The Atheist\u2019s Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism (\u201cThe Atom-as-God\u201d)<\/a>. Instead of believing in one God, you (much like primitives in many cultures and their idols) believe in trillions of them: each capable of the extraordinary things that the Christian God can do.<\/p>\nBut see, instead of inventing a story to explain it, or grabbing hold of some millennia old folklore to explain it,<\/span><\/p>\nOr (to return your polemical favor) some Johnny-come-lately atheist mythology and fanciful thinking . . .<\/p>\n
I\u2019m perfectly o.k. saying, \u201cI don\u2019t know, and I really don\u2019t care.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nBack to that, again. If you cared so little, then you wouldn\u2019t \u201ccare\u201d enough to make garden-variety swipes at Christianity (\u201ccosmic magician,\u201d \u201cfolklore,\u201d etc.), as if we have no rational basis other than adoption of ancient old wives\u2019 tales and children\u2019s fairy tales for what we believe. This gets old. It\u2019s more of the smug, \u201csmarter-than-thou\u201d atheist mentality that is so prevalent. You don\u2019t \u201ccare\u201d about this and that, so you say, yet you insist on making fun of Christians and our supposed sublime ignorance at every opportunity.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Actually much of my rejection of religion in general, and Christianity as my particular brand of religion, came from the bible itself and required little or no outside proponents at all. That the bible is the basis for our knowledge of what Christianity is makes it central to the argumentations as to its content. More about this if you want to pursue this as a separate and seminally important issue.<\/span><\/p>\nNo thank you. I\u2019ve seen all I need to see about the merits of atheist biblical exegesis. It\u2019s some of the worst I have ever seen: and that includes goofy fundamentalist interpretations.<\/p>\n
I then quote the Maxim of Freethought and write of how it helped free me to look more objectively for the truths I sought: \u201cHe who cannot\u00a0reason is defenseless; he who fears to reason has a cowardly mind; he who will not reason is willing to be deceived and will deceive all who\u00a0listen to him.\u201d This struck home to me personally, even though I am sure it does not move you in any appreciable manner.<\/span><\/p>\nIt\u00a0doesn\u2019t<\/i>? You\u2019re \u201csure\u201d<\/span> it doesn\u2019t? That\u2019s strange you would think that, since I agree entirely, wholeheartedly with this sentiment.\u00a0You<\/i>\u00a0are the one who has discovered it and changed your mind. I\u2019ve always believed similarly, as long as I thought about anything at all. The thinking Christian has no objection to reason. It\u2019s\u00a0what\u00a0<\/i>is considered reasonable and what\u00a0isn\u2019t<\/i>, and\u00a0why<\/i>, that the disagreement with atheists (and other non-Christians) comes in. In other words, the argument isn\u2019t over the validity and goodness of reasoning itself, but over the truth and falsity of particular premises.<\/p>\n I find any religion to be basically lacking in reason.<\/span><\/p>\nLike I said: atheists always have to judge basically all Christians and their religions as unreasoning, irrational ignoramuses. I\u2019ve always marveled at this, because of how uncharitable and condescending it is. But apparently it is part and parcel of atheist self-understanding. Atheists seem to have a great need to put down the reasoning capabilities of those who differ from them. I submit that this might perhaps suggest a bit of intellectual insecurity and lack of confidence in one\u2019s own position.<\/p>\n
so would concur in your assessment that the denomination in which I found myself lacked reason, but then I go a few steps further and say that, in my opinion, your denomination also lacks reason, as do all others.<\/span><\/p>\nOf course . . .<\/p>\n
You say that I fall back to non-rational emotionalism which I have previously criticized.\u00a0You say that while I tout reason, I am being nonrational in my explanation. I agree with your assessment to a degree after rereading what I wrote at that time. When I wrote this article I wasn\u2019t all that far removed from having still been a theist. Old habits are hard to break and I fell back somewhat on one of theism\u2019s major defenses of itself, emotionalism. I apologize for backsliding by using this form of argumentation.<\/span><\/p>\nThank you. No offense, but frankly, I don\u2019t see how you have progressed all that much in the interim . . .<\/p>\n
I mentioned the eccentricities of the Amish, the snake handlers, and those who refuse medical treatment as conditions of faith within their particular sects. And what I said about these sects, or cults if you will, is that they are based in literal interpretations of what their adherents believe to be an inerrant bible. That statement is true.<\/span><\/p>\nI think there is a great deal of truth in it. I only object (as always) to a broad judgment of the Bible or of Christianity-at-large, because of sectarian excesses of relatively small groups. It\u2019s simply fallacious reasoning. And there are much larger issues of exegesis, hermeneutics, etc. that need to be dealt with. Snake handlers and those who refuse medical treatment comprise only a tiny, tiny amount of the whole of Christians (and Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, who refuse blood transfusions, are not even correctly\u00a0classed<\/i>\u00a0as Christians, as they deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and other orthodox Christian doctrines). No generalization based on such dinky groups carries much weight or force at all. Nor can the Bible itself be blamed for stupid interpretations of it.<\/p>\n
I have personal history with people with these and other beliefs, all of which come under the banner of Christianity, and their eccentricities and sometimes foolish behavior and beliefs made clear to me that religion can twist those who are vulnerable by extolling the empowerment that one can gain by believing in some particular versions of biblical literalism.<\/span><\/p>\nSure, some false tenets in the religious arena can twist some people gullible and foolish enough to believe them; of course. I\u2019ve made it my life\u2019s work to oppose these kinds of false ideas. I wrote an article against the silly notions of\u00a0\u201cGod always heals\u201d in 1982; it\u2019s on my website. I\u2019ve attacked biblical literalism in interpretation, and defended the traditional fourfold method of biblical exegesis (hyper-literalism is largely a Protestant fundamentalist error). I haven\u2019t written about snake-handling, but certainly utterly condemn that as an excess and sad misapplication of one biblical passage. None of this, though, has the remotest relevance to the larger questions of whether the Bible and Christianity are true.<\/p>\n
I could not write an attack on Roman Catholicism, nor Anglicanism, for I did not live inside their cloister and had little knowledge about their\u00a0methods of mind control over their supplicants.<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cMind control\u201d? Interesting choice of words . . . So do you maintain that all Christians are victims of brainwashing?<\/p>\n
I also have always thought it to be a bad practice to attack those who believe differently than I do, for that only confounds the real arguments\u00a0without really accomplishing any positive result.<\/span><\/p>\nFunny that you have repeatedly done so throughout this \u201cdialogue,\u201d then (particularly the rational capacities of Christians). For heaven\u2019s sake, in your sentence immediately previous to this last one, you have made yet another of your ridiculous, condescending claims which attacks Christians\u00a0en masse<\/i>\u00a0as mind-controlled (i.e., literally brainwashed) dupes.<\/p>\n
You at least thought for yourself and that\u2019s the center of what I believe about religion. Each of us must do our own search and come to our own conclusions. I have and you have, and we differ in our conclusions.<\/span><\/p>\nThis is good, but I think a lot of your rhetoric is inconsistent with this high ideal.<\/p>\n
I then wrote in the original article. \u201cTo be human means we are doomed to explaining our world, not simply and directly, but only indirectly,\u00a0through these interpretations. We dwell in our interpretations. In explicating a phenomenon, we always put it in terms limited by our ability to understand, always based in our own prejudices and preconceptions. This means that we will understand things partially and inadequately, through language rather than a godlike omniscience.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nYour response was:\u00a0<\/span>\u201cI agree. This is true for atheists and theists alike. Theists; however, claim to be in possession of revelation: which is God explaining the world and spiritual truth to us. It is an additional source of knowledge. If it exists, it is supremely important; if it does not, then it is a big joke and a farce.\u201d<\/p>\nI am glad that you agree, for this paragraph, to me, is the most important one that people understand, and upon which there is some shared agreement. I believe, as you say, that it is true for theists and atheists alike. We are not all that much different after all. As you point out, the theist has the added baggage of revelation that rounds out their world view beyond that of human reasoning. You say that it is an additional source of knowledge, but I would say that, in my viewpoint, it is a delusion of knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\nBut as the reasons I have seen atheists produce for that negation are at worst (and I say, usually) ludicrous, and at best questionable (certainly not compelling), your claim does not carry much force with me.<\/p>\n
I agree that this disconnect between faith and reason need not be true, but in my case, and the case of many others, the putting away of reason is the only way in which this type of faith can exist.<\/span><\/p>\nThen you need to make that clear in the article itself. You did not, so the reader is left with a general sense. The problem started in the very title of the piece [\u201cReligion and How I Lost It\u201d]. And of course atheists will be predisposed to generalize the comments to all religion (which might explain \u2014 I suspect \u2014 why the article has the title it has in the first place).<\/p>\n
Anecdotally, I would add, I have received several dozen communiqu\u00e9s from others who have put away their faith, or were struggling with the\u00a0conflict between faith and reason, who wanted to share with me their fellowship on this point.<\/span><\/p>\nOf course. We all want to be with kindred spirits, with similar experiences. Hence, Catholic converts and other apologists often contact me.<\/p>\n
I next go out on a limb of sorts, and do abandon my primary caveat in writing this article, though I stand by it nonetheless. I wrote: \u201cNo\u00a0reasonable person can believe that the guesses of preliterate man, upon which the myths of gods and the supernatural are based, were\u00a0true. The beliefs of these primitives, however, were more reasonable in terms of their limited and insignificant knowledge, than the beliefs of today\u2019s religionists who have masses of information available to them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nYou replied:<\/span>\u00a0\u201cBiblical revelation (in the Old Testament) is not \u201cpreliterate.\u201d Moses could write. The question is whether God revealed Himself or not, to the Jews, the chosen people. If He did, when it happened is irrelevant. The knowledge revealed would have relevance for all time.\u201d<\/p>\nFirst of all, whether Moses could write or not, or whether Moses even existed or not, is a moot point within the context of what I said above. Writing is not the only sign of literacy, there is also comprehension and understanding of what is said or written. My point here was not about Moses nor the writing of scripture, per se. It was about how religion came to be in the first place, even before the time of Moses.<\/span><\/p>\nThe definition of \u201cliterate\u201d in my dictionary is: \u201cable to read and write.\u201d So we again clash on the simple meaning of words. My interpretation \u2014 beyond coinciding with the dictionary \u2014 was not out of place, seeing that not long ago, many liberal \u201cBible scholars\u201d contended that in the time of Moses, the Israelites were illiterate (in the dictionary sense). Subsequent archaeological discoveries blew that out of the water (not that we Christians \u2014 or observant Jews, for that matter \u2014 were at all surprised). It remains arguably prejudiced and condescending to describe the Bible-era ancient Israelites as \u201cpreliterate\u201d or \u201cprimitive.\u201d But this is standard atheist fare. Any condescension is permissible as long as it is directed towards Christians or the ancient cultures which form the backdrop to Christianity and the Bible. Quite \u201ctolerant\u201d and open-minded, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n
Secondly, the statement that a god revealed himself to a people four or five thousand years ago must be taken by faith<\/span><\/p>\nNot entirely. There exists legal-type eyewitness evidence of various miracles. There is an enduring culture to be accounted for (whereas most other ancient cultures are either extinct or vastly different from what they used to be). We have prophecies in the Bible that this culture produced, which can be verified as accurate or false. Even messianic prophecies provide great evidence that some super-intelligent being was behind the Bible, as there were so many true predictions about Jesus alone, written hundreds of years prior to His birth. The first two evidences are not particularly compelling to a skeptical sort; I agree, but the last is worthy of a serious consideration that it is rarely given.<\/p>\n
and has no relevance at all as to the knowledge endemic in, or the knowledge bestowed as a result of, such a revelation. Within a world of reason there is not room to supplant that reason with revelation unless the revelation is real and can be demonstrated in much the same way that reason can be called to testify on its own behalf.<\/span><\/p>\nFulfilled prophecies and extraordinary factual verification from archaeology and historiography testify to the inspired nature of the Bible. Obviously, you reject all that, but it remains untrue that the Christian can stand only on simply blind faith, in order to accept the Bible as inspired revelation.<\/p>\n
If preliterate man, before Moses, invented gods out of their miscomprehension, simplistic view of the world and its natural order, or other externalized stimuli, we cannot today call that a revelation from those gods.<\/span><\/p>\nBut you presuppose that Abraham (who was no more \u201cpreliterate\u201d than Moses was) \u201cinvented\u201d monotheism, which, of course, is the very matter in dispute. You can\u2019t simply assume something is false without argument and act as if that is a rational argument.<\/p>\n
We can contend that it could have been, or that such might have happened, but we cannot rationally make that claim in such a way as to make believers out of those who doubt. That is more or less what I was trying to say in that paragraph.<\/span><\/p>\nYou usually can\u2019t convince an atheist with reason, because that is often not the basis upon which his atheism is based (when it is closely examined). Your own case is illustrative. You yourself admit that your basis was largely emotional and a reaction against fundamentalism. You claim to have reasoned through things, too, and I don\u2019t deny that, but we know from your own report that emotion (which is non-rational, technically-speaking) also played a key role, since you converted before having gotten such emotionalism out of your system, as you say.<\/p>\n
Our world and how we know it is a complex thing with many sides to some issues of defining truth. There is absolute truth, such as \u2018the\u00a0sun rises in the eastern sky in the morning\u2019, with the caveat that at some points on earth, at or near the poles, there are exceptions to\u00a0this truth. There is perceived truth which can be fraught with errors of human emotion, observed evidences, etc. It is within this area of\u2019truth\u2019 that the vast majority of what we call \u2018truth\u2019 actually exists. And there may even be revealed truth, though I think it is but a subset of perceived truth. Revealed truth has no burden of proof upon one claiming to have received it, and no way in which that proof would be universally accepted anyway.<\/span><\/p>\nTo the contrary, it is both falsifiable and verifiable, in ways that I (and others) have detailed: prophecy and factual verification as to accuracy in reporting various details. Accuracy doesn\u2019t\u00a0prove<\/i>\u00a0inspiration, of course (not at all); yet if something is inspired, it\u00a0will<\/i>\u00a0be accurate, so this removes one objection to the possibility that the Bible is indeed inspired. It\u2019s a \u201cminimum requirement,\u201d in other words. If biblical prophecies were shown to be habitually false, and none could hold any water, then I would agree that this would cast serious doubt on the divine inspiration of the Bible (or else on the manuscript that we have, as corresponding to the actual historic Bible).<\/p>\n
The perception of truth, even when it is in error, can be explained logically and will lead few thinking people astray. Revealed truth, on the other hand, in the minds of many who believe in it, supersedes any and all other forms of truth if that revelation falls within the parameters of being\u00a0an article of faith. That can be delusional, and can lead others astray who are pliable enough, or well enough conditioned, to believe by faith rather than reason.<\/span><\/p>\nThat may be your experience. It has not been mine, among those Christians who think to any significant degree at all about their faith. You\u2019ll always have non-thinking Christians, just as with any other massive group. So what? I continue to urge you to go back to the thing itself rather than the worst examples of it. All the major groups in historic Christianity would vehemently deny that there is an inherent dichotomy between faith and reason. They all believe that the two exist harmoniously, as ordained by God, and are not in conflict. You can always find fideists and so forth, but they are not the mainstream, and that\u2019s my point.<\/p>\n
So I again reiterate for our readers that what you are talking about does not \u2014 repeat,\u00a0NOT<\/b>\u00a0\u2014 represent mainstream historic, orthodox Christianity. To the extent that you make out that this is so at all, you are deceiving your readers, and being most unfair to the viewpoint that you seek to critique. You had several chances to clarify this in your article, but never did, to my knowledge. You continue even now to make unqualified, extremely sweeping statements about the intellectual and rational deficiencies of Christians\u00a0en masse<\/i>. This is not right, from any fair-minded ethical perspective, because it misrepresents.<\/p>\n
My next statement is a simple one. \u201cIt is apparent that such faith is based upon emotion, rather than reason.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nYour answer is nearly as simple.\u00a0<\/span>\u201cThis is not apparent at all. It is only apparent that some folks pit reason and faith against each other,\u00a0as if they were fundamentally hostile.\u201d<\/p>\nWell, to me it is apparent, and to many others with whom I have corresponded or spoken with on this point, it is apparent.<\/span><\/p>\nWhether it is \u201capparent\u201d to you or not is irrelevant. There are\u00a0facts\u00a0<\/i>here to be ascertained. The fact remains that you moved in fundamentalist, quasi-cultic circles as a Christian, and now you are in atheist circles. As far as I know (you can correct me if I\u2019m wrong), you have not spent significant time with (committed, informed, educated, orthodox) Catholics or Orthodox, or even Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, Reformed, or other forms of mainstream Christianity.<\/p>\n
Thus, your former circle of acquaintances does not represent a firsthand knowledge of that which you purport to critique. In fact, you were a preacher in a sect which habitually\u00a0blasts\u00a0<\/i>all those other groups, so you were hardly in a place to consider them fair-mindedly or dispassionately at all. Thus it appears to me that you have pretty much simply projected Church of Christ errors upon all Christians. I\u2019ve been a Protestant and am now a Catholic. I moved in the circles of many of the Protestant traditions when I was there (Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Reformed, non-denominational \u201cJesus Freak,\u201d messianic Jews, etc.).<\/p>\n
I have many friends, from virtually all the major categories of Christianity. So I (as a published, professional Christian and Catholic apologist) know what I am talking about. I (despite my Bible-reading) know my subject, and I am claiming that you\u00a0don\u2019t<\/i>\u00a0know what you are talking about, because you insist on bringing up, over and over, your own former small, fringe group and extrapolating that onto other Christians. You say you don\u2019t do this, and don\u2019t intend to, but by your language you do nonetheless, as I have shown again and again.<\/p>\n
At best, all you can say is that \u201cmany [or, too many] Christians dichotomize faith and reason.\u201d As I would readily agree with that, it is not at issue between us. It\u2019s a big reason why I am an apologist: I try to show Christians how to synthesize what ought to be synthesized, and what all major Christian groups believe\u00a0ought<\/i>\u00a0to be in harmony, not at war. It\u2019s only when you use that as a launching point to a wider critique of Christianity and the larger category of theism or non-materialism that I must vehemently object.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, I do think that faith and reason, if not actually anathematic of one another, are certainly polar opposites to many who\u00a0have escaped the bonds of religious faith.<\/span><\/p>\nFor\u00a0them<\/i>, they are, because they obviously never learned to properly practice their Christianity, nor (most relevantly to our discussion) \u201chow to\u00a0think<\/i>\u00a0Christianly.\u201d That\u2019s why they\u2019re no longer Christian! If they had thought it was reasonable, they would have presumably stayed. I contend that they had a woefully insufficient understanding of their faith and the issue of reason, faith, and revelation in the first place. They (and you) left for the\u00a0wrong reasons<\/i>, in other words.<\/p>\n
I think we are lot more alike than either of us may understand.<\/span><\/p>\nGood. But I don\u2019t think atheists as a whole are nearly as stupid and gullible as you seem to think most Christians are. That\u2019s a major difference. I think they have\u00a0flawed thinking<\/i>, based on\u00a0false premises<\/i>. That\u2019s far different from the charge of stupidity, irrationality, infantilism, \u201cfairy tales\u201d and all the rest of the usual contra-Christian charges. I think atheists have not\u00a0properly thought through<\/i>\u00a0the issues; therefore have arrived at wrong conclusions. And various other factors extraneous to pure reason enter in also, just as with all human beings.<\/p>\n
Your agreement with my above statement shows a kindredness of spirit and intellect, at least to some degree. I certainly would not claim that\u00a0reason has not led you to your viewpoints, nor would I want it said that reason did not lead me to mine. Even though we are diametrically\u00a0opposed in our view of religion and theism, we have arrived at these opposites through our own journey of examination. We can only suppose\u00a0that differences beyond intellect then have played a large part in our assimilation of what we have as divergent views of truth.<\/span><\/p>\nOr that one or both of us have accepted false premises along the way, and built a flimsy castle on a foundation of sand.<\/p>\n
The atheists and\u00a0agnostics with whom I converse and communicate are mostly of the sort who came to atheism or agnosticism through thorough examination of\u00a0religion, theology, and philosophy, and nearly to a person they are well informed and knowledgeable in these and other fields of study.<\/span><\/p>\nThey\u00a0think<\/i>\u00a0they are so informed about Christianity, but they are not; I\u2019ll guarantee that. I\u2019ve yet to meet one who didn\u2019t suffer from several basic miscomprehensions concerning Christianity. I realize that both sides will always tend to say that those who left never really understood what they left. It can only be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis.<\/p>\n
It is not a negation of scruples or morals, only another vantage point from which to view morality. Morality did not spring from the mind of a god, but is a collection of societal constructions which work in a civilized framework. It is not only wrong to murder from a religious viewpoint, but is wrong from nearly all societal standards that apply under any social construction. The same is true of all other moral laws and guides of social propriety, and it is these upon which civil law is based and upon which personal morality should be judged.<\/span><\/p>\nI agree, by and large, and I understand the perspective. I\u2019ve known many atheists whom I consider fine, upstanding, moral people of integrity (including one who used to attend monthly discussions in my home). That doesn\u2019t negate the observation that atheists are rather more free than Christians to do and believe as they wish. After all, what\u00a0ultimately<\/i>\u00a0constrains them? You may have many internal \u201cchecks\u201d and guidelines of various sorts, but they are nothing like the belief in a God Who oversees and judges and is all-powerful (and all-Good).<\/p>\n
But that\u2019s a huge discussion (one I have had with atheists before). There are the actual ethical beliefs of atheists and also what I would argue are the logical consequences of atheism as pertains to ethics. Sometimes I am referring to the latter, and I get accused of charging atheists in practice with what I think is a logical conclusion or\u00a0reductio ad absurdum<\/i>\u00a0of their views.<\/p>\n
Next I wrote: \u201cFew Christians can delineate the reasons and evidences for their faith. Almost any attempt to elucidate qualitative responses\u00a0on the subject elicit catch phrases and incoherent babbling.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nYou wrote in response:\u00a0<\/span>\u201cI am an apologist, whose field is defending the Christian faith and giving reasons for why we believe what we do.\u00a0I have had no problem offering sound answers to atheists. They are a challenge, but by no means an insurmountable one.\u201d<\/p>\nReading that paragraph of mine now makes me wince just a little. The spirit of what I said is correct, in my experience, but I think that\u00a0equating the speaking of theists about their religion to babbling was a bit too strident, and certainly too generalized.<\/span><\/p>\nThank you.<\/p>\n
I agree with you that \u2018biblical literalism\u2019 is not the whole of biblical interpretation within Christianity as a whole. I do suggest, however, that it is central to the belief system of a large number of Christians.<\/span><\/p>\nIt\u2019s large, but it is still a small minority. It\u2019s a minority of a minority: of Protestantism. There are about a billion Catholics and 300-400,000 Orthodox. Neither system accepts this kind of biblical interpretation. Protestantism contains maybe 500,000 people, if that much. Fundamentalism is a relatively small sub-group (probably no more than 15-20% of Protestants, if that much). You do the math. By any estimate, it\u2019s a very small minority among all Christians. This is even more so if you approach it from an historical perspective.<\/p>\n
And it is from that wellspring of theological reasoning<\/span><\/p>\nWhat<\/i>\u00a0reasoning? That was the problem . . . Church of Christ and fundamentalism in general not only glory in anti-intellectualism; they are also almost completely a-historical. They care little or nothing about Church history, which I would argue is directly contrary to the historic self-understanding of Christians and the biblical worldview, which is overwhelmingly of this mindset (and opposed to Bible Alone, or\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>). Christianity is in essence an historical religion. Yet these kinds of Protestants (not\u00a0all\u00a0<\/i>Protestants, by\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0means) act as if history has nothing to do with it at all.<\/p>\n
that I began my journey to finding truth in such matters. I do believe, however, that literalism of interpretation of the bible is endemic of nearly all denominations, cults, and sects.<\/span><\/p>\nHere I thought we were making progress, and then you say this. It\u2019s not true, my friend. The Bible is to be interpreted as any other literature is: in some places it is poetic; in others, it utilizes legal-type language; in others it is a narrative; in others it is philosophical, or nearly so (Paul\u2019s epistles; especially Romans and the two letters to the Corinthians, Ecclesiastes); then there is apocalyptic and prophetic literature. There is allegory, parable, metaphor, sarcasm, hyperbole, and other sorts of language and literary forms. When it is\u00a0intended<\/i>\u00a0to be taken literally, of course it\u00a0should\u00a0<\/i>be, just as any article in the daily paper should be,\u00a0if\u00a0<\/i>it is a literal account.<\/p>\n
And I\u2019m not going after your term, hyper-literalism here, but just plain, \u201cthe bible says it, so it must be correct,\u201d literal interpretation.<\/span><\/p>\nThe inspiration and divinely revealed nature of the Bible is a different proposition from \u201cliteralism\u201d \u2014 let alone the stupid, anti-intellectual, culture-rejecting fundamentalist variety.<\/p>\n
Was the universe created in six days? The bible says so. If it is not so, then the bible is in error or it has been misread and misinterpreted by all of those who believe in a six day creation.<\/span><\/p>\nBut then the question immediately becomes, what does the Hebrew \u201cday\u201d (yom<\/i>) mean, or I should say, what\u00a0can<\/i>\u00a0it mean; what\u00a0range of meanings\u00a0<\/i>can it have? And of course, it is not restricted to a literal meaning of 24 hours. This is also true in English. We say, for example, \u201cin this day and age,\u201d or \u201cin my day, things were different,\u201d or \u201cit\u2019s a new day\u201d (in a wider, metaphorical sense). The same was true in ancient Hebrew. So the hyper-literalist is ignorant right off the bat. St. Augustine in the 4th century understood what I wrote above. This is nothing new.<\/p>\n
Of course this is a hypothetical question and serves only to illustrate one example of biblical literalism that is widely believed simply because it says so in Genesis. I could as easily have used examples such as the resurrection of Jesus or the theology of Paul.<\/span><\/p>\nThis is entirely different ground. All orthodox Christians must believe in the Resurrection, because it is an article of faith, and why we are Christians in the first place (Jesus rising from the dead was the proof that He was Who He claimed to be: God). We must believe that God created the universe. But we aren\u2019t at all required to believe that it was in six literal days.<\/p>\n
Christians who believe in the resurrection do so as a result of literally interpreting the bible and making this point an article of faith upon which they base their beliefs in a messianic being who they choose to follow.<\/span><\/p>\nYes, because that miraculous event was reported as a literal historical event, and it was and is verified through various evidences of history and legal-type evidences. If Jesus wasn\u2019t God, and didn\u2019t rise from the dead, Christianity would utterly collapse, as Paul himself said. In this case, the Bible was supposed to be interpreted literally, because it was historical narrative. In the case of the creation, that is not required by the language or type of literature. The\u00a0divine<\/i>creation<\/i>\u00a0itself is literal, but the\u00a0times<\/i>\u00a0involved have a leeway.<\/p>\n
They do not get this story anywhere else, and if they did, would they believe it if the bible was silent on the issue?<\/span><\/p>\nSure, just like we believe in, e.g., the theory of relativity or chemistry or algebra or classical logic or any number of things that the Bible does not address.<\/p>\n
They are not rooted in cultural differences, but are simple contradictions within a book which is believed by faith, and part of that faith is to\u00a0believe in the truth of that book and everything that it says. When it says two things, and one contradicts the other, then a reasonable mind\u00a0will make note of that discrepancy. A reasonable mind does not throw out the whole book on the basis of one such contradiction. And a\u00a0reasonable person will want to try to rectify the conflict, to find a common ground upon which both scenarios can be inclusive rather than\u00a0exclusive.<\/span><\/p>\nBut then a reasonable mind will begin to add up those contradictions which stand the test of further evaluation and which demonstrate an<\/span>
\n inability to reconcile.<\/span><\/p>\nAs many more recent philosophers have shown, the larger frameworks of belief-systems often predispose one to see a \u201ccontradiction\u201d where there may not be one at all. No one (not even know-nothing fundamentalists) exists in an intellectual vacuum. The atheist or \u201cbiblical skeptic\u201d approaches the Bible the way a butcher approaches a hog, or a lumberjack approaches a tree. That is hardly conducive to an objective, fair analysis. If one is to err in interpretation, it stands to reason that we can likely better trust one who respects and loves his subject matter, as opposed or compared to one whose motive is strictly a\u00a0negative<\/i>\u00a0enterprise: to show how rotten and culturally and intellectually destructive something is.<\/p>\n
So, for example, would anyone think that a racist would be able to do as accurate and worthwhile study of black culture and history, as one who loves that culture (whether black or white) would be able to do? Of course not. Yet we Christians are irrationally, arrogantly asked by atheists to accept the \u201cfact\u201d that they understand the Bible far better than we do: we, who have studied and revered it our entire lives, and devoted (in a case like my own, as an apologist) countless thousands of hours reading, studying, and defending it. It\u2019s just not plausible. Use a little common sense . . . And this severe bias and negative approach produces some truly ludicrous opinions, as I have shown in my dialogues on the subject with atheists. That\u2019s the bottom line.<\/p>\n
At some point, if enough of these contradictions come to light, and if they are egregiously enough in error, individually or collectively, then a reasoned mind must begin to wonder what sort of foundation for the faith the bible really is.<\/span><\/p>\nAt some point, if enough of these alleged atheist-produced \u201ccontradictions\u201d are refuted and revealed to be the non-examples that they are, and if they are egregiously enough in error, individually or collectively, then a reasoned mind must begin to wonder what sort of foundation the atheist zeal for chasing after imaginary biblical \u201ccontradictions\u201d really rests on, and what causes otherwise intelligent people to adopt such obviously deficient and desperate \u201creasoning.\u201d<\/p>\n
Thanks for your participation and willingness to share your viewpoint in an overall cordial, courteous manner. You have been a gentleman, and that is rare enough in Christian-atheist dialogue, and a great thing in and of itself. That has allowed us to present an exchange where both sides have been fully presented without rancor and acrimony, which is wonderful for our readers\u2019 sake. So I appreciate your participation in that worthy enterprise. I sincerely hope I have been a civil gentleman also, and apologize beforehand for any offense I may have caused. It was not my intention at all.<\/p>\n
There is a place for rational defense of religious faith, yes. It\u2019s precisely your own inability to synthesize faith and reason that is, in my opinion, probably a primary factor in your abandonment of the Christian faith. The more reasoned a faith is, the less likely a person will reject it.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve been on both sides of this issue, so I know how it felt to be a smug, self-righteous purveyor of religious intolerance.<\/span><\/p>\nI\u2019ve never been a \u201cpurveyor of religious intolerance\u201d that I\u2019m aware of, let alone a \u201csmug, self-righteous\u201d one. But I have no reason to doubt your self-report. If you were that, then you were. It doesn\u2019t mean all of us Christians were or are the same way you were. And now, ironically enough, it is\u00a0you<\/i>\u00a0who talk about \u201csides,\u201d whereas you disagreed with me when I did. And for you, the Christian side is, of course, explained in these patronizing way: \u201csmug, self-righteous purveyor of religious intolerance.\u201d Yet you continue to deny that you have a strong irrational prejudice against Christianity.<\/p>\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(originally 3-23-05)
\n*<\/div>\n
Photo credit:<\/strong>\u00a0Ruins of St. Casimir Church in Warsaw <\/i>(1945). During the\u00a0Warsaw Uprising\u00a0(1944), the 17th century church was used as a hospital. This made it a frequent target for bombing by the Germans.<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
***<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Atheist Bob Hypes started corresponding with me (in a commendably friendly and cordial manner), after he found out about my critique of his deconversion story. He has graciously granted permission to publish all his words on my website. His words will be in\u00a0blue. ***** [abridged significantly, since the original dialogue was about 35,000 words: almost […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":20531,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124],"tags":[336,745,2347,151,645,335,5876,4695,4105,744,254,742,189,743,964,119],"class_list":["post-20522","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","tag-agnostics","tag-anti-theists","tag-apologetics","tag-apostasy","tag-atheist-deconversion-stories","tag-atheists","tag-bob-hypes","tag-church-of-christ","tag-deconversion","tag-ex-christians","tag-faith-and-reason","tag-falling-away-from-faith","tag-fideism","tag-former-christians","tag-fundamentalism","tag-philosophy-of-religion"],"yoast_head":"\n
Dialogue on Atheist Bob Hypes' Deconversion Story<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Both sides go into great depth in discussing an atheist's deconversion story (from Church of Christ fundamentalism to atheism).\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dialogue on Atheist Bob Hypes' Deconversion Story\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Both sides go into great depth in discussing an atheist's deconversion story (from Church of Christ fundamentalism to atheism).\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-06-27T22:17:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/06\/ChurchRuins3.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"534\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"495\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"58 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html\",\"name\":\"Dialogue on Atheist Bob Hypes' Deconversion Story\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-06-27T22:17:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-27T22:17:44+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Both sides go into great depth in discussing an atheist's deconversion story (from Church of Christ fundamentalism to atheism).\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dialogue on Atheist Bob Hypes’ Deconversion Story\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dialogue on Atheist Bob Hypes' Deconversion Story","description":"Both sides go into great depth in discussing an atheist's deconversion story (from Church of Christ fundamentalism to atheism).","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dialogue on Atheist Bob Hypes' Deconversion Story","og_description":"Both sides go into great depth in discussing an atheist's deconversion story (from Church of Christ fundamentalism to atheism).","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2018-06-27T22:17:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":534,"height":495,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/06\/ChurchRuins3.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"58 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html","name":"Dialogue on Atheist Bob Hypes' Deconversion Story","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-06-27T22:17:44+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-27T22:17:44+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Both sides go into great depth in discussing an atheist's deconversion story (from Church of Christ fundamentalism to atheism).","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/06\/dialogue-on-atheist-bob-hypes-deconversion-story.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dialogue on Atheist Bob Hypes’ Deconversion Story"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20522","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20522"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20522\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/20531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20522"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20522"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20522"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/06\/ChurchRuins3.jpg\")
<\/center>\n