While I would agree with you on your definition of Biblical faith and on the worst atheist caricature of faith, I would disagree on your definition of knowledge. It's not really divided into three neat categories; in reality, belief exists on a spectrum.
On the one hand, you have outright unreasonable faith. This would be faith that resists clear evidence. As an example of this, imagine a group of people who believe that the ocean is made of blue gelatin. You can show them that it's not, you can prove to them that it's water all you want, but they are still going to believe that the ocean is made of blue gelatin no matter what.
On the other hand, you have absolute knowledge. I exist. I don't know absolutely that you exist, or that this computer exists. For all I know, I could be a brain in a vat, a man with locked-in syndrome, the dream of a colossal mega-computer that killed mankind, or anything else. On some level, however, I exist. That's absolute knowledge, and I'm going to go with Descartes and say that that's all I can absolutely know.
Anywhere between that, you have to have some sort of faith.
I have faith that you exist. That faith is based on evidence, but it falls short of absolute knowledge. The evidence for it, however, rises to the level that it is absolute knowledge for all intents and purposes. I'll call that "practical knowledge". This is the sort of knowledge that we use in day to day life.
On the other hand, very few people would accept that the ocean is made out of gelatin. However, a lot of people are willing to accept things that require a high degree of willful ignorance, so we'll call that "practically blind faith". This is the sort of faith that some (not all, but definitely some) atheists caricature Christianity as being.
Practically everything requires some faith and practically everything requires some evidence. It's not cut and dry.
Faith based upon the use of reason requires a much higher amount of proof than practically blind faith. This sort of faith in Christianity requires the evidence from creation that there is a God, and from Scripture that Jesus is the Messiah. It also requires the evidence of individuals who stated that Jesus rose from the dead. However, those are all things that require faith to accept that they mean what I believe that they mean. You could believe that the Universe was perpetually existent, or that Jesus didn't fulfill Messianic prophecies, or that the Disciples were incorrect in some way. All of those things require a higher degree of faith to accept compared to non-supernatural things that we encounter in day to day life.
The scientific method, on the other hand, also requires faith in the sense that you have to have some trust that reality works in a way which will allow it to function, but it provides immediate physical evidence. While there may be some disagreement over interpretations of that eevidence, there will be general acceptance of something which makes itself readily apparent.
Therefore, saying that the scientific method requires the same type of faith as reasoned belief is incorrect. I would argue that more basic scientific principles approach the level of practical knowledge, and would be outside of any typically used definition of faith.
No theory has all questions answered. In science when something is not known it is clearly stated so.That's a bit naive. You don't know what you don't know.
)
