I believe faith and evidence based reasoning are in opposition to each other. Science is the self-cleaning machine that tries to know as many true things as possible, where religion is the machine that cannot clean itself and is no different to how it was at conception. There is a religious response which asks why religion cannot evolve in the way the body of knowledge we have from science evolves. I thought that might be interesting to look at.
“Falsification” is the cleaning system of science. We can believe a thing to be true with increasing levels of confidence, but not with absolute certainty. The word “certain” is used colloquially to mean “as sure as I need to be”. However, you can be certain a thing is wrong if it is falsified. At the time science falsifies an idea, science cleans the idea from the body of scientific knowledge and we move on.
There is no way religion can do this. A religious book is a series of snapshots of ideas fixed in time. Any progress made on them is the blind stabbing of (often power-grabbing) humans. You cannot falsify a religious idea in a religious context. It is the inerrant word or message of God (translated many times). Science can falsify religious claims, sure. But religion cannot. Most religions do not even tell you how to pick between two contradictory ideas. You accept the claims as they are on faith.