I don't have faith in a cute blond with a nice rack, but I wish I had one. That's sorta one way of seeing a difference eh?

"the evidence of things hoped for" is a stupid way to define faith! Because I hope for lots of things that don't happen. Should that be evidence of anti-faith? I guess to me faith isn't just wishful thinking. Like, talking religion, one's faith tells them there is an invisible man in the sky who is all wise and wonderful. You don't actually *wish* an invisible man exists - you accept that he does. You then ask the invisible man to give you things you wish for. Like good health for a friend or a new puppy. Or a cute blond with a nice rack ;)

One to add to your list: Our fight/cause is blessed by God.

Faith -vs- Wishful Thinking

Bedfellows, for sure.

But I also see a couple other purposes - (a) rules to live by (which helps explain the hell part, to keep people in line) and (b) a way to explain the unexplainable (believing beats being scared by things one doesn't understand).

All fall under that big umbrella of "faith".

The bible actually says that Faith is the "assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen,"
or in other translations
"the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

As noted above, looking at other translations makes a difference. I understand the use of "hoped for" to mean "something we are looking forward to" or "something we are assured of" rather than to mean something akin to dropping a coin in a fountain and making a wish.

Science has faith; in fact, it approaches problems with faith that the premise will turn out correct. If there is no faith that it will, why even attempt the experiment or come up with the theory? They introduce a premise and then attempt to prove it.
It is called a theory until it can be proven. And some things in science that have not been proven beyond any doubt are accepted (by faith) as fact in the scientific community. If we
simply believe or act on what we positively know is fact beyond any shadow of doubt, it is extremely limiting as science has moved like a snail throughout history and still is.
If the earth continues for another millenium, what is 'fact' today in the scientific world may be a red-faced joke.

Science isn't supposed to have anything to do with faith but a hypothesis, in itself, shows faith
that the scientist believes something may be true. And, since you agree that, in future, 'advances in human knowledge will probably overturn many things we think today', you are admitting that even what appears to be factual today may be proven to be simply hypothesis period..or 'faith that' something was factual when, in fact, it was not.

Dan,

You said 'a level of certainty'. That is my point. There is a level of certainty for a hypothesis to be proposed. Science grows on itself through past information and observation. Faith comes about because of something as well, some experience, observation, or a number of repeated experiences and observations, for example. You agreed that, in the distant future, some of what is accepted now as scientific fact may be proven wrong. That being the case, even what appears to be fact at any given time must be taken on faith (to be honest) because there is always the chance that new data will disprove it. The M-theory/string theories actually support incidents in the Bible, written thousands of years before. Why is it that scientists are willing to at least consider such theories but have laughed at Bible stories that support them?
Of course, not all scientists laugh at the Bible and some even 'admit' to having faith and don't see faith and science as mutually exclusive or incompatible.