I've noticed that there are a number of people on this post playing a shell game with the word "faith". When I started this thread I was very specific in my definition: Believing something without evidence or contrary to evidence.
I will ask that any further post keep this in mind and not put forth alternate definitions of the word as it only muddies the water. I believe that hope, trust, conviction, etc. are all good things. HOWEVER, I do not believe that one should blieve things without evidence or contrary to evidence.
I believe this because our beliefs are the gate keepers of our actions. What we believe directly informs how we behave. And if we want to know whats out on the horizon we don't use a kaleidoscope but, rather, we use a telescope. Likewise, when we want to make determinations about reality we don't use faith but, rather, we use reason. Because good intentions are only as good as the information upon which they are based. If I see a man about to chop off a childs arm and I stop him from doing so - I MIGHT be committing a moral action. However, if it turns out the man was a doctor and the childs arm had gangreen - then I would, in fact, be committing an immoral action. Because what is morally true is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT upon what is actually true. And faith is the worst possible system for figuring out what is true. It can only ever be moral by accident.