Let me make this simple if I can:
I am not a scientist. I read a lot of science. I don't understand all of it completely but I believe it is true and rational. I have seen things on TA that have given me greater understanding and make me feel that being an atheist is right.
However, people say the same thing about religious writting also. They don't understand, but believe it is true as it is written by authorities they believe in.
I am not going to change my mind, but I would be interested if some the the extremely interesting and intelligent people here would answer this:
If I have faith in science and scientists to reveal knowledge to me, how is that different from believers in religious writting who have faith in their sources of knowledge?
Here is an essay about "proper belief" that might answer.
From your words you seemed tilted toward "belief as attire" where you have become overly fond of people in lab coats.
There are people on this site that will (constantly, endlessly, pointlessly) bemoan use of the word "belief". Few on this site will go along with your use of "faith" as ANYTHING but a invitation to the supernatural or religion. As the author of the blog post above makes clear not ALL constructions of "belief" are compatible with a naturalistic world view. I am claiming here that SOME uses of "belief" pass the "Atheist Giggle Test". NO use of a word like "faith" leads to a reasoned position.