“Conventional Methods of Historical Investigation Confirms Christianity and Disproves Non-Christian Religions”
In addition to science and law (previous blog articles), the third area in which probability plays a crucial role in determining and sustaining truth concerns historical facts. How do we know Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, Siddhartha Gautama (the “Buddha”), Jesus Christ, or any other historical figure ever lived? How do we know the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620? How do we know Joan of Arc was burned at the stake in 1431? None of these events can be confirmed by science because they are not repeatable and observable events. Yet we believe all to be historical facts. Why? Because they are substantiated by the preponderance of evidence leading to certainty beyond reasonable doubt.
Once again, as in science and law, historical conclusions are not dependent on absolute certainty as in a mathematics or formal logic. However, as Gary Habermas and Terry Miethe have stated in Why Believe God Exists:
The concept of probability does not preclude our achieving certainty in matters of well-established historical findings [e.g. the testimony of Scriptures]. Events that are validated by careful historical research (and especially those established for long periods of time) in the absence of contrary findings are proven facts. (241)
As in science and law, historical investigation is carried forth by employing the same sort of verification techniques used in almost all the affairs of life. Christianity demands nothing more than what is applied to other areas of human knowledge; it needs no greater test to authenticate it than what is used to authenticate scientific, legal, and now historical matters.
How do responsible historians work? They adhere to two important rules. First, they are unbiased in their approach. They do not allow their own presuppositions to influence their investigation or their conclusions (as many liberal theologians are notoriously guilty of doing). They hold to the conviction that the truthfulness of any historical event depends on the preponderance of evidence supporting it. So they investigates and analyzes all pertinent evidences.
Second, in order to determine fact from fiction, historians seek the best evidence available to support or disavow a particular event. What kind of evidence is best? There is only one kind that is reliable enough to determine beyond reasonable doubt the factuality of any historical event: primary source evidence (firsthand testimony). This entails recorded documentation by qualified and honest eyewitnesses to the event. If the observers are psychologically sound and do not disqualify themselves by contradictions, inaccuracies, opposing evidences, or is obvious bias, their testimony is considered valid to substantiate truth. The most convincing and irrefutable historical incidents rely on this kind of documentation.
Can this be applied to Christianity? Absolutely, and in next week’s blog article I will apply it to the principal, watershed issue confronting Christian apologists. ©