I am so glad you have a definition of that that you like. Fortunately I am under no obligation accept it.
The other definition is "hope."
When Christians say that they have faith that Jesus died for their sins, they are not saying that they "hope Jesus died for our sins," they are saying that they
know this to be true. Thus, they are using the definition I provided, which is the same definition used by the Bible ("sight of things unseen" and all that).
Please don't try playing word games.
If you have evidence, you don't need faith.
If you doubt that the Sun rises in the East, no one talks about faith, they just show you the evidence.
If you doubt the Germ Theory of Disease, no one talks about faith, they just show you the evidence.
If you doubt that elephants exist, no one talks about faith, they just show you the evidence.
If you doubt that the moon is round, no one talks about faith, they just show you the evidence.
If you doubt gravity, no one talks about faith, they just show you the evidence.
The only time people talk about faith with respect to conclusions is when they don't have evidence (or more likely, don't have any
good evidence) supporting said conclusion.
I note you are using the word reason in 2 different ways here. Could you clear up exactly what you mean?
By definition they are mutually exclusive. Do you think it's a good idea to accept conclusions without good reason or not?
When you fix up the your use of 'reason' we can talk further.
Are you confused about the two different uses of the word "reason" in this part?
Faith is accepting conclusions when you don't have a good reason to do so.
Reason is waiting until you have a good reason to accept a conclusion before doing so.
If so, yes, I am using two different definitions of the word. I don't understand what is confusing about it.