Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[Minimalist]

Here's the thing, were I not so lazy I could attend a university and get a degree in physics so that I might examine the various claims myself.  Failing that, I can and have tried to learn as much about the evidence underlying the claims of astrophysics as well as the objections of scholars.  The objections of theologians can be safely dismissed until they prove magic is real.  Failing that, they are not worth anyone's time.

I could also become a theologian but then all I would be is educated on the contents of a particularly childish book of ancient superstitions which has nothing substantial to support it beyond the claims of loud mouthed assholes who pretend to know the unknowable.

Yes, Rhonda.  I'll go with scientists.

[account_inactive]

I'll go with scientists, too.

[madog]

In my opinion science is an attempt to find the most reasonable conclusions from testable explanations and predictions ....

As far as I can see Religion has become the attempt to extract desired conclusions by filling the gaps not yet covered by science ...

[robvalue]

If theology had anything real to tell us, it too would be a science.

[Minimalist]

[Alex K]

Doing science is a job with well-defined requirements and quality standards. You can trust a scientist the same way you trust the guy who repairs your car or your dentist - you know in principle what the proper procedures are the scientist should follow to generate knowledge and interpret data or at least you know that there are such principles, just as you know (at least in principle) what principles your mechanic or dentist have to adhere to in order to do their job right. It is therefore clearly defined what constitutes malfeasance or neglect, in car repair as in science as in dentistry, and your trust into what a scientist says is on the same basis. It is not absolute, but it is on a firm basis provided by a generally accepted standard of what is proper procedure. I think this should make the difference to religious revelation clear enough, does it?

[brewer]

I'll go with scientists, too.

Good. But watch out for the pseudo's.

[LastPoet]

Ever tried to understand why when you spin a ball at the tip of a string, the faster you spin, the ball takes flight, what about a paper plane? How fun is to dip some Natrium on water? What about a baloon taped to a straw, running along a wire.

How much more fun it is to find out how the world is, instead of what we want it to be?

[SteveII]

If a scientist approaches her work with integrity what she finds out will either be reliable or distorted by human error.  If a priest approaches her work with integrity you can be pretty sure what she tells you will be consistent with her aims as a priest.  In many cases that includes enlisting as many more believers as possible.  The goal of science is to understand the empirical world.  The goal of religion is institutional.  If you must be dependent upon experts, science is far preferable.

You said a preacher's goal is "enlisting as many more believers as possible". That description is incomplete. You are missing a very important component: motive. A preacher's motive is not numbers, it's changing people's lives. 

In general, the comparison "why do I accept the scientists and reject the preachers?" in the OP is just nonsense as well as a false dichotomy. I accept both.

[SteveII]

If theology had anything real to tell us, it too would be a science.

Positivism has been rejected by philosophers for quite some time now.