be perceived by flawed humans). It is, however, the only way you can know that you reliably know anything about the natural world. It is the core of the scientific/skeptical movement, and to move beyond it is damaging to the integrity of what it is. Even when the very best of people with the very best of intentions try to associate it with humanist goals (and especially if they are shared goals, for then the danger of bias increases) -- it cannot be done and should not be attempted. This is the (IMO) valid criticism of the "freethought" movement. With respect to your risk calculations -- I think you CAN have a valid point. One real "run in" with a murder or rapist is more than enough for one lifetime. But a terrible truth is that there is no path of no risk, and our visceral responses can lead to actually risker choices. Again, analysis can be helpful, as all risk IS a comparrison. Despite what we feel, is is wiser to act based upon information we can know. There is also a point of diminishing returns. We can hopefully protect the real safety of our environments, but never realistically make a place where everyone "feels safe" or is isolated from people we might both think are rude. A final point is that we ARE atoms. Yes, we are fascinatingly complex with emergent properties that we cannot practically predict -- but we are sociobiology in terms of biology, reduced to