Here's a nice place to illustrate the difference between religious faith and evidence based trust.http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/1 0/news/economy/chained-cpi-soc ial-security/index.html Here he is,all you poor black folks in America! He takes from the rich,he takes from the dirt poor! He's 'ROBBIN' in tha' Hood'!!
Consider simplyput's proud mantra, "you could not begin to turn any of us Christians into atheist or to make us turn from our FAITH." With that attitude, nothing could possibly make him stop believing that his government would be there for him when he needed it. But the evidence suggests otherwise.
The willingness to believe only as much as the evidence supports, and the willingness to increase or decrease that level of trust as new evidence comes along, is what characterizes rational skepticism.
Yes, you could say that I have lost faith in that government, and that is technically correct. But if I want somebody to understand that I don't just pick my preferred reality and rigidly claim certitude that it is true so much so that I refuse to evaluate conflicting evidence, I'll use a less ambiguous term. I might say that I no longer trust the government to look out for my interests instead.
Consider this: "you could not begin to turn any of us Americans into skeptics concerning our government, or to make us turn from our FAITH in it."
If you take that attitude, you might be in for a cold, hungry retirement. Obviously, blind faith - rigid certitude uninterested in evidence - can be a costly mistake.
To a (religious) faith based thinker, there is still such a thing as social security, whereas to a reality and evidence based thinker who might have been counting on that money, it is social insecurity. That's the difference between faith based thought and evidence based thought.