I've had friends tell me "to me, my faith makes perfect sense!" and I always figure what they're really saying is, "to me, my faith satisfies my emotional needs" which is something just slightly different from making sense. 
You know, that's how it's always seemed to me as well -- that faith is a matter of meeting emotional needs, esp. the need for comfort. But I've had a number of religious people tell me, in almost offended tones, that it has nothing to do with emotional needs and certainly not comfort, as if there's something wrong with that.
All other things being equal, I don't see anything wrong in believing something for emotional reasons, and I have great respect for the desire for comfort. There's more than enough pain and difficulty in life that's automatic, or that we can't do a single thing about once it arrives, so I say if you find something that comforts you, cling to it. There's no shame in that (and again, that's based on all other things being equal).
What puts my back up is the assumption that what comforts A will also, or
should also, comfort B and if it clearly doesn't then B is just being difficult and needs to be "re-educated" or even punished. And as much as this is my problem with religious fundies, it's also part of my problem with atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens. Defend the separation of church and state to your death, yes, but keep your public opinions out of peoples private lives. OK, rant over.
