While talking with my philosophy professor today, we began discussing the nature of belief. I mentioned how sometimes, for believers, it can be reassuring to study somebody like Thomas Aquinas—one of the most brilliant minds to ever live who also believes in God. We then got into a discussion about the new atheists. The leaders of this modern-day atheist movement are often scientists at the top of their fields, true experts of their specific disciplines. These individuals, like Richard Dawkins, often dismiss the reality of God based on weak arguments. Then people listen and believe them. They’re experts, after all.
But what qualifies an expert on evolutionary biology to dispute, with utmost certainty, nearly all philosophic discussion of God? How can he claim to know more than a modern philosopher who studies, thinks, and meditated deeply on these issues?
Herein lies the difference between the philosopher and the scientist: a scientist knows; a philosopher knows there is always more to know. I would venture to say that good scientists ought to be more like philosophers and admit that they don’t really know, they they can’t really be certain about much.
Uncertainty may seem uncomfortable at first. To me, it seems like a far happier place to live.