Sorry I haven't replied in a while.... electrical engineering, it's a beeyatch.
"Why do you think that [faith apart from evidence] is a bad thing? I would like to know why you think that they think as they do."
I think it leads to faulty conclusions (this is Harv's major disagreement with me.) I think that an unbiased look at evidence we are presented with, and hypothesizing based on that evidence is a far more reliable method of divining truth than by gut reactions, intuition, and faith. I consider practical benefits of the scientific method to be proof for this purpose. As I've said before, if we were totally of the mark with atomic theory, we would have no nuclear reactors. We have observational proof to suggest that our theories are at least on the right track.
Religious faith has no such observational proof. Whenever secular science begins to intrude on the realm of religion, religion shifts to accomodate science in a bid to survive. The Gods used to live on Mount Olympus and in the sea and under the earth, then they lived up in the air, (which is a Christian belief, actually, the contructors of the tower of Babel attempted to reach Heaven) then in the depths of space, and now, finally, Heaven and the gods are located in some other dimension, completely seperate from our universe and hence unobservable. Religion tends to exist on the fringe of science, explaining all that has not been explained thus far by invoking God, and then conveniently retreating whenever science shows that God had nothing to do with it.
Alexander, a *very* atheistic poster here a while back, once mentioned that where we place God in our minds depends on the knowledge we have of the outside world. That is, a geologist could believe that Zeus throws lightning bolts from the clouds, but regard the notion of a 6000 year old planet to be ridiculous. Similarly, an electrician would consider Zeus throwing lightning to be a childish explanation of prosaic phenomena, but would have no reason not to believe in a young earth. This pattern is consistent for many believers; they stick God wherever their knowledge is lacking, but don't require him in areas they are educated in: The God of the Gaps.
However, science comes with a huge disclaimer that denies any access to complete truth and admits it will never have all the answers. I think that most people can't handle this kind of guesswork. They want their answers tied up in a neat package and handed over to them, pre-chewed. Faith is a much more alluring solution because it presents us with an answer *right now* and provides it in a way we like to hear (we are the most precious of God's children, etc., etc.,) It is a very appealing message, and it is no surprise that people find it more comforting than science's cauthious and temporary theorems.
I simply submit that any answers that science cannot answer are unverifiable by any other means, and, hence, unanswerable.