1) a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

2) : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith> (Merriam-Webster)

Trust:

1) a : assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something

b : one in which confidence is placed (Merriam-Webster)

After considering both definitions, it is best to conclude that we trust in the items on that list; we do not have faith in the items on that list.  Some of them are reliable due to the fact that they’re self evident (i.e. laws of logic, cognitive and sensory faculties, adequacy of language).  However, all of them have this in common:  they have demonstrated repeated efficacy in our world.  Therefore, we can trust every item on that list.

It is perhaps the most desperate theistic argument; it is the last resort in a debate they cannot win.  It is wrong to say that we have faith in our senses or that we have faith in the laws of logic (i.e. identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle).  However, it is right to say that we trust our senses and that we trust the laws of logic.  A Christian may respond and say:  “well, I trust in the existence of god and I trust that he created the universe.”  On what basis?  Given what evidence — whether self-evidence or empirical evidence?  Given what repeated efficacy in the natural world?  None of that is available to the believer; thus, they must ground this facade of trust on faith — firm belief in something for which there is no proof.