Let me emphasize (again, i believe, i believe i said this before) that one can be a skeptic and still be a theist, or an agnostic or an atheist. I get mildly torqued off at people who insist that an atheist must, perforce, deny that there is a god. This is central to a naïve, simple-minded argument peddled by some agnostics who want to claim the moral high ground on the issue of "to god or not to god." There was quite a prolonged and bitter argument over this subject here several years ago. The simple-minded agnostic position is that theists and atheists are both sets of believers, who just hold polar opposite belief sets. Therefore, according to the so-called logic of their position, they have the intellectually and morally superior position, because they acknowledge that they don't know. However, if pressed, they cannot deal with (and often become hostile and abusive as a result) the question of why they would put more emphasis on agnosticism with regard to god, but not toward, for example, fairies, pixies and elves. That's why i brought that up before. In the end, this agnostic position becomes more and more ridiculous. So, should we be agnostic about the effect of red lights? If one approaches an intersection and has a green light for one's direction of travel, does one still stop--after all, one cannot know to a certainty that cross traffic will stop, and the 0nly option is to take it on faith.
I use the intersection with traffic lights as a metaphor to compare blind faith to informed faith. I drive through an intersection with a green light not on blind faith, but the informed faith that i and virtually everyone i've ever seen stops for a red light, and that it is therefore safe to proceed. Blind faith would just assume you can blast through any intersection anywhere at any time because god will protect your silly, deluded Protestant ass.