Many times people write about science as a new religion or that science is based on faith, and I think people make these statements or claims because they are unfamiliar with its process or are unable to see beyond their previous experiences that have been faith-based. The reply has almost always been along the lines of 'no, it's based on facts' which I think is rather unhelpful and, in fact, not entirely true. First we need to define what science is, and already I know people will object. What scientist and scientifically inclined actually mean when they say 'science' is the 'Scientific Method'. It's a process of inquiry that is completely void of faith. But the word science has included all fields of study at one point and several methods of investigating them. Instead of burying the discussion in further arguments on the nature of science I will yield that the popular modern definition is simply the scientific method. But in future discussions I encourage everyone to point out what they are talking about if their purpose is to make themselves clear in the discussion (as opposed to just arguing aimlessly). In this text I define science as the scientific method as defined in Oxford English Dictionary ("...consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.") And if anyone wish to comment this text with an expanded definition of the word I hope they will point this out and define it the best they can. It's also incredibly important to remember that science is a process without a beginning or an end. What we found out yesterday will shape how and what we find out tomorrow. Every answer we have today is only built on what we know today. When we know more the answer might very will change. That does not mean that the answer is wrong in the first place but that it gave us a bigger question with a bigger answer. Gravity still functions as it did in Newton’s days and we still use his laws, but since Einstein we know there is more to it. Now that is what science 'is', and it is not based on faith. But science is surrounded by the rest of society and is, in a way, made up of scientists. Society and scientists complicate things because they are humans and humans are messy. There are degrees to what is actually known, from 'If I let go of the stone it will fall to the ground'; to consensus in the scientific community; to popular opinion; and down to personal conviction. In one and end there is science and in the other there is faith, but they all concern science and its results. In society I will focus on the role of media. Its purpose is to disseminate information the public is interested in. Counterproductive to the nature of science the media often make things interesting if it doesn't seem interesting in the first place. Very few in society have the ability to evaluate the latest advancements in science and the likelihood of some implications. We simply have to trust those who know better than us. This is the interesting part, since the most rational thing to do is to put our faith in the scientific method and those who practice it. So here is the faith, not inside science but in science. Unfortunately we are often too trusting in the headlines and the social sciences tell us that where we put our trust is often a popularity contents more than an active choice. Scientists also bring an element of faith into it. Humans aren't completely rational after all no matter how hard we try. As science is a process and what is known is a matter of degrees there are things that seem more true to one scientist then to another. Either one of them, when asked on a course of action based on the current understanding of a topic, puts a level of faith on his or her prior experiences. This is not science but a direct consequence of humans and their relationship to science. The argument made by either scientist can be completely rational and based on scientific research but with enough room to arrive at different conclusions. Earning a degree in a scientific field doesn't guarantee sanity or lifelong trust in the scientific method either, a lot can change in a persons life. So let’s not trust scientists just for being scientists, they are also human. So I think I have showed that there is an element of faith in our relationship to science. If anyone wants me to explain how there is no faith in each step of the scientific method I will try to do that. I also know that I haven't defined 'faith' at all in this text because I have honestly "winged it", faith is slightly beyond my reach. If we change its meaning this whole text could go out the window. If there are any objections please go ahead, the scientific method demands that we go back and re-evaluate what is known in the light of new data.