The whole question revolves around how do we know what we know. We have two choices. We can either experience it or we can rely on the testimony of another. This is true whether we are talking about people, or science or even religion. Those are the only two options. With science, to experience it means to conduct/repeat the experiment (or do the math).
However, for most of us, we don't do that. Instead knowledge is passed down from one generation to the next by teachers or books or today, the media and internet. As such, we don't have first hand knowledge but rely on other people who have gone before us. Now look at religion, it really doesn't matter which one. How are the precepts of that religion transmitted from one generation to the next? It is the same way, they go through teachers, books, or today, the media and internet.
Now, there are differences, because with science, one does have the opportunity to conduct the experiment, whereas, with religion, while many claim an "experience" it is hard to quantify and is usually quite subjective.
But, unless one actually does the experiment, they don't know first hand, and are really accepting on faith the testimony from those who came before them. Yes, the earth revolves around the sun. Ask yourself how you know that? Have you gone far enough into space where you can actually see it? Probably not. Have you conducted the mathematical calculations and observations to make that determination yourself? Probably not? Or are you accepting the testimony from others that this actually occurs? For most people that is the correct answer.
Accepting science on faith doesn't lessen the science. However, it is really the same process that people of faith use for their beliefs. Denying that most of what we know about science is not true knowledge, but instead belief or faith, however, denies the entire scientific process.
In reality, it is a philosophical question "How do we know what we know?" Of course, science doesn't like philosophy any more than it likes religion.