Faith begs the question of its subject, and thus can never instantiate Him. Faith is the we just say so of credulity. Science is acquired knowledge whilst, as Sydney Hook notes, faith begs the question of being knowledge.
Reason moves mountains of ignorance whilst faith relies on the argument from ignorance!
Faith is more than just trust and embracing wholeheartedly ones God; it is the underpinning of supernaturalism with obstinancy. Alister Earl McGrath would have us think that to have faith is just to have trust, and thus trust in Him is the same as trust in science. Nay, science embraces facts whilst no facts support supernaturalism. When people doubt that He exists, others blabber, just have faith, which means that obstinancy rather than trust as one must overcome doubts with evidence as in any rational endeavor. We naturalists don’t dwell in scientifsm that view that only science can deliver. We note other rational sources of knowledge: all which depend on evidence.
Haughty John Haught excoriates us naturalists for not permitting other venues of knowledge, but that begs the question of those venues of knowledge. Fr. Lemaitre was right to tell the then pope not to seize upon the Big Bang as evidence for God. My fellow skeptic John L. Schellenberg errs in claiming that we naturalists also should not rely on contemporary science as it will ever change, but that is the glory of science! That is why we depend on it!
We rely on whatever knowledge that can change, because we value the truth rather than the Truth for all time!
Alexander Smoltczyk, German journalist, prattles that God is neither a principle nor an entity nor a person but the Ultimate Explanation of everything. That supports ignosticism, because if He is neither an entity nor a person, then He cannot instantiate Himself as that explanation!
Karen Armstrong, with her apothaticism, maintains that He is neither this nor that as one cannnot explicate what He is, but thereby affriming ignosticism, because if one cannot explicate what He is, one has no case whatsoever! And I already dispose of the case for the reverse, cataphaticism !
Therefore, it seems to me, that these two and others acturally see Him as a metaphor. A metaphor for what? What we ignostics then proclaim is that that is what Paul Edwards calls a bombastic redefinition!
Neither faith nor postulation nor definition can instantiate Him!
Furthermore, it misserves people to prattle that actually they are in a relationship with what Martin Buber calls a thou [God]rather than an it. Without evidence, they only are entertaining us with an imaginary friend! All relgious experience is just people’s mental states at play! To allege that we naturalists beg the question against supernaturalists as my fellow atheist Jonathon Harrison^ does is itself to beg the question, because that assumes that indeed a supernatural power can effect natural phenomena!
We fallibilists quite openly acknowledge that we could be wrong! Nevertheless, until supernaturalism is verified otherwise, ignosticism rules.
^ Harrison, ” God, Freedom and Immortality”