Ok, so I would disagree on how pisteuo (faith/belief) is to be understood.
As far as I can see Jesus and the earliest Christians didn’t make “faith” into some kind of special class of blind belief.
The Greek word for “faith” is a cognate of the verb “believe”. The word “faith” in English tends to have religious and anti-evidential connotations, the Greek word group did not have these connotations.
The Greek words tend to convey something more along the lines of trust (when speaking about a person) or belief. Just as these English words don’t necessarily entail anything about how trust or belief were formed the same is true for the Greek words. The words themselves do not include nor exclude any particular evidential or non-evidential understanding among the earliest Christians.
To understand how the Earliest Christians thought about the nature of faith/belief/trust we have to look beyond those words.
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed .
Here Luke provides a preface to his Gospel, an account of the life of Jesus.
He explains why he has written his Gospel,
“so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed”
Luke is writing so that the reader can make a reasoned judgment of “the truth” of the Gospel, about Jesus. From this we may ask what is it that enables Luke’s document to function as something that would allow the reader to make an informed judgment about Jesus.
Was it “God said it, therefore believe it?”
Was it “Trust purely in your subjective religious experience.”?
No, it was none of those or anything like those. Instead Luke describes how he wrote his document in the way of an ancient historian,
Something Happened: to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
There were witnesses to what happened: who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word
These witnesses proclaimed what happened: just as they were handed on to us
Luke took it upon himself to undertake the task of the historian and investigate the veracity of the story of Jesus: I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account
From this we gain some insight into how some early Christians thought about their trust in Jesus. It wasn’t something that had to be automatic or beyond the normal realm of human experience. Luke undertook the very normal procedure of historical investigation to understand, evaluate, and present Christian claims, in accordance with how ancient historiography was practiced.
We can also look at incident concerning the response to news about Jesus’ resurrection,
Thomas , one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.” Thomas (who was called the Twin) one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Thomas did not believe the other disciples when they told him of Jesus’ resurrection. When Jesus met with Thomas, Jesus acquiesced to Thomas’s evidential criteria.
As far as the earliest Christians were concerned blind acceptance was not the way they thought about the gospel message. The gospel message about Jesus could be investigated and evaluated on grounds within the realm of normal human inquiry.
Your proposal seems to be a form of fideism to me. I find two primary problems with this,
How can we trust the realm of the religious if it is beyond and never comes in contact with critical thought? What happens when a person’s supposed religious land comes into conflict with critical thought? Without critical thought being an active participant with every belief we form there is no control, no way to correct our thoughts, the land of religious belief is merely the imaginary playground of the religious thinker.
Why should religious belief be something that denies our biological toolkit and the normal way we interact with reality?