The defense of such faith sometimes rises to the level of condescension. Both would do well to take more seriously something I recall from my high school Catholic catechism. This is the distinction between the two sins against faith. But the other is presumption, the view that faith is somehow a form of knowledge. That is, that faith is an epistemic state of some sort that is self-validating.
Revelation is in a sense hearsay evidence, itself taken on faith.
There may be a serious problem in using revelation to establish faith and then appealing to faith to secure revelation. Natural science, rightfully, gives more credence to experiences that are immediate and reproducible. Of course, religions may also appeal to religious experiences of the divine and the holy, which are not tied to texts and revelation. The problem here lies in the authenticity of such experiences and the ability to distinguish them from more common psychological states. Often, there is a kind of literalism akin to idolatry that accompanies many interpretations of religious experience.