This is correct, but a lot of people derive and indefensible conclusion from it. The real insight is that any belief in an axiom is an exercise in faith. A scientist who fails to recognise the role of faith in their beliefs commits the same error as a religious person who fails to recognise the role of faith in their beliefs.
This is a common argument, and it is a form of argument by dictionary definition, which are seldom informative, and most often used to avoid the issues.
While individual scientists may hold beliefs that go beyond scientific premises, the significant difference between scientific and religious belief is that in the former case, all axioms are considered to be defeasible - and they quite often are overthrown.
The foundational axioms of scientific practice are generally not considered to be defeasible at all. The axioms of any particular theory or field may also be considered entirely beyond reproach.
This is also not a semantic argument at all. It is strictly a logical one.
Please humor me. Trying to articulate a half-baked notion.
A close relative went from marine biologist to creationist (et al), and I've been struggling to accept the change. My Calvinist self still doesn't understand Evangelic system of faith.
--
Given Structure + Process => Outcomes:
Scientist: Faith in processes, eg scientific method. Belief is based on reproducibility.
Evangelical: Faith in outcomes. The book (authority) is used to rationalize (justify) proclamations of belief.
To your point: Yes, both have "faith", but with different starting points and emphasis.
