In college, I took a fascinating class on the philosophy of science that deeply shaped my present understanding of science and faith. My main takeaway from that class was the idea that science and faith are orthogonal. This means that they operate independently of one another, serving different roles in how we perceive and interact with the world. Science is everything that can be measured and falsified, while faith encompasses beliefs held without measured evidence.

Publication Date

$ date -u "+%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S +0000"
2026-01-15 11:11:38 +0000

The Scientific Method and Why It Works

To understand the distinction between science and faith, it is important first to define what science is and why it works.

Science is grounded in the scientific method, which involves observing the world, forming hypotheses based on those observations, and testing those hypotheses through experiments. The defining feature of the scientific method is its requirement for falsifiability. For any theory to be valid, there must be a way to test it and potentially prove it wrong. A theory is not considered true until it has been rigorously tested and validated by experiments that can be independently verified.

For example, Newton’s laws of motion were once thought to be universally applicable. However, Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity provided a more accurate framework, particularly for understanding the universe at extreme speeds. This shift did not invalidate Newton’s laws. It merely showed that they were a special case of a broader theory. Science thrives on this iterative process of revisiting and refining existing knowledge. It is this constant testing and revision that makes science so effective in explaining the natural world.

The Role of Faith in Everyday Life

While science deals with the measurable and falsifiable, faith concerns itself with things that cannot be directly observed or proven. Faith is the belief in concepts or outcomes that we accept as true despite the absence of concrete evidence or scientific proof. In everyday life, everyone relies on faith, whether religious or not.

For example, when I go to sleep at night, I do so with the faith that I will wake up in the morning, despite the fact that people die in their sleep every day. The alternative is living every day as though it is actually my last. Similarly, when I drive my car, I trust that I will reach my destination safely, even though fatal accidents occur daily. I would not drive if I believed the risks were significant. When I go to work, I have faith that I will be paid for my labor, even though there are instances where wages go unpaid. If I truly expected otherwise, I would not accept the job.

These examples show that I have faith in certain outcomes, even though others may not share that trust. Similarly, holding the opposite view is itself an act of faith, but refraining from holding a position is not. Incidentally, insurance is based on the premise that some will be unlucky, but no one knows who. It helps manage uncertainty, though it cannot always restore what is lost, as a cash settlement will not undo the damage of a life-altering accident.

In essence, everyone operates on some form of faith. Whether religious or not, we constantly make decisions based on beliefs and assumptions that go beyond what can be proven. Faith is a fundamental part of human life because we cannot verify everything, yet we must still act based on predictions about the future.

Differentiating Between Empirical and Faith-Based Beliefs

It is crucial to differentiate between empirical beliefs, those based on measurable, testable evidence, and faith-based beliefs, which are grounded in trust, hope, or assumptions that cannot be realistically tested. This distinction is key to communicating clearly and thoughtfully, especially when our actions require both a combination of both empirical evidence and faith.

In many real-world scenarios, acts of faith must be made even within empirical domains. For example, when solving a complex problem at work, you may have confidence in your ability to identify and fix the issue. This confidence is not based on evidence that the solution is already known, but rather on the faith that, through effort and persistence, a solution will emerge. Sometimes, this assumption will be proven false, but it is essential to move forward.

Similarly, consider the faith required in a business context. You may trust that you will be able to meet client expectations, even when you do not have concrete evidence that they are satisfied. This act of faith drives you to take action, knowing that success often requires navigating uncertainty. Your belief that you can win over support or meet goals, despite challenges, is a vital part of your decision-making process. Despite your efforts, you may need to work with a stakeholder who is bound and determined to be impossible to please.

Recognizing these faith-based decisions helps us understand how faith influences even the most practical, empirical parts of life. It also encourages us to communicate more effectively by acknowledging the limits of our knowledge and the role that trust and belief play in shaping our actions.

Science and Faith in the Context of Metaphysics and Religion

A classical example of how science and faith intersect lies in the realms of metaphysics and religion. Some scientists have faith in metaphysical concepts, such as the belief that the universe cannot be random or that it must have been created by a higher power or principle. While these scientists do not have empirical evidence to support such beliefs, they hold them because they refuse to believe that the universe could have emerged purely by chance.

On the other hand, some scientists have faith in the idea that metaphysical concepts simply do not exist, that everything in the universe can be explained by natural laws. This is also an act of faith because the nonexistence of metaphysical ideas cannot be empirically tested or falsified. These scientists argue that science should remain focused strictly on what can be observed and measured, dismissing metaphysical ideas as irrelevant.

There are also many people who do not practice the scientific method but hold faith in metaphysical beliefs, such as astrology or spiritualism. These beliefs, though untestable by science, shape how these individuals interpret their world. Other people who do not practice scientific rigor reject conjectural positions, instead prioritizing direct, hands-on experience over undemonstrated claims.

Orthogonal Axes

The key point of this discussion is that science and faith are orthogonal, meaning they are not in direct conflict but instead operate on different axes. Science deals with what can be observed, measured, and tested. It seeks to answer the “how” and “what” questions, explaining the mechanics of the world around us. Faith, on the other hand, addresses questions and beliefs that go beyond the empirical and the observable. It is concerned with the untestable, the abstract, and often the deeply personal, often tackling the “why” questions.

By understanding that science and faith are orthogonal, we can appreciate that they do not contradict each other. They answer different kinds of questions. Science explains physical laws, while faith offers meaning and purpose, often in areas that are outside of the scope of scientific investigation. This distinction allows for a more nuanced understanding of both realms. Science does not disprove faith, nor can faith undermine science. They complement each other, contributing to our understanding in unique ways.

When Acts of Faith Become Science

Acts of faith can evolve into science as technology progresses and new tools become available to test and falsify ideas that were once untestable. What may begin as a belief based on limited information can eventually be validated through advancements in research, experimentation, and observation.

A historical example of this is the theory of atoms. Around 400 BC, the Greek philosopher Democritus theorized that all matter was composed of indivisible atoms. At the time, there was no way to test or observe this idea, so it was a belief rooted in logical reasoning and philosophical thought. It was not until the 19th and 20th centuries, with advances by scientists like John Dalton and J.J. Thomson, that experimental evidence confirmed the existence of atoms. However, Democritus’s original model was far from accurate. Atoms were not indivisible, but were composed of subatomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons.

This example illustrates how acts of faith, based on speculative ideas, can become the foundation for scientific discovery as technology evolves. What began as a speculative belief can eventually become a scientifically testable theory. This shows how the boundaries between science and faith are not always fixed but can shift as our capacity to observe and measure improves. Future technological breakthroughs may continue to elevate contemporary faith-based ideas, transforming them into scientifically testable theories.

When Science Becomes an Act of Faith

The opposite is also true. Sometimes, science becomes an act of faith when previously established theories are disproven, but people dogmatically cling to them despite new evidence. This is especially true of older scientific theories that may have seemed incontrovertible at the time but are eventually replaced as our understanding deepens. This position is generally seen as a failure of the scientific mindset rather than a valid application of faith.

This phenomenon can be seen in how some legacy religious beliefs are based on the accumulated observations and experiences at the time these best practices were codified. In many cases, religious beliefs can be seen as old science or precursors to modern science in the very literal sense. Whether intended as a health measure or a ritual boundary, the Mosaic prohibition of shellfish functioned as an empirical safeguard. It used the authority of divine decree to enforce a behavior that modern science now validates through our knowledge of how filter-feeders concentrate toxins. Similarly, the prohibition of pork provided a communal defense against trichinosis long before the microbiology of parasites was understood. In both cases, the “why” was framed by faith, but the “what” was rooted in observable, albeit primitive, science.

It is important to note that this is not a critique of religious faith, but rather an exploration of how faith and science interact in the context of human understanding. People’s core worldly and existential concerns remain largely the same, regardless of technological advancements. What changes are the tools and frameworks we use to address those concerns. In many cases, religious traditions offer valuable guidance, communal support, moral teachings, and behavioral best practices. The best practices from hundreds or thousands of years ago are often still the best practices because biological humans remain effectively the same. Some long-standing beliefs have been refined by scientific discoveries.

There is also a forward-facing aspect of science that is, in itself, an act of faith. Some scientific theories are proposed without conclusive evidence or methods for falsification. In such cases, scientists may hold these ideas in anticipation of future discoveries. This is an act of faith in the potential of future knowledge. Curiosity alone is not always enough. The belief that exploration will yield answers propels scientific inquiry forward, even when individuals obstinately cling to speculative positions as they are actively disproven.

For More Information: Key Thinkers in Philosophy of Science

If you are interested in exploring the boundaries of science and belief further, the following philosophers provided the foundational frameworks for these discussions.

Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery)

  • Core Thesis: Popper is the father of falsifiability. He argued that science is distinguished from “pseudoscience” or metaphysics not by being “proven true,” but by being capable of being proven false. If a theory cannot be tested against reality, it is not scientific.

Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)

  • Core Thesis: Kuhn introduced the “Paradigm Shift.” He argued that science does not always progress in a straight, logical line. Instead, it operates within a “paradigm” until too many anomalies build up, leading to a revolution that completely changes the scientific worldview. An example is the shift from Newton’s to Einstein’s model of physics.

Stephen Jay Gould (Rocks of Ages)

  • Core Thesis: Gould proposed the concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria, which holds that science and religion occupy two separate domains, or magisteria, that do not overlap. This is the academic version of orthogonality. Science covers the empirical realm and explains what the universe is made of, while religion covers the realm of ultimate meaning and moral value.

Imre Lakatos (Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes)

  • Core Thesis: Lakatos sought a middle ground between Popper and Kuhn. He described science as a “research programme” with a “hard core” of beliefs that scientists protect from being falsified by creating a “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses. This explains why scientists sometimes “have faith” in a theory even when early evidence seems to contradict it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, science and faith are not opposing forces locked in a zero-sum game, but rather orthogonal dimensions of the human experience. Science provides the rigorous, falsifiable framework for understanding the “how” of the physical universe, while faith provides the necessary trust and purpose to navigate the “why” of our existence. As we have seen through historical examples like the Mosaic dietary laws or the evolution of atomic theory, the boundary between these two realms is dynamic. What begins as an act of faith can become scientific fact or confirmed superstition as our tools for measurement improve.

By recognizing this orthogonality, we can move past the false choice between being “rational” or “believing.” Everyone, from the scientist proposing a new theory to the commuter driving to work, operates on a blend of empirical evidence and fundamental faith. Acknowledging the unique roles of both allows us to approach the world with greater clarity, embracing scientific progress without discarding the profound meaning and practical wisdom that faith provides.