Kreitsauce's Musings

So what? They may have advanced degrees in every “ology” on the planet. They may use words that baffle the everyday American citizen. They may even have won a nobel prize or published numerous books and peer-reviewed articles on some obscure area of scientific knowledge. In no way, however, does that make them authoritative when it comes to Christianity. A scientist’s thoughts on Christianity carry about as much weight as my predictions on the next big golf tournament. (Which, since I hate golf passionately and am admittedly ignorant of the sport, doesn’t count for much.) I’m not saying you have to be an expert on theology to make a call as to whether or not God exists, but I am saying that if the Scientific American decides to talk about why God doesn’t exist, I’m not going to question my faith. Skill in one area doesn’t mean a person is skilled or intelligent in another field of study. Scientists are humans, and humans are biased. Even scientists.

Dawkins is free to write a book about religion, but he’s out of his league. His book doesn’t carry weight simply because he’s a scientists. If Dawkins chooses atheism, that is not his scientific conclusion about the world. That is his opinion. We need to search for truth beyond opinion. Either God exists or He doesn’t, but we cannot discover Him through scientific means. As I said before in an earlier posting (which is also admittedly a rant), science is the wrong tool for the job of discovering spiritual truth. Scientific truth may dovetail with spiritual truth, but scientific searching alone does not lead us to Him, nor can it rule out his existence.