>

Well, some religious practitioners dispute that this is the meaning of faith. Many Christians, for example, claim that faith is trust based on the evidence. For example, the Christian philosopher John DePoe (who I respect a lot) wrote:

One final objection to Classical Evidentialism that I wish to address is that religious faith by its nature is opposed to evidence. What I am requiring of religious beliefs, some might say, is like asking oil and water to mix. Knowledge acquired through evidential arguments, they claim, cannot be a matter of faith.  
At the heart of this objection is an assumption about the nature of faith, namely that faith is an act of belief without evidence or even against evidence. I reject this view of faith. Faith is better understood (at least in part) as the dispositional characteristic to trust and persevere in one’s religious beliefs. Faith is a virtue that allows believers to remain steadfast in their religious beliefs because they have good reason to do so. (Debating Christian Religious Epistemology, p.27)
Of course there isn't. That's why it's called faith.