Our trust in authority and our required critiques of it.

Jim Proctor considers science and religion as major institutions of epistemic and moral authority. Proctor argues that authority is at the heart of most discussions related to science and religion, given the ways these discussions generally compare their authoritative claims. Both the ideological means by which scientific and religious authority are constructed and defended, and the different patterns of trust in authority among ordinary individuals and communities, are relevant to understanding science and religion.

Proctor refers to his recent survey and interviews of adult Americans regarding their trust in four major domains of authority: science, religion, nature, and the state. The results suggest two primary models of authority that Americans decide whether or not to trust: theocracy, with God (religion) as the ultimate authority and the state as the mediating human authority; and ecology, with nature as the ultimate authority and science as the mediating human authority.

Though problems exist in both of these models, Proctor notes that some measure of trust in authority is unavoidable. . Proctor ultimately argues that both commitment and critique must be present if trust in authority is to lead to meaningful epistemological and moral guidance in our lives.