Now, let me say that I neither endorse or condemn fideism (briefly, belief in the absense of logical process or evidence) as a methodology. I basically see it as an absense of methodology.
Practically speaking, though, I think fideism is the normal course of things, within religion and without. That is to say, most of the important and interesting things we believe, we believe for no good reason- that is, no reason good enough to justify ourselves to Bertrand Russell. The process of reason only exists, only comes into effect as a tool we use in a crisis situation. Something I believe for no good reason runs afoul of something else I believe, or better yet, something you believe for no good reason, and then and only then, the reasoning process begins.
So what is reasoning for? Well, many of the interesting things we believe run into these crisis situations often. Controversy can be resolved through reason. Reason is a little war between ideas. In a war between France and England, it is pointless to ask why there is a France, or why there is an England, the war is now. Similarly, when debating through reason two opposing beliefs, it is neither here nor there to examine why a person has their beliefs- if they are honest with you, the answer will almost always make them look silly.
In the case of Christianity, the reasons (causative) for my beliefs are neither here nor there- the make me look silly when put into the context of a rational debate. What is important is that I am able to defend or uphold these silly little beliefs. No, scratch that. What is important is that these silly little beliefs so easily allow me to defend them. This defeats in an important way the strongest argument the atheist has- that there is ‘no evidence’. No, a claim of ‘no evidence’ can be used for the atheist to say that they have no good cause to get started in belief, and we believers can even agree with them on that. But if I’m right, then the lack of evidence does not say anything about the believers own beginnings of belief- for the proper role of evidnce is caught up in the examinations that come after (sometimes tentative) belief, and not in the original formation, which is almost always silly.
In summary, I don’t think that fideism is any replacement for a rational process. But I think it has to be acknowledged as being a fact of life, that occurs pre-reason. I would like to ask two important questions, though, that might test this situation, though I already know it to be true in at least some contexts. I’d like to know how widespread it is, in things I know nothing about.
1.) In science, when one proposes a hypothesis, is belief involved? When a scientist is choosing to test this hypothesis instead of that one, does it begin with something silly (an odd thought prompted by the sublte movement of noodles as they stirred their Spaghetti O's) , or does it begin with evidence, upon prior evidence and so on and so forth infinitum?
2.) When people come to a religous faith after much deliberation, how often is it "Just the facts, Ma'am" vs a network of facts with something silly at it's core?
For my own part, the reason (causative) I believe in God is because my mother told me to at an age when doing things because my Mom told me to was the most reasonable reason I could have for anything. You'd have to meet my mother, I suppose. So when somebody asks my why I believe in God, I can either spout of evidence, which is satisfying to me and them, but ultimately deceitful to both, or I can say the truth, which sounds silly. The reason I still believe in God, though, is because of how easy it is, and how well such beliefs stand all the trials they've been put against throughout my life. Every skeptical question answered, every atheistic argument defeated, is evidence after the fact.