While it might seem quite obvious that deity is incoherent, imponderable, nonsense which does not exist and is nowhere to be found except in language, these rational considerations and reasoned inquiries matter not one iota to the conditions of satisfaction posited by faith. Certainly it would be difficult to make it through a single day without any faith at all, no? (But what is certainty except a mood?) Whether faith that today will resemble yesterday, or faith that things which you do not directly observe will continue upon their pattern of trajectory or along their inertial paths... Note that I don't mean faith in deity, but faith in general as a psychological tool. And faith is a very powerful psychological tool. So powerful in fact that placebo's demonstrably are effective even if the placebo itself is completely inert.
Is it such a terribly large gap to jump across from "taking things on faith" or "presuming good faith" to creating a narrative or an explanation, or a framework for psychological benefit which can be deified?
Coming from a scientific position, consider the simple difficulty of removing bias and Wittgenstein's observation that "Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself" (from his book of aphorisms, "Culture and Value" pg. 34). But even if one is not deceiving oneself (or deceived at all) not everything is a matter of evidence supporting an argument, hypothesis or proof. Much in life depends upon opinion, sentiment, agreement - irrespective of empirically verifiable and falsifiable fact; just as often brutish and not even aspiring to poetry. The world certainly owes us no easy explanation, but I suppose it may simply be so very easy to imagine one, no?
Your question reminds me of a quote by Bertrand Russell from the introduction to his book, "The History of Western Philosophy and its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day":
Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable ; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge so I should contend belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No
Man's Land is philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (pg. 10) ...
... There is also, however, a more personal answer. Science tells
us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance. Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them. To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it. (pg. 11)
There may be no epistemic merit to faith and merely ontological acknowledgement that a particular belief has been stated and the faithful agree with it (or don't), but consider also the words of these thoughtful fellows:
"Religious fiction is a useful emotional outlet, however, educated people need not consider it true"
312 - 230 BC
"The intellectual basis of my thinking is Stoic philosophy, the heritage of the classical world. I worship the old gods of the Roman pantheon, because they are symbols of the virtues we admire, not because they really exist."
-Marcus P. Cato
234 - 149 BC
"The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful."
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Chapter II: The Internal Prosperity In The Age Of The Antonines.
Part I, Second Paragraph