It's really about faith in other people, and faith in your own ability to connect with them, and faith in the process of community evidence verification.
Over and over we hear the false dichotomy of "people of faith" versus "people of evidence" but we're ALL people of faith.
What really matters is your psychological makeup: do you trust your fellow monkeys and whether they will get your back? Or do you so distrust others that you must invent a super-Neighbor who can do the impossible. You call him/her/it God/Allah/Buddha/etc and pray for things that are never more than luck.
Some interesting insights come from this frame of thought...
For instance, the idea that "modern" Christianity somehow produced the Enlightenment turns out not to be a true reading.
The Enlightenment was caused by science, the processing of evidence, not by religion, the misflowering of faith.
Religion has always fought faith in evidence, because religion always becomes collectivized faith (and this is one place where our culturally reinforced "Eeew!" about the word collectivized is legitimate.)
There is a big difference in individuality and personal freedoms between You and I exchanging observations about reality, and We and Them fighting for our religious masters.
Besides being a matter of scale, and communication (on the battlefield? R U Serious?) it's a matter of staleness of evidence.
Sure, people ultimately make their decisions on gut feelings. It's how our sloppy wet brain has evolved, for survival, not logic.
Logic is a useful tool for survival, but it isn't what the body is designed for, which is homeostasis and information gathering about food.
Our history: We started as little blobs of protoplasm that gathered energy and then split.
The code that generates us blobs is not stable, and when the duplication mechanism stutters, sometimes the new blob is better at gathering information about collecting or using energy, and it outcompetes the other blobs. Evolution.
There finally came a time when blobs aggregated into collections of cells which cooperated to their mutual benefit, and competed with other collective blobs. Competed in one frame and competed in another.
(When you're listening to economics theories, and they don't ring true, this is the dissonance.
Economics theory is often perverted and misused by Republicans and Libertarians who purposely or otherwise miss this central idea that cooperation and competition don't work in the same frame.
Business is cooperators (in a business) working in competition (with other businesses). Government is people cooperating for protection (nowadays usually against businesses cooperating against them [which is the rich class cooperating against the poor class, which seldom knows how to cooperate, since religion makes them crazy...]).
Government is also cooperation on projects dreamed up by cooperators that are too big for one blob, so it enlists other blobs to help.
Nations compete, of course, and that is a bad thing, because weapons are now to strong to use. So we have to figure out a way to make our nation a single blob that can cooperate with all the other single blob nations.
Crude, but it gets the point across. The progress of humanity toward some goal of minimum suffering requires that we think this way. Competition among nations doesn't work. Like a teenager who learns to get along with others, we all need to grow up, and think of our nation as more than a thug on the means streets of Earth.
Yes, you should be confused. And that's why you have to think about the theory of cooperation about evidence, the distortion of evidence into mere faith, and the motives of those who would push such silly and ultimately dangerous theories.
No one lies smoother and more effectively than a theologian or an economist, since neither of them has any real evidence. They both just argue from unprovable postulates.
I prefer faith in my ability to find comfort in cooperation with others, free from weird Religious ideas that set me apart from others.