Belief without Verification or Certainty

[Belacqua]

James recognizes that verified knowledge is stronger precisely on account that it is less prone to error. THAT is what the skeptic does, according to James: he avoids error. (Also, "justified knowledge" may be the better term, I agree.)

I'm also inclined to think that "verified" may be on the strong side for what you're talking about. To me it has a nuance of certainty. 

If the passengers in the train have verified (by subtle communications among themselves, unheard by the robbers) that all will rise as one, then much less faith is required to act. 

I looked in the dictionary just now, and I see that the definitions for "verify" and "justify" are almost the same, except that it says a "justified decision" may be a "reasonable" one, not simply a proved one. To me, that's the space where it gets interesting -- what is reasonable, despite a lack of total verification. In what cases are we justified in going ahead when we have 51% confidence, rather than 99% confidence. 

At the simplest level, as has been pointed out, a total lack of faith means you won't even try. And if you don't try you're bound to fail. There has to be some adequate feeling that success is at least in the realm of possibility, and then the mere fact that you're making an effort raises the chances above 0%. But we have to factor in desire, also. If you think the chances are 10%, but you don't want it very much, then you might not make the effort. If you really really want it, you would surely increase the odds, just because you'd put in more effort. 

(And I know you're not ready for the religious angle yet, but most Christians say that their faith is justified, by experience and by history. We may not buy that, but to them, it's not a matter of total faith in the complete absence of evidence.)