FAITH... WITH REASON

Dude, you can't claim you're using a normal dictionary-approved definition of faith, and then in response to people saying your dictionary-approved definition does not fit the examples given turn around and claim you're not going to argue about what the definition claims while arbitrarily introducing your own criteria ("acting on something = faith") not found in the dictionary definition you posted. 

Besides, what I said about the bridge and the coin-flip pretty much destroys the notion that it requires faith to act on something. Here's an even better example. If someone bets me $10 to my $1 that a roll of a die will land on 6, I also take the bet, even though I'm 83.3% certain I will lose the bet. If anything, my "faith" would be closer to "I'll lose the bet," that "I'll win the bet," but I take the bet because, again, I have positive expected value (+EV in gambling parlance). There's even a means of calculating exactly what the EV is: 83% * -$1 = -$.83 + 17% * $10 = $1.70. $1.70 + -$.83 = $0.87. So I expect to make $.87 over the long run, even though I'm more likely to lose $1 on any given roll. Now, where exactly is my "faith" in making this bet even though I acknowledge I'm most likely to lose the bet? 

Faith requires certainty as per your own definition. Don't post a definition and then act like that key word wasn't part and parcel of it. 

Well that's you. You can't be certain you won't die in a horrible car accident every time you get in your car and drive somewhere, yet people do it everyday because they decide it's worth the risk. Do you really convince yourself that such an accident isn't a possibility? 

You come to this conclusion by having faith. But I already said that having faith the bridge won't collapse is just ignoring the evidence and reality. You can still choose to cross the bridge without ignoring the possibility of it collapsing, the same way you drive to the market without ignoring the possibility of getting into a wreck.