Faith inquiry

 As Chatpilot notes in the previous essay, true believers just find excuses to revel in woo.
 In the end no matter how defined, faith is blind!
  Haughty John Haught warns against faith as blind faith, noting the  bad fruits thereof and describes faith as enveloping the entire being, whilst Alister Earl McGrath that first the believers gathers the evidence and then uses faith as certitude. Either way promotes no free inquiry as those who practice either remain ensconced in their beliefs, despite new evidence, I think.
   We naturalists find science and other matters tentative so we cannot have some belief envelop us or have certitude about it - probability rules. Oh, evolution is not itself tentative but parts of it is for sure: how much does natural selection rule and other evolutionary forces rule. With theists, they can yes, disregard the evils of their scriptures but never the basis for their superstition as the supernatural has no basis and rests on  misinterpretations of evidence.
   This is not special pleading as we have gargantuan evidence for evolution itself ,whilst none comes forth for theism.
     Theists as he notes can excuse mattes yet still cling to their superstition. 
      May some viewer make this clearer!