"You can replace "faith/god" with "morality" and get a similar answer because there is no definitive, objectively-verifiable answer."
Exactly. Which is why the morality system /we design/ would likely be inherently better in the long run for humanity.
"The faithful need no proof, the faithless need it, and there's no middle ground between the two."
I disagree. Society and real-life interactions are the middle ground - to selectively disregard reason (ie. not require proof) when it comes to issues as important as "what are the fundamental rules of the universe", "how should we stand on X scientific/moral challenge", "how should we run our society", or even "how should I spend a great deal of my only life" (in the case of the devout), is really, really dangerous. Which would be fine, but it's not dangerous /just to the believer/. To act rationally is a social obligation.