By that standard you're calling most religions that have ever existed superstitions as most religions have tried to explain the world...
Well, yeah. I think we can agree the idea of a "personal God" is a modern invention, and one not found in many.
Most people of faith believe the things they believe in are possible. If they actually thought them impossible they wouldn't believe them. All you are suggesting is that the mental gymnastics required for faith go well beyond regular self-deception, which in no way implies it's a good thing.
Seriously, did you write this and that other sentence just to sound deep but have no actual discernible meaning?
I admit that wasn't a very good post - I try not to spend more than five minutes of my daily life on religious debate, but I've dug my own hole in a way here. I'll make my points clearer:
-I think this whole idea of finding God through superstition is ridiculous, because it leads to epistemically unsound reasoning (i.e. "God made everything"). There is also no guarantee this God revealed through evidence is the same God that will listen to your deepest secrets, and to believe that's the case requires a leap of faith yourself.
-"Faith eschews attempts": The faithful is not in such despair that they need to justify their way of viewing the world to others. The world is taken as is. The faithful does not believe in order to maintain a certain position to others, but to reassure themselves.
-Most people of faith do believe the things they believe in are possible, but not at the present moment. The religious, when seeing one of their predictions fail, go through the mental gymnastics. Those of faith accept the fact and continue in their belief. There is considerably less mental gymnastics applied then one whose worldview is still grounded in the empirical.
-"Faithful engrosses himself": Following what I said about the religious and their empirical reasoning, their empirical reasoning runs into problems when they run into a lack of knowledge about certain things. Their attempts to grasp some fact to fill that lack can be painful and traumatising; that is what I mean by "tainted reason". The faithful instead skips over those holes, and holds onto their belief in spite of them. Both the religious and the faithful may end up believing in a thing which actually exists, but the latter has not gone through the despair of the former.
-I responded to Yelnoc's claim that "everything you have faith in is a lie". That is an exaggeration. Certainly faith involves a disregard of knowing, but no more. And, being the imperfect creatures we are, a disregard of knowing may help us reach what is true faster.
Again, my beliefs on the subject are distortions of Kierkegaard's writings. I stand by them. Please call me crazy if you believe that's the case, but look up some Sparknotes on Kierkegaard at least. People forget his existentialist philosophy and instead focuses on the stuff churned out by postwar Frenchmen.