It sounds as if you've taking your conclusion that religious faith must be blind and ignorant and worked backwards from there.

I remain unconvinced that people who consider themselves religious are any worse at adjusting their world view to scientific evidence than people who do not.

I'm only describing how the term faith is used by religious believers. They take a certain set of claims "on faith", and when contradictory evidence comes along there are various reactions, like outright denial, shelving of the issue entirely in the hope of getting answers later (like after you're dead), reinterpretation of the religious claims to better fit the existing models or to be completely unfalsifiable and therefore out of reach of investigation, and full on apologetics.

I've been a religious believer for decades, and have been surrounded by religious believers my entire life. I enjoy talking with them about what they believe and why (when they're willing to engage of course). They can be completely rational and skeptical, appropriately adjusting their worldview according to the evidence with no problems in any other realm except when it comes to the religious claims they have been brought up to believe. The psychology of it is fascinating to me.

> It sounds as if you've taking your conclusion that religious faith must be blind and ignorant and worked backwards from there.

Faith must be, yes. All faith. It's what exists in absence of, or despite, evidence.

> I remain unconvinced

Thankfully that's a bridge we don't need to cross. We've led you to water, your unwillingness to drink it isn't anyone else's failure.