[naive]

That's true, but pedantic and technical, as the same could be said of virtually anything that occurs in one's life. Most people share the belief that doctors can identify and treat illnesses. Most people hold the belief that their birthday is actually on the day specified in their birth certificate. Most people share the belief that the sun provides warmth and light. Most people share the belief that we cannot fly. etc. Would you deem it necessary to call these things shared belief systems of faith, and liken them to religions?

Yes.

That's the problem of religion, not the luxury of science. It just makes it harder for religions to possess credibility when their claims are not testable.

So if science were not able to be easily tested, would you have no faith that you would not wake up out of bed one morning and fall into the sky? Just because a theory is untestable does not mean it is false, nor does scrupulous testing mean that results will never change.

Imagine the members of this site created a book with Gandhi as supernatural saviour of the world (who flew around in the sky and converted sand into food) and copied real historical events into it as well as Aesop's fables. Then just imagine a couple of thousand years into the future: it becomes a widely accepted religion with thousands of believers writing books about it. Does this prove that Gandhi was really anything more than a mortal man? If you were one of these believers, you might believe with every ounce of your body that the depictions of Gandhi are real, and believe that there is proof everywhere, but your "proof" of supergandhi is based on embellishments and fantasies written in books.

Ok, lets assume that Ghandi really did do these things. How would you prove it to people 1000 years from now? If I was adding two coins together all day long and then all of a sudden one time I ended up with three coins (1+1=3), but I couldn't repeat the process or explain it, it would have nothing to do the the 'truth' of it happening. There are anomalies that happen and a lack of proof doesn't not imply a lack of truth. 

Religion might be emotionally compelling, but it is not rationally compelling. It relies on faith, not rationality.

Rationality is only faith in knowledge, and without faith you can have no rationality.

It specifically depends on which scientific theory & religion you are talking about. For instance: Evolution is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible's Genesis.

I'm not speaking of any specific religions, it's not my purpose to say which theories are true or false. Simply that anything accepted as truth, is based on a system of faith.

In science, most experimental data is objective.

The data is objective, our understanding of the data is not.

Many people who appreciate science, also appreciate rationality/reason, which is pretty much the opposite of faith.

I do not believe this statement to be true, I believe that rationality/reason requires faith.