At some point there is no discernable difference between "faith" and "discipline."
Those who follow a "faith" have disciplined their thoughts to follow a particular set of ideas.
People who don't follow a particular "faith" (by which I mean an uncritical acceptance of ideas proven or not), often discipline themselves to follow a consistent set of ideas about, for example, evolution. This "discipline" is based upon the accrual of evidence, but still requires the repetition of certain simplified ideas.
Is the only difference between the two in the origin of the ideas that are held consistently?
That is, by this defintion, faith doesn't need to prove the ideas that it repeats over and over again. Discipline implies that the repeated ideas have a basis in fact.