But your use of the expression "religious faith" was ambiguous: it is not only religious faith as in "Spiritual" beliefs that are formed in "the absence of certitude".<quoted text>
Why do you say that I failed to consider that there may be validity in religion? I did. I also considered whether there was validity in astrology and Ouija boards.
I'd say that you are the one reintroducing the ambiguity that I am attempting to remove by not the using the word "faith" in two radically different ways in the same discussion. a clear cut example of an equivocation fallacy.
You don't even have to know about religion to form "religious faith" "in the absence of certitude".
You are nothing but a propagandist.