Small note though:
I do think in essence Kent’s statement is correct: faith starts where prove and knowledge ends. The crux is however in how you apply the consequences of this:

- You and I would use it as a stimulus to grow prove and knowledge in a scientific way so the amount of topics requiring random ‘faith’ shrinks…

- Others just look at science’s history track of not explaining ‘Everything’ as accumulated evidence of the fact that ever so long(er) there is (and will be) room left for an ever ‘deeper’ faith…

In the end it’s not about what or how much you believe or don’t, it’s about what it makes you do…

(I guess, people could easily counter your paragraph on ‘evil-faith-samples’ with examples showing not so pretty consequences of what was ‘achieved’ in the name of ’scientific progress’)

-marc=
PS: I enjoyed the Steven Weinberg link as well.