Holy expiry date, Batman!

(
meh, less than two years...)
No kidding. It's still faith.
Well... but just saying it pointblank like that confuses the issue. This thread has been about trying to clear up the confusion by separating the different meanings “faith” has.
As we've seen, “faith” can mean belief supported by evidence. Pertaining to science, there is massive evidential support for the claim that the universe is orderly enough that it can be usefully analyzed and many of its phenomena predicted. So it makes sense to have faith (so defined) in the claim on which the scientific method is based.
However, “faith” can also mean belief without evidence, or even contrary to evidence. That's how it's often used in religion. A religion may teach followers to have faith in the existence of karma, or an eternal soul, or a Day of Judgment, etc., for which there is no rigorous evidence at all, based simply on a pronouncement by a religious authority. Obviously, this is a very different sort of “faith” from the one in the previous paragraph: in fact, in terms of how they're supported, they're completely opposite.
So it's important we keep the two sorts of faith separate. Does science necessitate “faith” in the first sense: belief supported by evidence? Of course; that's the whole point of evidence and doing science. Does science necessitate “faith” in the second sense: belief without or contrary to evidence? No – that's religious faith.
Any scientist worth his salt should recognize this. The quality of the faith compared to others, however, isn't something that can be determined at this time considering the universe is possibly subjective.
(Not quite sure what's meant by “subjective”: in what follows, it's a synonym for “isn't orderly”, instead of the usual “existing in the mind”; subject to some mind's whim and therefore not orderly seems the likeliest connection, so I'll go with that.) In any event, the universe's being possibly “subjective” doesn't negate our experience that the universe until now has been sufficiently well-ordered to be profitably analyzed, and is no reason not to continue with the analysis (which is science). It's enough that it might continue (hypothetically); one need not have complete confidence (unattainably absolute faith) that it will.
All Einstein was saying is that scientists are truly religious because they must have faith in the orderliness of the universe. If the universe isn't orderly, if the universe is actually subjective, his scientific faith would be misplaced.
Planck said something similar:
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."
- Max Planck
Thanks for the quotes; in the matter of faith and science, Einstein and Planck are really interesting cases. Because throughout their careers, both would profess an a priori (prior to observation) faith in a rationally-ordered universe: revealing the “mind of God”, as it used to be called. Thus both remained deeply opposed to what seemed to them the unthinkably irrational – statistical, entangled, uncertain, non-local, non-determinist, acausal, &c – order suggested by quantum mechanics: “that God plays dice with the universe” as Einstein famously objected (or “spooky action at a distance”, in reference to entanglement and non-locality). This becomes one of the great ironies in science history: on account of their faith in a more 'rational' physics, the two scientists whose discoveries most inspired quantum mechanics were unable to bring themselves to accept its implications. Well, as history has shown, so much the worse for their faith; and for faith in general, when it clashes with scientific observation. (Of course any scientist is free to believe whatever she wants to based on intuition or what have you; the point is that faith of this sort isn't essential to science; what's more, as in the case of Planck's and Einstein's difficulties with quantum mechanics, it's often an obstacle.)*
*
To be fair, especially in Einstein's case, faith in a more rational order did generate some marvelous discussion - the Schrodinger's cat paradox an offshoot - and it's still possible that a version of quantum mechanics more in keeping with Einstein's and Planck's conservative view of physics may turn out to be true; however, there's no reason to assume it must be true, as their faith seemed to imply. Quantum mechanics is so weird that many scientists nowadays eschew any interpretation of it, preferring to just “shut up and calculate”.