I would say yes. We take all kinds of things on faith because we have to. Things that seem obvious but are essentially unprovable. Just to take one example, I believe in a world external to my mind, populated by real people, not figments of my imagination. I can't prove it, but I take it on faith. ''
Another thing I take on faith is that I can trust causality to be regular. To be sure, there are occasions when causality seems to fail, but I assume that there are explanations vindicating causality. If I assume causality is really irregular, then there's no reason to be logical, is there?
The difference between that kind of faith is that it doesn't form the basis for baseless toxic activities. It doesn't lead me to discriminate against or kill people who don't share my beliefs. In fact, it has no real consequences at all other than to help me live day-to-day.
Believing on faith that there is an all knowing, all powerful, very judgmental, king-like being looming above everything can be used to discriminate falsely between good and bad people with punishments ranging from shunning to eternal hellfire.
I had a rather funny idea once about epistomology. Yah another big word, that I often mis-spell. There seems to be scaling or gage that one might use in reference to questions of knowledge/knowing: Truth, Knowledge, Belief.
For Truth: we might have actual apriori confidence in an assertion, such as a clear proof, or iron clad evidence. The statement '1 + 1= 2', is of this variety. Sadly, if you include vectors, '1 + 1= 2' would be 0 to 2, depending on how the vectors are added. Our reference frame for an assertion is important.
For Knowledge: we might have what appears to be very good evidence for an assertion, state of the world, or pattern of behaviors, but might be mostly based on some probability of being true given experience/observation. Generalizations concerning quantum mechanics, might of this variety.
For Belief: assertions are made that appear as Truth or Knowledge claims, but might not offer a means to proof or direct evidence. I see these as mostly the 'strings of letters, or words, that say something, but on closer investigation, seem untestable, improbable, or non-sensicle'. Some one might assert that '16 angels can dance on the head of a pin', but it is sadly very unlikely that we will be able to make such a measurement. Interviewing people for their opinion, on the 'number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin', seems likely to be even less insightful, but humor can spring from such an experiment.