The concept that faith is blind, unsupported by evidence or data is in my honest opinion a nonsensical argument. How is a man convinced to believe something without receiving data sufficient to the individual to support its truth?
Faith is the fabric that covers the gaps between evidence, and something we all have as human beings. Knowledge, understanding and perception provides momentum to span these gaps.
In science, you take data, identify trends and create a theory, and continue to collect data to verify that theory, something which until proven or otherwise, you rely on the momentum of the data you have to span the gaps between. For those who build faith, the important thing is that you are intellectually honest enough to accept the gaps are there, and have a degree of understanding as to how wide they may be.
I appreciate that what constitutes evidence is defined by he who accepts it, so I guess we put it down to perception, but I find the expression of "faith" as something completely unsupported by anything other than emotion and makebelieve to be nonsensical and often used as an attempt to belittle those who are on the other side of the debate.
[/rant]
By way of disclaimer Please note that I do not defend those who may be considered credulous, for while I would assert that gullibility is not intrinsic with faith, that is not to say that there are not those that embrace both wholeheartedly
