I trust science because I know the rigorous scholarship and peer review that goes into reputable mainstream academic science.

First of all, in science, NO ONE says anything on their own authority. Either it is common knowledge or it is documented. That's just the rule of thumb in good scholarship the world over.

Proper documentation equals at minimum:

• title
• name of author
• usually date of publication
• if online source, a website is given

This may be in fine print in footnotes or at the end of the article.

Secondly, there are certain items I look for in professional or genuine (may be written for the lay audience but still be genuine) science article. If one or more of these items is missing I hold the article suspect. Here are things I look for in professional, or genuine, articles:

• The article cites the top specialists world-wide without bias for nationality; if an article cites only the scientists (in a certain field) in one country I would hold it suspect until I had more information.
• It will list (often in fine print before or after the article) credentials including academic degrees and where these were earned, and also where and what the person is presently working/teaching.
• The article will explain how an experiment was done, where, when, why, and what methodology was applied; this may be in the form of an overview or a detailed description, depending on the level of profesionalism and the audience for whom it is written.
• It will compare the present experiment with past experiments and with other on-going research of the moment in other parts of the world.
• It will present the outcome of the present experiment, whether positive or negative. The outcome will make sense to the reader because everything is explained logically and scientifically and it all hangs together.

Thirdly, a word about the outcome. It will regard one very tiny technical item that most lay people may barely notice or comprehend. If it is anything larger than this, the article is suspect. Why? Because of the extreme sophistication you mentioned, Chris, to which science has advanced. Exploration takes place on the micro and macro levels far beyond or beneath the observation of the naked eye.

In contrast, some years ago somebody gave me a video with "evidence" that Noah's Ark had been found. I don't know a thing about science BUT:

1. The research team was composed of a man who was the lead "scientist," his wife, and their friends who were a married couple. PROBLEM: Seldom are specialists in the same field so conveniently married to each other and, on top of that, best friends with each other. Hearts and brains do not normally correspond so closely with each other.
2. This man, supported by his team, "discovered" in a matter of months what normally takes a team of interdisciplinary specialists entire lifetimes to prove.
3. He did not look at any contradictory evidence.

Briefly stated, in an inordinately short time he reached sweeping conclusions.

Ads that claim simple cures for cancer, or shocking new discoveries about cancer-producing products, are likewise "sweeping conclusions" reached in an "inordinately short time." Genuine science does not work that way.

In conclusion, this is why I think logic is the best defense against bad science.

In another thread I wrote a post with the title Religion Lacks Morality and Logic (see today's post by this title; the thread has another title). The OP of this present thread is Why I Trust Science. A major argument is that it is built on logic. Okay, why do I trust logic?

Maybe you are different from me but for me it is very important to figure out how to survive in this world. In order to do this, I need to understand this world and the conditions required for human life on this planet today. It might also be in my best interests that this planet continue to function beyond my own demise. If the planet disintegrate with my demise it is quite likely that the population in general will see it coming so that no one will care for me in my own last days. Beyond that, well, I just like the idea that this planet will be here for many more centuries supporting human, animal, and plant life as I have known it. I expect the death of my body to be the end of my existence.

Logic, for me, is when things hang together and make sense. It makes sense that when I dip a piece of cloth into a bucket of water the cloth gets wet. It makes sense that when I put water on the fire, the fire goes out. That is observable or empirical reality; it's the way things work. Nothing we do can alter the way these things work. We accept them as laws of nature and all other things we invent and devise have to take these basic laws of nature into consideration--along with many other similarly basic laws of nature. All of us learn these laws as we move from infancy into childhood and there is no need to repeat them here. When we push a toy over the edge of the table it falls down--out of reach.

When we grow older we learn that one boy and one girl makes two children, just as one orange and one apple makes two fruits, and one red house and one white house makes two houses. These things are logical and they make sense. There are rules and they never change. These rules are the same no matter what language we speak, what part of the world we are in, or even whether we apply them to matters of other universes. (It is believed that there may be other universes--or, more correctly, our universe may be part of a larger multiverse.) The fact of the matter is that this rule (1+1=2) is applied by humans throughout the known universe, and it is also taken into the larger multiverse that may exist.

Why? Well, really, it's more than just a rule. It's a fact. It can't be changed. We all understand that.

That is the way logic works. Some people believe there are other realities beside this one. I do not here in this post wish to dispute that; I do that elsewhere. For this post, there may or may not be other realities or God/gods; that does not affect the simple fact that 1+1=2. The logic of empirical reality remains the same regardless of whether or not there are other realities. Hinduism=one religion. Christianity=one religion. Hinduism and Christianity together=two religions; 1+1=2. That is logic. It just works because that is the way things work.

That is why I trust it--because it always works.

I saw your post, Marti. Seems pretty accurate.

I'll copy a few posts here written in response to challenges brought against the post on logic on exChristian.

The way I understand it is that there are rules of logic that are just as absolute and uncompromising as the rules of math. Thus, it is possible to look at a premise and determine whether or not it makes sense logically--not just to me but to anyone playing by the rules of logic.

As a human being with limited insight and energy, I can never look at "every perspective" of any given matter. That is why I qualify "every perspective" with "so far as I can see." In debates of logic, that allows for the input of others with other insights and perspectives. It also states that I have done what I can for the moment and that this is my position until new information is forth-coming.

New information may be forth-coming the instant the next person speaks. Or it may not come forth until after I'm dead and gone. I do expect new information to come forth on most matters sometime before the disintigration of the planet. Life would be awfully dull and boring if we could not learn new information.

However, this new information had better hang together and make sense. The basic laws of nature and logic seem not to have changed in the past three thousand years.

Perhaps you haven't studied all there is to study in psychology. I have not studied too much psychology, either, but I have formally studied human feelings and behaviour on the micro and macro levels. What you say here is perfectly logical so far as I can see. It has happened so many times to so many people under so many different circumtances across time, culture, and geography--it's one of those things that just is. A law of nature if you will. There are psychological reasons that can be explained on the biological level if I'm not mistaken. You might want to take a look at this for starters. Here's one about Michael Persinger who is doing this research.

It is also a law of nature that when people act on their instincts driven by these inner motivations that sometimes they lose contact with their better human knowledge or common sense. Then they give in to fear or whatever and hurt people who disagree with them. When I am overwhelmed with fear and fantasies, I need to fall back on solid logic. That has carried me through when all else failed.

Logic looks at what exists in this world in this moment for this need.

For example, I may be overwhelmed with the death of a loved one, the loss of a long-time job, and the notice that I need to move--all within one short month's time (this specific list of things has never happened to me personally but it could). And then notice that both my fridge and wallet got emptied out while I wasn't looking--probably legitimately but I was too busy and preoccupied to keep tab on everything. Nor do I have a bus ticket to go to the bank to get cash. What to do???

Should I pray and wait for God to move a neighbour to put food or a cheque on my doorstep? That would be one option but it would be awfully risky and I could starve in the meantime. Except my neighbours might discover that something was wrong and they might actually help out. Should I give God the glory at that point? Sure, that would be one option.

Logic tells me those are not my only options, or the wisest options.

1. I can walk to the grocery store so not having a bus ticket is not an excuse.
2. I can buy groceries with my debit card; I don't need cash in my wallet.
3. My grocery store allows customers to get cash back on their debit cards so having no cash in my wallet and no bus tickets in no excuse whatsoever not to go grocery shopping.

But I'm having so many other problems I can't even think about grocery shopping. This is where cold hard logic has to step in and say, "You haven't eaten all day. There's crackers and one wrinkled apple on the countertop. Eat that. Then go grocery shopping, whether or not you feel like it. Then you will be better able to focus on the bigger picture."

Sometimes I have to break it down into even smaller segments and figure out how to get out of the chair I'm lounged in and how I'm going to combine the eating of a wrinkled old apple with dry crackers.

That is on a very literal level for a very micro-level or small-picture need. On the big-picture level I was desperately unhappy. I'd followed all the advice anyone could give me and nothing worked. I'd done my homework. I did my research. The only way to get where I needed to go was through formal education. To do that I had to openly disobey the religious rules of my parents and faith community. The consequences could be excommunication.

After weighing all my options I decided to try secrecy. I registered for one course and didn't tell my people what I was doing. Over a course of ten years I:

*discovered that education was the way for me to go so I came out of the closet
*left the church I was born into
*moved out of the community
*finished one degree and started another
*found a place to live in town
*deconverted from Christianity
*looked at paganism but it wasn't right
*found exChristian.net and identified as agnostic
*learned to know some atheists and found they were really decent people
*found out one can be atheist without denying existence of God
*found article to the effect that god begins and ends in human psyche; had already suspected as much
*tentatively accepted label atheist; still not really comfortable with it but it's the only thing that honestly describes my theological position
*finished a second university degree

Okay, one can't pack ten years into a bulleted list. But this shows you that focusing on the step ahead is what kept me grounded in some major, far-reaching, and over-whelming life decisions that had the potential to sweep me off my feet into oblivion. I thought at the time it was God leading me but I was looking at literal items working together to make it possible to arrange my work schedule so I could attend class secretly. I got my class schedule a few days before my work schedule so it worked out.

I hadn't a clue in the world how I would pay for it because my community pays women waayyyyy below minimum wages so, although I had worked up to 90-hour weeks, I had no money. Someone donated a large sum of money to the school and this was offered to me to pay tuition for thirty courses. So it went from one literal step to another, with me arranging rides from one class to the next. Either I hitched up my own horse and traveled for two hours by horse and bus to school, or I arranged to ride with someone else. For four years I patched together rides in this way.

Did God do this for me? It sure felt like the energy came out of my own brain and body. And the persecution--the dozens of angry letters, telephone calls, and confrontations I got after I left the church--did Jesus bear those stripes? It felt very much like I bore them my own self with my own psyche.

However, the relief--the new birth or epiphany--I experienced when I made the decision to leave the church was so enormous that I was able to bear it. Just when I thought I could bear it no more, friends came out of the woodwork. Also, the letters let up. And then school started and I had lots of friends there who were willing to listen to me and support me. I had intentionally waited to come out until I had established a new community. It was such a wise plan.

The funny thing is, these things happen with just as great regularity now that I am an atheist as they did before. My decisions happen the exact same way now as they did before. It's a balance of feeling and logic. As I have said before, NOBODY AND NOTHING IS WORTHY OF WORSHIP IN MY BOOK.

I agree there's a limitation in human mind so human mind can't answer all the things in the world! God's wisdom is too far for human to achieve!

Welcome to the forums, ridler!



Why, in your opinion, do humans need to have answers for everything?

They don't.

Since humans don't need answers to everything, in my opinion, it seems better to keep an open mind and wait for answers until we have evidence for our hypotheses. In other words, "God" is not a good source for answers because:

1. We have no evidence for God's existence.
2. We have no evidence for the answers we say God gives us through his wisdom.

If, therefore, we have no evidence for God's existence, there is probably no such thing as "God's wisdom." What we do have is a vast and wonderfully complex universe full of wonderfully complex systems, organisms, and other objects.



The human mind has not yet unraveled all the wonders of nature, and possibly never will. This, however, is not evidence of a supernatural Creator. It is evidence of a limited human mind. Since the human brain/mind is a product of the evolution of the universe, I think it stands to reason that it does not know all there is to be known. However, in no way does this undermine the scientific method; science and the scientific method remain the most reliable tools known to humanity for learning about the universe.

Science and the scientific method can tell us a lot about the 'HOW' of the universe. They have nothing at all to say about the 'WHY'.

What do you mean by the "WHY" and why it is important?

Just now I found this thread again. Doesitmatter has visited these forums since that last question was posted and did not respond to it. I take that as meaning the "why" is a rhetorical question not meant to be answered. I have also since then learned much about how scientists work. It is false to claim that science cannot tell us anything about why things work the way they do; science strives all the time to do precisely that.