In a previous response, Adam said that I am "labouring under a faulty defintion of faith, namely that faith means 100% blind faith at all times."
This is not what I said. Faith is related to the volume of evidence. If you have sufficient evidence, why do you need to call it faith?
Of course you can say we have faith in induction or that the sun will rise tomorrow, but this makes the term meaningless. The less evidence one has for something the more faith it takes to believe it, therefore to say that someone's faith is fact based, is paradoxical.
