I think it is important to bear in mind how faith is being measured here.
I presume by 'eliminating Faith and Dogma', Klingshcor meant where they necessitate and perpetuate each other. As in, where harmful effects manifest as a consequence of that relationship.
My point about the degrees of faith was in relation to the absolute truth, and in this regard there can be no degrees, a belief is either true or not, the very idea of different degrees of distance from the truth makes no sense because we can only know how far a belief is from the truth if we know the truth - seeing as we don't, we can't have a discussion on distance, we can only speak of truth and not-truth.
Isn't faith a phenomenon that is independent of truth?
This is not to say that perhaps degrees cannot be measured in other instances. As in my post above, I stated that making naturalistic assumptions as opposed to religious ones made far more sense in dealing with the world because it was far more useful - thus perhaps it is possible to have degrees of faith in relation to what is useful. Your discussion above with Prince about the intensity of faith a religious person may feel is perhaps another marker of degrees of faith because it is measured in emotional terms, it is faith in relation to the emotional experience of a person.
What is faith if not a thing experienced and perpetuated by an individual?