Credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I may understand).
Faith is but the first stepping stone to discovering truth. Even in logic this comes in the form of an axiom.
I sort of practice "faith" in a certain way; i.e., trying new things on a whim that they might work without any real evidence to show that they will, etc.
I just don't see any reason to apply this to spiritual inquiry or any other fundamentally unsolvable problem.
Yes you could conclude that, as did the Sophists did in ancient Greece. But if there is no truth, that begs a shitload of questions - as Socrates and Plato would point out.
Yes, and answering those questions is what philosophy is all about. imho, there doesn't need to be objective or universal truth in order for us to lead productive and happy lives.
Faith is not about finalized conclusions about unknowable subjects. Rather faith actually means placing trust in an uncertain truth; as opposed to the falling into the temptation of certain untruth. That's always been a problem, particularly within the Christian context.
Interesting way of putting it. Most Christians really do not understand faith, do they?
I am sure you are very tired of hearing Ti users debunk the logical inconsistencies of faith, so here is an Ne perspective that you may find interesting: I am all for placing trust in an uncertain truth,
when that truth or falsehood is ultimately verifiable. Things I'll never really know just always remain as unknowns--I use probability to guess at likely answers for them, but I never really find it necessary to arbitrarily decide the case is closed. Why should I?
I can intuitively trust in something that I have no particular evidence for, but only under the assumption that this something is inherently falsifiable. If it's not, what's the point of even asking whether or not it constitutes "truth"? This is my issue with faith in something unfalsifiable like God: you'll never be able to find out if you were right.
For instance--I will often cut to blunt and direct lines of questioning in situations where intuition is telling me that they will achieve the desired result despite conventional wisdom saying they won't. But I only trust this intuitive hunch because I will find out, sooner or later, whether or not I was right--this use of information from the external world allows me to check my own intuition for accuracy, which I feel is one significant advantage Ne has over Ni.
And so this leads me to my previously stated conclusion: that the value of religion is largely philosophic in nature, and great for some people because it's precisely what they need to hear to stay motivated. I do recognize that freely admitting this may ruin the value in faith for some, but I also know religious people who openly admit that their holy stories are probably not literally true, but that participating in religion fulfills external world goals to the extent that its internal consistency (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.
So the question is: Does it matter if you're wrong?