I'd say, Tim, we've come full circle. I think the issue of faith is actually where we started, but you didn't want to acknowledge it. You first asked, "Is science the only way to know what is real?" While we both agreed science is indeed a fantastic tool to determine what is real, you never specified what alternative method could also be used to do the same. I think you meant faith. I think faith is delusion.
Before I go too far, let's establish a few terms. By faith, I mean "to believe something without evidence." This is to say that the phrase, "I have faith in myself," does NOT fit the defintion of faith I am using here. This phrase should be re-worded to say, "I have CONFIDENCE in myself (based on evidence)."
Now I realize I am limiting the defintion of a word. But for this discussion, I think this is legitimate. You may disagree if you like, but in the context of this discussion, one that is suited to address the topic of religion, words like "faith" need a clear definition. So if we need to have a conversation about the semantics of the word faith, that's fine, but I think that is a red herring.
Now, since faith is believing without evidence, it is clearly irrational. You claim there is evidence for your leap. You cannot possess this. You admit you do not possess this. You cannot both have this evidence, and not have it, at the same time. You need to make up your mind.
If you have evidence, what need have you of faith? If faith is a way of knowing things, why is it ONLY employed when evidence is lacking? For example, take the claim the sun is a star. You have evidence that this is true. Do you believe is based on faith? Say you met a person who didn't know the sun was a star, and you assert the fact. The person doesn't believe you. Do you ask the person to take a leap of faith, or do you present evidence? Say you present your evidence does not convice the person. Do you THEN ask the person to take a leap of faith, or do you discover why the person is not convinced, and show further evidence? When is faith needed? When evidence is lacking.
Say your new friend is still not convicned after all the evidence you present. The person tells you that they "know" the sun is actually the god Horus, because an ancient book of wisdom explains that Horus travels across the sky every day. Suppose your friend has faith that Horus is real, and is not really considering your evidence because it contradicts what is already held on faith.
This is what I mean by faith is delusion. It really does not matter that one person believes in Horus and another believes in allah and another believes in jesus. None of these beliefs are based on evidence. If they were, they would not be based on faith. Faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.
If you happened to live at a time when germs had not yet beed discovered, and people thought that ailments were demonic possesions, and you asserted that germs were real, what would happen? Say you had no evidence. None exists. The discovery has not been made. Even though you are correct, there is no rational reason for anyone to believe you. Rational belief is based on evidence. If you have none, there is no rational reason to believe a claim is true. This is why science adjusts it's views when new evidence is presented, and faith resists evidence so belief prevails.
We've discussed your evidence for thinking the leap of faith is rational. It is not. You have presented arguments from ignorace. You want me to explain why atheists have morals without gods. You suppose that if I cannot provide an explanation, god must be the explanation. This is a fallacy. Further, I provided you with the way morals evolve.
You've claimed the universe is too ordered to have come from nothing, and therefore, if I cannot explain why the universe is ordered, the answer should be that god made the universe. Again, this commits the same logical fallacy. Even if I could not explain it, that does not mean the explanation is supernatural. And cosmology is a real science, with real answers based on real evidence. And in no way does it point to a creator, much less a specific creator.
Now for the sake of further posts, I'll not address the question of the benefits of faith. First, I want to estblish my position that faith is not rational, illogical, and delusional. Faith exists only in the absence of evidence. Why use faith if you have evidence? You don't. No one does.