With regards to gravity as an example, gravity itself is a
   fictitious force. Gravity does not exist. Gravity is a result of
   spacetime warping.

   [doesn't stop ppl from looking for gravitons still, but I tend
   to think that Einstein got this one on the mark]

   But that's a digression:

   Let me make the equivalence again and yes, I think it might be
   due to some baggage attached to how we usually use the term
   faith:

   "A mild view of God, a Theosophical view of God/Universe, random
   fluctuations in spacetime due to indeterminate quantum states,
   are no different from each other. All magical thinking."

   Here is an example of a mild view of God.

   "There's something more than what we can fully describe yet but
   it's there and it works. I call it God"

   Theosophical view of the Universe/God, "The Universe does what
   it does and we're a part of it".

   Random fluctuations, "We can't measure randomness but it's there
   and does what it does"

   These are my own off the cuff definitions but I hope it conveys
   the 'gist' of my argument.

   In other words, strip away the baggage and you're leading a
   normal everyday life. Three identical people can the same thing
   by three different names:

   One says God. One says Universe. One says Randomness.

   None of them put any more power into it than covering up the "I
   don't know".

   Of course there's further distinctions possible. But I don't
   have a problem with a mild view of God, a mild view of "the
   Universe/Nature", a mild view of "it's random" being equivalent.

   I'm not speaking of theologians (case 1), prophets (case 2),
   statisticians/quantum theorists (case 3) but rather the attitude
   of the everyday joe.

   Being "magical thinking" doesn't necessarily make it a bad
   thing. I'm not talking unseen pink farting unicorns in the
   bathtub of gold. But rather, everyday magical thinking, a view
   that doesn't make much of a difference to one's life either way,
   but it helps place a small filler in the uncertain gaps so we
   can get on with our lives.   It's a bit of a blanket statement
   to say that " Religion bolsters faith by never changing its
   tenets. "
   Of course they do.
   Not all do, but reasonable religions change their tenets upon
   the face of evidence that maybe they were going about things the
   wrong way.
   Even in Science; Science doesn't GENERALLY throw away a
   basically good idea but rather refines it. There's a few drastic
   examples of throwing away a totally bad theory but a generally
   good one just gets refinement.

   Example: Newton. Generally great stuff. Good for many purposes.
   We got to the moon and back on Newton rather than Etinstein.

   But Einstein in one sense, made Newton wrong. One could easily
   throw away much of Newton. But why throw away when you can
   refine the definitions?

   In religions beliefs, God or Gods is a given. In the Sciences,
   the Scientific Method is a given.

   Challenges to scientific method (among philosopher of science
   for example) are met with scoff and skepticism from
   practitioners of the sciences.

   Challenges to God/gods is met with scoff and septicism among
   practitioners of religions.

   Questioning Logic to a Philosopher might be another example.

   First three centuries of Christiandom showed refinement of the
   system. Modern Science does much the same.

   Better explanations for what are considered underlying
   principles in each of the systems are always coming, always
   changing, hopefully improving.

   Move away from the extremes and towards the middle of the road.
   Look for the convergence rather than the divergence. It's there.