This is a little old but good regardless. Fish discusses the atheist’s faith in “evidence.”
Dawkins voices distress at an imagined opponent who “can’t see” the evidence or “refuses to look at it because it contradicts his holy book,” but he has his own holy book of whose truth he has been persuaded, and it is within its light that he proceeds and looks forward in hope (his word) to a future stage of enlightenment he does not now experience but of which he is fully confident. Both in the vocabulary they share – “hope,” “belief,” “undoubtedly,” “there will come a time” – and the reasoning they engage in, Harris and Dawkins perfectly exemplify the definition of faith found in Hebrews 11, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Mine is not a leveling argument; it does not say that everything is the same (that is the atheists’ claim); it says only that whatever differences there are between religious and scientific thinking, one difference that will not mark the boundary setting one off from the other is the difference between faith and reason.
Knowledge, indeed life, is impossible without faith. Imagine the hubris and naivety needed, all at once, to allow one to think he was simply navigating life, with all its complexity and mystery, by a rational objective gaze that simply considers the “evidence.” That his faith in “rationality”is lost on him, in reality, keeps him from “seeing” or “considering” the evidence at all.