# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 43
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/841 "2010-09-11T06:45:14Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> I take your point about the altruism/fierceness ‘matrix’, however the claim we are discussing is that altruism has ‘evolved’, not that ‘fierceness’ has evolved. If you take my point about the altruism/fierceness matrix, then I’m not sure how we can discuss one claim without discussing the other. Likewise, > [@](#): > > _2\> One of the pillars of evolutionary theory is an assumption that organisms and species either progress or die. Would you define a change from altruism to firceness as progress?_ Maybe this is some kind of semantic thing where you and I don’t even realize how we’re disagreeing: what, exactly, do you mean by “fierceness”? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/842 "2010-09-11T06:52:33Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > What is the motivation, in a purely naturalistic view of the world, for a lioness to adopt an oryx? The motivation isn’t “to adopt an oryx”. The motivation is “to adopt a helpless widdle itty-bitty baby” – which (a) leads to selfish-gene benefits when you’re often among kinfolk who leave young orphans behind, and (b) doesn’t _ **too** _ negatively impact selfish-gene math when it occasionaly leads to adopting this or that unrelated baby. Over time, a somewhat indiscriminate willingness to adopt the helpless widdle itty-bitty baby in front of you either nets a good result for you and yours or at least doesn’t net too bad a result. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/843 "2010-09-11T10:47:44Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > You do realize you are using the same analogy for a Supreme being don’t you? > > > > Please cite the chapter and verse where the the Bible states the world is round or the center of the universe! It does talk of the 4 corners of the earth. Augustian in his City Of God states, it would be impossible for the world to be round!! > > Firstly I said that the Bible stated the earth is NOT the centre of the universe. And by Augustian, do you mean Augustine? > > Earth is round: > Isaiah 40:22 > Job 26:10 > Isaaih 22:18 > > (The modern belief that especially medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth. It was started in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving’s fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828). > > Earth is not the centre of the universe: > Isaiah 40:22 > Job 26:7 It doesn’t state the earth is round it just mentions the circle of earth,If it does mean that, then human kind didn’t except it until many centuries later! Job 22: 18 talks about filling their home with good things and the councel of the wicked is far from Him. and How does Job 26:7"He streaches out the north over the empty place,and hangeth the earth upon nothing" Have any scientific value? It doesn’t answer why for thousand of years humans thought the earth was the center of the universe. The writers were not aware of gravity that we know about today. It is a matter of translation, and there are as many translations as there are religions. I really do not put any stake in what the Biblical writers state because there are too many contradictions and do not believe that a beibg who created the evil people himself could expect them to be any different. He could have prevented evil yet he punished humans with death for trying to know the difference, but let a monster that he created survive and enjoy destroying His creations. It just doesn’t add up. If a human father did the things you heavenly father did, he would be put in jail!! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/844 "2010-09-11T10:55:00Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > Even theologins admit God is unknowable,all about God is faith, belief in one’s own thoughts or the thoughts, teachings, and beliefs of some other human. If you really “KNOW” anything about God you can prove it! You even state that “FAITH” in the hypothesis etc. is your answer! > > So I didn’t say that God was unknowable? I thought not. I’m not sure which theologians you are referring to. If you can quote one I may be able to help you out. I am referring to theologans I have heard on TV. There is one Jewish theologan that speaks a lot on the science chanel. You may say God is knowable but it sure doesn’t seem to me that you know anything about a God, just your belief. If you know, you can prove it, and so far you haven;t given any proof! Theology itself means “Faith”. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/845 "2010-09-11T11:00:54Z")
[quote=“aigonz, post:823, topic:551952”] > [@monavis](#): > > You are making an awful lot of assumptions! > > Wh said God was ‘nowhere’? If God was not in existence,which would have to exist before a being could exist, then this god was nowhere, if it is not in existence, then it doesn’t exist. Existence must come first, if God is not first some where, He is no where!!! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/846 "2010-09-11T11:10:10Z")
AiGNOZ: Do you not realize what you state as facts (that you base your beliefs on) are just Beliefs… not facts! That is why the debate is moot! You argue beliefs, the rest argue that they need facts first, before it can be stated as fact! ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/847 "2010-09-12T03:30:47Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> I take your point about the altruism/fierceness ‘matrix’, however the claim we are discussing is that altruism has ‘evolved’, not that ‘fierceness’ has evolved. > > If you take my point about the altruism/fierceness matrix, then I’m not sure how we can discuss one claim without discussing the other. Likewise, > > > [@](#): > > > > _2\> One of the pillars of evolutionary theory is an assumption that organisms and species either progress or die. Would you define a change from altruism to firceness as progress?_ > > Maybe this is some kind of semantic thing where you and I don’t even realize how we’re disagreeing: what, exactly, do you mean by “fierceness”? The opposite of altruism. In other words, and returning to my explanation: 1\> evolutionary theory posits that altruism evolved 2\> if altruism evolved, it wasn’t always there 3\> before altruism, societies were 'fierce, ie they operated on a tooth and claw, survival of the fittest basis. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/848 "2010-09-12T03:33:00Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > What is the motivation, in a purely naturalistic view of the world, for a lioness to adopt an oryx? > > The motivation isn’t “to adopt an oryx”. > > The motivation is “to adopt a helpless widdle itty-bitty baby” – which (a) leads to selfish-gene benefits when you’re often among kinfolk who leave young orphans behind, and (b) doesn’t _ **too** _ negatively impact selfish-gene math when it occasionaly leads to adopting this or that unrelated baby. Over time, a somewhat indiscriminate willingness to adopt the helpless widdle itty-bitty baby in front of you either nets a good result for you and yours or at least doesn’t net too bad a result. But here’s another take on that. By adopting someone else’s baby, the animal gives valuable resources to a child who does not carry on it’s genes, AND competes for reosurces against those offspring who do. Why would the lioness bother in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/849 "2010-09-12T03:42:39Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Firstly I said that the Bible stated the earth is NOT the centre of the universe. And by Augustian, do you mean Augustine? > > > > Earth is round: > > Isaiah 40:22 > > Job 26:10 > > Isaaih 22:18 > > > > (The modern belief that especially medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth. It was started in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving’s fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828). > > > > Earth is not the centre of the universe: > > Isaiah 40:22 > > Job 26:7 > > It doesn’t state the earth is round it just mentions the circle of earth,If it does mean that, then human kind didn’t except it until many centuries later! Job 22: 18 talks about filling their home with good things and the councel of the wicked is far from Him. and How does Job 26:7"He streaches out the north over the empty place,and hangeth the earth upon nothing" Have any scientific value? It doesn’t answer why for thousand of years humans thought the earth was the center of the universe. The writers were not aware of gravity that we know about today. > > It is a matter of translation, and there are as many translations as there are religions. I really do not put any stake in what the Biblical writers state because there are too many contradictions and do not believe that a beibg who created the evil people himself could expect them to be any different. He could have prevented evil yet he punished humans with death for trying to know the difference, but let a monster that he created survive and enjoy destroying His creations. It just doesn’t add up. If a human father did the things you heavenly father did, he would be put in jail!! I won’t defend the stupidity of man, but I do know the Bible. 1\> Circles are round. 2\> The Bible never, not once, speaks of the earth being flat. 3\> The Bible reiterates the round earth by references to the rotation of the planet, and an abundance of other references. The idea of a spherical Earth was developed in ancient Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), however you are right that most early civilisatins believed the earth to be flat. It’s a shame they didn’t read the Bible. Your other comments are theological. I’d love to engage on those, buI’d need more time than I have to do you the courtesy of reasoned responses. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/850 "2010-09-12T03:47:00Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > So I didn’t say that God was unknowable? I thought not. I’m not sure which theologians you are referring to. If you can quote one I may be able to help you out. > > I am referring to theologans I have heard on TV. There is one Jewish theologan that speaks a lot on the science chanel. > > You may say God is knowable but it sure doesn’t seem to me that you know anything about a God, just your belief. If you know, you can prove it, and so far you haven;t given any proof! Theology itself means “Faith”. Again I will not speak for the stupidity of man. A fundamental tenet of the Christian faith is that of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who is God. How is that possible if this God is unknowable? Still, that’s theology. I stand by what I have previously stated: 1\> Conceptually the word ‘proof’ relates to the natural or physical realm, of which God is clearly not a part. 2\> The God hypothesis requires faith to move to acceptance, but no more so, indeed I propose less, than the various explanations proferred to remove this hypothesis from our thinking. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/851 "2010-09-12T03:48:05Z")
[quote=“monavis, post:845, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > If God was not in existence,which would have to exist before a being could exist, then this god was nowhere, if it is not in existence, then it doesn’t exist. Existence must come first, if God is not first some where, He is no where!!! And? I never said God was 'not in existence. So what is your point? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/852 "2010-09-12T04:00:05Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > AiGNOZ: Do you not realize what you state as facts (that you base your beliefs on) are just Beliefs… not facts! That is why the debate is moot! You argue beliefs, the rest argue that they need facts first, before it can be stated as fact! Can you please provide the _facts_ on which the following _beliefs_ are based: 1\> The Multiverse hypothesis. 2\> The Panspermia hypothesis. 3\> The evolution of altruism. But even better, you might like to ponder this. The special theory of relativity hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between two point. This crucial element cannot be proven by science, and must be assumed to hold to the theory. So ‘belief’ strikes even at the very heart of that noble bastion of rationality, scienece itself. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/853 "2010-09-12T05:02:21Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > But here’s another take on that. By adopting someone else’s baby, the animal gives valuable resources to a child who does not carry on it’s genes, AND competes for reosurces against those offspring who do. Why would the lioness bother in the first place? Well, crap. We’re just in the “repeating ourselves” stage now, I guess. I’m saying a somewhat indiscriminate willingness to adopt a baby leads to selfish-gene benefits when you’re often among kinfolk who leave young orphans behind. I’m saying that such a trait doesn’t _ **too** _ negatively impact selfish-gene math when it occasionally leads to adopting this or that unrelated baby. I’m saying that, over time, lionesses who have a somewhat indiscriminate willingness to adopt the helpless widdle itty-bitty baby in front of them adopt a good number of baby relatives (which is helpful, in a selfish-gene sense) and the occasional baby oryx (which isn’t) – and the former benefits outweigh the latter drawback. I’m not sure which part of that you want to disagree about. So long as I’m repeating myself, I’ll stress again that evolution isn’t about perfect; it merely has to be good enough. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Maybe this is some kind of semantic thing where you and I don’t even realize how we’re disagreeing: what, exactly, do you mean by “fierceness”? > > \*The opposite of altruism. In other words, and returning to my explanation: > > 1\> evolutionary theory posits that altruism evolved > 2\> if altruism evolved, it wasn’t always there > 3\> before altruism, societies were 'fierce, ie they operated on a tooth and claw, survival of the fittest basis.\* I’m still not 100% sure we’re on the same page, but I’ll try to disagree with the angle I think you’re pushing. Taking the last first, you’re wrong. Again, consider single-celled organisms that get by just fine without altruism _ **or** _ ferocity. I was on about euglena a little while back; let’s run with that for a bit; let’s say they’re effectively in a “before altruism” setting, just like they’re _ **also** _ in a “before ferocity” one. So they don’t mate, but simply produce offspring by asexual fission – and they don’t stick around to raise the offspring either – and they don’t hunt in packs, sure as they don’t bother with cooperative agricultural projects, _ **and they don’t engage in red-in-tooth-and-claw ferocity.** _ And, like I was just saying, that combination is “good enough” to get the job done; it’s good enough to persist for generation after generation after generation. Now, in that context, what happens if we postulate an unusual euglena that starts taking an interest in the survival of its offspring, who then take an interest in their offspring, and so on? What happens if – as per your first and second point – altruism therefore starts to evolve, because it starts to pay off? What happens such a trait (a) maybe incurs the occasional drawback, but also (b) nets plenty enough benefits to outweigh the drawbacks? Still, of course, with ferocity not yet in the picture? > [@](#): > > \*But even better, you might like to ponder this. > > The special theory of relativity hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between two point. This crucial element cannot be proven by science, and must be assumed to hold to the theory.\* Can it hypothetically be falsified with adequate experimentation? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/854 "2010-09-12T11:08:58Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > AiGNOZ: Do you not realize what you state as facts (that you base your beliefs on) are just Beliefs… not facts! That is why the debate is moot! You argue beliefs, the rest argue that they need facts first, before it can be stated as fact! > > Can you please provide the _facts_ on which the following _beliefs_ are based: > > 1\> The Multiverse hypothesis. > 2\> The Panspermia hypothesis. > 3\> The evolution of altruism. > > But even better, you might like to ponder this. > > The special theory of relativity hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between two point. This crucial element cannot be proven by science, and must be assumed to hold to the theory. > > So ‘belief’ strikes even at the very heart of that noble bastion of rationality, scienece itself. Science doesn’t state a theroy as fact until it can be proven as fact. Faith starts out believing something is fact, Science starts out searching for facts! Big difference!! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/855 "2010-09-12T11:17:39Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > It doesn’t state the earth is round it just mentions the circle of earth,If it does mean that, then human kind didn’t except it until many centuries later! Job 22: 18 talks about filling their home with good things and the councel of the wicked is far from Him. and How does Job 26:7"He streaches out the north over the empty place,and hangeth the earth upon nothing" Have any scientific value? It doesn’t answer why for thousand of years humans thought the earth was the center of the universe. The writers were not aware of gravity that we know about today. > > > > It is a matter of translation, and there are as many translations as there are religions. I really do not put any stake in what the Biblical writers state because there are too many contradictions and do not believe that a beibg who created the evil people himself could expect them to be any different. He could have prevented evil yet he punished humans with death for trying to know the difference, but let a monster that he created survive and enjoy destroying His creations. It just doesn’t add up. If a human father did the things you heavenly father did, he would be put in jail!! > > I won’t defend the stupidity of man, but I do know the Bible. > > 1\> Circles are round. > 2\> The Bible never, not once, speaks of the earth being flat. > 3\> The Bible reiterates the round earth by references to the rotation of the planet, and an abundance of other references. > > The idea of a spherical Earth was developed in ancient Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), however you are right that most early civilisatins believed the earth to be flat. It’s a shame they didn’t read the Bible. > > Your other comments are theological. I’d love to engage on those, buI’d need more time than I have to do you the courtesy of reasoned responses. Did it ever register with you that maybe some stupid man wrote the Bible? You are believing in the Biblical writers and their interpertation of a God there is no difference! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/856 "2010-09-12T11:20:10Z")
[quote=“aigonz, post:851, topic:551952”] > [@monavis](#): > > And? I never said God was 'not in existence. So what is your point? Sorry I didn’t answer this before,my point is that there had to be a place in existence before a God could exist. No existence no nothing!!! ---
**Author:** ![Sablicious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Sablicious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sablicious)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/857 "2010-09-12T12:19:30Z")
The [Sun](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pgRUpDDrb0&annotation_id=annotation_994351&feature=iv). ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/858 "2010-09-12T20:58:30Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> Circles are round. And spheres are round. But circles are not spheres. > [@](#): > > 2\> The Bible never, not once, speaks of the earth being flat. Well, it does speak of four corners, and it does speak of a mountain from the top of which all nations can be seen. Maybe the Bible writers thought the surface was _concave_! > [@aigonz](#): > > The special theory of relativity hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between two point. This crucial element cannot be proven by science, and must be assumed to hold to the theory. What? You have no clue how science works, it’s as if you learned science from Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. The Theory of Relativity takes as a starting point that the speed of light is constant for all observers, and makes specific predictions. Every one of those predictions has been accurate. The concept of “proof” has no role in science. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/859 "2010-09-12T22:09:26Z")
[quote=“monavis, post:856, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > Sorry I didn’t answer this before,my point is that there had to be a place in existence before a God could exist. No existence no nothing!!! You make assumptions about both God and ‘nothing’. When it is claimed that nothing can come from nothing, the reference is to the natural world, as I made clear. God is outside of the natural world, therefore your objection is invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Mozart1220](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@Mozart1220](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mozart1220)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/860 "2010-09-12T22:09:42Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > AiGNOZ: Do you not realize what you state as facts (that you base your beliefs on) are just Beliefs… not facts! That is why the debate is moot! You argue beliefs, the rest argue that they need facts first, before it can be stated as fact! > > Can you please provide the _facts_ on which the following _beliefs_ are based: > > 1\> The Multiverse hypothesis. > 2\> The Panspermia hypothesis. > 3\> The evolution of altruism. > > But even better, you might like to ponder this. > > The special theory of relativity hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between two point. This crucial element cannot be proven by science, and must be assumed to hold to the theory. > > So ‘belief’ strikes even at the very heart of that noble bastion of rationality, scienece itself. It is proven to be constant in a vaccuum. And nothing so far has been observed to exceed that speed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=42) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=44)