We also need to separate mundane practical knowledge from more theoretical knowledge.
An electrical engineer doesn't really need belief or evidence to know that a basic circuit is going to work (barring human error). They just assemble it and it does what it does regardless of what anyone thinks or believes.
That's how it works everywhere. Evidence only leads you into the direction of what is true - it does not make something true, such that once a truth is actually found, a differing theory or belief doesn't change it. It is what it is and becomes readily apparent, just like a circuit to an engineer.
Edit: and actually I'm reminded of Portal when GLaDOS teaches you how to maintain momentum through portals and sums it up quite simply as "speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out." What more is there to know about it? It does what it does before we even know why it does it.
Sure. This makes sense and all, that's a good distinction to make, though maybe my intent wasn't clear in my post.
Instead of simply saying "these people are crazy" which isn't very useful as a description and is mostly pejorative shorthand, I'm pointing out a specific way they may be approaching the situation.
a model.
in the 'faith' model people believe that they should avoid doubt. at an extreme you have ideas such as 'doubt is the devil creeping in', or less extreme, that if you don't believe you won't get into heaven, or less extreme still that doubt will undermine your work for god, etc.
so, when these 'miracles' are performed, and then the person starts to think "hey, this really didn't work so well", the corrective action (in their model) is to believe harder. because if they believe hard enough they will be rewarded (or if they don't they will be punished).
there is also an element of theatrics here, and other factors as well.
so despite the fact none of this stuff actually works, they force themselves to believe harder, and the more they doubt the more they run from that doubt back into faith.
thus, a cycle. which would explain that despite evidence (in fact, in part *because* of evidence) to the contrary, they maintain seemingly 'crazy' beliefs which are otherwise simple to disprove.