Setting human limitations...

[Humanist_Activist]

15. The difference is that science is self correcting, to account for human fallibility...

religion is not. Yes, individuals of both groups are susceptible to dogmatism, however, unlike in religion, science doesn't develop "followers" without hard evidence to back up theories and ideas. Those in the profession who are dogmatic end up being discredited sometime in the future if their ideas don't match with the evidence.

Generally, over time, the scientific method leads to wide reaching consensus with the repeatability of experiments and the conclusions drawn from observation, religion goes in the opposite direction, leading to further fragmentation and discord. Think of the many denominations of Christianity alone, all drawing inspiration from a single book, yet there are tens of thousands of these groups that, in many cases, simply don't agree on some of the most basic of doctrines.

I also don't really agree with your definition of faith, the problem is the inexact nature of that use, I have confidence in things such as the gravitational constant, speed of light in a vacuum, etc. but I certainly don't have faith that those constants are constant, I have evidence and observation to back it up.

The point of skeptical inquiry is to keep an open mind, but also to withhold judgement until evidence comes in to support an idea, theory, or proposition. The question of a deity is a classic one, withholding judgement means not believing the claims made by others without evidence, that doesn't mean a deity is impossible, just unlikely, and certain definitions of deity are internally inconsistent and can't exist.