Faith is a chief virtue in Christianity. Consider how faith is singled out alongside hope, and love in 1 Corinthians 13:13 as something of great importance for a Christian to abide in. Consider Hebrews 11's "Hall of Faith", extolling Biblical figures for their faith, and statement that "without faith it is impossible to please" God (Hebrews 11:6). And, consider all of the passages in the Bible saying that a person is saved through their faith (Ephesians 2:8-9, John 6:47, etc.).
Faith's status as a virtue seems to come from the idea that if one has great faith, it reveals a good disposition toward God, or a willingness to please God. Someone who is quick to believe is ostensibly quick to believe because they want something which is good and spiritual to be true, and since in Christian theology, the things they are supposed to have faith in (e.g. the Resurrection, the Second Coming) are true, it is seen as basically accepting God-ordained testimony of God's dealings with humanity, exactly as He intended.
There is also the idea that faith betrays a certain level of humility when it is used to mean "trust". When "faith" is used to mean "trust", it is seen as shunning a prideful attitude of "I can do this myself", and instead, letting go, and placing one's fate in God's/Jesus's hands, or entrusting oneself to them.
Additionally, there is a certain mysteriousness about faith in Christianity, as if it is a tangible entity, or a concrete substance which can be dispensed, exemplified by statements like, "God has allotted to each a measure of faith" (Romans 12:3), or Jesus discussing "faith the size of a mustard seed" (Matthew 17:20, Luke 17:6). Almost like a person is a spiritual battery of sorts, and their level of charge is measured in faith.
This article's thesis is that "faith" only ever means "believing something", including in each of the senses in which it is used in Christianity. It is nothing more than holding a proposition as being true. In this sense, every person has faith, and all of someone's knowledge can be reduced to faith - a person's "knowledge" is nothing more than what they believe to be true.
There are two kinds of faith in this view:
Notice above the extremely important role "evidence" occupies in faith. Suppose someone believes the proposition "My mother has said that she loves me". Strong evidence would be something like a clear memory of hearing her say "I love you" while one was sober. Stronger evidence would be a video, or voice recording of her saying it. Somewhat weaker evidence would be one's brother telling them that she said it. Even weaker evidence would be one's brother telling them that she said it 20 years ago. And so on.
So, all knowledge is on a spectrum of evidence. This is inescapable. It is not a negative thing, rather, it is just a fact that if one accepts a proposition as being true, they either have reasons for doing so, or they do not. Those reasons are then on a spectrum of strength/validity, depending on what they are.
Applying this framework to the Christian notions of "faith" discussed in the first section of this article clarifies several things:
First - the various Christian notions of "faith" are all reducible to the same thing, as discussed in the section above - accepting that a proposition is true. Faith as "trust" is accepting a proposition regarding the capability of God or Jesus to keep one safe. Faith as "allegiance" is accepting a proposition regarding how someone should act in light of what they already believe about God/Jesus. Faith as "hope" is accepting a proposition about what will happen in the future. Faith regarding past events is accepting propositions regarding what took place in the past. And so on.
Second - having "faith" in Christian parlance usually just means having a weaker degree of evidence. Consider the following example:
Christians would usually say that only Michael has faith. In reality, they both have faith, but Isaiah has more/stronger evidence (his own eyes) than Michael. But, why is it better to be Michael? How is it more noble to accept worse evidence?
Suppose Michael has been lied to in the past, and wasted 40 years of his life believing a false religion. So, Michael resolves to require an extremely high standard of evidence for religious claims, in order to guard against living a life of deception, sinning against God, and leading others astray. And, suppose he disqualifies ancient writings as providing valid proof, because he is too far removed from the events to know with certainty whether the testimony is trustworthy or not. And, noticing a pattern in his own life of having been burned by bad testimony, and having seen a pattern in others of them also being burned, this leads him to disqualify the Bible as a valid form of evidence for his beliefs, leading him to reject Jesus.
This would be more noble than having the Christian notion of faith, not less noble. What would be universally called a "lack of faith" in Christian circles actually means that instead of weak evidence, one requires strong evidence. Both groups have evidence, and both believe what they believe based on evidence. The difference is that Christians believe for reasons that are in reality very fragile, and very subject to fraud, and exaggeration.
To caveat this, there is such a thing as being unreasonable in the opposite direction. Suppose someone decides, "even if I see it with my own eyes, I will not believe". Barring their awareness of having a mental illness which produces hallucinations, this would also demonstrate a flawed epistemology. Generally speaking, first-hand experiential evidence should be enough for someone to conclude for themselves that something is true, provided they were sober, and that they saw/experienced the event clearly enough to make a proper determination.
But, this does not apply to the Biblical evidence. Relatively speaking, the Bible's evidence is terrible. Chiefly, it is weak because the Bible contains many historical and scientific issues which individually weaken its trustworthiness. Added together, these things combine to make the Bible's trustworthiness far lower than even other second-hand or third-hand accounts would be. Add to these considerations the Bible's age, and a modern person's distance from the events/figures mentioned, and one can conclude that to accept the claims of the Bible represents a very flawed epistemology, which accepts evidence that is, on average, far too weak to be responsibly used to form the basis for a worldview. That does not change, even if every member of the group will love-bomb someone for accepting the evidence that they all accept, or call one ignoble or "faithless" for rejecting their weak and uncompelling evidence.
Additionally, notice that Christians (rightly) do not treat their view of faith as a virtue, when it is applied to other belief systems. They recognize the danger of accepting religious testimony too easily. Their view of faith only becomes noble when it is applied to Christianity. When scrutinizing other religions, their criteria becomes much more rigorous and evidence-based. This is because when determining what to believe, the only criteria that matters is evidence. It is morally irresponsible to exempt Christianity from that standard.
The basis for knowledge is evidence. A responsible person has a duty to raise their standard of evidence for their beliefs to a level that prevents them from living a life of deception, and deceiving others. When someone does this, the Bible is disqualified as a valid form of evidence for their worldview. This does not make them "faithless" - everyone has "faith". Rather, it makes them diligent. Applying a healthy level of scrutiny to claims, especially fantastic claims, especially fantastic claims that form the basis for one's worldview, is a virtue, not a vice.