I find it amazing that such statements "trouble" someone. If one looks at the history of Christianity, most of what makes a Christian a Christian lies in articles of faith (cf Nicene, Apostle's, and Anathasian Creeds) and those are supposed to be held, no matter what logic, evidence, or argument is used. Essentially, to argue that your "faith" is modified by evidence is to destroy the meaning of faith, to water it down to nothing. Jesus refused because faith is not meant to be tested (that is what you do with evidence). You have faith, you don't test it to see if it works. You hold it in the face of all opposition. Paul's evidence was that of his own enlightenment, the personal revelation/vision made to him. That is the basis of his faith. The type of faith required by Christianity (and most other religions) has indeed been differentiated by priests and theologians. Followers using that same paradigm would look like fools in the practical world. Likewise, these same theologians do not want the tools of skepticism used by followers on the tenets of their religion. The semantic difference between "blind" faith and "healthy" faith is that "blind" faith applies to anything anyone says, whereas "healthy" faith applies only to what legitimate ecclesiastical authorities say. These same authorities will tell you that you've made the right decision if your faith and the evidence you have point you in the direction of belief and obedience. They will tell you that you need more faith if your evidence leads you to a different conclusion. In this case, they are not talking about faith modified by evidence (confidence) but faith in spite of evidence (belief without evidence).
My entire point still stands. To use the term "faith" when you really mean "confidence" waters down faith to nothing. If you have faith, you believe, and that settles it. If you have confidence, then your belief is variable with the quality, quantity, and type of evidence you constantly receive.