I actually postulate the opposite: that faith can make you blind to reality and make of you a fanatic (what is essentially evil and rather stupid).
We come from some 20 centuries (maybe 16 centuries?) of monotheism and more of religiously estabilished morals (moral, mores, is after all a pre-Christian Latin word meaning custom, tradition, conventional law).
Like in the adagio: o tempora, o mores. Such the age, thus the customs (or morals).
But since the very concept of monotheism and specially of an intervening God (nowhere to be seen) has been dramatically eroded (last two centuries or so). We have since re-invented the more realistic concept of ethics: i.e. we make our own morals (actually ethics), not because "God says so" but because we find it best for our society and ourselves.
Personally I strongly question that the famous "ten comandments" of Moses are good in any sense. They are lawful: in fact they are a human law with a divine pretext, but there is little or nothing specifically good about them. Most of the commandments are mere ultra-conservative junk like not having sexual thoughts or not getting involved with someone else's wife. Why does "thou shall not steal" not apply to bankers and capitalists in general? Why does "thou shall not kill" not apply to soldiers, policemen, executioners and even butchers (no mention that animals are any exception). Why should I respect my dad if he's not earning himself any respect? Why should I love "God" when this individual does not even appear to exist or at least is nowhere to be seen, hugged and made love with? Etc.
They are just the general precepts of a theocracy.
I have argued before that in a sense, Jesus (and I'm not Christian) seems at times to breach this lawful (lawful evil?) concept of morals into a chaotic good version: love your neighbor, the rest doesn't matter (you even love God by loving your neighbor). Of course the overall message is less clear cut than that but there is something of that.
But guess that in this sense at least the doctrine of Jesus can be understood as some sort of precursor of modern secular humanist ethics, where people is what matter and not anymore just "God".
But, regardless of religion, the real issue of "goodness" is where you place the rest of people in your values' scale. Are they as important as yourself or are they less important, even irrelevant? For most people the self is central and that has little discussion. When I feel bad, I can hardly help others to feel positive - even with training this is extremely difficult. However for most people the self is also extended to others, normally those that are closer (relatives, friends, maybe neighbors and others). I would say this is the neutral position, when you acknowledge, consciously or not, that egoism and altruism are to some extent intertwined.
But then you can have the occasional person that puts the whole over the part, who for this or that reason considers that the wide community (nation, humankind, etc.) is more important than even the self, bound to die. This could be considered "good" in the sense of altruism, however in some cases this can also bring them to violence (think Che Guevara for example).
So we have a very complex situation in which the words good and bad are not so clearly cut after all. There is an egoist good that means whatever makes me happy (when good can become evil), and there is a social good that means whatever makes society as a whole happy and stable. And probably a bunch of other sectorial or corporative "goods".
What is important, I think, is to understand that there is not such simple and absolute good but a very complex ethic puzzle in which we try to make the best decisions according to our judgment. Probably we can't be asked for much more.