First of all, You have reached a fair amount of success in establishing meaning even within a secular humanist framework. However, it's not catching on in the world. And, where it does catch on, there is worrisome signs (e.g., PRC, Soviet Union, etc).
But again you're arguing only on the basis of faith's usefulness, not its probability of validity. As I said, sure, faith has positive side effects, but using that to say "It works, go with it" is self-contradictory in my eyes.
You say I have certain core beliefs that I use to hypocritically criticize others' core beliefs, but I wasn't sure exactly what you were referring to. A belief is not a belief if it's stated as an uncertain idea coupled with observational evidence to support it. Then it's a theory. I try not to make any absolute statements at all: never once have I said that God doesn't exist. All I say is don't jump the gun. Name me one instance in which faith has made a discovery or expanded our "knowledge."
You say that science is based off of the same pragmatic guesswork that theism is. I disagree. If I were to say "String theory is absolutely correct, hands down." then you would be correct. But I don't do anything like that, and I have never seen a scientist who has. They accept and admit that their theories are just theories, methods to explain the data recieved but not an ultimate answer.
Faith does the opposite. It is portrayed both as an ultimate answer and doesn't neccesarily fit the data collected thus far.
I don't understand where you draw the paralell between science and theology. As long as the scientist adds in the phrase "but this is just a description" he will always be above the theist who says "this is truth." Shouldn't any theory be firmly grounded in observational data? Anything else is conjecture, which is fun and diverting, but it's not a solid foundation to build a belief structure on.