Yazata, To give him his due, he has put some effort into justifying it. At least one of his books discusses it in detail. Yes, that seems to be the case. His definition, which I quoted, is in a book aimed at atheists, not one that is aimed at theists. He is not directly addressing theists in that book. One of his aims there is to explain to atheists what exactly he sees as the problem with faith. Were he to write a book aimed at convincing theists to "convert", I imagine it would be quite a different book. If faith is an irrational process, then I would say that it is, almost by definition, anti-intellectual. Whether being anti-intellectual is deplorable or not is a separate topic for discussion. I tried to distinguish different types of faith from one another in the opening post (and elsewhere). However, responders to this thread seem to want to keep smooshing the different types of faith together. I think that things like trust and hope and confidence play a part in lots of human acts. I'm not so sure about the kind of religious faith I started talking about. Yes, I agree that, in principle, anything could happen in the future. However, it usually doesn't. Yes. And I appreciate that this is no guarantee that it will go right on working. And yet, it seems to. I wouldn't call this faith, because it is an evidence-based belief. That is, the belief that the universe operates in a lawful, orderly manner rather than a chaotic, lawless one, is based on abundant evidence. I quite agree that technically there is no guarantee that this universal lawfulness will continue into the future, but there's zero evidence to suggest that it won't and a lot of evidence to suggest that it will. Yesterday, and last week and five years ago, I was in the same position as I am right now with regard to the question of whether the universe will continue as usual tomorrow. And it always did on all those past occasions. This assumption of regularity and lawfulness is one that we all must make, or else we wouldn't be able to plan ahead. This brings us back to the question of the thread title: is faith a reliable path to knowledge? In science, it would seem that the answer is: no. Agree? Again, I don't think we're too far apart on this. Regarding Canada, it seems to me that you've just listed some objective evidence that Canada exists, like: you've lived there, there was a TV broadcast from there, and so on. Now, it could be that you labour under a delusion (which many other people apparently share) that Canada makes TV programmes and therefore is a place where people live and so on. In principle, I could check these claims for myself (e.g. search for Canadian TV, check up on your background, try to go to Canada to see it for myself etc.). The evidence would either tend to support your claims or refute them. Again, it is possible that all this supposed evidence is somehow concocted, perhaps to make me think that Canada exists when really it doesn't. Maybe you lied about living there. Maybe those supposed Canadian TV shows are faked in a US studio somewhere. Maybe I'm brainwashed or otherwise fooled into believing I went to Canada when really I didn't. The point is: the balance of evidence available to me strongly suggests that Canada exists, so strongly in fact that any leap-of-faith element involved in my accepting that Canada is a real place is insignificant. We appear to be mostly in agreement, then. One more question might be: to what degree do you think faith is required to believe that God exists, and do you think that a higher degree of faith is necessary than is necessary in order to believe that Canada exists?