Science is evidence-based. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. So science is emphatically not based on faith.
Depends on purpose. If you want facts, then don't dismiss them or your rational brain. If you want solace, then pray to whomever makes you feel warm all over.
And you can only surmise the "banana peel" is there, you can't look far enough down to actually see it.
Yes, but I think Ricter may be implying, among other things, that our understanding of science is based on our faith in our ability to reason. A bit of sophistry from an otherwise very bright fellow.
Like Brass said, this is sophistry. Give an example where science has ignored relevant evidence because of some "value" judgement. Not some individual scientist who made bad choices based on some personal flaw, but the scientific community as a whole.
The only actual universe we have is moving gradually towards a state of entropy. Time is a byproduct of that movement. To reverse the movement towards entropy is to reverse the arrow of time. If you're thinking about someone outside of this universe, that someone by definition is not constrained by time, because time only exists as a function of the physical reality of this universe.