Science cannot definitively prove anything; Neither can Christianity.
Can this be true? If this is accurate–that humans cannot confirm the truth or reality of anything–then upon what basis can we claim knowledge? For example: Accepting that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light has always been a theoretical belief, not a permanently provable fact, for not everything that can be known or tested in this regard has been confirmed. Historic “proofs” for dating artifacts continue to be a movable target. In courtrooms, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard of apparent proof–but stories abound with statistical errors of such a subjective approach. Few will contest the common knowledge that media can be misleading, and yet we continue to seek out its wealth of information.
All human involved pursuits of knowledge are inherent belief systems: Scientific, Journalistic, Religious, Legal, Historical, Social, Political. How are we to believe in the truth of anything? Does this mean that there are no absolutes? That if not provable, then nothing can be reliable? Are the assurances relied upon by Christians equally subjective, with only questionable guarantees?
This subject, of which I was privileged to be informed, came up in a recent 7th grade science class.
What about at the individual level: how do you base your trust of information? Or do you proceed through life distrustful of everything and everyone? Any comments for this curious author?