Many English words have more than one meaning or connotation, which a careful thinker will take care to distinguish. In most cases, the meaning or connotation of a word can be established by the context in which it was used.
For example, the word "faith" has several connotations, including trustworthiness (he is a man of good faith) confidence in something (when we sit on a chair we have faith it will no collapse beneath us) or confidence in someone (most of us have faith in our doctors) or religious faith (no one can prove there is a God, you must accept it by faith).
Since this thread is about philosophy and religion, it is obviously "faith" in the last sense that is meant by, "faith is what individuals who hate the truth settle for."
When someone intentionally uses a word with one connotation, such as faith meaning "confidence in another," to justify or put over the another meaning of the word, such as faith meaning, "blind credulity," as in religion, it is essentially dishonest. I know that is not your intention, of course, and that you were only mistaken about the different connotations of the word. This is why we have to be so careful about the exact meaning of words.
Hank
Aristotle made it clear that there are undemonstrable first principles, a feature common to both philosophy and religion.
Strawman. You define "faith" as "blind credulity", and then refute it. When I use the word in he context of my faith in God, I mean precisely "confidence in another".
You have every right to doubt that the other is actually there. But your critique of the word "faith" simply reflects your a priori definition, which definition -- voila! -- contains the conclusion you like.
Perhaps not dishonest, but circular, lacking insight, and oh, so old.