The question of what is consciousness belongs in the field of philosophy. Like the question of, is there a God? What came before the Big Bang?, it's something that requires an immense process of aligning thoughts, ideas, concepts and feelings; it'll be a question asked for our entire tenure as a species. In the mean time, we'll be presented with countless concepts and ideas. Some will resonate, some not.
Still, I question the remaining quoted text. Firstly, hope for what? What outcome are you hoping for? For those with a belief in God, I assume a place in heaven, but if you take belief in a higher power out of the equation you're not left with hollow hope, you're left with acceptance and contentment.
The argument goes thus: I believe I'm an animal. I'm part of nature. Just as are cats, dogs, donkeys and ducks. We're part of the process of life on our planet. We come, and we go. We come from nothing, we return to nothing. This is based on the evidence all around us. We see creatures live and die all the time, and we see them decay and fade away.
As such, today is as wonderful and incredible as yesterday, and (hopefully) tomorrow. Every day is lived as though, in your belief, God were standing by my side. I hope I wake tomorrow, but while I write this I'm awake and each minute is a wonderful thing. On that, I'm content.
I question your statement that for some "without this faith, going against evidence, life would not be livable". Firstly, what evidence? Secondly, why would it not be livable? Are you suggesting that those with a faith in a higher being couldn't cope with living with the reality of our existence if it didn't include a God? Why not? Doesn't this simply point to a conclusion that believers are so entrenched in their belief that an alternative is unfathomable? Isn't that a weakness?