Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 65

My "Official Picture" for the Year 2010

I love playing around with Microsoft Photo Editor (especially contrast), to make portraits more vivid. The brightness was set at 70 and the contrast at 75 (both at 50 in an unchanged photo). The Gamma setting was untouched. I was trying to add some color and pizzazz to the photograph, which was a bit dark and blah. My skin tone is slightly toward peach color, anyway. I finally got my hat in a picture, and a rare, temporary skinny beard. Taken in summer 2010. Age 52 (in case you're wondering).

Pope Leo XIII On Literal Interpretation and the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers [and Geocentrism] (by David Palm)

I am cross-posting this article from my friend David Palm in its entirety (see the original URL on his site). One can't tell by his title (the bracketed portion is my own sub-title), but its subject matter is geocentrism (the notion that the earth is the immobile center of the physical universe).

I no longer allow geocentrist comments on my site, since this privilege was royally abused by folks of that persuasion (with massive violation of my blog rules against personal attacks) in a previous 446-comment combox (largest ever in almost seven years on this blog) and a more recent 74-comment one (that I pared down by removing 124 comments from both sides of the dispute that contained personal content of some objectionable sort). Because of this unfortunate conduct, I won't allow any comments for posts having to do with geocentrism. Free speech on blogs is a privilege accorded by the host, not a right granted by God. There is a point at which it is so abused that it is necessary to remove it.

Those wishing to comment further can go to David Palm's combox for this paper.

See also the related paper:

Geocentrism: Not at All an Infallible Dogma of the Catholic Church
(David Palm and "Jordanes")

Geocentrist Robert Sungenis counter-replied:

Response to David Palm on the Galileo Issue (PDF)

* * * * *

I mentioned on this blog that, unfortunately, there are some Catholics out and about noisily claiming that the view that the earth is the immobile center of the universe is a core part of the Catholic faith. I have already explained elsewhere why this view is untenable, but there are a few additional aspects of this issue that I want to examine over the course the next weeks.

Much is made in neo-geocentrist circles about Pope Leo XIII's dictum that the exegete of Scripture is, "not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires" (Providentissimus Deus 15).

From this papal teaching, neo-geocentrists conclude that we are bound to what they claim is the "literal" interpretation of certain passages of Scripture, namely, that the sun revolves around the earth. But this claim is undermined by this admission made by a prominent neo-geocentrist writer:

the most important fact that is invariably missed by modern biblical exegetes who advocate heliocentrism is that Scripture's phenomenal language (e.g., the "sun rises" or the "sun sets") also applies to the geocentric system. In the geocentric system the sun does not "rise" or "set"; rather, it revolves around the Earth. When the geocentrist sees a beautiful sunset he does not remark: "Oh, what a beautiful revolution of the sun," just as the heliocentrist does not say: "Oh, what a beautiful rotation of the Earth." The geocentrist knows that the sun "rises" or "sets" only with respect to the Earth's horizon, and therefore, reference to a "rising sun" in Scripture is just as phenomenal in the geocentric system as it is in the heliocentric. (Galileo Was Wrong, vol 1, p. 226).

Here the neo-geocentrist seems not to realize that he has actually dismantled the geocentric appeal to Pope Leo XIII's dictum concerning the "literal and obvious sense" of Scripture. By admitting that both "geocentrists" and "heliocentrists" view these passages of Scripture as utilizing phenomenological language, he therefore admits that neither of them take these words in their "literal and obvious" sense. The literal and obvious interpretation of "the sun rises" or "the sun goes down" is that it literally goes up or down, not that it revolves around the earth and so it only appears to go up, or that the earth rotates on its axis so that it only appears to go down. There is nothing "literal and obvious" about taking the phrase "the sun rises" or "the sun goes down" to mean that the sun revolves or that the earth rotates. The words by themselves do not convey either meaning.

So, both "geocentrists" and "heliocentrists" interpret these words in light of what they believe to be the physical motions of various heavenly bodies. And even the geocentrist admits that the words themselves do not convey the details of the underlying physical reality. From the words themselves, one cannot determine which is correct - the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun. That information simply is not there.

A typical geocentrist response might be that some of the passages cited in support of geocentrism contain phenomenological language, but not all of them do. However, an examination of the passages cited reveals that, in fact, they do all employ phenomenological language. In Josh 10:12-14 we see the very language of the sun going "down" admitted above to be phenomenological; the sun did not literally go down, it appeared to go down. Passages like 2 Kings 20:11 and Isa 38:8 describe the movement of the sun's shadow on a sundial, not the movement of the sun itself. And another prominent passage claimed for geocentrism, Psa 19:5-6, speaks of the sun coming forth from its "tent" and its "rising" - again, admitted above to be phenomenological language.

Both the geocentrist and non-geocentrist agree that these passages are not to be taken literally, but represent the language of appearances, the phenomena that were visible to the observers. But once the geocentrist admits this, he can no longer appeal to these passages as if they literally describe the underlying physical phenomena. And once they no longer literally describe physical phenomena, then no case can be made from them concerning "the essential nature of the things of the visible universe" nor can any claim be made to Leo XIII's dictum concerning the literal sense of Scripture.

But the neo-geocentrist has a ready reply. What, then, of the teaching of Trent, Vatican I, and Leo XIII that we must never interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers?

At least one neo-geocentrist has fixated exclusively on the words of a selected sentence of the First Vatican Council and claimed that, on that basis, any view expressed by the Fathers, even if they do not cite Scripture, even if they make no indication that it is a matter of faith and morals, falls within the sphere of the "unanimous consent" to which we are bound (see here). It is bad enough that this ignores the previously section of Vatican I that specifically mentions "faith and morals". But it also ignores the clarification that Pope Leo XIII made when discussing both Trent and Vatican I:

His teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its "mind" to be this - that "in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers." (Providentissimus Deus 14; my emphasis).

It is only in matters of faith and morals that the unanimity of the Fathers binds. This is the teaching of Trent, Vatican I, and Leo XIII.

Now, keeping these two points in mind, we progress to Providentissimus Deus 18 where Pope Leo XIII explicitly states that in areas where the writers of sacred Scripture utilize "more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses", the Holy Spirit "did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation"

Therefore, both the appeal to Pope Leo XIII's reference literal sense of the text and the appeal to a supposed unanimous sense of the Fathers fails to establish any obligation on a Catholic to interpret various passage of Scripture in support of geocentrism.

I have already touched upon the events of the seventeenth century in connection with the Galileo case and have explained why I do not believe that even those official ecclesiastical actions constitute a binding of Church to geocentrism as a matter of faith. I hope to return to address some details of those actions in future postings. But to summarize here:

Since 1) it is in matters of faith and morals that the Church exercises her authentic magisterium and 2) it is only on matters of faith and morals that the unanimity of the Fathers may be invoked as binding and 3) Pope Leo XIII and Pius XII made absolutely clear that the Holy Spirit "did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation", therefore it cannot be said that the Church ever taught geocentrism as a matter of faith in her ordinary magisterium. And it is admitted even by the neo-geocentrists that she has never done so in her extraordinary magisterium. Geocentrism is not now, nor has it ever been, a part of the Church's ordinary magisterium (on this, see also Jeffrey Mirus, Galileo and the Magisterium: a Second Look)

My Earliest Catholic Apologetics: Documentary History of My Efforts in 1990-1995 and the Original Version of Biblical Defense of Catholicism

I was received into the Catholic Church (and Judy returned to it), on 8 February 1991, by the eminent catechist and author Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.

I became convinced of Catholicism in October 1990 (see several versions of my conversion story on the Conversion and Converts web page). Having been a Protestant apologist for the previous nine years (and a full-time one in the 1985-1989 period), it was only natural for me to start sharing with friends the reasons for my shocking change of affiliation and belief.

Many of those initial papers (done on a typewriter for a year and a half or so, before I had a computer and five years before I was on the Internet) became chapters of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. They were not intended to be so at first. As time went on, my Catholic friends started urging me to try to get the collection published as a book. The first draft (a much longer, 750-page version) was done by 1994. I then decided to greatly shorten it and add references to the new Catechism, and this draft (the present book) was completed by May 1996.

I then went through the usual nonsense of rejection by publishers (most of them never even giving me a reason for rejection), and published it on my own in 2001. In 2003 I persuaded Sophia Institute Press to publish it (they have since put out three more of my books). In December 2001 I also became a full-time Catholic apologist and have been in that vocation and profession ever since.

The original title of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was The Credibility of Catholicism: A Scriptural and Historical Apologetic. I think I also considered Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, but decided that this would be the name for my website instead. At length I decided to edit out much of the historical analysis, and concentrate more on the biblical arguments, and the book became much less "polemical" in terms of critiquing Protestantism (that is more characteristic of my second book, The Catholic Verses). Here is the original outline of chapters:

I. PREMISES, PRESUPPOSITIONS, AND PROTESTANTISM


Introduction: The Unthinkable Inquiry [developed into the present Introduction]

1. Anti-Catholicism: The Curse of "Papists" [online paper; originally 25 January 1991, with three later slight revisions]

2. Sola Scriptura: Is Christian Tradition Irrelevant? [developed into the present Chapter One; 14 September 1992; see "Reflections" portion]

3. Protestantism: Conceptual and Developmental Errors [online paper; originally 20 June 1991, with three later slight revisions]

4. Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact [was once posted as an online paper, but eventually taken down, as I learned more and more about Luther and honed or revised several of my opinions; portions of it in some form made it into various other later papers; 14 January 1991; revised in Oct. 1993 and January 2000]

5. The Protestant Revolt: Its Tragedy and Initial Impact [online paper: originally 11 June 1991; major revision in 2003; further revision in 2007]

6. Intolerance and Persecution: The "Reformation" Record [online paper; originally 3 June 1991; revisions in 2003 and 2007]


II. MAJOR CATHOLIC "CONTROVERSIAL" DOCTRINES


7. The Development of Doctrine: From Acorn to Oak Tree [present Chapter Three; originally 17 February 1991; slightly revised in Jan. 1994; see "Reflections" portion]

8. The Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass: "This is My Body" [present Chapters Four and Five; originally 8 March 1992; slightly revised in Feb. 1994: see "Reflections" portions: part one and part two]

9. Sola Fide: Is Luther's Justification Justifiable? [present Chapter Two; 4 April 1994; see "Reflections" portion]

10. Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences: "Saved As By Fire" [present Chapters Seven and Eight; 21 April 1994; see "Reflections" portion]

11. The Communion of Saints: ". . . All Who Are in Christ" [present Chapter Six; originally 17 February 1991; revised and expanded in Dec. 1993; see "Reflections" portion]

12. The Blessed Virgin Mary: "Hail Mary, Full of Grace" [present Chapter Nine; 10 April 1993, after the first version was completely wiped out on my computer; see "Reflections" portions: part one / part two]

13. The Papacy and Infallibility: "The Keys of the Kingdom" [present Chapter Ten; 16 September 1993; 50 NT Proofs for Peter paper (1994) and available online; see "Reflections" portion]


APPENDIX ONE: My Conversion: Confessions of a 1980s "Jesus Freak" [published in Surprised by Truth in 1994 in similar form (see my original manuscript) and removed from the book: originally 9 December 1990; revised and expanded in 1992 and 1993]

APPENDIX TWO: Catholic Converts: The Many Roads to Rome [excerpts in one online paper (11 February 1991; revised 1993), and also included brief conversion stories of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, G. K. Chesterton, Ronald Knox, and Malcolm Muggeridge: all from 1991 and online]

Here is the outline of the book as it is now (with links to what is available online):

Dedication
Acknowledgements
Foreword: Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.
Introduction

1. Bible and Tradition: Maintain the Traditions . . .
2. Justification: Faith Apart From Works is Barren
3. Development of Doctrine: He Will Teach You . . .
4. The Eucharist: This is My Body
5. The Sacrifice of the Mass: A Lamb . . . Slain
6. The Communion of Saints: All Who Are In Christ
7. Purgatory: . . . Saved, But Only As Through Fire [most of chapter posted online]
8. Penance: . . . Share Christ's Sufferings (online excerpt: indulgences)
9. The Blessed Virgin Mary: Hail, Full of Grace (online excerpt: perpetual virginity of Mary)
10. The Papacy and Infallibility: Keys of the Kingdom

Appendix 1: The "Perspicuity" (Clearness) of Scripture [19 August 1995]
Appendix 2: The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church
Appendix 3: The Historical Case for the "Apocrypha"
Appendix 4: The Biblical Basis for Clerical Celibacy
Appendix 5: A Dialogue on Infant Baptism [1995]
Appendix 6: A Dialogue on Liturgy and "Vain Worship" [1995]

Recommended Catholic Apologetic and Historical Works
Index of Scriptures [e-book versions only]
Index of Proper Names [e-book versions only]

The original book was about two-and-a-half times larger than the currently published one, with much more historical documentation and citations from great Catholic apologists. The historical background behind each doctrine was eventually compiled into one huge Internet paper: The Witness of the Church Fathers With Regard to Catholic Distinctives (With Examples of Protestant Corroboration of Catholic Doctrines or Clear Contradiction of Patristic Consensus). Many quotes from others were compiled in various "Reflections on . . ." papers (noted above).

Chronology of Early Apologetic Papers (and Later Book Chapters)

[everything below was completed before I ever went online (March 1996) or began a website (February 1997) ]

"My Conversion: Confessions of a 1980s 'Jesus Freak'" [9 December 1990; published in different versions in This Rock (September 1993) and the book Surprised by Truth (edited by Patrick Madrid] in 1994 (see my original manuscript) ]

"Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact" [14 January 1991]

"Anti-Catholicism: The Curse of 'Papists'" [25 January 1991]

"Catholic Converts: The Many Roads to Rome" [11 February 1991]

"The Communion of Saints: '. . . All Who Are in Christ'" [17 February 1991; book chapter]

"The Development of Doctrine: From Acorn to Oak Tree" [17 February 1991; book chapter]

"Intolerance and Persecution: The 'Reformation' Record" [3 June 1991]

"The Protestant Revolt: Its Tragedy and Initial Impact" [11 June 1991]

"Protestantism: Conceptual and Developmental Errors" [20 June 1991]

"The Sarxon Fallacy, Refuted (Counter-Satire of an Evangelical Spoof of Catholic Eucharistic Beliefs)" [6 September 1991]

"St. Thomas More: Noble Heroism Amidst Treachery" [1991]

"Henry VIII's Revolt and Suppression of the Bishops" [1991]

"Henry VIII's Wholesale Plunder of Catholic Church Properties" [1991]

"The Popular Uprising Against Henry VIII" [1991]

"The Early Protestant Attitude Towards Art & Strong Iconoclastic Tendency" [1991]

"Early Protestant Hostility Towards Science" [1991]

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman conversion story [1991; published in The Coming Home Newsletter, Nov/Dec 1996, 4-5]

"Cardinal Newman's Importance and Influence" [1991]

G. K. Chesterton conversion story [1991; published in The Coming Home Newsletter, Sep/Oct 1996, 5-7]

Ronald Knox conversion story [1991; published in The Coming Home Newsletter, Jan/Feb 1997, 9]

Malcolm Muggeridge conversion story [1991; published in The Coming Home Newsletter, March/April 1997, 6-7]

"John Wesley's Ecumenical Letter to Catholics in Dublin" [1991]

"The Origin and Historical Development of Sola Scriptura" [1991]

"The Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass: 'This is My Body'" [8 March 1992; two book chapters]

"The Orthodox vs. the Heterodox Luther" [July 1992; published as "The Real Martin Luther," The Catholic Answer, Jan/Feb 1993, 32-37]

"Sola Scriptura: Is Christian Tradition Irrelevant?" [14 September 1992; book chapter]

"The Blessed Virgin Mary: 'Hail Mary, Full of Grace'" [10 April 1993; book chapter]

"The Papacy and Infallibility: 'The Keys of the Kingdom'" [16 September 1993; book chapter]

"Sola Fide: Is Luther's Justification Justifiable?" [4 April 1994; book chapter]

"Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences: 'Saved As By Fire'" [21 April 1994; two book chapters]

"Martin Luther's Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary," [26 April 1994; published in The Coming Home Journal, January-March 1998, 12-13]

"The Ecclesiological Credentials of Orthodoxy and Catholicism" [6 August 1994; later developed into two papers: Catholicism and Orthodoxy: A Comparison and
A Response to Orthodox Critiques of Catholic Apostolicity, and published in similar form as "To Orthodox Critics of Catholic Apostolicity: Unity Still Sought," The Catholic Answer, Nov/Dec 1997, 32-35, 38-39, 62]

"150 Reasons Why I Left Protestantism," [6 August 1994; revised Sep. 2005]; soon to be published in book form.

"Tradition is Not a Dirty Word," [Dec. 1994; published in Hands On Apologetics, Mar/April 1995, 30-32, 34]

"50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy" [1994; published as "The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs," The Catholic Answer, Jan/Feb 1997, 32-35]

"Is Catholicism Christian?: My Debate With James White" (April/May 1995)

"Critique of Ankerberg and Weldon's Protestants and Catholics: Do They Now Agree?" [March, May, & August 1995]

"The Communion of Saints," Hands On Apologetics, July/Aug 1995, 8-11.

"The 'Perspicuity' (Clearness) of Scripture" [19 August 1995]

"Is Development of Doctrine a Corruption of Biblical Teaching?," The Catholic Answer, Sep/Oct 1995, 8-11.

"Problems With the Proof Texts for 'The Bible Alone,' " Hands On Apologetics, Nov/Dec 1995, 12-13, 34.

"A Fictional Dialogue on the Real Presence in the Eucharist" [1995]

"A Fictional Dialogue on Justification and Salvation" [1995]

"Catholic Marian Doctrines: A Brief Biblical Primer" [1995]

"A Fictional Dialogue on Penance" [1995]

"A Fictional Dialogue on Purgatory" [1995]

"Cloud of Witnesses: A Biblical Primer on the Communion of Saints" [1995]

"A Fictional Dialogue on Infant Baptism" [1995]

"A Fictional Dialogue on "Vain Repetition," the Mass, & the Liturgy" [1995]

"An Open Letter to Anti-Catholics" [1995]

John Q. Doe Thinks His Anti-Catholic Cronies "Turretinfan", Phil Johnson, and Frank Turk "Crave Popularity" Due to Their Blogger "Followers" Widgets

[ source ]

I got a big kick out of this. File it under the "Silly and Hypocritical Things That the Anti-Catholics [Inevitably] Said This Week" file. John Q. "Deadhead" Doe, the notorious anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist, wrote on his blog, Boors All:

Steve Finnell said...

you are invited to follow my blog

covnitkepr1 said...

You are more than welcome to visit my blog and become a follower. If you put a "follow widget" on this site...I will gladly follow you as well.

I don't crave popularity by showing how many "Followers" I have. Notice I don't use the "Followers" widget.

So, if you guys want to solicit, go somewhere else.

(12-29-10; my bolding)

Thus, in the fertile, super-pious Doe mind and imagination, having a "Followers" widget on your sidebar equates to the nefarious, unsavory, altogether unChristian urge to "crave popularity." This is quite the obsession with Doe. Often, he has implied that others are out for glory; he, on the other hand (as all immediately and instinctively know) is but a humble servant of God who seeks neither fame nor fortune, as he toils away at his selfless, all-glory-to-God, charitable hobby of lying, slandering, and bashing Catholics on his meek, humble blog, Boors All.

Those wicked unregenerate Catholics are the ones who are greedy, unscrupulous seekers of mere financial gain and fame and power: not good ol' Doe! Thus, Doe, in his infinite wisdom and foresight, literally mocks Catholics as the "theologians of glory (whereas he is a "theologian of the cross"):

There is of course still the Romanist glory of works. But wait, they say those works they do are prompted by Christ, or done with the help of the Holy Spirit. Hogwash. They are a denial of the perfect work of Christ. Only perfect works are those that can be presented before God. There are no works that can be added to Christ's perfect work.

There is also glory in the Romanist church. The multitude of conversion stories "prove" how glorious the "home" of Rome is. The conversion stories glory in their ability to find the promise land here on earth, and how great and wonderful this earthly kingdom is.

Rome's apologists and defenders are still theologians of glory. They stand opposed to the foolishness of the cross, and actively work against God's kingdom. However well-meaning, they are ultimately deniers of the perfect work of Christ. All their websites, blogs, discussion boards, seminars, books, tracts, etc., are examples of the theology of glory. That's a foolish thing to say, I know. Don't we just see thing [sic] a bit differently than the Romanists? Consider me a fool. I would rather be thought a fool than to deny Christ's perfect work.

(7-24-10; see also a second related post from 12-25-05)

I had a sneaking suspicion, however, that us lowly, despicable half-pagan papist, Romanist idolater-Pelagians were not the only folks who were "craving popularity" by utilizing a Followers widget. Curious, I looked around a bit. Sure enough, who did I find but "Turretinfan": The Anonymous One (TAO): fellow anti-Catholic Calvinist and close ally of Doe's. His blog, alas, has a "Follower's widget" right at the very top of his sidebar, thus proving beyond any doubt -- beyond all argument -- that he is a fame-seeking, arrogant theologian of glory, just like us pitiable Romanists!

He obviously "craves popularity" a lot more than, for example, I do. After all, he has 171 followers. I have only 151, and my Follower's widget is way down my sidebar. Well, we all have our faults. Poor TAO has a great deal of pride he has to work on, with all that attention being given to him by his 171 fans. He's a fan of Francois Turretin; they are fans of him. Quite obviously (by Doe's reckoning, anyway), he has a huge spiritual deficiency.

Doe graciously offers free weekly counseling sessions (no money-grubber, he!) in order to help people attain the sublime state of humility and meekness that he has marvelously achieved through years of self-deprecation, self-sacrifice, and service to others (often loudly proclaimed by himself, so as to verify it and make his humility and low estate a matter of undeniable record): always telling them the truth and never lying: never uttering the slightest falsehood: least of all against his beloved "Romanists."

Looking around some more, I found (oh no!!!) Phil Johnson and his anti-Catholic Calvinist buddies at Pyromaniacs (including Frank "centuri0n" Turk) falling into the same serious sin and shortcoming: seeking human approval. They have 815 followers, or 5.4 times more than I do. How can they look at themselves in the mirror every morning with that amount of pride and shameless seeking of the approval of men rather than God?! Doe has his work cut out for him, straightening out all these anti-Catholic Protestant glory-seekers. Don't these cats know that only Romanists do that? Are they that spiritually shallow?

Then we travel over to Turk's own site, . . . and his ministers a flame of fire, and we find him indulging in abominable self-glorying, with 50 of his own followers. What is the world coming to, anyway? Steve Hays, at least, gets it (a glimmer of hope!): he eschews a following (who has time to read his War and Peace posts, anyway?!), but TAO, Turk and Phil Johnson are badly compromised and in dire need of Doe's emergency spiritual aid. Doe indeed carries a heavy burden, spreading his message of humility and perpetual self-deprecation: of which he is an obvious exemplification and personification.

Further Exchanges With Atheist DagoodS About First Premises, the Place of Evidence, My Annoying Socratic Methodology & Supposed Inconsistencies, Etc.

If the foundation (or premise or presupposition) is weak, what is built upon it will collapse.

This one occurred over on DagoodS' blog and is sort of a continuation of my post, Dialogue With an Atheist About Miracles and the Influence of First Premises on One's Methodology and Openness to Evidences and Proofs (vs. "DagoodS"). His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

However, I am not interested in "challenging his [i.e., my] first premise" for three reasons: 1) We approach "first premises" differently. Not that one of us approaches it correctly, and the other incorrectly. Just differently. (Welcome to human diversity!) He appears to claim predispositions prohibit a person being convinced by the evidence;

I've explained this at least three times now; maybe four, but you don't grasp it for some reason. Let me do it again, briefly, then:

I never said that it prohibited a person from changing their mind; only that it is a profound factor involved in the process and certainly not one that can be ignored or minimized, as you have been doing, in your rush to extol the glories of evidence (something I never disputed in the least, being an apologist by trade, with a blog called Biblical Evidence for Catholicism).

I peel it back a layer by claiming it is evidence that change one's predispositions.

I say it is both: it's symbiotic. But obviously I place a higher relative emphasis on first premises than you do.

Every day I attempt to change a person's mind regarding their position. I do not, in my career, say, "Gee, Opposing Counsel. You are predisposed against my position [not exactly a surprise!], so I can't change your mind." Nonsense—I point out evidence strong enough to cause the person to change their mind. Same way when we try to convince others to vote for our candidate, or what restaurant to eat at, or what stocks to buy in our portfolio.

Of course. Since I don't dispute this at all, it is irrelevant to this particular dispute on the relative importance of presuppositions and predispositions.

Moreover, legal disputes about wordings in contracts or what acts occurred or didn't occur and how they relate to the law are quite different from disputes about abstract ideas and Christian theology.

I honestly cannot think of another situation in life where one attempts to persuade another person, and doesn't utilize evidence. I cannot think of any other situation where one would claim predispositions are a bar to being convinced.

Then you have quite a bit of pondering to do. Go read some Socrates. You can't lose by doing that.

I do think bias and prejudice and predispositions can inhibit one's analysis of evidence. Both bias for and bias against. So Dave Armstrong's point has some validity. I'm just uncertain there is anyway to change another person's bias without using evidence.

So you acknowledge something in what I am saying, and I don't disagree with your point at all, as far as it goes, so we're not nearly as far apart as you suppose.

2) All I wanted to discuss was the Resurrection, and it would seem regardless of Dave Armstrong's first premise—he agrees with me. So why should I argue against it? grin

Not sure what this means . . .

Although not completely clear (more on this in my third point), it would seem he believes the historical evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Resurrection happened. That it also requires a change in one's predisposition [there's that "first premise" thing] which requires God to intervene with grace and faith.

Christians believe that grace and faith are required to believe in any Christian doctrine (or miracle), and they come ultimately from God. That is Christianity 0101 and we can't pretend that this is not the case simply because we are talking to atheists who reject those categories. We are what we are, and Christian worldview is what it is. I'd be a lousy apologist if I told you otherwise, because it wouldn't be honest.

In other words, without a nudge from God—one can't be convinced by the historical evidence alone that the Resurrection happened.

Since you have to believe in God, it seems to me, to believe in a miracle in the first place, that would appear to me to be the inexorable conclusion. If you deny the existence of the God Who performs the miracle, then how in the world can you believe in the miracle? It's a matter of simple logic. All of these things stand or fall together. If you believe in God, you believe in such things as faith (in the very act of believing) and grace (the power to believe). I think the historical evidence is sufficient if there is no bias that precludes it from the outset from being compelling. But in many cases (not all) such a bias is present, and it is decisive against believing it.

It logically follows from a solely historical approach, the Resurrection is not plausible.

I'm not saying that. I am saying that there are always factors beyond abstract, coldly logical, facts-based historiography. As you know, there are even many theories of how to do historiography, so the philosophical realm always enters the equation (just as it necessarily does in physical science).

The same thing I am saying. Only by adding a theological element [that can only come from God] could one believe the evidence.

You are putting a slant on it that I do not place there. You're molding my view into a caricature of what it actually is. And let me hasten to add that I don't think you are being deliberately dishonest. You just don't grasp fully what I am saying and so you "repeat" my view back incorrectly and inaccurately. I've already explained it several times, including in person, but you don't yet comprehend what I am saying. And so one wonders after a while why that is.

On a quick side note, I personally think this is a terrible approach to take with deconverts. The last thing we wanted to hear when going through the pain of doubt is that the only way to relieve the doubt would be to have God intervene.

I didn't say it was the only way; I simply said that in Christian thinking, one can never dismiss faith and grace from the overall picture. I think atheism requires far more faith than Christianity does (faith defined broadly as belief in axioms that one cannot absolutely prove).

And since the deconvert is still going through the doubt, that means God is choosing to not intervene, meaning the deconvert is screwed.

He is in trouble if he chooses to reject what he knows to be true. The problem with most atheists is that they don't believe what has been shown (from our perspective) to be true. They truly, honestly do not accept the belief, and I say that it is usually because of false and illogical thinking they have picked up somewhere along the line. We are what we eat.

3) I have historically had a very difficult time keeping Dave Armstrong consistent. I could point out even more monster discussions where it takes numerous comments to nail down his position, and even then he continues to waffle back and forth as convenient.

Right. All this shows me is that again you did not grasp the nuances and subtleties of my position. It's all quite consistent. You may disagree, but it is consistent (just as I say atheism is usually profoundly consistent if one accepts its first premises, but I reject those).

Personally, I think it comes from the "Cut. Paste. Pound." style he utilizes in internet communication—resulting in a constant search for contrary positions, but that eventually conflict his own stance.

You're entitled to your theory as to my alleged profound inconsistencies. It's a ridiculous, desperate one, but I do greatly enjoy it for its entertainment value.

Like I said, when he doesn't use this style—in person—he is far more enjoyable.

With nine talkative people in a group I never have time to pursue any one line of reasoning that I would set forth to a 50th of the depth that I can do in writing. That is why writing is the best medium to do that. In person, socratic dialogue only works if there are two people and both are willing to do it and to stay on a very particular, focused topic. That rarely happens in a group of three, four or more (very rarely happens even with two!), so live, in-person conversation proceeds upon very different lines (usually jumping all over the place with ramblings and stories and humor and digressions regularly entering in). I can only (in that scenario) make a few points here and there and hope that they stick and have any effect at all. I still enjoy it, but it is far less efficient or constructive in arriving at truth than written dialogue.

Socrates wasn't very popular, as we know, and was eventually killed because he made people so angry with his constant questioning. People don't like it. So I don't expect people to like it much when I follow his method. Folks simply don't enjoy having their views critiqued.

Is the historical evidence sufficient to conclude Jesus physically resurrected from the dead?

We've been through this three times now (including a careful explanation in person two nights ago). Go read what I said again. This is not some game where you get me to incriminate myself "on the stand" by an inadequate short answer. It's a serious philosophical issue. I've explained it over and over, and your asking the simple question yet again, shows me that you continue to not comprehend what my position is. But I have already stated it repeatedly. So just go read it!

I explained my position at excruciating length in our previous exchange: Dialogue With an Atheist About Miracles and the Influence of First Premises on One's Methodology and Openness to Evidences and Proofs.

Thanks, Dave Armstrong,

According to your comments in the monster thread , the historical record is not sufficient—one must also have a certain will, faith and grace.

So you agree with my second point—the historical evidence by itself is not sufficient. Now, I do believe it logically follows that a supernatural explanation is therefore not plausible, based upon the historical evidence itself, and here you disagree.

Can you explain how the historical record is not sufficient to conclude the Resurrection, but it is more plausible to conclude a Resurrection? I would think "more plausible" is a higher or equal standard to "sufficient."

I have written about all this "evidence" [i.e., the place of premises] stuff at length. It is too complex to summarize briefly. You can put it in whatever box you like.

I haven't entered into a discussion of the evidence [for the resurrection] itself; only factors that influence how one interprets that evidence.

We've been talking about two different things all along, and neither wants to talk about what the other wants to discuss.

Why one believes in the Resurrection would be for a great variety of cumulative reasons (just as I would say about Christianity in general or theism itself).

As I have said before and stated to [his atheist friend] Jon on my blog a few minutes ago, if you guys read the best Christian defenders of the Resurrection from an apologetic standpoint, you will be unpersuaded by me, because they are the experts and I haven't delved that deeply into Resurrection apologetics myself. I always recommend that folks go read the best arguments they can find if they are really interested in something.

At least give it your best shot by reading the best the opponent has to offer. And on this topic, that certainly isn't me. I have other areas I specialize in and emphasize.

Here are some further thoughts I expressed to someone else in the same combox:

I take the greatest pains not to accuse someone of being a liar, dishonest, immoral, etc. I do that in person as well. When I was with DagoodS and several other atheists two nights ago I stated more than once that I was not accusing anyone of such a thing; I was simply honestly disagreeing with them. I also was just as hard on Christians who immediately demonize atheists as immoral persons or act like asses and quite intolerantly, simply due to their atheism. That's absolutely wrong, too. Many Christians may act like that and it is a shame (so do many atheists against us, believe me). I am not one of them.

I like the man (DagoodS), and he has said some nice stuff about me, too, I see. He showed kindness to me at the meeting, asking about the job I lost and how the search for a new one was going. I like most of the people in this atheist group. They are a friendly bunch and a lot of fun to gab with. I have a great time at the meetings (I've now attended four).

He seems to want to go so far with me, and then gives up. I apparently exasperate him. That's fine. Obviously, I have another interpretation of all that. :-)

I'll be critiquing more of his stuff, time-permitting. It's very time-consuming because there is a significant amount of error and illogical thinking, so one has to definitely have a large block of time available to do the hard work of demonstrating why this is the case! :-) It's always much harder to refute an error than to assert it. Takes much more laborious time and effort.

What Catholics Really Believe Published (I Wrote the Study Guide Portions)

This is a very exciting new book, edited and overseen as a true labor of love by my good friend Stan Williams (of Nineveh's Crossing). The material (minus my study portion) has already been a film series: available on DVD:



Now these wonderful programs with Dr. Ray Guarendi: clinical psychologist, author, public speaker and radio host, and the late Fr. Kevin Fete, have been preserved in written format in a delightful and catchy fashion. The book utilizes an inventive use of different fonts, 127 full color photographs of stained glass windows, and flex-binding, allowing it to lie flat on a table, like a hardcover book. To see several pictures of what it looks like, and for further descriptions, see the feature page at Nineveh's Crossing.

What Catholics Really Believe has ecclesiastical approval for publication, granted by The Most Reverend Allen H. Vigneron, Archbishop of Detroit, May 20, 2009.


[click on the two page samples (two times) for a much larger image]

The title of Andrew Junker's review in The Catholic Sun (15 November 2010) says it all: "Dialogue makes Catholic apologetics easy for all". He writes:

Guarendi is a convert to the faith and plays the questioner — someone excited about and interested in all the facets of his newfound faith.

Fr. Fete is a great teacher — wise and knowledgeable, but with a humorous and soft touch. He's the type of person the reader can easily imagine having a long, thoughtful conversation with. . . .

The two authors basically take the reader on a guided tour of the catechism in a lively and interesting manner. Because Guarendi is a former Protestant, he brings an interesting angle to his questions and the discussion in general.

He also helps the reader bring fresh eyes to "Catholic" topics like Mary, the nature and power of capital "T" Tradition and the Eucharist.

Often, Guarendi plays the devil's advocate to Fr. Fete. This allows the discussion to reach a deeper level than it might otherwise reach.

Dialogue With an Atheist About How Much He Actually Knew About Biblical Exegesis as a Christian (Especially, Abortion in the Bible) (vs. "DagoodS")

This is a follow-up to the previous discussion:

Dialogue With an Atheist About Miracles and the Influence of First Premises on One's Methodology and Openness to Evidences and Proofs (vs. "DagoodS")

DagoodS' words will be in blue.

* * * * *

I thought it would be interesting to try and get some of DagoodS' thoughts about the Bible, in order to establish more about his hostile presuppositions.

And so I ran across on his blog, a piece entitled, "This Leopard Can't change its Spots" (6-27-08).

How did he view the Bible as a Christian? Well, there were already many indications and danger signs that he was misinterpreting it even then: so many that I could have easily predicted that he had a good chance of forsaking his faith and going atheist if I had met him ten years ago. He talks about what Christians do, as he observes them now:

"They don't want to discuss the creation, content or context of the Bible. They want to discuss, 'I feel.' They want to discuss their perception of God."

Then he acknowledges that he (the "leopard") used to do exactly the same:

"I realize, in retrospect, this is exactly what I did as a Christian. Christians wanted Bible study to be, 'Let's read a verse and tell each other what we feel about it.'"

So now we have one of the hundreds of cases in which a former Christian, who wasn't adequately informed of his faith when he still had it, projecting his past shortcomings onto most Christians that he meets. He rejected a straw man in the first place and now he fights straw men incessantly in order to justify his decision to abandon the straw man.

This is what we learn in examining deconversion stories. It's always the same. I've yet to find one that is any different (perhaps I will one day if I keep looking hard enough).

DagoodS proceeds to give examples of what he didn't believe the Bible taught, even as a Christian. He didn't think it taught equality of the sexes. And sure enough, he didn't hold (as a Christian) that the condemnation of abortion was taught (directly or indirectly) in the Bible:

"I was squeamish on the topic of abortion. Oh, there are plenty of arguments against abortion without needing to go to the Bible, but when people say, 'God is against abortion' I became very, very silent. All the verses regarding God recognizing children in the womb are glorifying his knowledge. There is no specific verse saying 'deliberate abortion is wrong.' Inferences and exegetical manhandling—yes. Specifics; no. Without those specifics, I thought it was better to be quiet than find out some day, in heaven, I was wrong."

Wow. Isn't it strange?! I look at the very same Bible and find about 100 passages (take out the deuterocanonical ones if you must) having to do with abortion in many of its aspects:

The Bible's Teaching on Abortion

But DagoodS couldn't "see" all those! I guess he didn't know his Bible very well, and since he is a leopard who can't change his spots (his own description, not mine), he continues to not know it very well today. So he fights against it, to justify his decision to stop believing that it is inspired and infallible.

There is no question whatsoever that the Bible condemns abortion: in many different ways. It defines the preborn child as indeed human and a person, and it forbids murder of persons. Case closed. End of story. That is really all that is required: A+B. Elementary logic. Moreover, when it condemns, e.g., child sacrifice, logically, the preborn are included, since they are considered children as well. It has passages like:

2 Kings 15:16 At that time Men'ahem sacked Tappuah and all who were in it and its territory from Tirzah on; because they did not open it to him, therefore he sacked it, and he ripped up all the women in it who were with child.

It's wrong to do such things; therefore, abortion (as an act that is exactly the same in essence: "ripping up" a woman with child) is also wrong. The goal is to murder the child, which is an especially evil and despicable act.

But is this an exercise in logic that was too difficult for DagoodS as a Christian and now? It's not difficult to grasp these simple logical deductions.

Yet he says, "What I don't see are Christians who actually know their Bible."

To use another well-known proverb (like the leopard and its spots): talk about the pot calling the kettle black . . .

What method do you propose I could utilize to objectively determine why I deconverted?

To dialogue with Christians who understand the Bible and Christianity far more than you did before and do now.

Was it for intellectual reasons? Was it because I was angry at God? Was it for moral reasons? Was it because I thought it would be cool? Was it to get the atheist discount card?

I concentrate on the first one. It is quite obvious to me that you greatly lacked skills in biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, simply from looking at the conclusions you came to. You could look at the Bible and not see that it condemned abortion. You didn't get it that Christianity teaches the equality of men and women.

So the problems were in place long ago, and they were primarily what caused you to deconvert, in my opinion, because you believed in a caricature of Christianity and so rejected the same caricature when you found it inadequate. As Hosea 4:6 states (RSV): "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;. . ."

Understand, I am NOT looking for the reasons you think I deconverted.

Sorry; already gave them . . . as usual, the atheist despises any analysis of his deconversion, because that is what he hangs his hat on. It's scary to realize how flimsy the rationales are. They don't wanna go there . . .

(Because you have the same rationalization problem as a human as I do. And you have significant lack of data, by not knowing me either as a Christian or now.)

I know this little tidbit of information that you offered: your atrocious exegesis of the Bible and inability to decipher its contents in areas like abortion. You yourself said such things caused you to start questioning biblical inspiration. It's not even speculation on my part to note what you said about yourself. And so that is an objective way to analyze your defection: you say there is nothing about abortion; I say there are about 100 passages. You can try to explain all those away if you wish. I won't hold my breath, given the way you are systematically ignoring dozens of questions and arguments in this combox thread.

I am looking for a method to apply where I can step back, and as objectively as possible determine what motivated me to deconvert.

I just gave you one. I'm sure you're absolutely delighted that I have done so, right?

I will tell you I came up with a method and employed it. But I don't want to tell you what it is, yet, to prevent tainting your own suggestion.

I'm not interested in games and ring-around-the-rosey, but serious analysis and comparison of the plausibility of opposing positions. The abortion-in-the-Bible discussion offers us one of many ways to do so.

Only internet apologists are unsatisfied I was ever a Christian.

I have not claimed that and I am an Internet apologist if there ever was one. Calvinism requires that (since it denies that a true Christian can ever fall away from Christianity), and I am not a Calvinist. I wouldn't have said that as a Protestant, either, because I was an Arminian, and they believe that Christians can fall away and commit apostasy. Therefore, I call you a "former Christian." Pretty hard to do that if I thought you never were one, ain't it? It's possible, of course, that you never were one, but I don't assert that. I accept your report at face value.

I have said that I think your knowledge of important issues within your Christianity was woefully deficient. In other words, you seem to have had only a poor acquaintance with the apologetics that may have kept you a Christian. It's why I do what I do. So many times people reject Christianity because they falsely believe that it is something that it is not. My job is to show that it is 1) a great thing; 2) a true thing; and 3) that the reasons in favor of it are far better than those against it.

This causes the Christian to have confidence and to be spared from various counter-influences. And of course within the Christian paradigm I argue that Catholicism is the fullest and most true expression of Christianity.

Generally when dealing with atheists, though, I defend general Christianity and don't get into Catholic issues unless I am asked something specific about that.

To dialogue with Christians who understand the Bible and Christianity far more than you did before and do now.

Aye…and there's the rub. I did. I spoke with Pastors and Deacons and Professors and learned men. I spoke with friends I respected, men I revered, and strangers recommended. I spoke in person, through e-mail and on-line. And they were unable to provide satisfactory answers.

Then why do you still seek them out? You still think someone out there can convince you to return to Christianity? Are you trying to do the Karl Popper falsification thing? You will always find the answers satisfactory, no matter how good they are. That is the whole point! You do, I believe, because of the reasons I have outlined, not because the answers were always insufficient in and of themselves, or untrue.

Apparently what you are claiming is I spoke to the wrong ones.

I have no idea about these people unless I see something concrete. What I have seen myself shows me that you were abysmally ignorant of sensible, proper biblical interpretation, at least in those particular areas. But you refuse to pursue that line of critique, to try to prove me wrong. I'd be happy to go over my hundred or so proofs of the biblical prohibition of abortion (the example I have highlighted), that you claim are actually not there, and therefore that Scripture is wildly eisegeted and mishandled by those with a pro-life agenda that they then wrongly project onto the Bible.

Fair enough. What method do I use to determine who the "correct" Christians who "understand Christianity far better" are, in order for me to dialogue with them?

The same one that enabled you to figure out who the best defenders of the Resurrection are. You managed to find those. So you can figure out who the best defenders of Scripture are. But you have to truly interact with them (assuming they have the time and/or interest to do it with you). You can't skirt and evade the issues and refuse to answer direct questions and ignore direct critiques, as you have been mostly doing with me. People don't have the patience for that. It has to be a real dialogue.

Considering one Christian group tells me "that particular Christian group" is wrong, yet "that particular Christian group" tells me the first Christian Group is wrong, and they ALL agree the Mormon Christian group is wrong. The Calvinists tell me the non-Calvinist group is wrong; the Protestants tell me the Catholic group is wrong. The Seventh-day Adventists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Charismatics…all bickering and fighting as to who the "correct" group of Christians must be.

Yes, that is a real problem, and a major reason I am Catholic, but that is not your immediate issue. That comes later. Right now you need to even be convinced of matters that all these groups (apart from rank heretics like the Mormons who reject historic Christianity) hold in common: does God exist; Who Jesus was, etc. First things first.

But in passing, note that Catholics do not claim to be the sole true or correct group. We claim to be the fullness of Christianity, but we don't deny for a second that other Christians possess large amounts of Christian truth as well. We're not like the anti-Catholic Protestants who ridiculously deny that we are Christians at all.

All I am looking for is a method. What method do I use to determine whom I should be dialoguing with?

At a bare minimum, If they know their faith well and can offer up halfway decent defenses of it and substantive critiques of your view. If you think I fill these criteria, dialogue with me. If you don't, find someone else.

And of some humor to me (demonstrating you don't know me very well)

Never said I did, so that is neither here nor there. But I can tell if you don't know something, when I read statements on your blog that prove that.

the very people I was dialoguing with would agree with your position the Bible teaches men and women are equal. Separate…but equal. The very men I was talking with would whole-heartedly agree the Bible addresses numerous verses toward abortion. Not sure you understand Christianity I came from if you think otherwise.

Of course they did. So what? This is a problem in your thinking; not necessarily theirs.

You won't even tell me what brand of Christian you were, Why not? Maybe you're like the hostile guy I met at Jon's meetings. Turns out he was a former Jehovah's Witness. So he was never a Christian at all.

I was asking you why you think anti-abortion is not taught in the Bible. I think that is a ridiculous position to take. It couldn't be any more untrue than it is. Keep ignoring the challenge if you must. People reading this will see who had the better argument. They can read my linked paper with the biblical data and compare that to your ignorant bald statement to the contrary and see who knows what they are talking about when it comes to the Bible on that issue.

The problem came when I stopped being convinced by their claims. THAT is the question I am asking; THAT is the method I am looking for. Why did I stop believing their arguments?

Lots of reasons, I'm sure.

What method can I use to determine why I was no longer convinced by the arguments I had heard (and employed myself) for decades previous?

I have already dealt with that. Talk about concrete issues and deal with them one-by-one.

Shepherds' Carol (My 10th Christmas Poem)

Gerard (Gerrit) van Honthorst (1590-1656), Adoration of the Shepherds (1622)
[ source ; see much larger version]

In the last four years I have written three Christmas poems of a narrative nature: recounting different persons' experience on the first Christmas: Simeon (2006), the Blessed Virgin Mary (2008), and our Lord Jesus (2009).

I now continue in the same fashion. It has become a literary tradition (narrative, Bible-based poems) within a personal tradition (my own Christmas poems) within a Christian liturgical tradition (Advent and Christmas). See also my first six Christmas poems and my Christmas web page.

* * * * *

[for the biblical background, see Luke 2:8-20]


It was like any other evening, in the fields, watching our sheep,
Making sure no predators or reckless thieves harmed our flocks.
Our task was to ensure their safety: health, well-being to keep,
Feeding and protecting them from pits, thorns, and jagged rocks.

All of a sudden, lo, an angel! and the glory of the Lord all round,
The darkness became as day, with radiant beams glowing bright.
Fearing for our lives, yet somehow still secure, safe, and sound,
We listened intently to the heavenly messenger on that holy night.

Telling us to not be afraid, then happily proclaiming the good news,
The angel spoke of great joy to come, for all people, from every land.
Referring to a marvelous savior, enabling all God's people to choose,
Salvation in the city of David; who ever heard of anything so grand!

The angel foretold a sign: a baby all wrapped up, lying in a manger,
Messiah and Lord! God's ways and means ever mysterious and new.
People coming from all around, to worship: friend, cousin, stranger,
Triumphant message spreading far and wide, and excitement grew.

Before we knew it, heavenly hosts appeared, praising the Lord on high,
Singing "glory to God" and "peace and good will to men" loud and clear.
We were dazed and stood there enthralled at the majestic celestial cry,
Pondering what we had just seen and what our ears did indeed hear.

Someone said, "let's run and observe this wonder with our own eyes!"
Traveling over the hills, we found the holy family, just as we were told.
We shared with all present the words of the luminous choir in the skies,
Astounding everyone with angelic stories and fulfilled prophecies of old.

Mary, blessed mother of the savior, gave us a knowing and tender look,
She was deep in thought, contemplating how God could come to earth.
We left filled with joy, spreading words from angels and the sacred book,
Praising, glorifying God and sharing all we'd heard about the holy birth.


Written on 7 December 2010.

Lost My Part-Time Job (The Economy Strikes Again); "Fund Drive"

December seems to always be the time that these events occur in my life. The stereotypical "hardship before Christmas" thing or something . . . December 1, 2001 was my last day on my old delivery job that I had all through the 90s. The company was going out of business. It was two weeks after my daughter and fourth child was born. I announced it on my website and inquired as to whether folks thought I should enter into apologetics full-time. and were willing to support me in that endeavor. They did (with generous donations), and so I did! It's been exactly nine years now. I had just published my first book on my own. Two years later it was picked up by Sophia Institute Press.

The rest is history. Now I have 23 published books: six with "official" publishers,(Sophia: four, Our Sunday Visitor: one, and Saint Benedict Press / TAN Books: one), and my name is fairly well-known in the Catholic apologetics world and the Christian blogosphere. But it's a small book market and it's very difficult for anyone to live off of Catholic apologetics writing alone, without the supplemental aspects of TV and radio and lecture tours and other talks (maybe Scott Hahn could, but he is a professor anyway and has a stable income). I've managed to do it somehow, by God's ultimate grace and provision, but have needed supplemental part-time work to make it possible at all.

Today, on December 2, 2010, I just found out that I will lose my part-time job as Internet Forum Coordinator and Moderator at The Coming Home Network at the end of the month: one that I have had since November 2007. As with the other loss of employment in 2001, it had nothing whatever to do with my job performance. CHNI, as a non-profit organization (for the purpose of assisting those who wish to enter the Catholic Church: especially clergy) is experiencing a great decrease in donations. They're forced to make difficult cuts (more than just my own job). The economy is affecting all sales. The entire country is reaping the benefits of (without getting political here) the foolish financial and budgetary choices that we have made.

This was my dependable, regular income every other week. It had already been cut by 57% last year. Beyond that, I rely on e-book sales and paperback sales and generous donations from readers like you. Almost all of the royalties from my paperback books come just twice a year. I have a wife and four children to support. They are all home-schooled, and two of them have special needs (one of them being autistic).

I'm trying to make this as brief as I can and am simply telling my story and making the need known. Millions who are suffering due to the bad economy. But I am also (as a missionary of sorts) partially reliant on donations from people who believe in the value of the apologetic / evangelistic work that I do: have been for nine years. I don't make a big deal of it, and try to trust God and let my work speak for itself, but I have always needed donations in addition to book sales in order to get by.

I never ask for a donation unless it is from a person who totally believes in this work and/or has been helped by it themselves. Many many people have used my website for free and have never given any donation at all. I haven't pressured anyone to do so. I rarely talk about it at all. But it took thousands of hours of time to produce everything that you see here. Time is money. I've had to sacrifice a lot to create this body of work that is my writing. It's a labor of love. I've been writing Christian and specifically Catholic apologetics now for almost literally thirty years (since early 1981). I wouldn't trade my life for anything. I love it. At the same time, I have to make a living like everyone else. Gotta bring home the bacon to my family of six; have to pay my mortgage like every other home owner . . .

I ask for your prayerful consideration in supporting this apostolate. The work I have done is evident: over 2600 posts on this blog; the books . . . And it is evidently fruitful, with hundreds of personal testimonies received from people being helped in faith or assisted in becoming convinced of Catholicism, and entering the Church. I also have done a considerable amount of interaction with atheists and have been emphasizing that in recent months. My blog just passed the 1.5 million visitors mark.

I'll be looking for a new part-time job of some sort to fill in the gap, but I will keep doing what I do (i.e., apologetics, writing, outreach), no matter how much work is required (there are only so many hours in a day), and will still need support from donations to do so (as I always have). I'm a lifer. I have total commitment to my vocation. The Lord will provide. He does so, however, not by sending dollars from heaven like manna, but by speaking to the hearts of people like you: many of whom have been helped in some fashion through my writing, by God's grace (all glory to God for that). God does provide, and He does so through people. Apologetic outreach is very much a group, team effort. Both prayer and financial support are very necessary for it to be possible on a devoted, trained, full-time level.

Please prayerfully consider a generous tax-deductible donation or a purchase of my paperback books, or my 15-for-$25 or (newly-added) 5-for-$15 e-book package deals. Thank you so much for your support and for reading, and I wish you all a very blessed Advent and Christmas.

Dialogue With an Atheist About Miracles and the Influence of First Premises on One's Methodology and Openness to Evidences and Proofs (vs. "DagoodS")

DagoodS is a former Christian with whom I have dialogued several times. Recently I met him. He did a presentation on evidences (or lack thereof, from his standpoint) for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I wrote an account of my opinion of the meeting: 16 Atheists / Agnostics & Me: Sounds Like a Good Ratio! Further Adventures at an Atheist "Bible Study" Group With Former Christians Jon and "DagoodS".

Since that time he has made some replies in the combox for the aforementioned post and in another (not always directed towards myself) for a related post from Protestant apologist Cory Tucholski ("Dave Armstrong vs. the Atheists"). I have collected comments of his that have relevance to the subject matter of my title (and of course I reply). Further installments will be added as they occur (the dialogue on this may still be ongoing). His words will be in blue.

The background of much of the discussion was this statement in my "16 Atheists . . ." paper:

DagoodS was saying that it is more difficult to believe an extraordinary miracle or event than to believe in one that is more commonplace. True enough as far as it goes. But I said (paraphrasing), "you don't believe that any miracles are possible, not even this book raising itself an inch off the table, so it is pointless for you to say that it is hard to believe in a great miracle, when in fact you don't believe in any miracles whatsoever." No response. I always try to get at the person's presuppositions. That is my socratic method.

This being the case, for an atheist (ostensibly with an "open mind") to examine evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, is almost a farcical enterprise from the start (at least from a Christian perspective) because they commence the analysis with the extremely hostile presuppositions of:

1) No miracles can occur in the nature of things.

2) #1 logically follows because, of course, under fundamental atheist presuppositions, there is no God to perform any miracle.

3) The New Testament documents are fundamentally untrustworthy and historically suspect, having been written by gullible, partisan Christians; particularly because, for most facts presented therein, there is not (leaving aside archaeological evidences) written secular corroborating evidence.

* * * * *

Hi DagoodS,

Thanks for droppin' by!

It was nice to finally meet you, Dave Armstrong. A few points…in my defense. I don't try to "poke holes in the Bible." I attempt to poke holes in certain claims about particular Bibles. For example, you touched on contradictions. As you and I agree there are contradictions in the Bible,

I think there are very few, and what few there are are due to manuscript discrepancies, and what minor ones can be found (about numbers or whatever) do not affect any Christian doctrine.

this wouldn't pertain to you, but to others who claim inerrancy, I do question the viability regarding the claim. The same way you would.

No one denies that it takes faith to believe that the Bible is inspired.

What I have shown in past dialogues with you, I think, is that many of your alleged contradictions simply aren't that in the first place, by the rules of logic that atheist and theist agree upon. In other words, it is a logical discussion, not a theological one, when the claim is that contradiction is present.

As to naturalistic presupposition…I agree that is a difficulty for the apologist in discussing the Resurrection. Alas, it is part of human make-up. We all have biases. As a naturalist, I am going to look for a natural explanation. As a theist, I could understand a theist looking for a supernatural explanation in certain events.

No quibble with that statement!

If the apologist agrees the evidence for the Resurrection is not persuasive enough to convince a naturalist a miracle occurred, I am perfectly fine with that.

It is scarcely possible, like I said in the post, to convince an atheist / agnostic of the Resurrection, since all miracles are denied from the outset. So the discussion has to first be, whether miracles are possible and whether they have in fact, occurred.

But then that discussion itself necessarily goes back to theistic arguments about God, since God is necessary to perform the miracle in the first place; otherwise, the laws of science and nature determine what happens.

Therefore one has to engage in two huge discussions before we even get to a sensible, constructive discussion about Jesus' Resurrection.

But many apologists—especially those using the Habermas method—appear to claim the evidence is sufficient to even convince a naturalist.

I am sort of in the middle. I think the evidence is sufficient, but the hostile premises of the atheist / agnostic are so contrary to it that he or she cannot be convinced, on that basis. It also takes faith to believe, and that faith is given only by God's grace (I'm sure you're familiar with that aspect of Christian theology). If that grace is rejected, then the person won't believe in a thing like the resurrection because the faith required is not there. It does take faith. If Habermas is discounting that, then I have a problem with his analysis. But I don't think he would deny what I am saying here.

In those situations I try to explain why the evidence is not enough. Why we have legitimate (often un-addressed) concerns regarding the evidence claimed.

Yeah, that's fine. I just think that the premises involved are crucial, and the role they play are profound and compelling according to your own worldview. And they need to be discussed as well. I always go to the premises because I am a socratic in methodology and that's what socratics do.

*shrug* If you are saying it is useless to even discuss the assertions surrounding the Resurrection unless the person is first a theist—

I would never say that. That is more the position of presuppositionalist apologetics, which is mostly the reformed / Calvinists and some Baptists. That has never been my point of view at any time.

I would think this provides support to the reasoning that the evidence is insufficient to prove a miracle happened.

I assert both: the evidence is sufficient, but people's opinions are formed from their presuppositions and natural biases, based on what they read and who they hang around with.

I think almost exactly the same about God. I believe that knowledge of Him is innate in human beings and evident from observing nature (Romans 1). But for many reasons, this can be unlearned (again, due to influences that a person chooses, and environments), and so there is such a thing as an atheist or an agnostic.

* * *

I do not say, did not say and have never said the New Testament documents are worthless as history. Again… this is coming from one perspective. I DO say we must treat the documents for what they are. They are not history as a 20th century historian would record them, the gospels (for example) are bios as a 1st Century Mediterranean author would present them.

I confess slight pique at being compared to a "butcher approaching a hog" when referring to my treatment of the Bible. I have studied it at some length; I know some things; I clearly do not know everything. If one disagrees with my argument, or my consideration of what is being presented…so be it. Present your own, and let the better argument win. If I am missing something, or am being biased–please, please, please feel free to point it out.

But Dave Armstrong has said all this about me before. I've learned (mostly) to shrug off the invectives and let the arguments speak for themselves. If one is left with the impression I am a "butcher approaching a hog" I evidently need to better my presentation to correct that misrepresentation on my part. All I ask is this: Please don't take the word of one (1) person without hearing other's impressions, or my own perception.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

* * *

I think John 20:24-29 [the Doubting Thomas account] is a non-historical pericope incorporated to address certain concerns in the Johannine community. However, lest I be accused of treating the story like a "butcher approaching a hog," (*wink*) let us assume arguendo the story is historical.

Remember, it is claimed the primary reason we are unconvinced Jesus' resurrection did not occur is that we "…don't believe that any miracles are possible, not even this book raising itself an inch off the table, so it is pointless for [a non-believer] to say that it is hard to believe in a great miracle, when in fact [the non-believer doesn't] believe in any miracles whatsoever." . . .

We skeptics . . . aren't dismissing apologetic claims off-handedly or disdainfully. Certainly I have considered my own naturalistic bias, and whether it presents a hinderance to believing the resurrection stories. (Although in my case, being a deconvert, I was actually biased the other way—FOR the story.)

I just don't see many apologists addressing the story of Doubting Thomas as to why, if he wasn't convinced by MORE evidence than I have, that I should be persuaded by LESS evidence. I don't see many grappling with the fact a miracle-believing theist was not compelled to believe when he had so much more access to the evidence than I ever could.

* * *

. . . these claims of "We can't convince you because you don't believe in miracles" are unfounded. . . . You [another Catholic correspondent] did the correct thing—gave evidence you felt could be convincing upon investigation. You didn't whine. You didn't complain, "Oh, DagoodS…I'll list some information but you will never believe it because you don't believe in miracles." . . .

What I tire of is the presentation of evidence and when I remain unpersuaded, my lack of belief is dismissed as "that's because you don't believe in miracles." Thomas believed in miracles; he wasn't convinced. Protestants believe in miracles; they are not convinced. It isn't the belief/non-belief in miracles—the evidence presented is not compelling to that person.

The insinuation is that this is my position, but of course I have never said this. It is projected onto me as a straw man. I don't think that this is the key or only factor, only that it is one of many relevant factors for why someone disbelieves in miracles.

I'm all for evidence. That's what apologetics is about. There are plenty of books documenting hundreds of miracles, often with medical documentation: both by Protestants and Catholics. I have them in my library. Let DagoodS go read several and then come back and tell us if he thinks the evidence is compelling for any one of them.

If he says "no" to all, then excuse me if I suspect (not positively assert) that his original presuppositions have something (not everything) to do with it.

All I'm saying (as a socratic who examines root assumptions) is that the hostile presupposition is indeed a relevant factor. If there is no God, there can be no miracles, period; therefore, there can be no particular miracles. The entire edifice stands together, in unity. It simply can't possibly be denied that this is a relevant consideration.

I think it is mostly a case of DagoodS not liking when anyone points this out because atheists such as himself pride themselves on their intellectual openness and willingness to go wherever "evidence" leads, yet in fact they are quite closed-minded, and they hate when a Christian has the audacity to point this out. That's why they detest critiques of their deconversion stories. They don't want to deal with someone who may know more about some of the particulars of certain beliefs that they rejected, than they do.

It is relevant to suspect that no evidence is sufficient to convince an atheist of a miracle if said atheist actually examines hundreds or thousands of documented cases and never met a miracle that he liked (i.e., believed). Sorry; presuppositions are always A factor in things, whether the person who holds them thinks so or not.

If DagoodS wants to deny that (and it is what I am saying), then he merely shows himself to be quite philosophically and epistemologically naive. I was trying to get at some of this during his presentation but was never really allowed to.

* * *

. . . as to miracles, I will be happy to ponder them. And the facts. I quite agree there are people diagnosed with diseases who are subsequently determined to be disease-free. Happens all the time. Sometimes because of mis-diagnosis, sometimes because the body cures itself.

And certainly some of these people attribute the condition of being disease free as a "miracle." Some do not. . . .

1) The sources are not the best evidence. What I have typically seen is, "_____ [insert name] was diagnosed with incurable cancer, but later was determined to be disease-free. The doctors cannot explain how it happened." But I don't have the actual medical reports, the actual doctors statements, the doctor's names, (just "doctors"). These are hearsay statements…not the best evidence to convince something outside our normal experience.

Further, I have seen Christians make claims (like "willing to die for a lie") and upon reviewing the actual sources, find the source doesn't say what was originally claimed.

2) The methodology is troublesome. How do we determine between:

a) A natural cure we do not know yet;
b) A natural cure we will never know; or
c) A supernatural cure?

* * *
. . . in reviewing your blog entry on the topic (as referred to here), you didn't raise MORE evidence I missed. You didn't indicate I presented the evidence incorrectly. You didn't deal with the evidence regarding the resurrection at all. The only thing you complained about was the predisposition of non-believers.

Why do you have this notion that I have to discuss all that? It is your perspective on what I may want to write about, that has nothing to do with what I either write about in fact or should write about. I was simply giving a narrative account, not even doing apologetics per se. You in effect demand that I gotta write about what you want me to write about. In other words, it is not to your particular taste. But then you are making the same minor complaint that I did when I said a lecture was not to my taste. So why does my slight criticism bother you, since you make one of the very same nature back to me?

Just like you have the right to not like my format or presentation, I reserve the privilege to respond to what you say and see it as complaining.

And to complain about it! LOL

As a poor argument. I argue, for the reasons discussed at the meeting when you first presented it, for the same reasons I listed above, that the argument fails.

So you say. First you need to accurately understand your opponents' argument. You have been caricaturing my opinion on this and making a straw man up till now. Perhaps you finally get it, now that I have clarified.

Sure I am biased. Always admitted it. So is every human…

Absolutely. That is what I have always believed, too.

yet to claim we must first change our presuppositions, and THEN be convinced by evidence appears to me to be backwards. We change our presuppositions BY evidence—it is what causes us to change!

It is both. I don't think we can choose. It's a variation of the old universals vs. particulars debate in philosophy. It simply can't be denied that a starting point of "no God; therefore no miracles; therefore no particular miracles" is neither open-minded nor conducive to a conclusion that a miracle has occurred in Instance X. That is not rocket science. If a thing is deemed impossible from the outset, then it is not likely to be arrived at, no matter what evidence is presented. This is what you don't see.

One has to allow the possibility. In this sense, the only people who were open-minded to all possibilities in that room were myself and your friend Jon, who runs the group. He doesn't rule out the possibility of a miracle. Everyone else did (unless there was one other; I'm not sure).

Take examples from science. Say that a person fifty years ago denied the very possibility of continental drift or warm-blooded dinosaurs (I believe that neither idea was accepted then). A second person hears about those theoretical concepts and accepts the possibility that they may yet be proven to have occurred. According to you, it makes little difference what presuppositions are involved, as long as the evidence is compelling. But it clearly does make a difference. The person who is open to a possibility is more likely to accept a demonstration of the possibility as a fact than the one who has ruled out the possibility from the outset.

I don't see that it is even arguable. Yet you seem to be (incredibly) asserting that it makes no difference.

You didn't change from a Protestant to a Catholic because you changed your presuppositions from pro-Protestant to pro-Catholic. You changed because you reviewed evidence that caused the change. The evidence comes first; not the presuppositions.

Generally this is true, but it is still both factors. Accumulations of details and facts and evidences can cause one to change their basic premises (God exists or He doesn't, morals are absolute or relative, the universe is materialistic or dualistic, etc.) and then many other things change along with them.

You don't want to believe in a miracle (have a vested interest not to) because to do so also requires you to believe in God. You are predisposed not to believe in God because then you would be accountable to Him and would be bound by certain rules that may not be to your liking. It's always more than merely abstract reasoning. The will and grace are also involved. This is Christian belief.

Not to mention we have the additional problem that the evidence—in fact BETTER evidence—was not convincing to those already pre-disposed to believing it, i.e. Doubting Thomas.

He simply needed more evidence. He is like your typical atheist. But Jesus made it clear that his case was not normative, but rather, excessive, by saying, "have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (John 20:29 (RSV).

Again, presuppositions come into play. You pass off the whole thing as a later interpolation anyway, so why even bring it up? If you want to argue from historical example, you can't use one that you yourself don't regard as historical fact.

Could it be "A" factor? Sure. So could being raised in a Christian home, being left-handed or having a tragedy in one's life. Rather than deal with the peripherals, I prefer to deal with the hard stuff first. I prefer to deal with the evidence.

It's not peripheral at all. It is smack dab in the center of the issue: how one arrives at fundamental premises and how these go on to influence all their reasoning that is a result of the prior premises and presuppositions. You want to do Aristotle only (particulars and sensory evidence). I want to do both him and Plato and Socrates (universals and premises and ideas prior to experience). My epistemology is far broader than yours. What you see as a trifle and peripheral issue and complaint is to me central and crucial to the whole discussion.

If, as you say, the the evidence is sufficient then I say, leave it at that.

It is sufficient. That's why I don't feel compelled to go out and argue about it (you're the one who is hung up about that), because it is quite sufficient for any fair-minded inquirer open to it.

Like I said above, if you're so enthralled about evidences for miracles, go out and read a hundred books giving documented accounts of miracles and come back and tell us how many convinced you (or why they didn't; why no evidence was ever sufficient for you to accept a belief [factuality of miracles] that would require you to again believe in God [Who performs them] ).

Good evidence overcomes even the most hostile opponent, regardless their presupposition. It does every day.

Absolutely not. If a man doesn't want to believe something, he will not, no matter how compelling the evidence is. Like the saying goes, "a man convinced against his will, retains his original belief still." Very true. I see it all the time in my apologetics rounds.

Rather than deal with the peripherals, I prefer to deal with the hard stuff first. I prefer to deal with the evidence.

[second reply of mine to the above statement]:

What you overlook is that you already have to have an interpretive grid or framework in place in order to interpret the evidence in the first place. There is no such thing as a clean slate. If you deny that prior interpretation is required in order to weigh the evidence and have some method of determining what is compelling evidence, then you are epistemologically naive.

I would recommend that you read a critic of positivism such as Michael Polanyi or even Cardinal Newman's Essay of the Grammar of Assent.

This is true of miracles and it is true of theistic arguments and interpretation of the Bible. Thus, my notorious statement that you and other atheists who are obsessed with finding alleged Bible contradictions, approach the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog. You have no intention of giving the documents even minimal respect. It's pure skepticism. You disrespect it as your presupposition and therefore you keep "finding" out information that causes you to hate it all the more.

Don't give me this line of hooey that you are approaching it with total objectivity and fairness, that just so happens in each and every case to cause you to then conclude that (surprise!) it is untrustworthy and contradictory. You find what you want to find because your mind is already made up before you begin any particular "study."

If I'm wrong, it is easy for you to prove it (at least in a single example). Show me a time when you set out to show that the Bible was contradictory, but then you discovered that [in a particular case] it wasn't, and that the Christian argument was more plausible. If you can show me one instance of that on your blog, great! But just one would not prove you were fair-minded about it, either. That's only one instance. Several such instances would show me that you were truly open-minded and didn't have an "anti-Bible" agenda.

But if you never conclude other than what we expect from you (biblical contradiction) then don't expect us to stop questioning your hostile premises and a hostile overall agenda. It's perfectly reasonable and plausible for us to conclude what we do, from the "evidence" of your relentlessly skeptical conclusions.

You are biased against it and the Christian is biased for it. But in terms merely of literary study or research, clearly the person who loves and respects a document (whether it is a religious document or not) is in a much better place to accurately interpret and understand it (despite quite possible mistakes arising from too much favorable bias) than the one who hates the same document for some reason: thinks that it fosters immorality, is a bunch of fairy tales, is the result of cynical after-the-fact tampering, contains moral and logical and theological ludicrosities, presents a false metaphysic, etc.

Once again, I don't see how that is even arguable. But you have to fight against it in order to maintain this farcical facade of supposed neutrality, extraordinary open-mindedness and superior intelligence and logical acumen, that most agnostics and atheists seem to assume is true of themselves as a matter of course, over against us (as the caricature would have it) evidence- and reason-fearing, gullible Christians.

It's part of the atheist persona and self-perception: "we are the open-minded, smart ones. We go where evidence leads; those Christians don't do that; they are dogmatic, anti-science, anti-reason, and prone to belief in fairy tales and myths."

For this reason I wrote an entire book recently, showing the overwhelming historical influence of Christianity and a larger theism on the history of science. I'll send an MS Word version to any atheist who requests it, for free.