If philosophy is ascribed to the critical thinkers, science to the observers, and faith to the poignant, on those premises, I fancy skepticism to a sensibly observant thinker, though admittedly somewhat after layering an overtone of emotive partisanship atop divine subscription. Yet I would question whether or not if there’s ultimately a more intelligible orientation and curriculum to having faith than just having faith, but it does more often than not appear as commercialized and as outstandingly trivialized as the contents of a self-help book or a 12-step program.

Are the faiths and moralities in the hands of the most affirmed and resolute believers in god(s) ultimately just appeals to consequences, or am I miserably failing to see the bigger picture? Yet the timbre of Pascal’s Wager is echoed throughout the ages, over and over again, as undeniably present whereas my stance is ever uncompelled; it’s not being intellectually honest. I can’t request an intellectual appeal from faith as long as cosmological and ontological arguments, appeals to and from ignorance, beauty, design (along with a full clutch of logical fallacies that are ironically supplied as valid evidences) are its strong-arms.

One of the reasons the classic believer is unsuccessful to induce the observant thinker is because anecdotal episodes are not very dependable data and are remarkably exempt to the ordeal of repeatable scrutiny, almost conveniently, as follows:

“Article A exists.”
“Well, where’s the evidence for article A so that I can examine the veracity of your claim?”
“I just feel it in my heart because of experiences A, B, and C. My faith is my evidence that proves article A’s existence.”
“That helps neither you nor me much, if even at all. If article A can be tangibly perceived and comprehended as you state, I demand its tangible evidence before I believe. You can believe that article A exists, but you can’t necessarily prove it, while I can disbelieve that article A exists, but can’t necessarily disprove it.”
“Just have faith and then it’ll all make sense.”

With circular logic in prime form, the skeptic is insisted to have faith (in the teller’s personal judgment and perceptive prowess) in order to attain and ascertian the plausibility of faith. And that possible scenario usually entails with a subtle prerequisite to forgo all the tested and collected knowledge that the skeptic has obtained heretofore and begin afresh with a prescription to a creator god, to “simply reimage your world view and see things from the spectacles of faith.”