I don’t claim to be an expert in all the disciplines we’ve discussed—physics, chemistry, philology, history, and so on. Frankly, it’s impossible for any ordinary person to master them all.
LOL
Yes sir.
You'd replace Einstein, that's for sure!
Even more, it’s not enough to have a general education in these fields. To be taken seriously, you need to be a narrow specialist—say, a physicist specializing in quantum mechanics, a chemist focused on biochemistry, a philologist expert in ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek, or a historian dedicated to a specific era. No one can be a specialist in everything.
Yes. We've come to this.
And it's OK.
It's just that scientists used to believe in God and now they don't anymore.
Galileo and Newton attributed action to God and gave to Him the credit due.
Now we have scientists declaring that God is not necessary.
Reminds me of the joke about the dirt...
Moreover, simply having knowledge as a hobbyist—say, studying history or languages for personal interest—doesn’t carry weight in debates. Hobbyists may understand a subject deeply in their own eyes, but without a degree or formal credentials, their insights are often dismissed by others as non-authoritative. In a discussion, a critic might ask, “Do you have a degree in this field?” Even if you’re a philologist, they might press further: “Are you a specialist in ancient Hebrew or Greek? No? Then your opinion doesn’t count.” This dynamic makes many wonder, “Why bother learning all this if my knowledge lacks a diploma and is deemed non-credible?”
John Lennox, who knows about everything, has many times stated that his doctorate is not in a specific field - all scientists acknowledge your above statement.
How have we gotten to this point indeed.
Maybe there's just too much to know about everything.
This is logical in a way. If you need medical advice, you’d question someone offering it without a medical degree—say, a philologist giving health tips. In today’s world, hyper-specialization means people are expected to speak only within their narrow expertise. So when a catechist, priest, or missionary speaks on physics, chemistry, history, or philology, critics naturally ask, “Are you a specialist in these fields?” The answer is almost always no—because no one can be an expert in everything.
Been a catechist.
Between the 5th grade and 7th grade most children become atheist.
Sad but true.
So I ask....If God did not create everything, what did?
Reply: Science!
Science. Goes to show how little they know, and yet science sounds so much better than: GOD.
So we get to the BB.
OK.
So where did the gases/material come from that exploded?
No clue.
But anything is better than God.
And yes, some VERY rudimentary knowledge of science is required if we're going to speak to these kids these days.
This puts Christianity in a tough spot. Schoolteachers and university professors, often seen as authoritative specialists, may teach that life’s origins don’t involve God’s creation. Meanwhile, a priest with a seminary education or a missionary with a humanities background—like philology, law, or economics—lacks the “credentials” to counter these claims credibly in the eyes of skeptics. A student or adult might say, “Why listen to a priest or missionary who’s just a humanities grad when my professors, the ‘real experts,’ say otherwise?”
Yes sir.
It's exactly as you state.
A priest has to take 2 years of philosophy (they might be changing it to 3 -like it'll make any difference)
and all the theology...
but it's seen as being of little value in today's world.
This hyper-specialized world has backed Christianity into a corner—a zugzwang, as we’ve discussed. In the first century, a fisherman or tax collector could be an apostle, and their lack of academic credentials didn’t undermine their message. Today, if you’re a regular worker—say, a crew member on a fishing boat or a tax inspector—people are less likely to take you seriously when you speak on science.
Yet Christianity isn’t primarily about academic expertise. In Jesus’ time, “teachers” like rabbis weren’t academic scholars but life guides, somewhat akin to “gurus” in other traditions (though that comparison isn’t perfect and might draw criticism).
It's absolutely correct.
The Western world has largely lost this concept of a “teacher” as a wise guide, like a guru or shaman in other cultures. Instead, authority now hinges on academic degrees, narrow specializations, and formal titles. Priests today are more like the “scribes” of Jesus’ era—keepers of knowledge—rather than rabbis, gurus, or shamans who guide through lived wisdom.
So why don’t we see these kinds of “teachers” in Christianity anymore?
You're hitting on my favorite subject matter.
But you've answered your own question.
Priests are not scientists.
Science reigns supreme.
Kids feel that they have to choose between science or religion (what we would call faith).
This is false, of course. I used to tell my kids there is no choice - it is 2 totally different ideas...not to be conflated with each other.
I think part of the problem is that priests don't always go into their calling in order to draw believers but only to answer to their personal calling.
There are VERY FEW that are capable of teaching....let alone teach children, and it's these that must be "won over". Not even won over to GOD....but at least won over to the idea that God EXISTS.
The parents come into play.
The culture.
Christianity has a real problem on its hands, IMHO.
And what was the church doing when culture was going ultra liberal and anti-Christian?
Nothing.
So here we are with no plan in sight.
Why do YOU think these teachers are missing?
How about the idea that the young don't even respect the opinions of those older that should know more.
Technology? This has a role too.
