[robg]

I find your first definition overly limiting. And your second too broad. Religious faith, for me, sits somewhere in-between.

As for practical applications, I find that particular versions of faith apply to its focus. The scientific faith I share with you but I don't expect an infinite march forward. Just because a question can be addressed with data doesn't mean the answer lies somewhere in there (see brain imaging and consciousness).

Religious faith for me simply means a faith that I can better the life I'm living and make a positive impact on this world and its people. But I know I'll fail in many important ways. Some would call that "sin" and I was raised Jewish.

I have technological faith that Apple will soon produce an iPhone I have to have. But Google's search won't always find what you need to know. And I don't think technology can solve all of our problems.

[apu]

Religious faith for me simply means a faith that I can better the life I'm living and make a positive impact on this world and its people.

I think most atheists feel something like this as well (we may not choose to call it "faith"). If this is all that "religious faith" means to you, then I would argue you're not particularly religious. Of course religion can be defined in various ways, but to call a belief system "religion" that has no concept of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator who has any sort of direct influence on peoples' lives so dilutes the meaning of that word that you're left with a tautology -- religion means whatever you feel about things that can't be explained by science.

[robg]

Meh, I'm not particularly concerned with how religious I am. I'm a theist - that I know. I don't feel the need to prove it to anyone or justify it. And that's where the problem of a tautology comes in.

Atheism just seems weird to me - a rejection without further effort. I think there's enough diversity of belief in theology, that one can learn alot without being nihilistic.