards to calculus, but I know there are people who seem to be able to use it quite well, and more importantly, they are able to use it for things I can readily observe. I'm not absolutely certain about anything.

What the 'problem of induction' shows us is that we should be skeptical. We should look for evidence, but even when we have evidence, that's a far cry from 'certainty'.

Hume wasn't an irrational skeptic, he wasn't a solipsist, denying everything. He was an empiricist, an observer of things. We should remain skeptical, and keep an open mind. Faith is, in that sense, the closed mind, because it doesn't need evidence, it claims certainty, and even if contradictory evidence comes to light, faith has no use for it. With faith one becomes a hero, a tyrant or a fool, and one might argue, all three.

Some may have faith, may claim certainty, in logic and science, but its not required.

 

[Gear300]

I think I might see where you're coming from Joedawg; its sort of like saying: since the sun moves across the sky, it must then revolve around the Earth. It seems reasonable, but not necessarily true...is that sort of what you meant by the fallacy in induction?

 

[JoeDawg]

I think I might see where you're coming from Joedawg; its sort of like saying: since the sun moves across the sky, it must then revolve around the Earth. It seems reasonable, but not necessarily true...is that sort of what you meant by the fallacy in induction?

Well, induction is strictly a matter of using the past to predict the future. If you observe the sun move across the sky every day of your life, whether you know the mechanism or not, you could reasonably say that it will do the same tomorrow. You can't say for certain, regardless of how much information about the sun you have. We use the evidence of the past to predict the future.

The problem of induction is that tomorrow could be the one day its different. It could explode for instance, or just wink out and be gone.

 

[FlowerPUA]

I see it like this:

Michio Kaku has logic... i have faith in Michio Kaku

 

[Violator]

Joe, I think I have identified the real point of contention between yourself and I. We differ in our definitions of faith. Not to say yours is wrong or mine is right, merely that to me, to accept something without strong evidence or proof is to accept it on faith. You seem to be viewing faith as more of a final acceptance that seeks no more evidence or knowledge than what it already has. I say this because of your above post, I agree with everything accept your sentence, "Faith is really just an extension of irrational stubbornness." I think I just have a much less precise definition of faith, where as when you use the word you mean a specific type of belief.

 

[JoeDawg]

Joe, I think I have identified the real point of contention between yourself and I. We differ in our definitions of faith. Not to say yours is wrong or mine is right, merely that to me, to accept something without strong evidence or proof is to accept it on faith.

I have no problem with that definition.

You seem to be viewing faith as more of a final acceptance that seeks no more evidence or knowledge than what it already has.

Seeking evidence to support something you have faith in, simply means you seek to remove the faith part from what you believe. That doesn't really change the nature of faith however.

I say this because of your above post, I agree with everything accept your sentence, "Faith is really just an extension of irrational stubbornness." I think I just have a much less precise definition of faith, where as when you use the word you mean a specific type of belief.

Proof for induction simply doesn't exist as far as we know, or I have never seen it and I'm always happy to listen. The evidence for induction working is monstrous though, its why we accept it as valid, even without proof. Its part of our daily lives.

To equate that with faith, when the normal usage includes the supernatural is disingenuous is my opinion. There is no evidence for a creator, for instance, we simply don't know how or if the world started. What we do know is that most of the claims about a creator are clearly made up by those with an interest in doing so. Other claims, Muhammad ascending into heaven, Jesus walking on water, an eternal soul existing, etc... all are claims with little basis or no basis in fact.

Induction seems to work everyday, for everyone. We just can't prove it.

There are people who believe, based on evidence, that we didn't land on the moon. Even conspiracy nuts rely on evidence for their belief. Its not that you may not have, or want, evidence for your belief, its that you require none... if you have faith.