"Science is demonstrable, repeatable and self-correcting."
If this is the standard, we have a problem.
This is the standard for *what is faith and what is trust*.
Science isn't faith. It is trust that the above statement will lead us to the reasons of why things are, and why things will be.
Faith is believing the reasons of why things are (and will be) is attributable to methods that are unverifiable. Your belief that prayer caused healing for example. If I had a drug, that healed terminal condition X. I could set up an experiment that showed that using that drug vs a placebo would show an obvious increase in survival rates for condition X.
The prayer equivalent would be to run an experiment where you would have someone pray for those with condition X (in their presence). But the placebo in this case, would be someone that *looks* like they are praying, but are actually praying to god to tell him to decide. (the faith based placebo - look like you are praying for their survival, but actually praying to let god decide as if the prayer were never made).
Obviously, Terminal conditions is taking it a bit extreme, but I guarantee you, as long as the participating patients were not tipped as to the content of the prayer, their recovery rates (as an average) would match identically those that had an honest prayer for them.
Clearly this also voids the whole experiment, because the argument is any omnipotent being capable of all this healing would see through the whole charade and heal those he thought truly deserved it (or something), regardless of the experimenters prayer. Sadly this is an out that faith has to avoid the scrutiny of the whole "repeatable" aspect. Faith has rules and regulations that require it to be beyond questioning. That is why science is not a faith. Its rules and regulations are explicitly defined so that what it claims is true is meant to stand up to testing. but more than that, is supposed to actually be tested.
Biology is the only science in which multiplication means the same thing as division.