This question has been on my mind for a while, so I would be absolutely grateful for any feedback and discussion. The argument itself won't be very formal.

I am inclined to think that faith has little or no epistemic value.

Let me define faith first. I'm using faith as it pertains to organized religion, especially the Abrahamic tradition: trust or confidence in religious authority. This religious authority would be the clergy and scripture. That being said, I think it would be fair to say that although people believe in the existence of a God with very particular traits (answers prayers, smites evildoers, etc.), they do so because they trust and obey the authority of the religious institution. (Are these fair assumptions to make?)

For example, say I walk in to a church and ask a priest about truth (truth, as it pertains to a deity). The priest replies that God is three distinct persons within one entity. That is all there is to it: it is considered a divine mystery, and cannot be questioned further as it derives its authority from scripture.

That being said, I think faith has little epistemic value because it chiefly derives legitimacy from authority. Authority on its own is not a sufficient justification for knowledge.

For example, say my math teacher shows us some equations on the board, and asks us to solve some practice problems using those equations. Even though I 'know of' the equation and utilize it to solve problems, do I really possess knowledge if I am simply plugging in numbers? I am inclined to think no: perhaps there is a distinction between "knowing of" a subject and "being familiar with" a subject. The latter being closer to whatever true knowledge may be. In other words, for me to possess mathematical knowledge, I must first understand why the equation works in the first place.

That being said, an institution is only given authority if it is given authority. Consequently, I would conclude that the Catholic Church, for example, only has legitimate views on God because people look to it for authority concerning those matters. I would like to add that religious truth is considered eternal and immutable: its truth value does not diminish with the passage of time or circumstance.

Conversely, I'd like to discuss science. In comparison to religious truths, scientific truth is rather transient: when a theory no longer best explains existing data, it is eventually replaced. In spite of this, the institution of science enjoys a great deal of legitimacy. Why might that be? Scientific inquiry relies on its method: science derives legitimacy from the fact that it has a formal procedure that tries to document and replicate natural phenomena based on available evidence. After all, it would be silly to say: "on the authority of scientists, such a phenomenon is true."

Anecdotally, with regards to climate change, I've noticed that news pundits talk about "scientific consensus" as a reason the government should take action. That isn't a sufficient reason we should pursue more sustainable policies; instead they should say: "observable data has shown that human industrial activity is strongly correlated with growing carbon emissions in the atmosphere. There is an immense positive correlation between the observed affects of climate change and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere that we would be foolish to ignore it."

Professing a belief in 'x' merely on the account of religious authority cannot be considered knowledge. In other words, faith, chiefly relying on the legitimacy of religious authority, cannot be considered knowledge.

I would be grateful if anyone could help me expand upon or critique this argument. Otherwise, please excuse my ignorance.