Yes, I believe so.
If a person has "faith" in the idea that we live in a random, chancy universe, I would describe that situation as a very "low-quality" belief. For it doesn't really explain anything.
But what if that's the truth? What if there really is no ultimate explanation? Note that I'm not claiming that's the case. But wouldn't that make it a high-quality belief, if it corresponded to actual Reality?
For as rational beings, we have access to an order that transcends the purely natural.
A long time ago I read a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind--you've probably heard of it--that postulated that ancient people (but recent enough to be recognizable) got input from the right hemispheres of their brains in the form of auditory hallucinations that they interpreted as messages from the gods. To them, in other words, it appeared to be access to an order that transcended the natural. But to us, with what we know about the brain, it has an entirely natural explanation. I'm not as confident as you that the access we think we have to transcendent orders (and yes, I've experienced it) are not natural phenomena we just don't have the knowledge to explain yet.
Betty states it correctly...."For it doesn't really explain anything." It seems we need to understand what is meant by faith. First, faith and reason are not hostile to each other. Faith, it seems to me, requires notia(an understanding), assensus (assent of the intellect to the truth), and fiducia (trust). Trust is based upon understanding, knowledge and assent to truth. Belief rests on belief that. Trust, it seems to me, is what we intellectually assent to. Belief rests on that trust. Another way to consider these matters for the Christian is Romans 10:14, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him unless they hear, and how shall they hear without a preacher? In the final analysis, Faith in Christ depends on one coming to Him as a little child. But, scientism is not ordered by the Christian faith. Scientism has its basis in presuppositional assumptions (their faith). So, how do we try to come to know the truth? Well, we must examine what is truth. Knowledge is defined as warranted true belief. One may live in Denver and say, "It is raining in Nairobi". That is a fact statement. The person has never been to Nairobi, or talked to anyone living there, nor have any meteorological data regarding it raining. But, that Denverite says he knows it is raining there. He has no justification or warrant to understand that his statement is true, but he makes the claim. That is not knowledge. It is a belief. It may or may not be true.
So how do we investigate for truth? How do we investigate for a metaphysical truth? Answer: The same way science examines...by First Principles, observation, philosophical considerations, induction, and application of a method or experiment.
So, when you say high-quality belief (I am unclear as to exactly what that is) seems to be perhaps descriptive, but not epistemic in explanation.
Reality? This is the subject of a book in-and-of itself, so I will not go into this other than to say, REALITY, is that which corresponds to the way things are.
With reference to your last paragraph you seem to equate the brain with mind or any mental event. They are not the same entity, though they are always proximately associated. Your last sentence is worth repeating, "I'm not as confident as you that the access we think we have to transcendent orders (and yes, I've experienced it) are not natural phenomena we just don't have the knowledge to explain yet". Here, you arrive at the point of Betty, met mom, and myself. This is that you have faith that we do not yet have the knowledge to explain things, YET. This is your, and all metaphysical naturalists, article of faith. This is your presupposition. It is not warranted truth. Speculation, yes. Hopeful expectation, yes.
Sounds like just another "just-so story" to me. Blame the primitives. They were ignoramuses. We know better than they did, today. Because we know something they didn't know: That mental phenomena are merely epiphenomena of processes in the physical brain. And as such, can have no value or meaning. Sheesh....