I think Scott means "hope", not "faith", as he hopes for the betterment of the human species and not "faith" in a religious sense of claim certainty for objective claims which have zero evidence.
He is a smart guy, but i think he is playely loosely with definitions when it suits his argument. If "faith" includes believing in humanity, human rights, the nation, or having any hope at all, then it really doesn't mean anything to say we need it. Of course we need it, and I think all species need it in order to want to survive. So what is the point of the discussion? Surely the discussion only has a purpose if it focuses on religious faith?
He needs to use the loosest definition of "faith" to point to the positive side of it: our advances in comparison to other species, etc. but then withdraws to the tightest definition when defending against the negatives: i.e. wars. Note he says that "religion", not faith is responsible for only 7% of our wars, but if he was going to use his broadest definition of "faith" that he presented earlier, it would be 100% of wars.