I contend that there is no such thing as reasonable faith.
This is an open challenge to anyone on this page who disagrees. Is there any theist on this forum who will accept my proposal?
I would have reasonable faith in jumping out of an airplane just in case I had reason to believe I would likely not face a bad outcome.
Faith is not about belief but about a commitment to act one way or another. Faith is required the more some outcome has something at stake. Irrespective of our means, modes, and methods of believing things will turn out like we predict or hope they will, faith is calculated risk-taking. We are banking on our means, modes, and methods, not our beliefs themselves.
I would have reasonable faith if abduction were the only way I could infer God existed and I was naturally inclined to believe God existed, just as I would have reasonable faith if abduction were the only way I could infer God didn't exist and I was naturally inclined to disbelieve God existed. (See Goldman, Plantinga, Churchland, Dretske, Wright, Peacocke and others on Epistemic Entitlements, Reliablism, Properly Basic Belief, and epistemic warrant)
Abduction is the only critical epistemic motivation to believe or disbelieve there are deity; we cannot deduce deity from reality nor induce in an instrumental, pragmatic way that there are or are not deity. Belief and doubt of the existence of deity is from the sort of creature we are, the sort of circumstances we find ourselves in, and what explanation seems to make the most sense of our own experiences individually.
Theism and Atheism, as an epistemic entitlement, is warranted, reasonable.
Abduction is a reliable means of assessing what is true; Science being nearly all abductive in its means and modes and methods.