The Hubris of Some Scientists

The hubris of some Scientists.

Notice I did not say “the hubris of science”, but “scientists.”  Also, note that I said, “some scientists.”  Because there are a host of scholars within the scientific disciplines who have professed their faith in Christ. (For one solid resource for finding scientists who have placed their faith in Christ, see

The modern scientific method was actually begun by men who firmly believed in an intelligent Creator – men such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler and Newton.

But I digress.

Always politely excuse yourself when, with condescending delight, someone insists on doing your thinking for you, invalidating your capacity for thinking critically and logically.

For that is what we find here:

“At a conference at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in La Jolla (pronounced “la HOY-a”), California, Nobel Laureate, Steven Weinberg, said, ‘The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion…

Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.’

Unsurprisingly, Richard Dawkins went even further:

‘I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing upon religion.’”  

The above excerpt is from the  book, ‘God’s Undertaker: Has science buried God?’, by John Lennox, Ph.D., professor of Mathematics at Oxford University and Fellow of Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College.

The reason I worded my title in the manner I did is because science, in and of itself, is agnostic.  It tells us much of the natural world and beyond, but nothing of the metaphysical. It offers nothing theological.  It simply offers us data.

It was Lennox who, in an interview, said of the late Stephen Hawking,

“I have no problem with Dr. Hawking’s data. It’s his interpretation of the data with which I disagree.”

Don’t miss this:

When interpreting data, scientists like Weinberg and Dawkins unwittingly move from the arena of science to the arena of philosophy. Rather than sharing scientific data, they are moving well outside the data to interpret for us (even though we didn’t ask them to) the data’s meaning and implications where theology, purpose and meaning are concerned.

Moreover – and this is where their hubris is exposed for all to see – rather than remain content with their own disdain for religion (however they choose to define ‘religion’), they angrily and arrogantly want to impose their philosophical beliefs on all humanity – the billions of people in our world who are, in Weinberg’s and Dawkins’ opinion, foolish enough to buy into believing that Jesus is precisely who he said he is.

This demographic target of Weinberg and Dawkins happens to include not only average people like you and me, but also brilliant scientists, professors and philosophers who hold prestigious positions in America’s Ivey League universities as well as universities around the world.

Describing the kind of elitist pontification put forth here by Weinberg and Dawkins, Mark Twain used the phrase, “confident ignorance.”  Both Weinberg and Dawkins are brilliant scientists.  No one would argue that point. However, their objective to force-feed their philosophical and religious opinions down the throats of critically-thinking men and women is nothing more than confident ignorance on full display.

As former British atheist, Antony Flew, wrote after finally confessing that God exists,

“I must agree with what Plato wrote of Socrates and follow the evidence where it leads.”

If Weinberg and Dawkins were honest, both would agree that the evidence provided by science overwhelmingly points to the existence of the God of the Bible.