Appeals To Renowned Scientists: An Apologetics Red Herring

The red herring nature of appeals to any "authority" other than reason renders the occupational background of any individual person irrelevant when it comes to verifying or appraising their claims about reality.  If they cannot logically demonstrate that an idea is true, or at least probable, their alleged "expertise," experience, and "intelligence" are of no philosophical value.  This has never dissuaded the typical evangelical from talking as if the allegiance of certain scientists or intellectuals to Christianity is somehow evidence for Christian ideas!

It does not matter if supposedly intelligent scientists were Christians or theists, nor does it matter how many scientists claimed this.  To even imply that this, true or false, is of any epistemological significance at all is a betrayal of reason.  Despite this, many Christians like to reference the alleged Christian worldview of random historical scientists in a seeming effort to persuade non-Christians to consider Christianity.  At best, this is a persuasion tactic rather than a proof or evidence, and thus the only reasons to mention it in the context of apologetics are to dismiss it as irrelevant or to simply clarify a misconception about a certain scientist's worldview.

Ironically, some Christians who use this tactic may very well be trying to persuade themselves first and foremost.  They assume that a historical figure associated with intelligence was truly intelligent without thoroughly comprehending what intelligence even is to begin with, and they assume that they are right to believe in what someone they respect also believed.  Of course, they can always pretend like the beliefs of sciensts have apologetic value when conversing with others, but they can still draw a sense of personal conviction from sharing Christian ideas with renowned figures.

Nevertheless, there is no philosophical value to appealing to the spiritual beliefs of scientists as if being believed by scientists makes them true or even likely to be true.  If there was no evidence for Christianity whatsoever, the endorsement of even legions of historical scientists would be a meaningless thing, as it could never amount to evidence or proof of Christianity.  Likewise, the endorsement of historical scientists is completely irrelevant to the genuine evidence for Christianity that can be found.  In either case, only a fool thinks that there is anything epistemologically significant about scientists approving of or expressing personal commitment to Christianity!

A scientist, like anyone else, is rational for having a worldview that aligns with reason, which itself corresponds with reality.  The inverse is not true: a worldview is not more or less rational because a famous scientist embraced it.  It is therefore irrational to pretend like a position is verified or even supported by the mere approval of a scientist (or prominent philosopher or historian).  Many renowned figures are far from deserving of the positive intellectual status they are perceived to have in the first place, but even if they were deserving, there would be nothing intellectually sound about treating their beliefs as evidence for the truth or falsity of any worldview.