One of the common problems observed in the West is that we often impose Christian connotations on Buddhist terms. Sraddha means “trust”, and never “blind faith”. Trust is reasonable.
(1) You ask a friend ten questions, and on nine instances, you receive an answer that can be ascertained to be true. You may not be able (as of yet) to ascertain the truth of the tenth answer, but neither can you discard it through reasoning or experience. Is it more or less reasonable to accept the tenth answer provisionally?
The vast majority of the Buddha’s teachings can be validated through reason and experience. Why would we reject those we cannot yet understand? The testimony of a reliable witness is accepted as evidence, even in courts of law.
(2) You have normal eyesight. Someone indicates that there are microscopic organisms that you cannot see without proper instrumentation. Is it reasonable to conclude that this person is lying, or is it more reasonable to postpone judgment until you have access to such instruments?
Without calm abiding (shamata) and penetrative insight (vypashyana), we cannot see the nature of reality. Should we reject it on the basis of our present inadequacy?