Might there be some justification for faith itself, however? Well, to justify faith as a means of acquiring truth, one has two options: either provide some reason for believing in it – some evidence that it works, in other words – or claim that the efficacy of faith is itself a matter of faith. The latter is obviously circular and therefore unhelpful. But the former can't be right either, for as soon as one has a reason for accepting some method as efficacious, then one is no longer taking whatever it shows to be true on faith. One now has evidence for whatever it is, after all – namely, that the method used works!
Now, there are those who will insist that obviously we must take some things on faith, for we cannot have reasons for literally everything. How does one justify reasoning itself, for instance? If one uses logic to argue that logic is valid, then one is arguing in a circle; the only option, therefore, is to take it on faith. But the idea that one must have faith in logic is actually nonsense. The laws of logic are unavoidable in that they are presupposed in every belief and every statement. That's not an argument in defense of logic – it's an explanation why logic is necessarily true. And if being necessarily true isn't sufficient to justify something, then nothing is.