History Before Technology
I have another question about anecdotal "evidence" and historical "facts."
And just to reiterate, I believe very little of the bible is likely true in any historical, factual sense. But just for the sake of argument:
Say 2000 people all heard and recounted their experience of a speech given by Abraham Lincoln and how he said a certain thing and scratched his nose at a certain point during the speech and then coughed and reached for his handkerchief (or some other important political detail not recorded by official government documents or relatively reliable press). Why is it that we can take that consensus of eyewitness accounts to be an almost certain indication of a historical fact, and yet the anecdotal evidence of millions of believers as a mass delusion?
The way I understand how historical data is collected and confirmed and cross-referenced, that seems a bit incongruous. Am I missing some important aspect of it?