That the sun has come up some many billions of times is not evidence that it will rise tomorrow. A freak anomaly in the core or some killer asteroid that we hadn't detected could all stop the next day. Past history is not evidence of what comes next but simply a measure of probability. And most of science is based on this type of inductive reasoning, as are most things people do on a daily basis - one simple doesn't spend most of their time checking that something will not fail before they use it. When was the last time that you checked a chair before sitting on it to ensure it wouldn't collapse? Throw a coin a billion times and there will be a statsistical result of 50% for each side, but knowing that gives no clue as to what exactly will come with the next throw. We take many things for granted on a regular basis because history "suggests" it will be fine. This isn't faith, and the type of faith we mean in this topic, the religious type, has been given a special place, at least by the religious folk who hail it so important. They truly have no choice since evidence of the scientific quality is non-existent for religious claims. And neither is there any history of gods or supernatural things that have come and gone that could set an historical precedent. Humans are emotional beings, driven by desires and incomplete information. We like to have answers quickly and often choose the simplest/obvious rather than go for the harder to find truths. This is simply human nature. Science at its heart simply means a search for knowledge, and to abide by its strict discipline is hard, and good science is really hard, and much too hard for most people. And much of science is too complex for the average person. So most do not follow science closely and often doubt its findings if they do not quite match with their own pre-conceived notions. That's simple ignorance of science and laziness. So is religious faith any type of method for acquiring knowledge? The religious might claim some type of "direct perception", a spiritual communication from some deity or otherwise that bypasses the senses and appeals directly to human consciousness. This approach totally convinces (it just feels so right) the adherant that his religious beliefs are indeed entirely true, despite no evidence of the conventional style. And of course this means that no actual evidence is required. But neither can such an approach be tested for truth. However, we also have no reason to believe that such a method is possible. The real and rather obvious reason that we still have religious faith based beliefs is the impact of centuries/millenia of religious indoctrination, ancient mythology, human imagination, and propaganda, all mostly from non-scientific eras when superstitions were the norm. And this continues simply because people choose mainly on their emotions rather than intellect, and tend to believe whatever they wish whether there is conventional evidence or not. Science will slowly move us forward as it has these past few centuries, as it slowly erodes religious claims, as it has always done. But people will still tend to believe whatever they wish. Polls show newer generations are electing more and more to be non-religious - without religion. Religious faith simply means believing something without any evidence. A fantasy. It has no redeemable merit. So where does that leave the adherent who still believes with 100% certainty? I'd like to say I don't care but some religious fantasies turn into killing sprees. Time will tell I guess as more people elect for science discoveries rather than ancient fantasy mythologies.