Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[Rhondazvous]

Actually the journal Nature has been hitting pretty hard on reproducibility lately.   How often it is attempted and when attempted how often it is unsuccessful may surprise you.

http://www.nature.com/news/reality-check...ty-1.19961
http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scienti...ty-1.19970

That is a pretty big problem. Though obviously there are scientists who are working to solve this problem. With many people in religion, I doubt this would be considered a problem at all. Faith does not require reproducibility. otherwise it wouldn't the faith in the religious sense.

Scientists see a major problem in their methodology and they seek to fix it. Theists see a major problem in their methodology and they seek to make sure the tithe payers don't hear about it.

[CapnAwesome]

You can do the science yourself.

[Rhondazvous]

I'll go with scientists, too.

me too, as long as he's cute and not married. Intelligence is mad sexy. Eh.

[Rhondazvous]

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.

That's another difference, when a scientist doesn't know the answer to a question, he says so. When a theist can't answer a question, he cays it's nonsense. Thank you for your contribution. It's appreciated, predictable but appreciated.

[Regina]

Scientists (for the most part) are willing to test and re-test, admit when they've been proved wrong, learn from mistakes, don't believe they're infallible, and trust whatever the evidence suggests.

A Preacher is someone who has read one book and thinks they have the answer to everything.

Big difference.

[Rhondazvous]

"Read one book and think they know the answer to everything." Ah man, if I were giving out prizes...

[Minimalist]

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.

All that does is make you a rather shitty xtian.

[Ravenshire]

The ability to attempt to reproduce/test does not exist in theology.

Even worse. The mere attempt is heresy.

[vorlon13]

Anybody wanna trust the Mormon hierarchy ??

Particularly knowing they have changed ALL of their revelations, supposedly ordained by God Almighty, and yet all were found to be lacking in one way or another (some were flawed in multiple ways too, and many changes had to be subsequently changed again when they became problems) (AFAIK, no Mormon revelation that has been revised more than once, was ever returned to its original form either).

And also knowing the Mormon hierarchy routinely denies any changes have ever been made to their revelations (despite publishing different versions of them at different times) and if really pressed with the incontrovertible evidence in their own records, will fall back only slightly and insist no matter how big a revision might be, the original 'intent' is still there and they just corrected some spelling or punctuation minutia.

I wouldn't trust those idiots with a burned out match.

[Homeless Nutter]

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.

Science changed people's lives in a century, more than all religions did over millennia. And for the better, not worse.
Preachers only talk about changing lives - science delivers.

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.

That's because you don't comprehend either. To a simple minded lay-person both science and theology appear equally inscrutable and abstract. And even if you can see contradictions between religious doctrine and scientific observation - the magical thinking is so emotionally pleasing, that you ignore them, or accept lackluster, ad hoc apologetics, in order to keep up your dualistic, fantastic model of reality.

If the scientists told you that your smart-phone was operating on the basis of magic miracles from Jesus - you'd have no way of knowing if it was true. Surely - omnipotent god could have made the iPhone and neither you nor anyone you personally know can make one - so it must mean what you were told is true, right?

Luckily science, as a method of gathering and implementing knowledge works reliably and consistently, which is why it doesn't have a vested interest in deceiving anyone. Which is something you can't say about any religion.