I have, I think, written a review of
RIchard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus that not only refutes that
book, but turns the facts Carrier misfocuses on into premises towards a
very different (and for Carrier distasteful) conflusion: that the
gospels are actually pretty believable records. I own scholarly
credentials as relevant to the subject as Carrier's own. I
described ten concrete and major errors with his book, in concrete
detail. Most people who have read my review on Amazon have agreed it is
helpful -- 89 of 144 votes, so far. As a former debate partner, one
would think Richard Carrier would want to answer my critique of his
long-awaited epic argument.
But no, apparently he's too busy with other things, such as critiquing an Amazon review by one Ramos, to be distracted.
Carrier
did, however, "explain" why he was not planning to answer my
critique. Since he makes a number of new false accusations against me
in those comments (it being easier for him to attack the messenger
rather than deal with the message, apparently), let's consider his ad
hominem attacks here.
"He
is famous for writing absurdly long rants that barely contact logic or
reality. It is rarely worth the bother of fisking them. They tend to be
so awful as to be manifestly self-refuting."
Carrier errs
with his first three words -- "he is famous." No, I'm not. And no, I
don't "rant." I argue, using both logic and plenty of evidence, as can
be seen by quickly scanning any of my rebuttals of Carrier here at
Christ the Tao. Carrier is lying, perhaps because he cares more about
the effect of his words on his disciples, than he does about their
truth.
As for "awful" and "self-refuting," again, empty bombast without the trace of interest in reality.
Carrier
claimed that Christianity usually "spread by the sword." See my
article here "Did Christianity Spread by the Sword." (http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2014/12/did-christianity-spread-by-sword.htmI
analyzed a dozen separate historical periods, showing that that claim
was only true in small part for two of them. No rants, just detailed
historical facts. Carrier did not reply, unless this vacuous smear is
his reply. He really can't, because what I said was true (among others, I
cite a source Carrier himself cites for demographic information on the
early spread of Christianity)/ Plus he evidently doesn't know much
about Christian history.
Carrier claimed that
other ancient texts share "all the characteristics of the gospels," I
showed in detail that they do not. (See "HIstoricity Index and the
FIngerprints of Jesus" here.) The very texts Carrier frivolously cited
to make this case, share only a fraction of the most
historically-crucial traits that the gospels share in common. What
Carrier ends up doing, is showing just how hard it is to find anything
remotely like a parallel to the gospels.
Again,
I did not "rant," nor were my arguments in any sense "self-refuting" or
"awful." (If I am really that bad, why have my books been warmly
endorsed by some of the world's leading scholars in a variety of fields,
including at schools like Baylor, Duke, Marquette, Oxford, Penn State,
and Yale?) Carrier really does not seem to care whether the slurs he
spews bare any relationship to the truth, or not.
And he goes on:
"If
I find the time I’ll take a look, but based on past experience, it’s
probably a waste of time. He will just write something ten times longer
and insist you can't respond. Then you respond and he'll write
something a hundred times longer and insist you can't respond. And so
on, ad infinitum. WHy bother, when what he writes is so obvioiusly false
no one needs me to point it out in the first place?"
You're
so full of baloney, Richard. When you make a false claim like
"Christianity spread overwhelmingly by the sword," of course that lie
takes not ten times, not a hundred times, but a thousand times as much
cyberink to adequately evaluate. Yet during our debate, you CHALLENGED
those who listened to NOT be satisfied with our short contretemps, but
to SEEK OUT THE FACTS, to read the ancient texts we cite. Then you went
all over crowing about your alleged victory in those few minutes on
stage, falsely claiming that I had made that claim (I never did, and you
never admitted the falsity of your allegation). And now you have the
gall to complain that I took your challenge seriously, and analyzed your
historical claims in detail!
What a blowhard.
Of
course the shoe is on the other foot. Far from "obvioiusly false," my
claims are solidly based in scholarship and are sensible. I am careful
to proportion my claims to the evidence. That are no doubt among the
reasons my books get better reviews from serious scholars than Carrier's
tomes do.
Refuting the likes of Carrier,
Avalos, Loftus, Pagels, Dawkins, Dennett, Ehrman, Law, and so on is not
what I do for a living. It's a hobby: I have bigger fish to fry
elsewhere. My new book, How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test, is part of
that. But as C. S. Lewis put it, we need good philosophy, if for no
other reason because bad philosophy exists. Same with good history.
Plus it's fun to analyze these books -- it's faith-building to find
that's the best the skeptics seem able to put on the table.
"But
I welcome anyone else who wants to expose his lies, distortions, and
fallacies. Have at him there! I would count it a favor."
I do
not "lie," sir. As for the "favor," over 400 posts follow my review of
your failure of an opus magnus on Amazon -- many quite shrill, but not a
single one refuting me successfully at any point. A very few points
are weakly contested (most are not), but then give way to vitriol when
the author of those arguments apparently thinks to himself, "What Would
Richard Do?"
I
hope this post is sufficiently concise for Richard's satisfaction: a
mere three or four times the length of his original false claims,
instead of the usual 10 to 100 times. Better lie about me than about
Christian history, Richard -- those lies take less time to refute.
Carrier is a wingnut conspiracy theorist!
ReplyDeleteSee, I can make ad hom's too, Richard!
I can't resist the temptation to point out that his belief that Jesus, the human being did not exist, puts him in the far fringe according to experts. Historians who specialize in ancient history and even Bart Ehrman soundly reject the mythicist hypothesis.
I know you already know this, David. Good job providing solid, logical, and well-researched arguments. If he's got facts on his side, then he could effortlessly refute them. Apparently, it requires him to actually do some hard work. It's too far over his head.
Carrier at least is intellectually honest, Marshall is not. Marshall, how much more childish can you be to turn this into a popularity contest on Amazon? Ooooh, 89 of 144, I've got goosebumps. Is doesn't matter for me if Jesus existed or not: the horrible message is still the same, and you, Marshall, are guilty of perpetuating and defending delusions and lies.
ReplyDeleteCarrier is not intellectually honest. He spent years before receiving his doctorate arguing that his misunderstanding of Bayesian reasoning ("Bayes' theorem") is the only method for historical analysis. He used this powerful tool of mathematical nonsense in his two latest books and countless talks (Bayesian statistics isn't nonsense at all, but extremely powerful; it's Carrier's basic inability to understand simple probability theory). Did he use it in his dissertation, in which he uses the assumed historical existence of people we know only from a single inscription to make his point? No. Has he used it in any reputable journal? No (even in his paper on Josephus). He preaches a method he uses whenever it suits him. When he has to actually produce historical research, he trashes his own methodology because it is unusable garbage that relates to mathematical notions he clearly doesn't remotely understand.
ReplyDeleteScottie: Is calling me a "liar" really all you got? Because that itself is a lie. I make mistakes sometimes, but don't do lies. If that's the best you've got, you're not welcome here.
ReplyDeleteLegion: Good point. But I think BT is Carrier's new toy. It got him a book, didn't it? But he doesn't really use it much, even in his two recent historical Jesus books. One can entirely ignore BT, without much effecting you read them.
ReplyDelete