By the way, about what you said: "asks that a 'faith' be substantiated by reason and fact and empirical proof"....

Well, yeah! All human beings have a very strong desire to substantiate anything and everything they are interested in by their reason (they all attempt it to the best of their ability), by facts (they all appreciate finding out facts if they can), and by empirical proof (ditto)...but there is much in life that we are normally quite unable to secure ANY facts or empirical proof of...though we all hope to...so that's where faith comes in...to cover what we don't yet have confirmation of in an empirical sense.

Faith is what is applied to anything that one has not yet been able to substantiate through the perfectly natural processes of direct observation and accumulation of facts and empirical evidence.

For example:

It is a matter of faith to believe that Jesus (the man) actually existed. It is equally a matter of faith to believe that he didn't. We don't have much (if anything) in the way of empirical evidence to prove the validity of either one of those articles of faith.

To think, however, that he probably existed...or that he probably didn't...is a matter of subjective opinion, based on a host of subjective impressions that vary from one person to another, but it's not based on empirical evidence. Neither is it faith. It's merely a conjecture....a "best guess" based on what one thinks of as probabilities.

I think he probably existed and I think it for one very simple reason:

I've seen exactly how a religion (or any religious group) starts, and I've read about how a great many of them have started, and they virtually always, if not absolutely ALWAYS, start because of one unusual or remarkable human being, someone with a LOT of charisma, and someone who many people are VERY impressed by when they're around him (or her).

That's how religions start. They don't start with a book. They don't start with a committee. They don't start with an organization.

They start with one charismatic person, and the books and committees and churches and rules and organizations all come later, in reaction to the remarkable accomplishments and personality and example of that one original charismatic person. That's why I think Jesus probably existed. If he had not existed, the whole darned thing never would have gotten launched in the first place. Something else would have happened...or not...depending on who else was around at the time with that sort of charisma (and there were others too). There are usually some people like that around here and there...though they are quite rare amongst the general populace. Some start major religions. Others start minor ones. Others start new political movements. Others start cults and secret orders. Others become pop stars. But it always starts with a very charismatic person who inspires other people...and they become followers, fans, party members, whatever.

Some of these charismatic people are seen as heroes by posterity. Some are seen as villains. Some remain obscure. Others become enduring legends and their lives change the world, for better or for worse.

Buddha. Zoroaster. Jesus. Mao. Hitler. Martin Luther. Gandhi. Mohammed. Abraham. Moses. Lao-Tse. Churchill. Mussolini. Alexander the Great. Caesar. And many, many more. You find one of them at the heart of every new religion, every new political creed, etc.

They are not all spiritually minded, and they're not all found in religious life, but they all have one thing in common: they inspire tremendous faith in their followers and this has a tremendous effect on many people.

To believe that there was no Jesus (the man) is a bit like believing that a tidal wave or a landslide happened, and yet there was no cause for it. No original motive force to kick it off and get the ball rolling. I doubt that. My reason tells me that that is highly unlikely, because there is always an original motive force behind any new movement (physical or social). There has to be. Simple cause and effect. Elementary, my dear whoever. ;-)

If the writers of the New Testament ALL wanted to start up a new religion (and they clearly did) they would never have even gotten the idea to do that if not for the prior example set by one charismatic individual. That's how these things happen.

I am making no other-worldly religious claims regarding Jesus or what he may have done. None at all. I'm simply saying he...a single charismatic individual...had to be there as the original most significant motive cause that got the whole ball rolling....just as Mohammed or Buddha or Hitler or Mao had to be there. In Jesus' case, he'd probably be more than a bit perturbed if he saw just where that ball has rolled in the last 2,000 years! I'm betting that he would be quite upset about it. That's my "best guess".