Hi Cris
Faith in a god or a religious concept remains entirely a matter of suspending logical and reasoned thinking. That some scientists also believe in a god is a good example that they choose to suspend the ability to reason logically in those instances.
Being able to think logically in one area doesn't necessitate they use the same approach everywhere. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that a god must exist because an otherwise logical scientist has chosen to disregard logic regarding religion.
By the same token, isn't it quite possible that your ability to think logically in other areas might not say anything about your ability or willingness to see the logic in religious concepts? Can you throw doubt on someone else's thinking - especially on people who have shown they are otherwise quite adept at it - without it throwing a kind of shadow over your own argument?
Your dogmatic statement that "Faith in a god or a religious concept remains entirely a matter of suspending logical and reasoned thinking" is also quite impressive, since it relies heavily on what
you consider to be "logical and reasoned thinking". In other words, the argument boils down to "whoever does not think like me must be an idiot".
But
being a logical and reasonable man, you surely realise that logic, and by extension reason, can only be as good as its underlying facts/assumptions. A logical argument from the belief that God exists will look different than the argument from the belief that He doesn't, without either line of reasoning ever having to commit any fallacies or being unsound (although that rarely happens, on either side of the fence).
And for the same reason that it is unreasonable to conclude God's existence based on an 'expert' opinion, it would also be be unreasonable to conclude God's non-existence based on your conclusion, or any other man's who considers himself to be logical and reasonable in general, that otherwise intelligent and logical men must be missing something if they believe in God. What one side considers evidence, the other is bound to question, whether with or without reason. Emotional arguments, belittlement, stereotyping, or any other forms of 'righteous indignation' and intellectual elitism will not enhance the debate or strengthen anyone's position.