A
AlbertBall
Guest
Err, no. hinckleytimes.net/news-in-hinckley/local-news/hinckley-news/2010/02/26/true-location-of-the-battle-of-bosworth-is-revealed-105367-25919874/We never witness historical events. We just believe what the textbooks tell us. And the people who write the textbooks base their facts off of documents assumed to be written by people who witness a particular historical event. How do we know that the person who wrote the document wasn’t lying? Well, the fact is, we don’t know for sure. There’s no way to prove that the person who wrote the document wasn’t lying. However, we believe the person to be true because of reason and intuition—because of “faith” essentially. Because of reason and intuition, we arrive at the idea that the person who wrote the document probably had nothing to gain from lying. He was probably telling the truth.
But if we were to follow scientific realist or empiricist ideology, then that document wouldn’t really prove anything. Why? Because we would have to experience the event with our senses in order for it to be true. In fact, that’s the *only *way it can be true. If we don’t see that event with our own eyes, if we don’t hear it with our own ears, then according to empiricist ideology, it cannot be true. And of course, we won’t be able to experience past events, because they’ve already happened, so therefore, according to empiricism, it cannot be true. But according to reason, something that has occurred in the past is always true, even if its existence has passed.
This is wrong on so many levels. You clearly have no understanding of the scientific method. Have you ever read a scientific paper? LOL They don’t read ‘i carried out an experiment. I’m not going to detail it, but believe me what i say about it IS TRUE!’ hahahI recall science textbooks. If we were truly honest, then we would acknowledge that most people have never seen an atom. So why should they believe what scientists have said: that atoms exist and that everything is made up of them? Most people will never see one, so therefore, at least to those people, the existence of an atom is based on pure faith in testimony of scientists. Imagine if Albert Einstein tried to prove again all the mathematical theorems of the Greeks and Egyptians, the Laws of Kepler, the findings of Galileo and Newton, just so he could confirm their existence empirically (which is what empiricism/scientific realism basically demands). He wouldn’t have had much time to come up with the General Relativity Theory, would he?
How is this at all different from the Bible? The Bible tells us about a God we have never seen. How do we know that the Apostles were telling truth? We didn’t see the miracles of Jesus. We weren’t there to empirically test them. Yet, we know them to be true because of reason, intuition, and most especially faith.
Because you are fundamentally incorrect in your assessment of historical and scientific evidence.Just because you have never seen, heard, smelt, tasted or felt something does not mean it is not true.