[naive]

I do not feel as though supernatural elements should be a requirement of the definition of religion. Supernatural is kind of a funny concept because it is actually a relative term based on what your understanding of nature is. A Christian would not claim that god is supernatural, because they believe that god created everything therefore Christianity would not be supernatural, but natural. Essentially, all religions believe that other religions claim supernatural things, but not their own. It is almost as if adding the requirement of supernaturality to the definition would mean that no person could accept their own belief structure as a religion as from their perspective it would be simply nature.

"Naive, either you can agree that there is a distinction between the type of faith necessary to believe in the truth of scientific claims as opposed to the type of faith required to believe in the truth of most religious claims,
or you are forced to conclude that nothing can be known and that every imaginable thing is equally probable." -Silly

I feel as if there are not multiple types of faith, as it would be unnecessary in order to perform both functions. I'm not aware of different types of faith, as all that faith is "confidence or trust in a person or thing". From a christian perspective, individuals have gathered information available to them and made a choice. The same can be applied to scientific perspective. The information that each individual receives is what structures the things that they believe in, not so much the raw mechanical process that allows for human to have belief structures itself. Faith is simply a mechanism, how your belief structures are formed and how they derive information from the world are based on how their neural networks were trained.