Science doesn't have "facts" or "truths". It is based on falsifiability: for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and

Science doesn't have "facts" or "truths". It is based on falsifiability: for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. This is the key difference from religion, which has no such "falsifiability" equivalent. The closest thing to "beliefs" is probably an individual following which of several competing theories is most likely correct -- but there's always the underlying basis that any of them might have evidence showing they're incorrect at any time, and one's view should adjust as a result. Often this comes in the form of deferring to other people or a consensus view, which could be construed as "faith" but is different: If you asked me how the universe exists, I'd say the big bang theory is the best answer we have, but I don't understand enough about the underlying science to explain why nor can my brain comprehend the reality of it. I have no loyalty or allegiance to this view, though; I could be swayed to another theory if the big bang is ever proven false or if a better theory arises. Further reading: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scientific-faith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith/417357/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scie...