Equivocation never sleeps. "Faith" covers a whole spectrum belief and acceptance.
When the roulette gambler places a chip on 24 Black, they know the
odds are against the ball landing on their number, but they are putting
their faith on 24. In this sense their thinking may be, "It's probably not
going to be 24 but I'm going to trust 24 anyway." This trust in the
face of obvious uncertainty may be called faith without straining the
commonly accepted definition(s) of faith.
Or the gambler may genuinely believe they have some insight or
revelation that 24 will be the winning number. In this case we have
unfounded certainty, a trust/belief that ignores reason and evidence
(perhaps selectively). Far along the opposite end of the spectrum,
this too falls well within the commonly accepted definition(s) of faith.
For those who are more familiar with the way scientific inquiry
works, "faith in science" challenges the definition(s) of faith. If our
gambler believes that "if they play long enough they will lose their stake," is
that faith? So too "faith in science" is the understanding that if we
maintain discipline and objectivity eventually we will be less wrong in
our understanding of reality. We will make blunders along the way. But
when we play by the rules the house always wins in the end. We can
call that "faith" but it is misguided or disingenuous to do so.
Scientific knowledge (as opposed to inquiry) is merely our best, most
current understanding of reality. What we accepted as reality fifty or
one hundred years ago was riddled with inaccuracies. What we accept as
reality today will likely be found wanting in the next fifty or one
hundred years. Knowing this, is it not faith to accept the current body
of scientific knowledge as true? Given the breadth of scope of the
definition(s) of faith we could certainly make such an argument. But
there are some distinctions here to be made. (1) We know and accept
that scientific knowledge is provisional. (2) The conditions that
support the corrigible body of scientific knowledge are generally very
concrete, consistent and offer testable predictions. (3) The breadth of
scope of the definition(s) of faith is so unbound that any
non-tautological, non-axiomatic belief or understanding may be described
as faith. This infinite definition basically renders the word "faith"
meaningless in regards to belief or trust. (4) "Faith" is also used to
describe "devotion." While proponents of science are devoted to
scientific inquiry, any devotion they have for the body of scientific
knowledge (or parts thereof) is contingent on the quality of the inquiry
supporting that knowledge.
The biggest detractors of Science (as they understand it) tend to
have an alternate agenda. (1) Such detractors suggest their
anti-scientific agenda is superior because it is immutable or timeless.
(2) They rely on subjective interpretation (inescapably influenced by wishful
thinking and/or fear) , ancient stories or modern prophets. They have texts of
dubious divinity and questionable sources. And despite alleged supernatural
authorship these texts are no better informed on the mechanics of nature
than any other bronze age source. (3) They portray faith in science as
bad but faith in religious doctrine as virtuous, noble and reliable. Actually,
and suspiciously, faith in religious doctrine is less virtuous, noble
and reliable if it's not their particular flavor of religious doctrine. (4) They
want you to be devoted as well as trusting in regards to (their
particular flavor of) religious doctrine.
Any thing that may be doubted may be considered a faith position. And we may doubt the nose on our face. If we may call belief in science a faith position it is only because "faith" is so indefinite and vague as to be meaningless.