I picked this up from an exchange between NJ and DA in the 'Fresh Air' thread. NJ — The exact same thing can be said of those who base their beliefs on presumed facts. DA — Unfortunately you are right. With the deletion of the word 'presumed'. Facts don't always prove to be correct; they are as correct as our technology is at the time though. (my emphasis). NJ — Facts don't always prove to be correct; they are as correct as our technology is at the time though. True. That's exactly why I said presumed. +++ It seems to me that the content of sacra doctrina are simply not determinable as 'facts', if we assume a fact is something that is determined by an empirical proof. Which brings us round to the 'science v religion' thing again? I post this here, perhaps better suited to 'Philosophy', but I wanted to discuss the thing under a general heading. It seems to me the content of sacra doctrina is by its very nature not subject to empirical determination. To do that would require a science that can demonstrably prove the existence of God, or the Transcendent Intellect, or whatever term a given religion designates for 'It'. So it seems to me that DA's argument is in fact another more discreet example of the 'science v religion' debate? Take miracles, for example. The modern notion is that miracles are impossible because they break the laws of nature, and ancient peoples only accepted them because they did not understand natural law. I'm not so sure. Ancient peoples might not have our understanding of physics, might not have had Newton, but they understood 'gravity' even if they didn't know the term, and they knew when something happened that just should not or could not happen. So when the ancients designated something as a miracle, they did so conscious of the fact that in any normal circumstance, what just happened should not be possible ... Or put another way: while all facts are true, not all truths are necessarily facts.