This has to be one of the favorite topics for philosophical discussion, over the millennia. There are many terms, nuances, assumptions, and misunderstandings about these 2 things, and how they function in the human animal. I propose a philosophical discussion about this subject. Clarifying and defining terms will be Absolutely necessary.. we cannot assume the same things are meant in our terminology. These 2 terms are so loaded with preconceived biases, emotional baggage, and historical polemy, that just agreeing on the definitions may be impossible! Examples will help, and open consideration that what you mean by a particular term is not what someone else means. That will make long posts, so those looking for one liners or tweety answers will not like this topic. I'll provide my definitions of the terms. Faith This is so loaded with imagery, it may be impossible to arrive at a consensus about a definition. Mark Twain's definition is widely accepted by skeptics of supernatural beliefs. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." It is a very cute one liner, with a humorous zing towards people of faith. But it is flawed and filled with assumptions. It may be accurate for 'blind faith', which defines an unevidenced belief, but it cannot be assumed that all matters of human faith are based on unbelievable matters of imagination. Merriam Webster: Definition of faith plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāt͟hz\ 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty lost faith in the company's president b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions acted in good faith 2 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 clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith Context usually dictates how a term will be defined, but sometimes the fluidity of definitions can lead to one person insisting on a particular definition, regardless of context. For this discussion, i propose this application of the term: b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof. clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return Faith, here, is contrasted with empiricism. I'm not talking about doctrines of a religious system, or fidelity, or loyalty, but the contrast with empiricism, or 'science'. So i will define 'faith', in this discussion, as, a belief in something without empirical corroboration. It is something without objective, empirical proof. Science This term is almost as loaded as faith, and some blend the 2 so any distinction is lost. Merriam Webster: Definition of science 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws. cooking is both a science and an art. For this discussion, i propose this definition for science: 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method And i emphasize scientific methodology as the primary definer of 'knowledge', in this definition. ..not assertions.. not expert opinions, but empirical, proven concepts by sound scientific methodology. We are contrasting a non empirical belief (faith), with objective, empirical facts (science). Let us not get sidetracked with the irrelevant, non contextual definitions of the terms. Example: Human beings are rational creatures, and can consider abstract reasoning without emotion and defensiveness. Is this a statement of faith, or something that science can answer? I'll close with more examples to stimulate thought and discussion: There is a God. There is no God. Gravity is a fact. Man is evil. Man is good. Morality is relative. Everyone has faith. Humans can be purely empirical. 2+2=4 Human beings can separate their faith based beliefs from scientific facts. The origins of life and the universe are known, empirically. Life exists throughout the universe. The earth is billions of years old. The earth is thousands of years old. Man evolved from simpler life forms. Man was created complete and is unchanged. Human activity is destroying the earth's climate balance. Now, let us not get sidetracked debating these statements, but just categorize them as 'faith or science'. I hope for a rational, civil discussion about these things, but i know that they are hot button topics, for some. And, i know that threads like this are magnets for hecklers and religious bigots, who insist upon their beliefs as the only acceptable conclusion in philosophical opinions. I ask for civility and consideration of other posters, so the nature of our beliefs can be examined.