{"id":3705,"date":"2015-10-03T14:38:52","date_gmt":"2015-10-03T18:38:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=3705"},"modified":"2017-05-19T13:31:19","modified_gmt":"2017-05-19T17:31:19","slug":"friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html","title":{"rendered":"Dialogue with an Agnostic on the Credibility of Revelation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"Dialogue3\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Image by \u201cgeralt\u201d.<\/span> [public domain \/ Pixabay<\/a>]<\/p>\n

JD Eveland<\/a> is an agnostic with whom I have had several great exchanges, free of the nonsense and foolishness that so often (sadly) occurs when Christians and agnostics or atheists interact. If all goes well, we will continue having many more dialogues. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n

* * * * *<\/p>\n

This seemed to be a possible point to raise a question about the derivation of a pretty complex body of belief from a fairly simple starting point.<\/span><\/p>\n

Specifically, suppose one were to agree that there might well be some overall transcendent spirit pervading the universe. Assume that it possesses properties that would appear to us as indistinguishable from omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience (reserving the possibility that they might simply be sufficiently advanced technology. We can call this entity \u201cGod\u201d or \u201cgods\u201d as shorthand. As an admitted agnostic, I can admit this into my understanding. It\u2019s an abstraction of some value and explanatory utility, though not demonstrable by standard human empirical methods.<\/span><\/p>\n

But here\u2019s the question: by what chain of logic does one get from this starting point \u2013 one accepted by large numbers of people throughout history, and the basis for thousands of varieties of religious practice \u2013 to the minutiae of, say, Catholic practice? How does one even get from this starting point to the Bible (which is actually many different books loosely linked by a general idea) as a reliable source for moral guidance? In short, how does this starting point lead unequivocally to anything regarding moral conduct among human beings?<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019m not intending a confrontation here. I do respect your thoughts and ideas. I\u2019m just trying to see what your chain of thought is, and how you bridge what seem to me to be impossibly wide chasms from one assumption or conclusion to another. Thanks!<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019m glad you\u2019re still around! I was looking forward to more interaction. <\/span><\/p>\n

I would say the answer to your question is that knowing this stuff requires revelation. The particulars of the Christian faith and Catholicism in particular come from that. This gives them an objective quality that wouldn\u2019t have been possible otherwise. We can say that \u201cx is wrong\u201d because this revelation told us so. We believe part of God\u2019s omnipotence is the ability to share and reveal His thoughts with us in the written medium, through inspired writers. Then, of course, the question is: \u201chow do we know that the Bible is that revelation?\u201d We know from:<\/span><\/p>\n

1) Its historical accuracy, proven again and again from archaeology and historiography.<\/span><\/p>\n

2) Fulfilled prophecy, that verifies the supernatural origin of Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n

3) The Person of Jesus Christ, Who came to earth, performed miracles in order to substantiate that He was God. He in turn confirmed the Old Testament as inspired Scripture. His disciples and apostles \u2014 many of whom were eyewitnesses of His miracles and post-Resurrection appearances \u2014 wrote down the New Testament.<\/span><\/p>\n

4) Internal experiential \/ spiritual witness of the sublimity and profundity of biblical words. God profoundly changed my life. And this is true of many millions of people. The content and message of Christianity has transformed my life and has brought peace and joy and fulfillment.<\/span><\/p>\n

5) Christians disagree on doctrines because Protestantism has a different system of authority, called sola Scriptura<\/em>, or \u201cBible Alone\u201d (as the only infallible guide in Christianity). Catholics think that the Church and apostolic tradition are also infallible, and that both help interpret Scripture. I just posted<\/span> an article about this Protestant conundrum<\/a> a few minutes ago.\u00a0I have written two entire books that critique sola Scriptura<\/em>: the Protestant rule of faith [<\/span>one<\/a> \/ two<\/a>].\u00a0The first was published by Catholic Answers: the largest and most influential Catholic apologetics organization.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, of course the agnostic or\u00a0skeptic or atheist disagrees with these things all down the line, usually thinks they are ridiculous and ludicrous, etc. Each one has to be defended to the nth degree, in the eyes of folks who think empiricism is the only valid form of knowledge or epistemology. Even if they weren\u2019t that skeptical, I agree that each one needs to be defended on its own. And there are many books and articles that do that.<\/span><\/p>\n

I understand that. I\u2019m willing to do some<\/em> of that with atheists, but only to a point, because in my experience, people who ask these sorts of questions are never satisfied with Christian apologetic (or philosophical) answers. If one is actually resolved to their satisfaction, they simply come up with a dozen more. It never ends. It\u2019s an ultimately futile effort, though there are atheists and agnostics who become Christians. There are several at the Patheos Catholic Channel.<\/span><\/p>\n

Atheists \/ agnostics (i.e., the ones who relentlessly question<\/em>) say that their questions are due to their being rational and appropriately cautious. We say it is (in these<\/em> instances) due to hyper-rationality and false premises and an excessively skeptical approach that they don\u2019t apply to other areas of knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t have any problem with a moderate amount of questions, as long as there are no double standards (Christians have to absolutely prove everything they believe [according to all<\/em>-important<\/strong> \/ be-all and end-all empiricism<\/strong>] or be considered gullible fools, while atheists need not explain any of the difficult questions on their side).<\/span><\/p>\n

But you asked me how we<\/em>\u00a0logically progress from one thing to the other, and I have explained how we do that (whether you accept the particulars or not).<\/span><\/p>\n

Thanks! Although we obviously have substantial areas of disagreement, I enjoy the opportunity for systematic discussion about these Christian issues with someone who is willing to do more than simply try to yell at me a little louder. I respect your intellect, even though we come to different kinds of conclusions.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019m glad to see your discussion of the importance of revelation in the formation of your system. That pretty much tallies with my own assessment. We tend to disagree on your points (1), (2), and (3), although I do agree that there\u2019s not a lot of point in our trying to trade evidence back and forth, since our criteria for accepting evidence as valid are significantly different. I\u2019m not purely an empiricist. I also accept the general validity of the propositions derived from heuristics \u2013 that is, experience that works. An example of such a proposition would be, \u201cThe sun will rise tomorrow morning.\u201d I have no way of establishing this proposition other than by the experience that it has risen for some 25,550 days that I\u2019ve been around to witness it. I should note that this proposition is not in fact sustained scientifically, since the idea that the sun \u201crises\u201d is contradicted by current astronomical paradigms. That doesn\u2019t make it a less useful proposition for our daily lives.<\/span><\/p>\n

I wouldn\u2019t doubt your point (4), although I might also suggest that similar experiences have led others to different formulations of Christianity that are significantly less socially benign than yours \u2013 e.g., the Inquisition, Dominion theology, Kim Davis. There is no guarantee that internal experiential witness will generate peace and joy and fulfillment. It\u2019s also true that internal experiential witness has led many to entirely different formulations of spirituality \u2013 Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism<\/a>, etc. I suppose that you could argue that these are not truly internal experiential witnessings, but you\u2019d need to establish clear criteria for distinguishing among such experiences other than whether or not they lead to your particular set of conclusions.<\/span><\/p>\n

On point (5), I look forward to reading your article. I certainly won\u2019t prejudge your conclusions, although I hope that your bases for preferring the Catholic option are clear. It\u2019s always seemed to me that apostolic traditions offer a fertile ground for drawing just about any set of conclusions you wish to, through picking and choosing your sources and authorities. In that sense, \u201csola scriptura\u201d offers a more definitive basis, although the Bible itself is rife with alternative interpretations and the opportunity for picking and choosing \u2013 for example, determining just which part of the Levitical injunctions remain required and which are superseded.<\/span><\/p>\n

Clearly, our internal experiential\/spiritual witness has produced differing conclusions for each of us. I\u2019ve been exploring that witness in varying degrees for most of my seventy-two years without ever coming close to Christian conclusions, let alone Catholic conclusions. Obviously, you have no way of verifying my witness, any more than I have of verifying yours. From your perspective, there\u2019s obviously something defective in my witness, since I haven\u2019t come to your conclusions. From my perspective, I\u2019m perfectly willing to acknowledge that the conclusions that your witness has generated for you are valid for you, and enrich your life. What concerns me is that I\u2019m not sure that your perspective grants a similar validity to mine. The record of the Catholic Church in particular in terms of using the secular arm to enforce religious doctrines on the population generally is well known, although less stringent today than in previous times when the church disposed of more political power. My perspective does require me to resist intellectual coercion as well as behavioral coercion justified by no more than religious doctrine.<\/span><\/p>\n

At any rate, thanks for listening. Perhaps at some point we can come to agreement on at least some propositions that are equally true for both of us.<\/span><\/p>\n

I respect your intellect and spirit of congenial dialogue as well.<\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t have time to get more deeply into the above discussion at the moment, but I did neglect to mention apostolic succession<\/em> as another way by which Catholics come to believe in the particular things we do.<\/span><\/p>\n

My past in evangelicalism showed itself a bit there. :-) They put the Bible front and center always. We actually do, too, but never separated from Church and Tradition (\u201cthree-legged stool\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n

Catholics believe that the doctrines and dogmas of the Church have been passed down from the beginning, from Jesus, through the original disciples and apostles, onto the Church Fathers and onward through history, protected by the Holy Spirit.<\/span><\/p>\n

These doctrines can greatly develop, but this means they are consistent in essence all along (like an acorn to an oak tree). Development is distinct from doctrinal evolution, in which one doctrine could actually change totally into another one that is contradictory to its own origin. Evolution of dogma has been condemned by the Church, whereas development is orthodox and has been sanctioned.<\/span><\/p>\n

Development of doctrine, as brilliantly explicated by John Henry Newman is the biggest thing that persuaded me of Catholicism, back in 1990, after 13 years of (fairly happy and contended) evangelicalism.<\/span><\/p>\n

Newman also wrote a superb treatment of religious epistemology, called Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent<\/em>. It is not unlike Plantinga and Polanyi in many respects. It<\/span> can be read online<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Clearly, we do come from significantly different traditions. my family have been Unitarian-Universalists for at least four generations. Coming up in that tradition, it\u2019s hard to consider going elsewhere. When I was a kid, a series of Army chaplains\u2019 daughters tried to convert me, mostly because I kept winning the prize for memorizing Bible verses at summer Bible camps. I did have a period of some years when I listened to Christian radio extensively, trying to fold my brain around it. The closest I did come to non-UU was the time when I had an Episcopalian as a domestic partner, and I attended church with him for some years. I like UU hymns way better.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve never been able to get closer to evangelicalism than the kind of stupified fascination usually accorded to train wrecks. Please note that I\u2019m intending this as a pretty literal description of my reaction, not as any kind of insult. It requires modes of thinking that I simply can\u2019t fold my brain around. If it didn\u2019t keep impinging on my life, I wouldn\u2019t worry about it, but it does.<\/span><\/p>\n

UU is about as far from my associations as can be imagined, too! At least if we stick to theistic traditions . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

The closest I came to it was when I was a practical agnostic with a high interest in the occult, from 1967-1977. I was also very liberal by the late 70s, though only in a surfacey sense; not having really closely studied it, let alone study any alternative.<\/span><\/p>\n

But I was liberal. I had taken in all the playbook rhetoric from the media and entertainment industries and Detroit public schools and Wayne State University in Detroit (sociology major and minor in psychology), by osmosis.<\/span><\/p>\n

We certainly are all highly influenced by what and whom we choose to hang out around. We both recognize that. And that\u2019s good. I readily concede that I have a bias towards Christianity and towards Catholicism within Christianity.<\/span><\/p>\n

What I deny is that what I believe is unreasonable or that I have myself come to it by denying or minimizing reason (as far as it goes).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Image by \u201cgeralt\u201d. [public domain \/ Pixabay] JD Eveland is an agnostic with whom I have had several great exchanges, free of the nonsense and foolishness that so often (sadly) occurs when Christians and agnostics or atheists interact. If all goes well, we will continue having many more dialogues. His words will be in blue. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":3706,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,31],"tags":[619,978,119,977],"class_list":["post-3705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-bible-and-tradition","tag-christian-epistemology","tag-divine-revelation","tag-philosophy-of-religion","tag-revelation"],"yoast_head":"\nDialogue with an Agnostic on the Credibility of Revelation<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Criticism of revelation is often due to hyper-rationality, false premises, & a skeptical approach that isn't applied to other areas of knowledge.\" \/>\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\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dialogue with an Agnostic on the Credibility of Revelation\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Criticism of revelation is often due to hyper-rationality, false premises, & a skeptical approach that isn't applied to other areas of knowledge.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.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=\"2015-10-03T18:38:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-19T17:31:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/10\/Dialogue3.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"550\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"388\" \/>\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=\"11 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\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html\",\"name\":\"Dialogue with an Agnostic on the Credibility of Revelation\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-10-03T18:38:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-19T17:31:19+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Criticism of revelation is often due to hyper-rationality, false premises, & a skeptical approach that isn't applied to other areas of knowledge.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dialogue with an Agnostic on the Credibility of Revelation\"}]},{\"@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 with an Agnostic on the Credibility of Revelation","description":"Criticism of revelation is often due to hyper-rationality, false premises, & a skeptical approach that isn't applied to other areas of knowledge.","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\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dialogue with an Agnostic on the Credibility of Revelation","og_description":"Criticism of revelation is often due to hyper-rationality, false premises, & a skeptical approach that isn't applied to other areas of knowledge.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2015-10-03T18:38:52+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-19T17:31:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":550,"height":388,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/10\/Dialogue3.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html","name":"Dialogue with an Agnostic on the Credibility of Revelation","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-10-03T18:38:52+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-19T17:31:19+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Criticism of revelation is often due to hyper-rationality, false premises, & a skeptical approach that isn't applied to other areas of knowledge.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/10\/friendly-dialogue-w-agnostic-on-revelation.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dialogue with an Agnostic on the Credibility of Revelation"}]},{"@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\/3705","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=3705"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3705\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3706"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3705"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3705"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}