I have no issue with the quote you included. My only issue was with the idea that faith is a necessary part of having said sensory experiences. Whether or not it reflects a "real" world is immaterial.

Evidence and my fallible estimate of probability.

I don't trust I'm looking at something. I just have personal evidence that within my own experience, be it solipsistic or not, that interacting with the things identified by my senses has been effective at modifying my experience, solipsistic or not.

I do not have faith that I'm looking at something, I just do not have any evidence to suggest I am being misled. In the cases that I DO have evidence of being misled, such as optical illusions, I actively do not think I am looking at what I am seeing. And in such cases, no belief or trust is undermined, as it never existed in the first place.

That's an expectation derived from evidence. Thus, at least using the definitions I use, it is an antithesis of faith. Faith requires a belief in spite of a there being a lack of evidence or contradictory evidence.

The difference being, if a repeatable phenomenon does not repeat, a person's expectations simply change as the new evidence is included. This is based in proof, not faith, as faith requires some sort of apprehension or trust in something beyond the evidence. Thus, for a person using probability to influence their expectations, their understanding of the world is far more robust and flexible than one using faith.

I don't get on an airplane because I have faith in the pilot. I do it because the repeated phenomenon of planes landing safely allows me to adjust my expectations accordingly. I'd a plane crashes somewhere in the world, I would still probably be willing to get on a plane the next day, as the probability barely changes. If I had faith that airplanes don't crash, that faith would be far more shaken, as it seems that they do.

Similarly, I do not have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, as I understand that the sun is a celestial object that could be subject to any number of extremely rare astrological phenomenon that would destroy it. I do, however, expect the sun to rise, as I understand the probability of such an event is low.

Is that faith, or is it just an estimate using probability? Do I have faith that I can steal candy from a baby, or do I just suspect the chances are good?

To me, I don't have faith that my sensory experiences are reporting what is "real", I have just noticed if I try to impact the environment around me, it usually has a noticable effect.

To support this, think of a worm. They likely do not have a concept of faith, or the mental faculties to have faith. But they get sensory information that they use. Not because they have faith that their senses are reporting the truth, but because it their senses are the only source of ostensibly outside information that they have available, and they seem to be working correctly.

From a personal side, I had a giant retinal tear in each eye that made it look like tiny dot-like gnats were flying everywhere at all times (it was actually lots of floaters). While it was obnoxious, it did not shake my faith, I just learned to ignore the inputs that didn't seem to be correct. Then, when I actually came across a cloud of gnats, I relied on my other senses to confirm that they were, in fact, real. I didn't have to change my faith at any point, I just reacted to the inputs.

Then we are acting in order to impact that simulation, and we often think we see the results and consequences of our actions. Still no leap of faith, we are just not looking at what we thought we were.

>If I were a surgeon who felt nervous putting a patient on an operating table, the emotion of fear is quite valid in the reasoning to operate

On the contrary, emotion serves as a canary in the coal mine, but you still have to know what killed the canary. It doesn't play a prominent role in the reasoning to not operate, but it does indicate that there is likely a good reason to not operate you still need to identify.

Or, rather, the emotion alerts you to an issue, but you are not going to cancel the surgery and go to your boss or the patient and say "I got a bad feeling about it." You are going to investigate that feeling using reason to find what the true problem is. If, after a thorough investigation involving second opinions, you find nothing to be the problem, you will likely ignore or downgrade your emotional concerns as reason and evidence take clear precedence.

A similar thing arises with your concept of emotion on either side of an argument. It is not working in the same capacity as reason, and thus, is not replacing it (though it may distract). It is useful as a time saving heuristic to mentally debrief and provide your rational mind with a "second opinion" that may catch something it missed. IMHO, this is not a necessary practice in exercising reason, but it is a good practice to engage other parts of your mind to support your reasoning systems as they are anything but infallible.

>You do not have any obligations to them just because you are related.

I hear this a lot, and every time, I think it is missing something that causes it to contradict my (and others') lived experiences. Because we DO have obligations to our family just because we are related. The obligations are handed down through laws, social expectations, family tradition, religion, etc. We can choose to ignore these prescribed obligations, but that doesn't mean we aren't reminded of them.

Imho, the point should instead be that our obligations to ourselves and our well-being should usually take precedence over our obligations to our family. And our obligations to a family member can be annulled, at our discretion, through that family member's unacceptable behavior (and failing their obligations toward us).

To me, this is important as that inherent familial "obligation" built into our culture is also a source of great comfort and community for many people. In these uncertain times, knowing your family will be there for you is a source of security to many of those in precarious positions. In this, it's not very different than the obligations we have toward all fellow human beings: do not take them lightly, but do not consider them irrevocable if your well-being is at stake.

Or it's an environmental condition we need to address.

Lots of people contracted the black plague, that didn't make it any less real or serious.