Good post, Bramble. I think I see a faith, insofar as any such thing as being consistent as being based on a set of beliefs. A person may hold those beliefs and think they are actually pieces of knowledge having never grasped the issues of knowledge. A person may hold those beliefs as beliefs but never challenged them. My take is that someone who holds them as beliefs, and has challenged them will have a faith that is more likely to stand up to further scrutiny than one that has not been examined.
While I am not sure that I agree with the contrast between belief and faith in the second para, I think that there is an element of trust that someone might have in their faith based on their own experience of challenging that might be seen as a letting go. In that it becomes less import for the person to explain or insist on their correctness as they understand that other's have their own version. There are often debates where it seems to me those with faith construct a set of attempts at argument, William Lane Craig's (in)famous five, would be one that seem adrift from their actual faith, adrift from their internal reasons to believe.
Now, of course, I may be wrong in this since I'm not much of a believer in anything, and certainly not a one with a strong faith but the people whose faith I have challenged who were least upset by it, and who were able to adjust their views have always been those who had already spent most time challenging themselves. I think there cones a time when you can have too many doubts to have a strong faith and then one might react badly to challenge, or too few and then one might not understand the challenge but I was using strong in the sense of well tempered.
