# Why are so many Christians vehemently opposed to Science? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 18, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344 "2009-02-18T00:51:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/121 "2009-02-20T15:52:37Z")
Let’s not forget some wacky New Age beliefs in Indigo Children or Crystal Children. It seems to me that some of these kids have social problems (mild-autism in some cases) but parents think they’re actually the next step in human evolution. Spiritually speaking of course. Odesio ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/122 "2009-02-20T18:38:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Classical philosophy and classical science were basically undersood as the same thing in Aristotle’s day. Philosophy WAS science, and Aristotle engaged in a lot of natural philosphy and cataloguing and stuff. He was a pretty fair country biologist, for instance. > > Aristotle ended up being kind of the Wikipedia of the Middle Ages. The go-to sorce for practically any question. He usually had an answer and half the time it was wrong. More than Wikipedia - more like Holy Writ. I’ve read some Roman science/philosophy also, and Copernicus and Galileo wrote in a style closer to this tradition than science today. I couldn’t think of modern philosophers making scientific claims, which is why I went that far back. However, while we treat Aristotle’s “science” as an interesting historical curiosity today, the theology of Aquinas is clearly, from the thread about Dawkins, considered to be valid and up to date. Which sums up the difference quite nicely, in my book. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/123 "2009-02-20T21:10:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What is the definition of “sin” anyway? “Crimes against God” as far as I can tell. Largely arbitrary offenses against the supposed whims of an imaginary being. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/124 "2009-02-20T21:20:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What is the definition of “sin” anyway? The ratio of the opposite side to the hypotenuse? If you really want to know, [Wikipedia has a fairly extensive article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin) on sin. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/125 "2009-02-20T22:38:44Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > The ratio of the opposite side to the hypotenuse? > > If you really want to know, [Wikipedia has a fairly extensive article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin) on sin. Obviously I know the dictionary definition. My question was specifically addressed to **Measure for Measure** who said that “sin is intrinsic to the human condition.” I wanted to know how something that’s defined by willful choices can be “intrinsic.” If something is not a choice, how can it be “sinful?” There’s a contradiction there. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/126 "2009-02-21T00:33:44Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In fact, Christianity is a necessity for science. The the collection of ideas and procedures that we recognize as “science” originated in Christian civilization, at Christian institutions, thanks to people whose lives were devoted to Christ. **ITR** , i’ve felt the need to respond to this particular point of yours in the [Pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=507549). ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/127 "2009-02-21T06:33:48Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Well, some parts of your church sound like Baptists more than UU these days, especially in the area of gay ministers. And some sound like lovely, ethical, people. Thanks. FTR though, I haven’t attended an Episcopal church since I was a teenager. > [@](#): > > I have no doubt that many mainline churches truly and deeply believe that they have no conflict with science. My contention is that there are many who partition the part of their mind dealing with faith from that understanding and accepting science. That’s my understanding. > [@](#): > > While the literalists hold their religious beliefs rigidly, and distort their understanding of the natural world to match them, perhaps the mainline Christians fully and honestly accept the natural world as it is, and twist their religious beliefs to match. That’s certainly an admirable position, but if there is a god and if a given religion has some special access to that god, isn’t changing the tenets supposedly received from that access, that inspiration, taking you further from god? Separate magistrum (sp?), separate realms. > [@](#): > > Philosophers try to understand things through reason, and through history their understanding changes, sometimes drastically. If religion has special access, reason isn’t required to the level you get information from that access. Not necessarily, because reason is a gift from G-d. > [@](#): > > If reason alone is supposed to tell you about god, mustn’t you accept at least the possibility that it will tell you there is nothing there to worship? It depends. If you’re an empirical agnostic like myself, sure. To repeat, all of my categorical statements regarding G-d etc in this thread are intended to show the ease of commingling science and faith. If this was an atheism vs. agnostic thread, I would not include them. To give a sharper answer, I am skeptical about the utility of pure reason without empiricism (mathematics being an important exception). As it is, I suspect that the G-d question could be tied up to my satisfaction within the next 100 years, though obviously I may not live to see the day. > [@](#): > > None of this would be a problem if you could use the principles of science to lead you to god, which is what a lot of churchmen thought would happen in the early 19th century. I think it is fair to say that science has led us away from any of the views of god held before then, and it has certainly reduced the need for one based on our understanding of the natural world. I’ve read Gould’s book, and this is where I think he is wrong, since he gave extreme examples of problems in considering science and religion together, and did not consider more subtle problems. So you are saying there’s a tension between science and faith? Because I’d grant that, just as there is tension between pretty much all conceptual frameworks. But I’m unaware of any killer scientific arguments against religion. (Indeed, the problem of evil and **Cervais** ’ Question: Why didn’t G-d give us a hint about the germ theory of disease – are more serious problems.) > [@Half Man Half Wit](#): > > If sin is intrinsic to the human condition, i.e. a necessary byproduct of us being human, and god made us human, why are we being punished for the way he made us? The original story has the advantage that it can be construed (with some contortions) in such a way that Adam made a free choice to eat the apple (ignoring, for a moment, the question of how he should have known it was wrong to do so if the knowledge of right and wrong could only be bestowed by that very apple), thus sinning against god; what you’re saying is basically that god made us to sin, which eliminates that choice. That’s the mystery! My friend: you are a Christian! Or maybe a Jesuit! 😃 Seriously, this really is extra-topical. Do you really think that establishes the inherent conflict between science and religion? [Winging it] Adam was a simpleton before he ate the apple, or rather he was like a young child. At such a simple level, his sin was to disobey his Father. Adam had the prerequisite sophistication to do that. But after he ate the apple he became capable of more involved and creative sins, ones that he soon engaged in with presumed enthusiasm. [/Winging it] > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Shakespeare isn’t the kind of all-encompassing worldview that religion is. It’s never going to be as intolerant as religion because it doesn’t have as much to be intolerant about. And the reason “nobody does that” is BECAUSE it’s not religion, or anything like it. It does not deny reality, and denial of reality is the core of religion. > > And ALL religion is intolerant; if not necessarily of unbelievers, of reality and of logic. There’s no facts supporting any religion, no rational reason to be religious; it requires irrationality and a denial of the value of reality. Der. You understand that you have to substantiate your claims to have your argument taken seriously, right? Forgive me for concluding that your posts reflect ignorance of introductory comparative religious studies. Shakespeare’s historical plays deny reality to the same degree that much of the Bible does. But as source material, both can be read intelligently. Besides, some religions are also about providing moral instruction to children, and providing an outlet for adults to feel moral without having to bother to engage in good works. But I digress. **DtC** : Do you want my view, or do you want an illustration of the easy compatibility of science and faith? To establish the latter, I only have to present plausible arguments, not tight ones. Since I have utilitarian leanings, I’d say that those who choose lesser evils should do so with regret. Furthermore, lesser evils are more or less inevitable in this imperfect world. A discussion of free will takes us pretty far off topic, but in this context one might think of it as a continuum rather than a binary property. The addict isn’t in full control of his habit, but since he has at least some meaningful choice of whether to reform, he is in a state of sin. Not that sin is always an especially fruitful way of looking at things. I am more likely to think in terms of suffering (in its many forms) and its easement. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/128 "2009-02-21T09:11:08Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > So you are saying there’s a tension between science and faith? Because I’d grant that, just as there is tension between pretty much all conceptual frameworks. But I’m unaware of any killer scientific arguments against religion. “There’s no evidence” comes to mind, and most religions violate physical law. The religious typically counter this by claiming a special exception for their religious beliefs both from the need for evidence AND physical laws. Which, if they weren’t waving the religion flag would get them laughed at and dismissed as frauds. Denying that science has validity on the part of the religious, and the fact that scientific knowledge rules out most religious beliefs as possible means they are indeed automatically in conflict. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Der. You understand that you have to substantiate your claims to have your argument taken seriously, right? Forgive me for concluding that your posts reflect ignorance of introductory comparative religious studies. I claim there’s no God, no souls, no mystic forces. It’s the job **of those who assert there is** to come up with evidence. “Comparative religious studies” are irrelevant, unless and until the believers come up with some evidence that it’s anything other than comparing fictions. You don’t need to be a scholar in Tolkien to assert that _The Lord of the Rings_ is fiction. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Shakespeare’s historical plays deny reality to the same degree that much of the Bible does. Nonsense. They aren’t claimed to be true, nor for that matter to speak about the present world; the Bible is. That makes the Bible an exercise in the denial of reality, and Shakespeare not. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > **DtC** : Do you want my view, or do you want an illustration of the easy compatibility of science and faith? To establish the latter, I only have to present plausible arguments, not tight ones. Considering that they are mutually exclusive, you need VERY tight arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/129 "2009-02-22T00:06:56Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In fact, Christianity is a necessity for science. The the collection of ideas and procedures that we recognize as “science” originated in Christian civilization, at Christian institutions, thanks to people whose lives were devoted to Christ. While the tradition (to a certain extent) has its roots in Christian institutions, you will need to come up with some sort of argument that it was specifically Christian ideals that made it happen. The church was rich, seriously powerful and had a tradition for writing things down. That allowed science (or proto-science) to flourish inside its walls. But I do not know of any bible citations praising the ideals of literacy. For centuries, a budding natural philosopher in Europe had two places to go, if he wanted the possibility of pursuing studies: The local king/prince/powerful family, or the church. Hardly anyone else could afford to have people sit around making no direct contribution to the running of things. Of course, governments at the time would be mostly interested in applied research (military, natch) and they wouldn’t want to share, so while there may have been a wealth of metallurgy and ballistics research performed, it probably wouldn’t survive. The church, on the other hand, had traditions of literacy and information sharing going for it. > [@](#): > > Today we can compare the amount of scientific research in the United States to nations with a large proportion of atheists, such as France and the Scandinavian countries. The United States produces more original scientific research. Is there a cite of sorts for that assertion? Is the US contribution per capita markedly higher and how do you ascribe that to Christian tradition? FTR, the percentage of agnostics and atheists among US scientists is way higher than that of the general population, at least according to [this](http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf) paper by Ecklund. (Warning, PDF.) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/130 "2009-02-22T02:45:41Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Separate magistrum (sp?), separate realms. That’s the assertion, but the realms keep on leaking stuff into each other. N > [@](#): > > ot necessarily, because reason is a gift from G-d. It depends. If you’re an empirical agnostic like myself, sure. But reason is never perfect, and reason used by two people can lead to very different conclusions. The special access I referenced is not the process, but the result. Reason throughout the world and throughout history has led to many different gods or none at all. Direct revelation is supposed to provide the answer, and is the justification for calling all the others wrong. Doesn’t each religion have at least one tenet about direct contact between god or his representatives and a founder or leader of the religion, or at least a prophet? Without that, it would hardly be a religion. > [@](#): > > To repeat, all of my categorical statements regarding G-d etc in this thread are intended to show the ease of commingling science and faith. If this was an atheism vs. agnostic thread, I would not include them. I will certainly not dispute the ease of doing this! I’m a bit uncertain that you can do this and be honest about both. We as humans are quite good about believing three impossible things before breakfast. > [@](#): > > So you are saying there’s a tension between science and faith? Because I’d grant that, just as there is tension between pretty much all conceptual frameworks. But I’m unaware of any killer scientific arguments against religion. Religion? That’s a very general term. Against specific religions, yes. But the main thing is that science shows there is no need for any god, and no particular reason to believe in one. That’s as far as it is going to go. ---
**Author:** ![Myrrajh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/87869e/32.png) [@Myrrajh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrrajh)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/131 "2009-02-22T07:58:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And ALL religion is intolerant; if not necessarily of unbelievers, of reality and of logic. There’s no facts supporting any religion, no rational reason to be religious; it **requires** irrationality and a denial of the value of reality. Congratulations. I think you win the prize for the longest stretch these forums have seen. Generalize much? There are as many facts supporting religion as there are supporting atheism. “…denial of the value of reality…” Care to translate? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/132 "2009-02-22T09:07:58Z")
> [@Myrrajh](#): > > There are as many facts supporting religion as there are supporting atheism. Garbage. First, there isn’t a single fact supporting religion. Second, there are plenty of facts supporting atheism; namely, the various physical laws that a god would have to break to exist. And third, atheism is the default logical position, as I’ve pointed out over and over. It’s the job of the believers to come up with evidence that a god is real - or even possible. Not the job of skeptics to disprove every random fantasy that comes along. > [@Myrrajh](#): > > “…denial of the value of reality…” Care to translate? All available facts support the idea that there’s no such things as gods, spirits, and all the rest. Buying into religion requires that you reject reality as it is, in favor of religion’s delusions. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/133 "2009-02-22T16:35:16Z")
> [@Spiny\_Norman](#): > > The FTR, the percentage of agnostics and atheists among US scientists is way higher than that of the general population, at least according to [this](http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf) paper by Ecklund. (Warning, PDF.) Disbelief is even much higher among leading scientists at the US[National Academy of Sciences,](http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm) of which only 7% hold theist beliefs. And perhaps, not a Christian amongst them. ---
**Author:** ![Myrrajh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/87869e/32.png) [@Myrrajh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrrajh)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/134 "2009-02-23T00:07:10Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > …there are plenty of facts supporting atheism; namely, the various physical laws that a god would have to break to exist. Which laws of physics would “have to” be broken? So atheism doesn’t _have to_ prove anything? You claim there is no God, and that you don’t have to prove it. Well, I claim there is a God, but I’m going to follow your tactic and feel no need to prove that, either. Your argument about rejecting reality in favor of religion doesn’t hold water. My reality consists of relationships with family and friends, school, death of loved ones, aging, health concerns, employment and financial concerns, helping to raise children, vehicles that need repairs, and the list goes on. What parts of reality do you suppose I’m rejecting because of my faith? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/135 "2009-02-23T00:25:57Z")
> [@Myrrajh](#): > > Which laws of physics would “have to” be broken? The exact ones depend of what myth you buy into of course. A few common ones, off the top of my head : The need for a physical substrate for something to exist. God and souls violate both of these, according to most claimants. The need for physical forces to manipulate or perceive things; any action or observation on the part of a nonmaterial God/spirit violates this. The speed of light; omniscience violates this. Conservation of momentum; in the Biblical miracle where the Sun is stopped in the sky with no ill effects to them or the planet. Pi; some believers insist that it must be equal to 3 because the Bible says so. > [@Myrrajh](#): > > So atheism doesn’t _have to_ prove anything? You claim there is no God, and that you don’t have to prove it. Well, I claim there is a God, but I’m going to follow your tactic and feel no need to prove that, either. That isn’t the same thing. Atheism doesn’t need to prove itself because it’s the null hypothesis, the logical default. God isn’t. “There is no God” is the default the way “there are no invisible dragons” is the default. It’s the job of the people claiming that there are to come up with evidence. Besides, just by choosing to believe in God you’ve ALREADY decided to believe in it without evidence, since there isn’t any. > [@Myrrajh](#): > > Your argument about rejecting reality in favor of religion doesn’t hold water. My reality consists of relationships with family and friends, school, death of loved ones, aging, health concerns, employment and financial concerns, helping to raise children, vehicles that need repairs, and the list goes on. > > What parts of reality do you suppose I’m rejecting because of my faith? Since you’ve very carefully avoided mentioning your religious beliefs, I can hardly answer that. But if you believe that any of those friends and relatives or yourself are going to have an afterlife, that’s one. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/136 "2009-02-23T00:29:38Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Pi; some believers insist that it must be equal to 3 because the Bible says so. Well, those people are idiots; say what you wish about the Bible, but it [doesn’t say that](http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm). ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/137 "2009-02-23T00:38:02Z")
1. It threatens a belief system that people are raised into and they probably live in the middle of like minded believers. Their comfort is imperiled. 2. The church is a huge and powerful business and will do its utmost to stay that way. Don’t fuck with big business. 3. It is easier to attack the messengers than to question your belief system. People do the easy thing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/138 "2009-02-23T01:09:08Z")
> [@Q.E.D](#): > > Well, those people are idiots; say what you wish about the Bible, but it [doesn’t say that](http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm). Not that I think the Pi=3 thing is that big of a deal, but the defense on this page is pretty lame. The author just makes up an imaginary “inner radius” which he reverse engineers to synch up with pi. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/139 "2009-02-23T01:13:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The author just makes up an imaginary “inner radius” which he reverse engineers to synch up with pi. Well, no, he doesn’t. His point, and a correct one, is that real-world vessels have a thickness and all the numbers he uses as givens are extracted directly from the text. The inner radius is a calculated value, and is correct given the dimensions (and the reasonable assumptions made about them) specified. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344/140 "2009-02-23T01:20:32Z")
deleted post [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-christians-vehemently-opposed-to-science/486344.md?page=8)