Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion

2020-09-15T11:04:13-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Miracle of the Sun at Fatima: Brief Exchange

Last updated on: September 15, 2020 at 11:04 am By Dave Armstrong

“VicqRuiz” describes himself as “on the boundary between agnosticism and deism. I find that I am unable to accept either materialist scientism or the idea of a personal God.” His words will be in blue.

*****

Atheists and agnostics usually mean [by “evidence”] “something that leaves a trace in the physical record”. Apologists can mean this, but often they mean “something that would be accepted under legal rules of evidence”. This usually amounts to eyewitness testimony.

A good example would be the supposed 1917 miracle at Fatima. A Catholic apologist may unhesitatingly say that there is sufficient eyewitness testimony to make the case that the sun actually stopped and moved erratically in the sky. A skeptic would ask why, if the sun moved, was it not seen throughout the hemisphere (much less why the orbits of the earth and other planets were not impacted).

Personally, I am willing to accept the possible reality of intangible and supernatural things. However, if the supernatural reaches into 3-D space and time and touches something, it should leave a footprint that can be analyzed.

That miracle need not necessarily have been “astronomical.” God could also have changed the perception of those who saw it. Either one is something other than natural.

[see, for example, my paper on Joshua and the “sun standing still”]

I agree that is a possibility. However, it leaves the several hundred millions (half of the world population ca. 1917) who were not on that hillside in Portugal with the choice of trusting what those several thousand say they saw, or trusting the evidence of their own eyes.

Generally, if several thousand people say they saw the same thing, we trust them [see a collection of Fatima eyewitness accounts]. We trust even one credible witness in court cases. If there are three witnesses saying the same thing, the case is stronger. Thousands? All the more . . .

There are many things that lots of people see, but can’t yet explain. For example, UFOs. The very name is “unidentified.” One need not have any opinion at all on that topic (I myself am agnostic) to recognize that there have been many unexplained sightings.

That’s an argument which I have seen made by a number of apologists, and in fact I discussed it earlier this year with another Catholic apologist (who also happened to be an attorney) on his own blog.

What I am wondering is that if eyewitness testimony of the supernatural is of a quality as to be acceptable in court, whether there is any precedent in American or British courts of such testimony being ruled acceptable.

In other words, if someone claimed that the circumstances of a crime or a tort was influenced by supernatural factors, was that testimony made available to the jury and was it decisive. So far I am unaware of any such case.

I have no idea. But that’s beside my more fundamental point of noting how we (legally, and I think generally) are favorable towards eyewitness testimony (as long as such witnesses are credible).

And my analogy to UFOs also remains intact: we can trust the accounts of people (otherwise credible), of seeing things or events that they themselves can’t explain or interpret. The validity of their testimony doesn’t require them to have an opinion on a “weird” thing that they saw; only evidence that they did indeed see it. Hence, doctors, when they run across a purported miracle, will simply say “science in its present state cannot explain this phenomenon” or some such.

Thus, the eyewitness testimony of the “miracle of the sun” at Fatima doesn’t necessarily (logically) depend on their belief in the apparitions or what Mary was purported to have said. It is valid apart from that (though certainly most people there would have believed it in its “religious” context; according to that prior framework).

Fair enough. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

***

Exchange on Miracles & Hyper-Rationalism [12-7-15]

Dialogues with Atheists on Miracles [6-8-16]

Does God Still Perform Miracles? (Some Evidence) [5-26-18]

Dialogue w Agnostic on Proof for Miracles (Lourdes) [9-9-18]
*

Miracles, Materialism, & Premises: Dialogue w Atheist [2-20-19]

Miracles & Scientific Method: Dialogue with Atheist [2-22-19]

Atheist Demands for a Miracle to “Prove” God (Dialogue) [2-22-19]

Atheist Desire for Amazing Divine Miracles / Incorruptibles [2-23-19]

***

(originally from 7-3-18)

Photo credit: [public domain / Aleteia]

***

Blessed Virgin Mary

Philosophy & Science

eyewitness testimony of miracles

2020-08-27T18:53:03-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

God the Designer?: Dialogue with an Atheist

Last updated on: August 27, 2020 at 6:53 pm By Dave Armstrong

This discussion came about underneath my post, Seidensticker Folly #41: Argument from Design. gusbovona is a lifelong atheist. His words will be in blue.

*****

First of all, science, as presently defined and self-understood, cannot state one way or another whether God (assuming His existence for the sake of argument) designed anything or not, since its subject and object of study is matter, and God (again by definition) is not material.

1. Bob’s statement, to which the quote above is a response, said nothing about God, merely a designer. He was asking not whether God designed something, but whether something is designed (by anyone), at all.

2. I’m not sure what other criteria we could use to determine if something is designed or not other than the nature of the thing designed itself.

In fact, Bob mentions “God” five times in his article, and seven times in the previous related one, four days earlier. It’s understood that the argument from design is the old teleological argument, which is one of the classic theistic proofs: and those deal with God as defined in theism, or (at the very least) a Humean deist-god: who sets the universe in motion and then proceeds to have no further interest in it. I don’t recall ever seeing any other kind of “argument from design.” But maybe they’re out there somewhere.

Also, the terms “creationism” and “intelligent design” both refer to schools of thought in which it is thought that God is the Creator in some fashion (it could be through evolution as the method). So when Bob tries to shoot down various arguments that such advocates produce, he’s dealing with proposed arguments for God’s existence.

Any way we look at it, God is being discussed. My point above was to note that consistent materialist science ought not mention God at all, either fer or agin’. To do so is (technically) philosophy and no longer science as presently defined.

Sure, we can look at the things themselves, but how is it that we “know” whether they are as they “should” be, or have any expectations at all? If God is super-intelligent or omniscient, surely, most if not all things He created would be beyond our comprehension, either totally, or to a significant extent: just as no one would expect a guinea pig to be able to read and comprehend this reply.

Determin[ing] whether something is designed is logically prior to identifying who the designer is. (That’s because identifying a designer of something necessarily presumes that something was designed.) Bob’s statement, “Does life on earth look designed by an intelligence?” merely refers to the first step. It’s fine that Bob mentions God in the rest of the article, and whether something is designed can be part of a discussion about a god, but that is a separate issue from determining whether something is designed, in and of itself.

Good discussion.

I like it, too, and I’m glad you do.

You seem to keep missing my points and my intentions in argument, but it’s stimulating argumentation. I was simply noting that the teleological argument was always about whether a God exists Who is the Designer.

This might be a fundamental way we’re not seeing things the same way. I am trying to talk about a much smaller point than you are. I’m just talking about one thing Bob said that concerned only an intelligent designer, and not a god. They are logically and intellectually separable issues, and that’s what my original comment was trying to talk about.

Secondly (as a good socratic), I delved deep into the premises that Bob assumed, and wondered aloud why he thinks he can determine whether something is ‘junk” or not, and why he can’t figure out that science continues to explain what were formerly mysteries, and will continue to do so. A little intellectual humility is in order.

It is hypothetical thinking any way you look at it: whether in a scientific or philosophical / religious sense. If the speculation has to do with God, it is a relevant consideration to note that God, as classically understood in theistic philosophy and orthodox Christianity, is an omniscient being.

It could be aliens who designed life, no? That can’t be ruled out hypothetically. Also, why should the designer of life necessarily also be the designer of the universe?

Strictly speaking, no (it could also have been “the flying spaghetti monster”), but according to scientific evidence, we have none whatsoever for the existence of aliens. If you’re gonna play the game within a [materialistic] scientific paradigm, then you need to consistently do that.

Sure, it’s only a hypothesis, but you said that you didn’t recall any other option for a designer besides god, so I just offered one. That’s all that was.

But talking about possible aliens and then turning around taking the usual potshots at God (“Resorting to a cause that is beyond our comprehension creates an unfalsifiable hypothesis – anything can be explained by the same move: no matter how insane an explanation might be”) is self-contradictory and “rhetorically unfair and unjust.”

It’s not a potshot, it was a substantive critique of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Science does not make the move of appealing to an unfalsifiable hypothesis like appealing to the incomprehensibility of a god. And, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as unfalsifiability. The hypothesis that aliens might have created life is certainly falsifiable, and one big step towards falsifying it would be to discover a naturalistic way to create life. That’s not a proof, but Occam’s Razor would then favor the naturalistic hypothesis over aliens and a god.

Appeals to possible alien life, minus any scientific evidence whatsoever for such a thing, is contradictory within the materialistic scientific paradigm. It’s nonsensical.

I don’t know why aliens creating life is an appeal: it was a hypothesis that provides an option besides a god for the creation of life. That’s all. It merely allows us to say, “Some god is not the only option for an intelligent designer of life.” What is nonsensical about the hypothesis that aliens created life (on Earth, as we know it)? Note that this says nothing about whether it is true or not.

But appeal to the existence of God in a philosophical / religious framework is perfectly reasonable and consistent, since empirical evidence is not necessarily required within that way of thought.

I don’t know what an appeal is. Substantively, all you have a hypothesis or a claim for which there is either sufficient support to adopt or not, or we don’t yet know if we have sufficient support for it yet. How does an appeal fit into that? Is an appeal equal to a hypothesis? If so, then I understand and agree. One can certainly hypothesize that a god created life.

***

As long as some god has an effect within our universe, science certainly can try to determine whether such an effect exists by studying those effects just like any other effect in our universe. If science finds that the effect doesn’t exist, that effect can’t be used as evidence that some god caused it.

Whether things are as they “should” be is changing the topic, I was talking about the argument from design. It’s about whether something was designed by an intelligence rather than occurring naturally. “Should” has nothing to do with that; that’s a different topic.

Resorting to a cause that is beyond our comprehension creates an unfalsifiable hypothesis – anything can be explained by the same move: no matter how insane an explanation might be, when it’s insanity or logical problems are revealed, one could – by using that move – wave it away by saying it was accomplished by some entity that is beyond our comprehension.

***

The discussion is getting more and more abstract and minute (which in my mind equates to being less useful or constructive, but that’s just my own preference). I’m seeking answers to the relevant, premise-level questions I asked Bob:

[W]hat makes us (whether theist or atheist) think in the first place that we can figure out what nature should or ought to “look like”?

How does Bob know that this is the case? How can he prove it? How does he “know” that God would “never” deliberately incorporate what he (ultimately arbitrarily) defines as “junk”?

[U]nder the hypothesis of a super-intelligent, ultimately incomprehensible, omniscient God, why would we expect anything at all? What makes us think we can figure out all His designs (pun intended) and purposes and methods, etc.: anymore than an ant or a catfish would understand all of ours?

By what criterion do we determine if something is “bizarre”?

I answer my own rhetorical questions:

I’m contending that a more nuanced form of the argument holds that nature (or, creation, if there is a Creator) need not “look like” what our paltry little brains think it “should” look like: that whatever the truth is, it’ll be full of surprises, and we shouldn’t “expect” anything, except to be blown away and surprised by the marvelous complexity entailed. What we have already discovered fully bears that out.

Note that I think this point applies to a materialistic and a theistic universe.

I continue to seek answers to the questions I asked in my post. So far, no takers, but it has been stimulating discussion, and I most appreciate the fact that it is congenial and with mutual respect (unlike at least 95% of Christian-atheist discussion these days).

I don’t think the discussion is exhausted, particularly if we are talking about what flows from my original comment, and not your wider disagreement with Bob about God. What remains to be addressed is this: inferring design from the characteristics of an object is an empirical question, so whatever math, logic, and philosophy have to contribute to that question has to ultimately be verified by an empirical process, correct?

I don’t see that it’s only an empirical question. I think it’s ultimately philosophical, just as physical science itself reduces to philosophy because it is a species of philosophy. In fact, I think the question of whether there is a Designer transcends science because I think it is the point at which science can no longer offer explanatory answers. Therefore, it’s permissible to enter into philosophical speculation as to what could have caused the observable design and complexity.

It’s the point of irreducible complexity. Science /empiricism has yet to adequately explain the origin of the Big Bang, of life, and of things like DNA, and even most of the major transitions in evolution (not even close), so I reserve the “epistemological right” to posit a non-physical God Who is the Designer. Science has to recognize its limitations.

***

Teleological (Design) Argument for God (Resources) [10-27-15]

Dogmatic Materialist Scientists vs. Intelligent Design [10-29-15]

Atheists & Inherent “Omnipotent” Creative Qualities of Godless Matter [7-26-17]
*

Dialogue with an Atheist on “God of the Gaps” [6-24-18]

Dialogue: Has God Demonstrated His Existence (Romans 1)? [9-1-18]
*

Catholics & Origins: Irreducible Complexity or Theistic Evolution? [6-17-19]

Why I Believe in “Non-Miraculous” Intelligent Design [6-20-19]

Debate: Can Intelligent Design Be “Non-Interventionist”? (vs. Dr. Lydia McGrew) [6-21-19]

***

Photo credit: Nebulae, Hubble space telescope [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Atheism & Agnosticism

scientific materialism

scientific method

teleological argument

2026-06-05T23:56:50-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

C. S. Lewis Left Christianity Due to Masturbation?

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:56 pm By Dave Armstrong

Case Study of the Saying, “Heresy Begins Below the Belt”

The above saying expresses the notion that sexual urges and drives and acts (i.e., outside of heterosexual marriage and procreation) run contrary to a theology that defines many of them as intrinsically immoral. Therefore, the person who enjoys these thoughts and acts tends to want to reject the theology rather than their own chosen sexuality. And so they wander off into heresy because of this.

Perhaps the classic expression of this mentality is the famous statement of the English writer and philosopher Aldous Huxley (1894-1963): author of almost fifty books; most notably, Brave New World (1932) and The Doors of Perception (1954). Coincidentally, he died, along with President Kennedy, on the same day that Lewis did. In his 1937 collection of essays, Ends and Means, Huxley wrote:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning – the Christian meaning, they insisted – of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever. [my added italics]

In reading the highly regarded biography of Lewis by his friend George Sayer, entitled Jack: C. S. Lewis and His Times (Harper & Row, 1988), I was surprised to learn that young Lewis (around the ages of 13-15) lost his initial Christian faith — according to Sayer’s account — because of falling into a regular practice of masturbation. This, and what Huxley describes, support my long-time contention as an apologist, that loss of faith and apostasy far too often (if not usually) occur as a result of non-rational processes and urges, rather than Christianity failing the test of serious intellectual examination. Sayer writes on page 31 of his book:

He began to masturbate. One can only imagine the sense of guilt he felt. . . . The habit caused him more misery than anything else in his early life.

Of course, he struggled against it, but the agony of the struggle intensified the sense of guilt. He resolved fiercely never to do it again, and then suffered over and over the humiliation of failing to keep his resolution. His state, he tells us, was that described by Saint Paul in Romans 7:19-24: “. . . for the good that I would do, I do not: but the evil that I would not, that I do. . . . I delight in the law of God . . . but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind. . . . O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”

He prayed, too, and, because his prayers were not answered, he soon lost his faith. . . .

To attain psychological balance, he had to suppress his strong feelings of guilt, a feat he accomplished by rejecting Christianity and its morality. He went in for bravado, blasphemy, and smut, startling and shocking the boys who knew him best.

I’d like to analyze the “philosophical / apologetic” ramifications of this for a moment. I can imagine an atheist or one otherwise skeptical of Christianity (or particularly of Catholic Christianity) saying, “well, how can you blame young Lewis? After all, he sincerely resolved to end his practice, which he [wrongly] felt to be wrong, and sincerely prayed to God for aid in that resolve, and God [assuming for the sake of argument that he does exist] failed him. Is that not, then, God‘s fault, rather than his own?”

Like so many “armchair” garden variety atheist arguments (real or so-called), this one appears only at first glance to have weight and force. As a matter of indisputable fact, there are a number of seriously addictive or obsessive behaviors that human beings willingly begin and fall into, only to find later on that they are in “bondage”, would like to cease, and alas, cannot. Usually at first, it’s not understood that the behaviors will become so controlling and addictive. But once one is caught by the behavior, it’s very difficult to escape.

But whose fault is that? Is it God’s or the person who began the journey into the behavior? I would contend that it’s the latter, and that recourse to blaming God is simply blame-shifting. One can imagine many addictions, whether it is, for example, pedophilia, or smoking cigarettes, or various drug habits, or wife-beating, or gluttony, or rampant sexual promiscuity. Even intrinsically good things can become addictive and destructive; say, for example, that a man wants to read books or do gardening all day long, and as a result, neglects his duty to make a living.

We start these things and then in foolish pride, we want to blame someone else when it’s clear that we are engaged in unhealthy, destructive behavior. God is one such misguided target, because we can always convince ourselves that “God ought to enable me to stop if I ask Him.” Therefore, if He doesn’t do so, we can say that He is either weak or nonexistent. It’s a variation of the old “problem of evil” objection to Christianity.

On the other hand, I am certainly not denying altogether that there is such a thing as divine grace or power to overcome sin and evil. St. Paul tells us that “I can do all things in him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13, RSV) and that “in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (Rom 8:37). I and virtually any serious Christian have experienced this help many times, and indeed, highly successful groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous presuppose that it exists in order to help alcoholics stop drinking.

So I’m not discounting that per se. What I’m saying is that it is unreasonable to demand that God (an omniscient Being infinitely higher than we are, and therefore, obviously often inexplicable to us as a result, as we would be to an ant) do what I want right now; under the pain of being rejected or disbelieved if He does not. God is under no obligation to perform any given miracle or to answer any and every prayer. He does what He does in His own time, for His own inscrutable reasons and providential purposes, and Christianity fully understands this. Biblical prayer is not automatic and unconditional, as I explained to two atheist apostates (Seidensticker and Madison).

The same Bible that contains the above verses also includes the book of Job, in which a most righteous (“blameless”) person terribly suffers for seemingly no reason. The same Paul who wrote those verses, had God turn down his request to remove a “thorn in the flesh” from him. God is not a magic wand or our own personal sock puppet, to maneuver as we will.

All this becomes simply a pretext for a rejection of God that was already present in kernel form. “Either God does X or I’m through with Him!” It’s kindergarten spirituality and rationalization of self-excess or an exaggerated sense of pseudo-“freedom.” It’s the initial sin of Adam and Eve and the devil: choosing their self-will over God’s. Aldous Huxley (admirably) admitted that this was what he was doing.

And I think that young C. S. Lewis (assuming Sayer’s opinion is correct) was doing the same thing, and that it’s irrational and unreasonable, for the reasons stated. Lewis later explained how and why masturbation is immoral (see below).

Why Did God Kill Onan? (Bible and Contraception) [2-9-04]

Dialogue: Why Did God Kill Onan? (Contraception) [2-13-04]

Onan, Contraception, & Two Protestant Bible Dictionaries [2-21-04]

Masturbation: Thoughts on Why it is as Wrong as it Ever Was [3-14-04 and 9-7-05; abridged, edited, and slightly modified on 8-14-19]

Masturbation Remains a Grave Sin (Debate w Steve Hays) [1-6-07; links added on 8-13-19]

Martin Luther Condemned Masturbation (“Secret Sin”) [6-2-10]

Masturbation & the Sermon on the Mount (Talmudic Parallels) [10-18-11]

Biblical Data Against Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment: a Concise “Catholic” Argument [3-7-14]

Bible vs. Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment [National Catholic Register, 5-30-17]

Masturbation: Gravely Disordered According to Catholicism [8-16-19]

Biblical Hyperbole, Masturbation, & Intransigent Atheists [9-3-19]

Debate: Masturbation Okay in Moderation or Intrinsically Wrong? [10-31-19]

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!*

***

Photo credit: original dust cover for George Sayer’s 1988 biography on C. S. Lewis [Amazon book page]

***

Liberal / Modernist Theology

Sexuality and Gender Issues

Bible & sexuality

C. S. Lewis & masturbation

Catholic sexuality

Christian sexuality

essence of sexuality

heresy begins below the belt

Masturbation

masturbation & apostasy

Natural Family Planning

2020-07-09T18:13:49-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Demonic Possession or Epilepsy? (Bible & Science)

Last updated on: July 9, 2020 at 6:13 pm By Dave Armstrong

Matthew 17:15, 18 (RSV) “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and he suffers terribly; for often he falls into the fire, and often into the water.” . . . [18] And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly.

This is interesting, since it implies that epilepsy is caused by a demon, whereas we know that it has natural causes. This translation and many others (as we shall see) insinuate that it is the equivalent of demonic possession. For example, the Moffatt, 20th Century, and Weymouth versions have “epileptic” here, while KJV, Rheims, and Young’s Literal have “lunatic[k].”

The older translations got it right, I think. But “lunatic” is a very unfashionable word. Of course, it derived from observable patterns of change of behavior based on the lunar cycle, which actually has some basis (we know that the moon affects the ocean tides as well).

I would argue, then, that the older and more literal (and Catholic) translations are more consistent with both biblical and scientific thinking, while those that select “epileptic” here are less coherent on both scores.

The Greek word in question is Strong’s #4583: seleniazomai. Strong’s Concordance defines it as “crazy; lunatic.” Thayer’s Lexicon does mention “epileptic,” stating that it was influenced by the moon. But then that is more evidence of natural cause, which is different from demonic cause, and in this instance, a demon was cast out.

A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament wants to have it both ways:

Epileptic. . . Literally, “moonstruck,” “lunatic.” The symptoms of epilepsy were supposed to be aggravated by the changes of the moon (cf. John 4:24 ).

Vincent’s Word Studies also curiously omits mention that a demon was cast out, curing this boy:

Is lunatic ( σεληνιάζεται )

Rev., epileptic. The A. V. preserves the etymology of the word (σελήνη , the moon) but lunatic conveys to us the idea of demented; while the Rev. epileptic gives the true character of the disease, yet does not tell us the fact contained in the Greek word, that epilepsy was supposed to be affected by the changes of the moon. See on Matthew 4:24.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary states similarly. All these standard sources can be read online. The famous commentator Matthew Henry (Presbyterian) offers a fascinating (and, in my opinion, superior) “mixed” view:

The nature of this child’s disease was very sad; He was lunatic and sore vexed. A lunatic is properly one whose distemper lies in the brain, and returns with the change of the moon. The devil, by the divine permission, either caused this distemper, or at least concurred with it, to heighten and aggravate it. The child had the falling-sickness, and the hand of Satan was in it; by it he tormented then, and made it much more grievous than ordinarily it is. Those whom Satan got possession of, he afflicted by those diseases of the body which do most affect the mind; for it is the soul that he aims to do mischief to.

Catholic Commentary (Orchard, 1953), likewise, calls the boy a “possessed epileptic” (I suppose he could have two problems simultaneously). I was curious about other translations:

lunatic: KJV, Rheims, Young’s Literal, NASB, Phillips, Jerusalem, NAB, Confraternity, Knox

epileptic or epilepsy: RSV, Moffatt, 20th Century, Weymouth, NEB, REB, NIV, NRSV, ASV, NKJV, Amplified, Williams, Beck, Goodspeed, Wuest, Barclay, Lamsa

subject to fits: Kleist & Lilly

The pattern, then, is older Bibles and Catholic Bibles using “lunatic” and Protestant and more recent Bibles using “epileptic.” The exceptions are Phillips and NASB: Protestant versions from the 50s and 60s. I prefer “lunatic”: on the basis that it is closer to the notion of “demon-possessed” than “epileptic” is.

***

Photo credit: The Possessed Man in the Synagogue, by James Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Hell & Satan & Last Things

2020-07-05T13:32:53-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Apologetics = Anti-Faith or Absolute “Certainty”?

Last updated on: July 5, 2020 at 1:32 pm By Dave Armstrong

Or, “Does Christianity Reduce to Mere Philosophy or Rationalism?”

There seems to be some erroneous — sometimes almost obsessive — thought around in certain circles (roughly speaking: liberal Catholic ones) that apologetics is supposedly about the obtaining of absolute certainty through reason alone, as if faith has little or nothing to do with it. This is flat-out absurd and is a glaring falsehood (I carefully refrained from using the word “lie” because people get all on their ear).

I’ve been doing apologetics for 39 years now — the first nine as an evangelical Protestant — and have been a published apologist for 27 years and published author in the field (four bestsellers and over twenty “officially” published books) for 18 years. I’ve never seen anyone, to my recollection, who was an actual credentialed apologist (not just a guy with a blog who calls himself one after maybe reading one book), who was stupid and philosophically (or theologically) naive enough to teach such a view.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas: often the whipping-boy for those who foolishly think he taught some kind of “hyper-rationalism”, was clearly a proponent of faith and reason. His project was about a synthesis of orthodox Catholic faith with Aristotelian philosophy, which had been recently revived in 13th-century Europe.

Yet there is this thinking that apologists somehow delusionally pretend that hyper-rationalism is “the way” and that “certitude” is placed higher than God Himself; “absolute certainty” is the idol in their hearts and minds, that faith plays so little of a role in their view that they are actually not far from atheism. Rather than “faith alone” the motto is “reason alone” (so we are told). Those are the stereotypes.

Now I shall proceed to show what orthodox Catholic apologists (folks who actually accept the Catholic faith in its entirety) actually believe and teach: using my own example, since I think I am a rather typical one and in the “mainstream” and have perhaps written more on the topic than any other Catholic apologist operating today (2965 blog articles and 50 books). The following are all excerpts from my writings, with the original date and a link.

*****

And yes, it requires faith, like all Christian beliefs (which, in turn, requires enabling grace). No one denies that. [1997]

It is only the deliberate attempt to denigrate the reasoning process, or the intellect, or mental effort, or “philosophy,” or logic, which undermines what is clearly a biblical viewpoint and creates a false and unbiblical dichotomy between reason and faith. I could go on and on about this, . . . [3-20-99]

Believing Christians and Jews have always possessed “certainty” (I recommend St. John Henry Newman’s Grammar of Assent in this regard [extremely heavy reading: be forewarned] ). It is a rational faith, backed up by eyewitness testimony and historical evidences, and the history of doctrine. It is not mere hyper-rationalistic, Enlightenment-inspired philosophy, . . . No one is saying (or should say) that there is an absolute certainty in a strict philosophical sense . . . [July 2000]

[T]he atheist often demands absolute proof for the Bible’s claims before granting that the Christian has any basis for placing faith in it, that it is God’s inspired word. How an atheist regards any other work as true or false involves largely the same processes, with faith (or, trust, extrapolation, inductive leaps) added onto them. [11-13-02]

Christianity is not philosophy. It may be consistent with true philosophy, and not irrational or incoherent at all (I certainly believe so), but it is something different from philosophy per se. Philosophy simply does not constitute the sum of all knowledge. [3-10-03]

We deny “blind submission” and hold that one can have a reasonable faith and belief that God guides His one true Church. We believe that the one Church which He guides is the Catholic Church. [4-10-03]

When it comes to things like conversion (to Christ or to another faith community) it really comes down to faith. This is how conversion works. We are not computers or machines. We are whole people. Christianity is a faith, and requires faith to adopt (in whatever one of its brands). There is no avoiding this. One can never absolutely prove their system. That is not only true for Christianity but for any thought-system, in my opinion. Faith is also a gift from God and is only received through grace (contra Pelagianism and a religion of works). I think there is a concept of a “reasonable faith” and I certainly seek to follow reason at every turn, because I don’t see that “irrational faith” does anyone any good. A lack of reason can be as harmful as a lack of faith. Some people seem to think that Christianity and personal Christian faith are almost strictly matters of rationalism and making selections, much as one chooses a pair of shoes or what website to visit. This is sheer nonsense. They reduce Christianity to philosophy at various important points, which, to me, smacks of the Enlightenment and a sort of religion possessed by people like Jefferson or Voltaire. [5-13-03]

One ought to always have a reasonable faith, supported by as much evidence as one can find (I thoroughly oppose fideism or “pietism” — which attempt to remove reason from the equation). We accept in faith what appears most plausible and likely to be true from our reasoning and examination of competing hypotheses and worldviews. We are intellectually “duty-bound” to embrace the outlook that has been demonstrated (to our own satisfaction, anyway) to be superior to another competing view. Is that absolute proof? No, of course not. I think “absolute proof” in a strict, rigorous philosophical sense is unable to be obtained about virtually anything. But one accepts Catholicism in and with faith, based on interior witness of the Holy Spirit and outward witness of facts and reason and history; much like one accepts Christianity in general or how the early disciples accepted the Resurrection and the claims of Jesus. [4-25-04]

It requires faith to believe that God will guide His one true Church and preserve it from error, but it is a faith based on what we are taught in the divine revelation, and from Jesus Himself (which is sufficient for me). [6-23-05]

In any event, it requires faith to believe that the Church speaks authoritatively and can be trusted for its theological judgments. You’ll never be able to prove that in an “airtight” sense. [5-18-06]

The same God also revealed that He often refuses to give a sign if the purpose is as some sort of “test.” He wants you to have faith in Him without some absolute proof, just as you have “faith” (i.e., assent without absolute proof) in any number of things that you don’t fully understand. So, e.g., Jesus appeared to “Doubting Thomas” after His resurrection, to “prove Himself.” Yet at the same time, He said, “Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe” (John 20:29). There is more than enough evidence out there to support belief as rational and worthy of allegiance. But God will not be tested in the way that you seem to demand. This is a common biblical motif. [10-11-06]

The fact is, that any Christian position requires faith, for the simple reason that Christianity is not merely a philosophy, or exercise in epistemology. [James] White’s view requires faith; so does the Catholic outlook. One exercises faith in the Catholic Church being what it claims to be: the One True Church, uniquely guided and led by the Holy Spirit, with infallible teaching. Hopefully, one can give cogent reasons for why this faith is reasonable, but it is still faith in the end: reasonable, not blind. [9-4-07]

Christianity is not philosophy. One cannot achieve airtight, mathematical certainty in matters of faith. . . . It requires faith to believe this, and that is what a Catholic does: we have faith that this Church can exist and that it can be identified and located. We don’t say this rests on our own individual choice. It is already there; like “stumbling upon” the Pacific Ocean or Mt. Everest. We don’t determine whether the thing exists or not. And we must believe it is what it claims to be by faith, absolutely. Why should that surprise anyone except a person who thinks that Christianity is determined purely by arbitrary choice and rationalism without faith? That is no longer simply philosophy or subjective preference, as if Christianity were reduced to Philosophy 0101 (where someone might prefer Kierkegaaard to Kant) or the selection of a flavor of ice cream. [10-7-08]

[O]ne can have a very high degree of moral assurance, and trust in God’s mercy. St. Paul shows this. He doesn’t appear worried at all about his salvation, but on the other hand, he doesn’t make out that he is absolutely assured of it and has no need of persevering. He can’t “coast.” The only thing a Catholic must absolutely avoid in order to not be damned is a subjective commission of mortal sin that is unrepented of. [10-21-08]

Christianity is not philosophy: it is a religious faith. It is not contrary to reason, but it does go beyond it. [1-2-09]

Faith by definition means a thing that falls short of absolute proof. I don’t see how Catholics and Protestants differ all that much in this respect. We have faith in things. I think it is a reasonable faith and not contrary to reason, but it is still faith, and faith is not identical to reason . . . this whole discussion of epistemology might be fun and interesting, but again, it overlooks the fact that faith (including Catholic faith) is not philosophy . . . [11-11-09]

I was saying (a variant of what I have stated 100 times on my blog, though I could have stated it more precisely) that religion is not philosophy; Christianity is not philosophy. It can’t be reduced to that. It requires faith. [6-5-10]

This is a mentality of reducing Christianity to mere philosophy rather than a religion and spiritual outlook that requires faith and incorporates innate and intuitive knowledge that God grants to us through the Holy Spirit and His grace. . . . This sort of thinking is post-Enlightenment hyper-rationalism. It certainly isn’t a biblical outlook. [6-8-10]

There are serious lessons to be learned here: along the lines of having an informed, reasonable faith (complete with apologetic knowledge as necessary), and of yielding up our private judgment and personal inclinations to a God and a Church much higher than ourselves. Faith comes ultimately by God’s grace and His grace alone: not our own semi-understandings. Christianity is not “blind faith”; it is a reasonable faith. But there is such a thing as allegiance and obedience to Christian authority, too. When reason is separated from faith or (on a personal level) never was part of it, “faith” (or the unreasonable facsimile thereof) is empty and open to Satanic and cultural attack, and we are tossed to and fro by the winds and the waves: a cork on the ocean of our decadent, corrupt, increasingly secularist and hedonistic culture. [8-9-10]

“Evidence” is not used in this sense to mean “absolute proof.” A hundred times in my writings, I’ve stated that the Catholic notion of “biblical evidence” is not absolute proof, but rather, consistency and harmony with Scripture and a given doctrine, including implicit and indirect, deductive indications. [9-20-11]

My conversion, then, in summary (considered apart from God’s grace; I am talking specifically about my thought processes), was a combination of the cumulative effect of three different “strands” of evidences (contraception, development of doctrine, and the Catholic perspective on the “Reformation”): all pointing in the same direction. This was perfectly consistent (epistemologically) with my apologetic outlook that I had developed over nine years: the idea of cumulative probability or what might be called “plausibility structures.” [2013]

If we have all faith and no reason, that is fideism, which leads to many bad things. If we go to the other extreme and place reason above faith, then we have positivism and hyper-rationalism (the roots of theological liberalism, or sometimes rigorist schism, the radical Catholic reactionary outlook, and many heretical sects which deny the Holy Trinity, etc.), leading to the loss of supernatural faith if unchecked. The balance is a reasonable faith: with faith higher than reason, but a faith that is always in harmony with reason, inasmuch as it is possible, given the inherent limitations of reason. [12-28-13]

We believe in faith first; we don’t have to “solve every problem” before we believe. That’s not Christian faith, given by God’s grace, but man-centered rationalism. There are always “difficulties” and “problems” in any large system of thought. That doesn’t prevent people from believing in the tenets of same. This includes physical science, where there are a host of things that remain unexplained (e.g., what caused the Big Bang; whether light is a particle or a wave, how life began, the complete lack of evidence for life anywhere else, etc.). People don’t disbelieve in the Big Bang because we can’t explain everything about it. Likewise with Catholic dogma. If even science requires faith and axiomatic presuppositions, how much more, religious faith, which is not identical to philosophy or reason in the first place? . . . All of this requires faith, and faith comes through grace accepted in free will. . . . We’d all be in very rough shape if our personal “epistemology” required us to know every jot and tittle of everything before we could believe it. Most things we do or believe in life we don’t fully understand at all. [July 2015]

Christianity requires faith. It’s not philosophy. We accept many things that we don’t fully understand. People do that in many areas of life every day. [10-8-15]

An intelligent Christian position doesn’t maintain “absolute knowledge” but rather, a reasonable faith in God, or belief in Him, that is made very plausible and likely to be true, by arguments such as these, which indeed provide evidence. [10-29-15]

I don’t think any [theistic arguments] provide absolute proof (but I think absolute proof is difficult to attain in any field of knowledge, so no biggie). But that’s not to say the weaker ones fail. My own view for many years now (at least 30) is that the strength of the overall argument for theism and Christianity is in a cumulative sense, adding up to very strong plausibility (like many strands becoming a very strong rope), seeing that all the arguments point in the same direction. [11-6-15]

Like all arguments from analogy, it is one of plausibility, not one of intended “absolute proof.” In fact, I think all the arguments for God are of the same nature. [11-10-15]

Well, it’s a mixture: faith and reason. The appeal to Church history or tradition also requires faith, but it is a reasonable faith, able to be substantiated historiographically. [5-6-16]

The (philosophical-type) believer approaches it from common sense: “If there is such a thing as a God with omni- qualities a, b, c, what would we reasonably expect to see in a man Who claims to be that God in the flesh? What kind of things could or would He do [not absolutely demonstrate according to some philosophical standard] in order for us to credibly, plausibly believe His extraordinary claims?” And when we see Jesus (assuming the accuracy of the accounts on other rational bases, as we do), we see exactly what we would reasonably expect: He heals, He raises the dead; He raises Himself. He calms the sea and walks on water. He has extraordinary knowledge; He predicts the future, etc. It’s more than enough for us to say, in faith: “He’s God.” [5-22-18]

My Opinion on “Proofs for God’s Existence” Summarized in Two Sentences

My view remains what it has been for many years: nothing strictly / absolutely “proves” God’s existence. But . . . I think His existence is exponentially more probable and plausible than atheism, based on the cumulative effect of a multitude of good and different types of (rational) theistic arguments, and the utter implausibility, incoherence, irrationality, and unacceptable level of blind faith of alternatives. [6-18-18]

There are many things we don’t know with absolute certainty (in fact, almost all things, if we want to be strictly philosophical). Catholics believe in a very high degree of “moral assurance” of salvation, but not absolute certainty of salvation. [7-22-18]

It is [an act of faith] insofar as one accepts the possibility of the miraculous and that which cannot be absolutely proven. Since there are many things that can’t be absolutely proven, I don’t think it’s too much of a big deal. [3-27-19]

I would say that, ultimately, God’s existence is not an empirical question, if by that one means, “Can God be proven by empirical arguments such as the cosmological and teleological arguments?” I don’t think that absolute proof is possible, as I have already stated. But those two arguments are still relevant to the discussion; they touch on empirical things, and I think they establish that God’s existence is more likely than not (because they “fit” much better with a theistic world than they do with an atheist world). . . . So does this [Romans 1:19-20] prove that there is a God by rigid philosophical standards? No. But of course, very few things at all can be proven, if we’re gonna play that skeptical “game.” . . . The atheist “explanation” of the existence of the universe is incoherent and implausible, according to what we know from science; the Christian view is plausible and makes perfect sense, even if it is not ironclad proof. Thus, I would say that for one who likes science and interprets the physical world by means of it, theism is the more plausible and believable meta-interpretation or framework. [5-27-19]

What you bring up is something different: “why believe that God is immutable?” I agree with you (I think): this is a teaching that comes from revelation, and Christians accept it on faith on that basis. . . . Is that absolute proof? No. Very few things can be absolutely proven and almost every belief entails unprovable axioms to get off the ground. Christians believe it in faith, based on revelation. And if we do philosophy we think it is reasonable on that basis as well. [7-26-19]

Cardinal Newman’s Philosophical & Epistemological Commitments [10-19-04]

Pascal, Kreeft, & Kierkegaard on Persuasion & Apologetics [9-2-05]

Dialogue with an Agnostic: God as a “Properly Basic Belief” [10-5-15]

The Certitude of Faith According to Cardinal Newman [9-30-08]

Dialogue on Reason & Faith, w Theological Liberal [1-19-10]

Non-Empirical “Basic” Warrant for Theism & Christianity [10-15-15]

Atheist Demands for “Empirical” Proofs of God [10-27-15]

Dialogue: Religious Epistemology (with an Agnostic) [11-17-15]

Implicit (Extra-Empirical) Faith, According to John Henry Newman [12-18-15]

On Mystery & Reason in Theology [4-5-16]

Analogical Reasoning, and Reasoning from Plausibility [5-27-17]

Argument for God from Desire: Atheist-Christian Dialogue [8-7-17]

Dialogue: Has God Demonstrated His Existence (Romans 1)? [9-1-18]

Theistic Argument from Longing or Beauty, & Einstein [3-27-08; rev. 3-14-19]

Apologetics: Be-All & End-All of the Catholic Faith? NO!!! [7-1-19]

***

Photo credit: St. John Henry Cardinal Newman (my “theological hero”) in 1866: four years before his seminal work of philosophy of religion, An Essay in Aid of the Grammar of Assent [public domain]

***

cumulative probability

Philosophy of Religion

rational faith

reasonable faith

religion & philosophy

religious certitude

religious epistemology

2026-06-05T23:56:30-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Atheist-Christian Discussion: Centrality of Premises

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:56 pm By Dave Armstrong

This dialogue began when atheist “Sporkfighter” started commenting underneath my paper, Dialogues on “Contradictions” w Bible-Bashing Atheists. His words will be in blue.

*****

What is “Biblical evidence” without prior extra-Biblical evidence of the Bible’s accuracy?

Exactly right. It presupposes biblical inspiration, which must be established on other grounds. The title of my blog is basically a roundabout polemical swipe at Protestants, who agree with us that the Bible is inspired.

We agree that the Bible is inspired?

Who is “we”? A liberal Protestant? Then you wouldn’t. :-) One who actually continues the heritage of Luther, Calvin, and Wesley would.

Unless you can demonstrate that the Bible is more than mythology and that any occasional correlation with fact is more than coincidence, there’s no reason to give it a second glance.

Yep. See: God: Historical Arguments (Copious Helpful Resources).

The Epic of Gilgamesh is set in Uruk, a real city. Sleepless in Seattle is set in Seattle, a real city. Harry Potter is set in Great Britain, a real country. Setting a story in a real place does not mean everything or anything else in the story is real.

The Shroud of Turin? At best, it’s a burial shroud of somebody, but somebody who looks remarkably like medieval European images of Christ with long hair, not the short hair common among first century Jews. At worst (and most likely) it’s an image of a human created by a human to defraud other humans. There was a brisk trade in Biblical relics for more than a thousand years, and educated people have know most of them were fakes for nearly as long. Just read the Pardoner’s Tale from the Canterbury Tales.

Discovery channel documentaries? If I believe those, I have to believe in ancient aliens too.

No, it’s not enough to show some mundane events in the Bible really happened or that places in the Bible really existed or that lots of people believe the stranger parts really happened. If the important, the miraculous parts of the Bible are to be believed, you have to show that those parts are true. Where’s the extra-Biblical evidence for Noah’s flood, for Jesus’ resurrection?

Finally, if any part of the Bible is known to be false, then every part of it is suspect. Since Christians themselves can’t agree on which parts are true, which are allegorical, or what the “true” parts mean, every word in the Bible not validated extra-Biblically is suspect.

Believe if you want, but at least understand why others might not believe. We’re not stupid, we’re not mad at God, and we’re not denying God so we can live debauched lives of sin.

Thanks for your input. I didn’t expect you to respond to the evidences I presented, so I wasn’t surprised. It doesn’t make them null and void, however, simply because you cavalierly dismiss them.

Stick around; maybe in due course you’ll see something appealing in the Christian worldview that you hadn’t seen before. You’re more than welcome as long as you don’t sink to rank insults.

You presented no evidence, just a box of links, most of which I’ve read many times in the past.

Evidence that the Bible is true must reference evidence outside the Bible, so most of your evidence “from the Bible” could at best show the Bible is internally consistent, but well written fiction is always internally consistent, so that would prove nothing even if the Bible were internally consistent, and it’s not.

Evidence that some of the Bible is true is not evidence that all of the Bible is true just as a chemistry textbook from 1880 isn’t all correct because some of it is. This seem obvious, but many apologists don’t seem to get it.

The number of miracles* reported have diminished in grandeur as science explains more, education replaces credulity. This isn’t proof that the miracles of the Bible didn’t happen, but it does lead me to wonder why the sun stood still, people rose from the dead, and virgins gave birth then but not now. You’d need stronger evidence that they happened as well as an explanation for why they don’t anymore.**

*It’s not a miracle when one of a few people survive a disaster without some reason the majority didn’t.

**Curious fact: The number of UFO reports have dropped as cell phones became ubiquitous. If you report a UFO now, people expect pictures. Kind of like miracles, people don’t take the word of anonymous strangers anymore, they expect the evidence.

The Shroud of Turin is a good example of what’s wrong the way evidence for the Bible falls apart when you look carefully, so let’s look at. The Shroud purports to be an image of Christ on linen fabric that could not possibly have been created by humans on cloth preserved for 2,000 years. However…

1. The best dating techniques place its creation between 1260–1390 CE. You can argue against that dating, but that’s not evidence placing it around 30 CE.

2. You can’t prove it’s of Middle-eastern origin, and we know similar fabric has been made in other places and other times, including medieval Europe.

3. You can’t prove it’s not a creation of human ingenuity; how could you without knowing the limits on human ingenuity?

No, the most likely explanation is that it’s a forgery from a time and place that we know and people of the day knew was rife with forged Biblical relics. Just read Chaucer’s “The Pardoner’s Tale” from 1387-1400. Moreover, the first evidence we have for it’s existence was in 1390, when the local bishop reported that an artist confessed to creating it! Clearly, the best explanation is that the Shroud is one more of the thousands of forged Christian relics that were common as cats in Europe of the day*.

*Take a guess at how many of Jesus’ foreskins were paraded around Europe…got a number? At least eight and perhaps 18.

All the evidence for the Bible as truth I’ve studied falls apart similarly upon examination. If you have something you’ve personally looked into, I’m all eyes, but don’t waste my time with a bunch of links to arguments you haven’t investigated carefully on your own.

I have in fact investigated many of these things on my own. You may not know much about me. I’ve been doing apologetics for 39 years, have written 50 books (some 30 or so published by “real” publishers: not just self-published), and have 2900 articles on my blog. The fact that you can utterly dismiss all of those articles and play the game as if they don’t present any evidence whatsoever that isn’t circular reasoning, shows that you are in an impenetrable epistemological bubble and impervious to anything outside of it.

You write, for example: “Evidence that the Bible is true must reference evidence outside the Bible . . .”

Of course, all of archaeological evidence (to mention just one thing) is of that nature. But you’re capable of blowing all that off in one fell swoop. You’re not fooling anyone. That’s not a serious attempt to grapple with the relevant evidence.

There are good arguments that the dating of the Shroud is at the time of Christ. In a nutshell, the samples taken that showed later dates were from patches that were later added. There are objective ways to determine this, and they have been demonstrated. That’s only about dating, of course, and is the bare minimum of anything approaching “proof” that it’s the burial shroud of Jesus, but at least it shows that it is not a mere “medieval hoax.”

Basically, you’re saying (in a nice way so far, but still . . .) that Christians are merely blind faith, irrational, anti-scientific dummies. It’s the old atheist line, and it won’t do.

What I’ve been mostly doing with atheists is shooting down their alleged “contradictions” in the Bible. I’ve done that 40 times with Bob Seidensticker (Cross Examined site), 42 with Dr. David Madison (Debunking Christianity) and 21 refutations of Ward Ricker (see the post above), who put together a book with a bunch of these. This is something objective that can be discussed pro and con rather than the “101 objections” routine, where nothing serious can be accomplished.

I also wrote a paper specifically for people like you who want to blow off the extensive scholarly links / articles that I have compiled regarding evidences for Christianity and theistic proofs: Why I Collect Lots of Scholarly Articles for Atheists.

I would say, with all due respect, don’t waste my time, either, with your flippant dismissal of a whole range of relevant articles and arguments in favor of Christianity, and your epistemological naiveté. It doesn’t work with me. It may with many less educated Christians, and even many less experienced Christian apologists, but not with me. I’m too familiar with the timeworn games and tactics, and I see the sort of counter-arguments that atheists come up with, because I’ve been interacting with them these past 39 years off and on.

I have in fact investigated many of these things on my own. You may not know much about me. I’ve been doing apologetics for 39 years, have written 50 books (some 30 or so published by “real” publishers: not just self-published), and have 2900 articles on my blog.

I, too have been reading and studying for forty years, starting with degrees in mathematics and physics. Chances are excellent that I’ve read some of your research material myself. What are the chances that you’ve read, say, Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith or other comparable works from the atheist point of view? In my experience, apologists read other apologists and they argue against other apologists’ versions of atheism but not against an atheist’s version of atheism.

If you’ve really studied and written on these issues, you should know better than to give 30 links and call it an argument. One at a time…what’s your best evidence? I can debunk it or I can’t, you can support it or you can’t, but that way it’s possible to hold a discussion.

Yeah, I’ve read books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (probably the two most well-known atheist books in recent times), and John Loftus. I responded to both Dawkins and Loftus in several papers. Loftus (who challenged me to do it) has ignored my replies. When he has “interacted” with me in the past it was sort of like Mt. Vesuvius or Mt. St. Helens: lots of smoke and fury but little else.

I explained why I provided the links (in my article I linked to). There is nothing wrong with it: no more than books providing lengthy bibliographies for further related reading. I was trying to provide a service to atheists: in effect, “you want some serious scholarly articles from a Christian viewpoint that cover these topics you are interested in? Here you go.” I recognize my limitations: which is why I’m citing scholars in certain areas. I can’t do everything myself. It doesn’t follow that I make no arguments. I do, and I also provide further reading. What in the world is wrong with that is, I confess, beyond my comprehension. Atheists apparently reject the notion of “further recommended reading.” I’ve gone through this silliness several times now.

Asking me what my best evidence is is like asking a happily married man why he loves his wife. I believe as I do because of the cumulative force of scores and scores of factors and reasons and evidences. I’ve written about a great many of those things.

If you are truly interested in dialogue (and not just smug “gotcha!” polemics and breezy dismissals), pick something I’ve written about and go at it. Most atheists simply ignore my refutations of their arguments (especially the alleged Bible contradictions). You can always pick up their slack if you like. But it has to be a dialogue that goes somewhere; has some constructive value (and I don’t mean by that only that one or the other is persuaded; insights and understandings can at least be gained). See my atheism & agnosticism and philosophy & science pages.

Oh, one more thing. If you want to do serious, ongoing dialogue, you’re gonna have to share your real name and some online source that tells more about you. I don’t spend much time on mysterious, anonymous folks. If you have the courage of your convictions you ought to “come out” and reveal yourself beyond nicknames. As it is, even your Disqus profile tells me nothing.

OK, I read “Replies to Atheists’ & Skeptics’ Garden Variety Objections.” [link]

Every point starts with the assumption that God exists. That’s great once you’re there, but how do you get there? My question isn’t “What is God like?” I ask “Is there a god?”

You misunderstand what that paper was about. I answer from within the paradigm of how a question is framed and will argue differently, based on who I am talking to. The first question was, “How can we really know what God is like?” This, in a sense, momentarily posits the existence of God for the sake of argument and then inquires: how do we know what God — if he exists — is like? And so I said, “look at Jesus.” That is the Christian answer.

You are answering questions I haven’t asked precisely because you’re speaking from inside Christianity to people who take the existence of God as a given. None of that matters to someone who doesn’t already believe.

You make an “internal criticism” directed towards the Christian system. Therefore I have to talk about God as I understand Him to be from within that system, to show that there is no inconsistency or incoherence. Same thing with the next section about God and suffering: the classic objection. I can’t reply to that and not mention God, because it is a critique of the Christian God to begin with. Three more questions are of the same type.

The last question in the paper is: “And how can we totally understand God?” One can’t answer that without mentioning God, either. We have to answer according to our theistic and Christian understanding.

This person is arguing, in effect, “your system seems incoherent and inexplicable to me. Please explain it so that it doesn’t seem that way.” And so I did. It depends on what a person is asking for.

In “Bad or Absent Fathers as a Strong Indicator of Atheism” [link] you follow Vitz’s cherry-picked aspects of cherry-picked atheists’ relations with their fathers with this: “It’s a known fact that people’s relationships with their fathers in particular can have a significant effect on their view of God.” Beyond the sociological observation that people generally follow the religion of their parents, isn’t this just a matter of human psychology? What has it to do with the question of God’s existence?

I didn’t claim that the atheists and their fathers paper had to do with whether God exists or not. This is a turning the tables argument against the atheist polemic that Christians are only such because of their upbringing. So we retort by saying: so is atheism, many times. The examples of famous atheists are evidence of that: not of whether God exists. You are analyzing very sloppily and illogically. This is simply sociological observation (my major was sociology and Vitz is a psychologist or psychiatrist).

“Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable to be Rationally Held?” [link] A scientific hypothesis should be falsifiable, but is Christianity a scientific hypothesis? Some people would claim that the existence of God is a scientific question in that God does or does not exist, that “no God” could be disproved by his appearance in Times Square. That hasn’t happened but I can’t show that it won’t. Seems like a silly stand for an atheist to take.

I explain carefully the point I am trying to make there and you seem to have missed it. The exact essence of the paper is in its title. It’s not an argument about God’s existence, but rather, about the circular nature of empiricist-only atheist thought and logical positivism. The point is that there are many fields of knowledge which are not ultimately dependent on empiricism and falsifiablility: mathematics and logic being two. Nor can science even begin with pure empiricism. It requires non-empirical axioms such as uniformitarianism to get off the ground.

“Jesus’ Death: Proof of a “Bloodthirsty” God, or Loving Sacrifice?” [link]

Again, you assume God exists, then discuss his personality. The does not address the atheist’s first question: “Does God exist?”

It’s not meant to do what you seem to always demand: ironclad, undeniable proof of God. This is, again, about an internal criticism of Christianity. So one has to tackle it from within the Christian paradigm, explaining how we think His death suggests love rather than a “bloodthirsty” God.

I clearly haven’t read everything you’ve written, but in everything I have read, you take God as a given and move on from there. I’m unwilling to grant you that as an axiom in this context. In real life, you can believe what you want for reasons you find convincing.

All you have shown, then, is that you consistently misunderstand the purpose and nature of individual articles of mine, and the nature and force of the arguments as well. It’s very common. Atheists are in their own little bubble, so they underestimate and often completely miscomprehend Christian apologetics arguments.

Finally, I’ve found many Christians to be mean-spirited and vindictive. They’ve attacked me online, they’ve contacted my employer to try and get me fired, and they’ve threatened my children, so I will not be doxxing myself.

That’s most unfortunate and sad. I am not that way at all, and apologize on behalf of the morons calling themselves Christians who would act in such a way. They make my job very difficult, too, if many atheists approach me thinking I’m gonna act like these jackasses and fools that you describe. I’m trying to represent the thinking of Christians and the spirit of the thing, which is loving all people and God and not falling into all the usual prevalent sins.

Indeed you are not. I have close friends that are Mormon, Muslim, and Christian who know I think their religious belief are unfounded, just as they think I’m not seeing the truth, but we’re willing to let each other be wrong because it’s the only way can all be left to be right.

***

Photo credit: geralt (2-16-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Atheism & Agnosticism

amiable discussion

Atheism

atheism & Christianity

atheist-Christian discussion

atheists

charity

Christian-atheist discussion

ecumenical discussion

2020-05-16T13:01:45-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Dialogues on “Contradictions” w Bible-Bashing Atheists

Last updated on: May 16, 2020 at 1:01 pm By Dave Armstrong

This is a follow-up comment to my Reply to Atheist Ward Ricker Re “Biblical Contradictions” (5-15-20). He replied with a 5 1/2 page article. And now I counter-reply. Ward’s words will be in blue.

*****

I have just read your reply, and it convinces me that constructive dialogue between us will not be possible, for several reasons:

1) You doubt my good will, good faith, and sincerity (a charge I do not reciprocate): which qualities are absolutely essential to assume in an opponent if constructive dialogue is to occur. Failing these, it never ever is possible, as I know full well from long experience. I have never seen an exception to this dynamic. Examples:

Why would you twist the meaning around as you do? Your “suggestions” contradict the clear “words of god”. Why would you do so?

You are simply unwilling to accept what the Bible says . . .

One wonders if you are just trying to confuse.

2) You fundamentally dislike my writing style and/or methodology:

At the risk of offending, in going through your writings I have noted how convoluted your arguments tend to be. Indeed, I find it difficult to respond even to the few that I respond to here, because your arguments are rather convoluted, confusing and unclear. Your lack of clear, concise statements makes it difficult to write a response. It makes for a lot of work (and, indeed, I have other things to do with my life), so if you wonder why you have trouble getting people to respond to you, you might take that into consideration.

That’s your right, of course (it’s a free country), and such things are largely subjective (and because they are, many people believe exactly the opposite of what you think about my writing). “Different strokes for different folks” / “can’t please everyone,” etc. But it means that you and I will not be able to constructively dialogue, because (from where I sit), you don’t even comprehend (at least some) of my arguments in the first place, and because of that, fall back on a complaint that the problem must be on my end: that I am unacceptably and unfortunately muddled, confused and unclear. It also leads to straw men in such a scenario. You don’t get what I am saying and so wind up fighting straw men that are simply not what my argument was.

3) We have vastly different conceptions as to what dialogue itself is. You don’t want to go point-by-point, as I almost always do (socratic method). You’ll do it for a time, for carefully selected passages, but you ignore others. You selected passages from my Seidensticker series, but never showed a willingness to comprehensively deal with any particular one (which is what I am looking for).

This never works. In my opinion, true dialogue must take into account the opponents’ entire argument, and not pick-and-choose some stuff, while arbitrarily ignoring others. And you can always fall back on your opinion that my writing is frustratingly unclear (#2 above). That means there is no hope for us to constructively engage. I wish it were otherwise, but this is the only conclusion I can reasonably draw, based on your reply.

I lay out my conception of such a serious, philosophical-type discussion here: Good Discussion: Back-and-Forth Dialogue vs. “Mutual Monologue”.

Don’t feel too bad. Virtually no one of any persuasion ever does this, these days (and I endlessly bemoan that fact). But being the idealist and socratic that I am, I will keep seeking it (heaven help me).

4) It appears (as is often the case with atheists) that your past fundamentalism still profoundly affects your present attempts to interpret the Bible, due to relentless false premises, leading to (of course) false conclusions. Examples abound:

a) you clearly don’t understand the very different ancient Hebrew modes of thinking; particularly the “both/and” approach, which is very difficult for modern sensibilities to grasp: with our excessive false dichotomies and “either/or” mentalities. As long as you don’t get this aspect, you’ll never understand many Bible passages, especially ones about God. And it causes you to assert many “contradictions” that in fact are not.

b) you don’t think through the notion of God being a judge. It’s not difficult to find many human analogies to judging and punishing: human judges passing sentences on criminals, the Allies “judging” and defeating the Nazis in World War II, our superiority over animals; parents’ chastising and punishing of children (an analogy to God that the Bible itself makes), police exercising lethal force as the situation warrants. Failing this understanding leads you to conclude that God is engaged in evil, wicked acts of “violence” when He is justly judging. It’s like saying we were “evil” and “ruthless” and “bloodthirsty” when we wiped out the Nazis.

c) you don’t have the slightest clue about anthropomorphism and anthropopathism (I would guess that you probably never even heard the words till now). If you did, you would understand how language is very diversely used in Scripture, and often is non-literal and you would understand things like God “repenting.” This leads you to make inane observations like, “But that’s not what it says. It says that he repented . . . “ [my italics added] Of course, that’s what it “says.” That’s not at issue. The question is whether it is literal or metaphorical. This is what you don’t get.

There are many different genres in the Bible (consider, for example, Jesus’ parables and the proverbs and books like Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon). But because you are a former fundamentalist (most atheists who play the “Bible contradiction” game were), you always have to interpret literally (or so it sure seems so far). That was wrong and dumb and hermeneutically clueless when you were a Christian, and it remains so now. It caused you to arrive at false conclusions then, and it does now. This is an elementary component of biblical interpretation.

d) you object to consulting the original languages: which is essentially necessary in all proper exegesis of the Bible.

e) your wooden hyper-literalism is again sadly evident in how you treat the question of OT references to “many gods”. Clearly the OT teaches that these are not real “gods.” Only God (YHWH) is real. But you can’t see that, out of your (as usual) inapplicable literalism of interpretation. How I explain this makes perfect logical and rational sense. But you can’t see it, because your false premise won’t allow you to. Seidensticker and Madison and Loftus and other Bible-bashing atheists make these same mistakes. It’s nothing unique to you.

But this shows that I wouldn’t have any more success in achieving true dialogue with you than I have with them. You’re willing to talk (good and admirable itself), but because of these factors it’ll never work, and my patience would last no more than a day. All good dialogue can only proceed if there are some premises held in common.

f) you are equally out to sea in examining the traits of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence; some passages concerning these are also non-literal, and you (predictably by now) think they are literal. So you come to the wrong conclusion. It’s because you have very little inkling of how ancient Hebrew thought about things. They weren’t stupid; just very different from us, as we would expect. Our type of thinking (linear / either/or rationalism and syllogistic logic) comes from the ancient Greeks. We have to realize that this is a framework and understand that the Hebrew framework is a different one. We can’t be like a fish in a tank, not knowing that it is.

5) Your conclusion sums up your problem in approaching a Christian apologist like myself, seeking dialogue:

Why would you want to defend a book in the first place that teaches acceptance of murder, slavery, genocide, rape, racism and many of the other evils that still plague our planet today?

Quite obviously (as seen in my replies to Seidensticker), I don’t think it condones any of these things. Your proper task is not to ask asinine, insulting “when did you stop beating your wife?” types of questions, but rather, to try to understand why I come to the opposite conclusion of yours. I’m perfectly sincere and operating in good faith just as I believe you are. In a constructive, mutually respectful dialogue, you would never frame your question in these terms, but rather, would say something like:

“Why is it that you think that the Bible doesn’t advocate murder, slavery, genocide, rape, racism and many other evils, as it seems to in my reading (at least prima facie)? I want to understand your reasoning — borne of your 39 years of apologetics research and writing –, so I can best be in a position to rationally come to the correct conclusion about biblical teaching.”

6) All of this said, I may still take on several of your proposed contradictions, just so I can have opportunity to show how very wrong atheist contentions are (which is one thing Christian apologists do). But dialogue of the sort I seek is clearly impossible between us.

***

“Three Days and Nights” in the Tomb: Contradiction? [10-31-06]

12 Disciples of Jesus: Alleged Contradictions Debunked [12-9-06]

Death of Judas: Alleged Bible Contradictions Debunked (vs. Dave Van Allen and Dr. Jim Arvo) [9-27-07]

Alleged Bible “Contradictions” & “Difficulties”: Master List of Christian Internet Resources for Apologists (Links) [7-19-10]

Reply to Atheists: Defining a [Biblical] “Contradiction” [1-7-11]

Dialogue w Atheist: Joseph of Arimathea “Contradictions” (??) (Lousy Atheist Exegesis Example #5672) [1-7-11]

Dialogue w Atheist on Post-Resurrection “Contradictions” [1-26-11]

The Census, Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem, & History: Reply to Atheist John W. Loftus’ Irrational Criticisms of the Biblical Accounts [2-3-11]

“Butcher & Hog”: On Relentless Biblical Skepticism [9-21-15]

Review of The Book of Non-Contradiction (Phillip Campbell) [5-9-17]
*

Genesis Contradictory (?) Creation Accounts & Hebrew Time: + Refutation of a Clueless Atheist “Biblical Contradiction” [5-11-17]

*
Alleged “Bible Contradictions”: Most Are Actually Not So [2002 and 6-7-17]
*

Dialogue with an Atheist on Bible Difficulties, Plausibility Structures, & Deconversion [6-10-17]

Why We Should Fully Expect Many “Bible Difficulties” [7-17-17]
*

Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Swine, & Atheist Skeptics (vs. Jonathan MS Pearce) [7-25-17]

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions” (with Jimmy Akin) [7-25-17]

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Bethlehem & Nazareth “Contradictions” (Including Extensive Exegetical Analysis of Micah 5:2) [7-28-17]

Richard Dawkins’ “Bible Whoppers” Are the “Delusion” [5-25-18]

Biblical Interpretation & Clarity: Dialogue w an Atheist [5-26-18]

Atheist vs. Christian Ignorance of the Bible: A Brief Observation [7-5-18]

Atheist Botched Biblical Exegesis: Example #4,974 [7-23-17; expanded on 7-3-18]

Atheist Inventions of Many Bogus “Bible Contradictions” [National Catholic Register, 9-4-18]
*

Seidensticker Folly #15: Jesus’ Ascension: One or 40 Days? [9-10-18]
*

Seidensticker Folly #18: Resurrection “Contradictions”? [9-17-18]
*

Bible “Contradictions” & Plausibility (Dialogue w Atheist) [12-17-18]
*

Seidensticker Folly #32: Sophistically Redefining “Contradiction” [4-20-19]

Dialogue w Atheist on Biblical Exegesis & Christian Ignorance [5-26-19]

Bible “Difficulties” Are No Disproof of Biblical Inspiration [National Catholic Register, 6-29-19]

Seidensticker Folly #33: Clueless Re Biblical Anthropopathism [7-24-19]

Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #1: Hating One’s Family? [8-1-19]

Seidensticker Folly #37: “What is a Contradiction?” 0101 [4-15-20]

***

Photo credit: George Redgrave (11-16-14) [Flickr / CC BY-ND 2.0 license]

***

Atheism & Agnosticism

Bible and Tradition

anti-theism

Atheism

atheist biblical exegesis

atheists & the Bible

atheists & theology

Bible "contradictions"

Bible "difficulties"

Bible Only

Bible-bashing atheists

2026-06-05T23:56:30-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Reply to Atheist Ward Ricker Re “Biblical Contradictions”

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:56 pm By Dave Armstrong

Ward Ricker is (as so often) a self-described former “fundamentalist” who likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He describes his current belief as follows:

Some people would refer to me as an “atheist”, which is perhaps accurate, since I don’t believe in god, but I don’t particularly like the word “atheist”, since it only tells you what I don’t believe, i.e,, that I don’t believe in god or gods. It doesn’t tell you what I do believe in. “Scientist” tells you what I do believe in.

He read my article for National Catholic Register, “Atheist Inventions of Many Bogus ‘Bible Contradictions’ “ (9-4-18) and wrote to NCR the following letter. This article is my response. I informed him personally of it. First, here is his letter:

I just came across the Sept. 4, 2018, article, Atheist Inventions of Many Bogus “Bible Contradictions”, by Dave Armstrong. It is an interesting article, in that it claims that “atheists” make unsubstantiated claims about the Bible contradicting itself, yet the article doesn’t list a single one of these unsubstantiated contradictions. Instead, it goes into a ridiculous story about some people going to a Dairy Queen, trying to suggest that this represents the type of arguments that “atheists” use, without giving any example of an “atheist” argument that follows that same reasoning.

In fact, Mr. Armstrong is correct; many Bible critics (“atheists” or otherwise) will use some pretty ridiculous arguments (such as saying that the Bible says Jonah was swallowed by a whale in one place and by a fish in another). I’m surprised that he didn’t choose to list any. But the fact that some people get carried away and make false claims doesn’t invalidate the claims that are correct. And the fact is that there are a large number of clear contradictions in the so-called “inerrant word of god”. I have screened out those bogus claims that some critics make and have published my own book (yes, another of those lists that Mr. Armstrong decries) of contradictions that I and others have found in the Bible that are clearly contradictions. Would Mr. Armstrong or any of you like to challenge any of the over 400 contradictions that I list in one of the chapters of my book, “Unholy Bible,” that you can download for free at www.WardsBooks.com? (I hope you will also read the other chapters in the book about the vile, evil and abhorrent book that is called the “Holy Bible”.)

One must always determine the purpose and scope of any particular article, before one sets out to critique it. I always try to be very precise and accurately descriptive in titles for my articles. It’s one of the first things any good writer must understand (book and article titles, chapter titles, etc.). We only have 1000 words per article at NCR. I think it’s a nice length, that usually comes out to about 3 1/2 single-spaced pages in a book with a standard font size. People have short attention spans nowadays.

I was specifically going after “bogus ‘contradictions'”: that is, alleged logical contradictions that actually aren’t so, by the laws of contradiction in the field of logic (I took a logic class in college, by the way, along with several other philosophy courses). The Dairy Queen story was, precisely, an analogical example of how atheists and others who don’t properly think through the nature of a literal logical contradiction, make the claim, when in fact, there is no contradiction present at all.

Mr. Ricker may think that is “ridiculous.” I think it is necessary in order to illustrate the common errors in identifying the presence of “contradictions” that I was critiquing. The main gist of my article was to explain the nature of a logical contradiction, as opposed to refuting particular proposed examples of same in the Bible by atheists.

Sure, it would have been nice to include some actual “atheist vs. the Bible” examples, but there simply wasn’t space to do so, after I made what was my primary point in the article: illustrating how many alleged “contradictions” actually aren’t at all. This is a different issue from other examples which appear (at least prima facie) to be actual (honestly alleged) contradictions, that have to be grappled with by the defender of an inspired Bible.

Oftentimes, that comes down to different genres in the Bible, various meanings of particular words or ideas in widely divergent contexts, translation matters, and interpretational particulars: often having to do with the very foreign (to our modern western sensibilities) ancient Hebrew culture and modes of thinking. I know these things firsthand, because I myself have offered what I think are good resolutions or “solutions” to hundreds of proposed biblical “contradictions.”

Other times, it could simply be a matter of manuscript errors that crept in through the years. Of course, that sort of error is only in transmission, and is not part of the original text, so it wouldn’t cast doubt on the non-contradictory nature of the original transcripts of the Bible (if indeed we can plausibly speculate that it was merely an innocent copyist’s error).

I do have an article on my blog of what Mr. Ricker suggests: where I provide several actual examples from atheists: Review of The Book of Non-Contradiction (Phillip Campbell) [5-9-17]. It was 1666 words long.

I have dealt with literally hundreds of supposed biblical “contradictions” (I’ve been engaged in apologetics writing for 39 years). One can see how active I have been in dialoguing with atheists, on my web page devoted to them. On the issue of “Bible contradictions” in particular, I devote a very long section at the end of my Bible and Tradition web page. Mr. Ricker offered a challenge for me or anyone to deal with his “list” of what he thinks are logical biblical difficulties. I like that. It shows that he is confident of his position. I admire that in people, even if I disagree with what they defend or stand for.

I thought that Bob Seidensticker, webmaster of Cross Examined: a major atheist blog with tons and tons of feedback in the comboxes, also possessed this confidence in his own positions, since he directly challenged me on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” This was after Bob had virtually begged and pleaded with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. He commented to someone else on 6-22-17: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.”

Again, Bob mocked some Christian in his combox on 10-27-18: “You can’t explain it to us, you can’t defend it, you can’t even defend it to yourself. Defend your position or shut up about it. It’s clear you have nothing.” And again on the same day: “If you can’t answer the question, man up and say so.” And on 10-26-18: “you refuse to defend it, after being asked over and over again.” And again: “You’re the one playing games, equivocating, and being unable to answer the challenges.”

I’m not one to decline a challenge, if I think anything constructive can be accomplished by responding to it, so I took Bob up on his offer, and to date, have written literally 40 refutations of his anti-biblical claims and argumentation. So far, not one peep of a response has been heard from him to any of them. And it sure looks like that will be the case indefinitely. His bark is infinitely worse than his bite. All talk and no action . . .

He’s not the only atheist online who waxes so confidently, but then flees for the hills at the slightest whiff of a refutation of ostensibly self-assured claims. Atheist and former Methodist minister Dr. David Madison writes for the very popular Debunking Christianity site, run by atheist John “you are an idiot!” Loftus, infamous for his literally volcanic explosions and implosions when he is forthrightly challenged (especially when such challenges come from me). I have refuted Dr. Madison’s skeptical, Bible-bashing claims 42 times as of this writing. He hasn’t been heard back from as of yet, either, and made his cramped, insulated mentality quite clear in a comment from 9-6-19:

[T]he burden of the apologist has become heavy indeed, and some don’t handle the anguish well. They vent and rage at critics, like toddlers throwing tantrums when a threadbare security blanket gets tossed out. We can smell their panic. Engaging with the ranters serves no purpose—any more than it does to engage with Flat-Earthers, Chemtrail conspiracy theorists, and those who argue that the moon landings were faked. . . . I prefer to engage with NON-obsessive-compulsive-hysterical Christians, those who have spotted rubbish in the Bible, and might already have one foot out the door.

By the time he had written this rationalization of his intellectual cowardice, I had already refuted his particular arguments 35 times. I’ve also done the same with John Loftus, more than ten times. You guessed it: not one word in counter-reply. I had critiqued his book, Why I Became an Atheist: precisely because at one time (in December 2006) he directly challenged me to do so:

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

Eventually, after I became bored and was looking for something to do, I did just that, only to get stony silence and crickets back. This is most unimpressive. It’s now over 100 direct refutations of atheist anti-biblical arguments (there are others, too, besides these three cowards), with no replies whatsoever back from those same atheists: two of whom directly challenged me to do this very thing.

This is pretty much my universal experience with atheists. Mr. Ricker finds the same apathy and/or cowardice or non-interest among Christians. We have that in common. I don’t like to repeat work that I’ve already done, so I would propose the following to him: take on one or more of these 92 papers in which I refuted Dr. Madison, Mr Seidensticker, and Mr. Loftus (since they won’t).

Prove to my Christian readers that atheists are capable of actually defending their positions under scrutiny: not just asserting them and fleeing to the hills in terror at the first hint or sign of a vigorous Christian counter-reply. They won’t respond; maybe Mr. Ricker, having devoted a book to such things, will. In any event, I have put my money where my mouth is, and I am able and willing to 1) defend my general Christian and particular Catholic beliefs, and 2) respond to atheist challenges to same.

***

Photo credit: Clare Black (9-2-09) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***

Atheism & Agnosticism

Bible and Tradition

anti-theism

Atheism

atheist biblical exegesis

atheists & the Bible

atheists & theology

Bible "contradictions"

2020-04-12T12:03:15-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Jesus’ Resurrection: Scholarly Defenses of its Historicity

Last updated on: April 12, 2020 at 12:03 pm By Dave Armstrong

Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History? (Edwin M. Yamauchi, 1974)

Was the Tomb Really Empty? (Robert H. Stein, 1977)

The Shroud of Turin and its Significance for Biblical Studies (Gary R. Habermas, 1981)

The Shroud of Turin: A Rejoinder to Basinger and Basinger (Gary R. Habermas, 1982)

Knowing that Jesus’ Resurrection Occurred: A Response to Stephen Davis (Gary R. Habermas, 1985)

Review of William Lane Craig’s Book, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (Gary R. Habermas, 1988)

Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions (Gary R. Habermas, 1989)

Jesus’ Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism (+ Part II) (Gary. R. Habermas, 1989 and 1990)

The Recent Evangelical Debate on the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus: A Review Article (Gary Habermas, 1990)

In Defense of the Resurrection (Norman L. Geisler, 1991)

The Disciples’ Inspection of the Empty Tomb (William Lane Craig, 1992)

Evidence for the Resurrection (Josh McDowell, 1992)

Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ (Peter Kreeft, 1994)

Refuting the Myth Theory: 6 Reasons Why the Resurrection Accounts are True (Peter Kreeft, 1994)

The F-E-A-T That Demonstrates the Fact of Resurrection (Hank Hanegraaff, 1998)

The Truth-And the Comfort-of the Resurrection (Gary R. Habermas, 2000)

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (William Lane Craig vs. Marcus Borg, 2001)

Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories (Gary R. Habermas, 2001)

The Late 20th-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection (Gary R. Habermas, 2001)

Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying? (Gary R. Habermas, 2005)

Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue (Gary R. Habermas, 2006)

Debate: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? (William Lane Craig vs. Bart Ehrman, March 2006)

Making the Case for the Resurrection at 36,000 Feet (Michael Licona, 2006)

Collapsing the House of Cards Over the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” (Paul L. Maier, 2007)

The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Response to the Discovery-Channel Documentary Directed by James Cameron (Gary R. Habermas, 2007)

Was Jesus Bodily Raised from the Dead? (William Lane Craig vs. James Crossley, 2007)

Resurrection of Jesus (William Lane Craig, 2007 [podcast] )

Dale Allison on the Resurrection of Jesus (William Lane Craig, 2007)

“Dale Allisons’s Resurrection Skepticism: A Critique” A Review of Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and its Interpreters.” (Gary R. Habermas, 2008)

Old Testament Prophecies of Jesus’ Resurrection (William Lane Craig, 2008)

Easter: Part 2 (William Lane Craig, 2008)

‘Noli Me Tangere’: Why John Meier Won’t Touch The Risen Lord (William Lane Craig, 2009)

Hoax or History: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (William Lane Craig vs. Shabir Ally, 2009)

The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (Lydia & Timothy McGrew, 2009)

The Witness of the Pre-Pauline Tradition to the Empty Tomb (William Lane Craig, 2010)

Resurrected as Messiah: The Risen Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King (Gavin Ortlund, 2011)

Evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection (William Lane Craig, 2011 [+ video] )

The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity (Gary R. Habermas, 2012)

Resurrection (Gary Habermas, from Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, 2012)

Shroud of Turin (Gary Habermas, from Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, 2012)

The Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus (Richard Swinburne, 2012)

How Do We Know Jesus Was Raised From the Dead? (William Lane Craig, 2013 [+ video] )

Eliminating the Impossible: Can a Scientist believe the Resurrection? (John Lennox, 2014)

The Resurrection of Jesus: A Clinical Review of Psychiatric Hypotheses for the Biblical Story of Easter (Joseph W. Bergeron & Gary Habermas, 2015)

A Recent Attempt to Disprove the Resurrection of Jesus and Supernatural Beliefs (Gary Habermas, 2018)

Two Questions on the Origin of the Disciples’ Belief in Jesus’ Resurrection (William Lane Craig, 2018)

Unknown Date:

The Resurrection of Jesus: a Clinical Review of Psychiatric Hypotheses for the Biblical Story of Easter (Joseph W. Bergeron, M.D. & Gary R. Habermas)

Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann’s Hallucination Hypothesis (William Lane Craig)

The Resurrection of Jesus (William Lane Craig)

Jesus’ Resurrection (William Lane Craig)

The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus (William Lane Craig)

The Guard at the Tomb (William Lane Craig)

The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (William Lane Craig)

Forum on the Resurrection (William Lane Craig)

Reply to Evan Fales: On the Empty Tomb of Jesus (William Lane Craig)

Resurrection (Veritas Forum interviews William Lane Craig) [+ video] )

From Easter to Valentinus and the Apostles’ Creed Once More: A Critical Examination of James Robinson’s Proposed Resurrection Appearance Trajectories (William Lane Craig)

***

Jesus’ “Three Days & Nights” in the Tomb: Contradiction? [10-31-06]

Dialogue w Atheist on Post-Resurrection “Contradictions” [1-26-11]

God: Historical Arguments (Copious Resources) [11-9-15]

Did Jesus Descend to Hell, Sheol, or Paradise After His Death? [National Catholic Register, 4-17-17]

Seidensticker Folly #15: Jesus’ Ascension: One or 40 Days? [9-10-18]

Seidensticker Folly #18: Resurrection “Contradictions”? [9-17-18]

Seidensticker Folly #31: Jesus’ Burial Spices Contradiction? [4-20-19]

***

Photo credit: Christ’s Appearance to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection (1835), by Alexander Ivanov (1806-1858) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Atheism & Agnosticism

Bible and Tradition

Philosophy & Science

Trinitarianism & Christology

archaeology & the resurrection

biblical archaeology

Christian apologetics

empty tomb

evidence for the resurrection

Gary R. Habermas

historical arguments for Christianity

historicity of Jesus

historicity of the resurrection

historiography & the resurrection

history & the resurrection

Jesus Christ

Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus' resurrecrtion

post-Resurrection appearances

prophecy

Resurrection of Jesus

2026-06-05T23:56:11-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The Bible on Germs, Sanitation, & Infectious Diseases

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:56 pm By Dave Armstrong

[extracted from Vs. Atheist David Madison #37: Bible, Science, & Germs]

*****

Hippocrates, the pagan Greek “father of medicine” didn’t understand the causes of contagious disease. Nor did medical science until the 19th century. But the hygienic principles that would have prevented the spread of such diseases were in the Bible: in the Laws of Moses.

St. Augustine in the 5th century and St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, both rejected astrology long before modern science, while even the most prominent modern scientists in the 16th-17th centuries, such as Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler firmly believed in it.

I could go on and on, but just a few examples suffice . . .

And of course, modern science (virtually the atheist’s religion: “scientism”), for all its admirable qualities and glories (I love science!) is not without much embarrassing error and foolishness, and skeletons in its own closet: like belief in the 41-year successful hoax of “Piltdown Man”. This is true even up to very recent times, as I have detailed for atheists’ convenience.

Here, then, is my reply to charges of alleged ignorance of God and the Bible regarding germs and their devastating effects:

The Bible Ask site has an article, “Did the Bible teach the germs theory?” (5-30-16):

The Bible writers did not write a medical textbook. However, there are numerous rules for sanitation, quarantine, and other medical procedures (found in the first 5 book of the OT) . . . Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818 –1865), who was a Hungarian physician, . . . proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 . . . He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. Despite various publications of his successful results, Semmelweis’s suggestions were not accepted by the medical community of his time.

Why was Semmelweis research rejected? Because germs were virtually a foreign concept for the Europeans in the middle-19th-century. . . .

Had the medical community paid attention to God’s instructions that were given 3000 years before, many lives would have been saved. The Lord gave the Israelites hygienic principles against the contamination of germs and taught the necessity to quarantine the sick (Numbers 19:11-12). And the book of Leviticus lists a host of diseases and ways where a person would come in contact with germs (Leviticus 13:46).

Germs were no new discovery in 1847. And for this fact, Roderick McGrew testified in the Encyclopedia of Medical History: “The idea of contagion was foreign to the classic medical tradition and found no place in the voluminous Hippocratic writings. The Old Testament, however, is a rich source for contagionist sentiment, especially in regard to leprosy and venereal disease” (1985, pp. 77-78).

Some other interesting facts regarding the Bible and germ theory:

The Bible contained instructions for the Israelites to wash their bodies and clothes in running water if they had a discharge, came in contact with someone else’s discharge, or had touched a dead body. They were also instructed about objects that had come into contact with dead things, and about purifying items with an unknown history with either fire or running water. They were also taught to bury human waste outside the camp, and to burn animal waste (Num 19:3-22; Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33; Deut 23:12).

2. Leviticus 13 and 14 mention leprosy on walls and on garments. Leprosy is a bacterial disease, and can survive for three weeks or longer apart from the human body. Thus, God commanded that the garments of leprosy victims should be burned (Lev 13:52).

3. It was not until 1873 that leprosy was shown to be an infectious disease rather than hereditary. Of course, the laws of Moses already were aware of that (Lev 13, 14, 22; Num 19:20). It contains instructions about quarantine and about quarantined persons needing to thoroughly shave and wash. Priests who cared for them also were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly. The Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the 19th century, when medical advances discovered the biblical medical principles and practices.

4. Hippocrates, the “father of medicine” (born 460 BC), thought “bad air” from swampy areas was the cause of disease.

The entry on “Health” in Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology reveals that ordinary medicinal remedies were widely practiced in Bible times. There wasn’t solely a belief that sin or demons caused all disease. There was also a natural cause-and-effect understanding:

Ordinary means of healing were of most diverse kinds. Balm ( Gen 37:25 ) is thought to have been an aromatic resin (or juice) with healing properties; oil was the universal emollient ( Isa 1:6 ), and was sometimes used for wounds with cleansing wine ( Luke 10:34 ). Isaiah recommended a fig poultice for a boil ( 38:21 ); healing springs and saliva were thought effectual ( Mark 8:23 ; John 5 ; 9:6-7 ). Medicine is mentioned ( Prov 17:22 ) and defended as “sensible” ( Sirach 38:4). Wine mixed with myrrh was considered sedative ( Mark 15:23 ); mint, dill, and cummin assisted digestion ( Matt 23:23 ); other herbs were recommended for particular disorders. Most food rules had both ritual and dietary purposes, while raisins, pomegranates, milk, and honey were believed to assist restoration. . . .

Luke’s constant care of Paul reminds us that nonmiraculous means of healing were not neglected in that apostolic circle. Wine is recommended for Timothy’s weak stomach, eye-salve for the Thyatiran church’s blindness (metaphorical, but significant).

Doctors today often note how the patient’s disposition and attitude has a strong effect on his health or recovery. The mind definitely influences the body. Solomon understood this in several of his Proverbs: written around 950 BC (Prov 14:30; 15:30; 16:24; 17:22).

Also, since Jesus observed Mosaic Law, including ritual washings, etc., He tacitly accepted (by His example of following it) the aspects of it that anticipated and “understood” germ theory. The knowledge was already in existence.

***

Dialogue w Atheist on Christianity & the Scientific Method [7-19-01]

Dialogue on “Natural Evil” (Diseases, Hurricanes, Drought, etc.) [2-15-04]

Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism (vs. Kevin Rice) [5-25-04; many defunct links removed and new ones added: 5-10-17]

Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? (vs. Ed Babinski) [9-17-06]

Atheist Myths: “Christianity vs. Science & Reason” (vs. “drunkentune”) [1-3-07]

Thoughts on Divine Healing [8-3-12]

Simultaneously Dumb & Smart Christians, Atheists, & Scientists [10-9-15]

Does God Ever Judge People by Sending Disease? [10-30-17]

Dialogue w Agnostic on Proof for Miracles (Lourdes) [9-9-18]

Seidensticker Folly #8: Physics Has Disproven Souls? [8-16-18]

Seidensticker Folly #14: Something Rather Than Nothing [9-3-18]

Seidensticker Folly #21: Atheist “Bible Science” Absurdities [9-25-18]

Seidensticker Folly #23: Atheist “Bible Science” Inanities, Pt. 2 [10-2-18]

Miracles, Materialism, & Premises: Dialogue w Atheist [2-20-19]

Madison vs. Jesus #10: Universal Answered Prayer & Healing? [8-7-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #7: Christian Influence on Science [9-9-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #9: Bible Espouses Mythical Animals? [9-10-19]

Seidensticker Folly #36: Disease, Jesus, Paul, Miracles, & Demons [1-13-20]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!

See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.

***

Photo credit: Pool of Bethesda – model in the Israel Museum; taken by deror avi (8-18-06) [Wikimedia Commons / The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted]

***

Bible & infectious diseases

Bible & leprosy

Bible & quarantine

Bible & sanitary conditions

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was sold into slavery by his brothers?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Dan Benjamin Judah Joseph

Books by This Author Books by Dave Armstrong

See All Titles »

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic