I checked out the Richard Carrier vs. William Lane Craig debate. Boy, Richard Carrier sucked! He just kept referring to his book that he had displayed on the podium. Come on man!
I think that Carrier is really just interested in selling his books! And it looks like some people are going to buy them. That's fine. But I think that Carrier is really not on the level, and very unprofessional. I just can't take the man seriously now.
Craig spanked him good.
Anyway, I definitely agree that atheists are just as gullible and irrational as theists.
D
· 9 months ago
Also, Carrier admits his defeat over on his blog. He's obviously trying to do some "damage control." And then he makes another sales pitch for a "eureka" idea that he's going to put in his new book. This guy is a joke!
anselm
· 9 months ago
D,
If you are a Christian, I would ask that you be more charitable in your response to Carrier. I read his account on this blog, and he is very honest and candid in his self-evaluation, which I admire. Also, Dr. Craig's character shone through in the way he treated Carrier after the debate. As Carrier put it:
"I apologized to Craig the next morning. He was quite alright with it. In fact, we got along well. Having lunch with him the day before, then driving to the airport with him for more than an hour the day after, I found Dr. Craig quite friendly and understanding. I can say I understand him better now than I did before."
Dr. Craig is an excellent example of how philosophical rigor can be combined with Christian kindness--as Craig says in his book, our agape love toward others is "the ultimate apologetic."
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
One reason Carrier kept referring to his books is that the debate over the resurrection is a complicated one, involving thousands of pieces of evidence, which one cannot possibly summarize in a 2-hour debate.
I think we all know Carrier lost, and I was glad to see Carrier's honest post on his blog. Craig is one of the best debaters on any subject in the entire world, and I don't know of an atheist who I think could soundly beat him.
Matt M
· 9 months ago
Anyone who's spent more than a few minutes reading atheist blogs and forums knows that dogma and irrationality are - sadly - just as rife as in most other groups.
Keith in Modesto
· 9 months ago
I had wanted to attend that talk in Ventura, but couldn't get the time off from work I needed for traveling. Could you give a summary of what Carrier actually said?
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Unfortunately, I threw away my outline from the talk. The talk was recorded and a copy given to Carrier; hopefully he'll post it soon.
You know a lot of people haven't looked into Jesus mythicism all that much, so they probably just default to the consensus view. That's what I did when I initially became a skeptic. So it's not as if their historicism was necessarily based on a rigorous examination of the facts. So when they are exposed to facts that they were previously unaware of, this could cause them to quickly flip. If the basis for historicism was flimsy, and now they have a rudimentary grounding for mythicism, why not admit that you find mythicism more persuasive at the moment?
This isn't to discourage people from looking into the historical case, and of course you must be open to admitting your initial impressions after the Carrier talk were wrong. But it's OK to say that based upon what you now know at the moment (not having looked into it too much, but simply listened to some arguments just presented) you find yourself more persuaded of the mythicist case, and if you had to place a bet you'd bet on mythicism?
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Sure, that'd be fine. But I'd rather see people not express an opinion at all until they've looked into it at least a little. There's too much ignorant opinion clouding things up out there as it is.
Thanks for an honest post, mate. I particularly liked what you said in the comments:
"But I'd rather see people not express an opinion at all until they've looked into it at least a little. There's too much ignorant opinion clouding things up out there as it is."
This is especially true on the net!
GregK
· 9 months ago
Interesting comments here. I like the attempt to be honest and admit shortcomings. Too often "debates" are just an opportunity to say "yeah for our guy."
Jack
· 9 months ago
I agree with your general point, atheists can definitely act irrationally. But as to the specific point of the lecture, I think you're wrong. Absent a reason to think otherwise people have no need to doubt the word of credentialed experts. Non-historians just aren't in a place where they can competently challenge those in the field on the grounds of things like methodology and academic consensus. Academics, when speaking to those outside their field, have an obligation to note disagreements among experts. And certainly if there are historians who disagree with the conclusions of another historian they should disagree publicly- and if the issue of the disagreement is of general interest then they should disagree in front of non-experts.
But in no way is the onus on the non-expert to have anything but an open mind. Have you investigated every historical fact you believe? Have you run your own experiments to demonstrate the laws of physics, biology and chemistry? Of course not, you take as true the word of the experts who tell you these historical facts and natural laws because you have good reason to trust the scientific and academic system which lead to such claims being made. Part of this trust is that the work of experts is assumed to be in good faith and that liars and charlatans are eventually found out.
Now I gather you're particularly interested in this question, so if you want to investigate Carrier's sources, more power to you. But I can't imagine why a bunch of atheists, for whom Jesus's existence isn't particularly important anyway, should be expected to repeat Carrier's work for themselves just so they can share his opinion. Now, I'm sure if you asked the audience about their degree of certainty regarding Jesus's historicity you would have found most to be less than certain. And there is definitely nothing wrong with THAT. But refusing to answer the question like you did isn't a sign of greater rationality. Your confidence in your belief might be very low but given that you've heard any amount of evidence at all (having HEARD of Jesus counts as evidence) you should be able to say which possibility is more likely.
Refusing to answer because you might be wrong isn't noble.
GregK
· 9 months ago
"people have no need to doubt the word of credentialed experts"? Really?
Can't you think of a topic you care about (maybe some environmental issue) where there's some nutty "credentialed expert" who's full of it? Would you want listeners to such an expert to take the advice you just gave?
Jack
· 9 months ago
I mean, if the issue something important thats going to inform your actions then its always worth checking how others in the field have responded to an expert. Usually, people with bs claims aren't actually experts- they have a degree in a vaguely related field from an unheard of university, etc.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Perhaps I should have left my own answer out of it - that wasn't the point.
Of course we cannot retrace all of Carrier's research. But I don't think it's wise to jump ship on the basis of a single talk - especially a talk that endorses a view that you know is held by a tiny minority of scholars who work on the subject! There is a responsible middle in there, I suppose, but it is not represented by those who changed their minds so quickly after Carrier's talk.
Jack
· 9 months ago
I didn't realize Carrier's view was only held by a tiny minority. I missed it in your post if its there- at the very least I should have thought about it... I feel like its sort of obvious now that I reflect on it. Of course if one knows this that changes things entirely and you're definitely right that judgment should be withheld before examining the other side. One of my favorite questions at these sorts of lectures is "what does the other side say in response?"
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Yup, that's a superb question to ask, Jack.
J. Nernoff III
· 9 months ago
I have a few suggestions here, without going into any historical detail. Wm Lane Craig is unique. He is virtually a robotic Christian apologetic machine with a meticulously prepared and smoothly developed presentation consisting of complex, tiered arguments, rapidly delivered in large numbers, with projected slides (points 1,2,3,1a,2a,3a...) which amount to "stacking" which make it impossible to refutation by the trapped atheist, who may be well informed on the subject, but who just hasn't got time to make his own case AND reply to each of Craig's. Moreover these debates are staged before overwhelmingly Christian audiences; no wonder Craig wins every time.
Dave Huntsman
· 9 months ago
J. Nernoff, I completely agree.
A year ago there was another debate with Craig on the exact same subject..... only then he picked on someone who came right back and made it clear Craig was not even fit to be on the stage. I'm talking about his debate with Bart Ehrman.
Since then Craig has debated people like Richard Carrier; a well studies, very serious - and, very young and experienced- historian. You'll note in watching last year's Craig-Ehrman debate that Craig used the exact same presentation, at least at first, that he dumped on Carrier.
All Comments
I think that Carrier is really just interested in selling his books! And it looks like some people are going to buy them. That's fine. But I think that Carrier is really not on the level, and very unprofessional. I just can't take the man seriously now.
Craig spanked him good.
Anyway, I definitely agree that atheists are just as gullible and irrational as theists.
If you are a Christian, I would ask that you be more charitable in your response to Carrier. I read his account on this blog, and he is very honest and candid in his self-evaluation, which I admire. Also, Dr. Craig's character shone through in the way he treated Carrier after the debate. As Carrier put it:
"I apologized to Craig the next morning. He was quite alright with it. In fact, we got along well. Having lunch with him the day before, then driving to the airport with him for more than an hour the day after, I found Dr. Craig quite friendly and understanding. I can say I understand him better now than I did before."
Dr. Craig is an excellent example of how philosophical rigor can be combined with Christian kindness--as Craig says in his book, our agape love toward others is "the ultimate apologetic."
I think we all know Carrier lost, and I was glad to see Carrier's honest post on his blog. Craig is one of the best debaters on any subject in the entire world, and I don't know of an atheist who I think could soundly beat him.
This isn't to discourage people from looking into the historical case, and of course you must be open to admitting your initial impressions after the Carrier talk were wrong. But it's OK to say that based upon what you now know at the moment (not having looked into it too much, but simply listened to some arguments just presented) you find yourself more persuaded of the mythicist case, and if you had to place a bet you'd bet on mythicism?
www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html
"But I'd rather see people not express an opinion at all until they've looked into it at least a little. There's too much ignorant opinion clouding things up out there as it is."
This is especially true on the net!
But in no way is the onus on the non-expert to have anything but an open mind. Have you investigated every historical fact you believe? Have you run your own experiments to demonstrate the laws of physics, biology and chemistry? Of course not, you take as true the word of the experts who tell you these historical facts and natural laws because you have good reason to trust the scientific and academic system which lead to such claims being made. Part of this trust is that the work of experts is assumed to be in good faith and that liars and charlatans are eventually found out.
Now I gather you're particularly interested in this question, so if you want to investigate Carrier's sources, more power to you. But I can't imagine why a bunch of atheists, for whom Jesus's existence isn't particularly important anyway, should be expected to repeat Carrier's work for themselves just so they can share his opinion. Now, I'm sure if you asked the audience about their degree of certainty regarding Jesus's historicity you would have found most to be less than certain. And there is definitely nothing wrong with THAT. But refusing to answer the question like you did isn't a sign of greater rationality. Your confidence in your belief might be very low but given that you've heard any amount of evidence at all (having HEARD of Jesus counts as evidence) you should be able to say which possibility is more likely.
Refusing to answer because you might be wrong isn't noble.
Can't you think of a topic you care about (maybe some environmental issue) where there's some nutty "credentialed expert" who's full of it? Would you want listeners to such an expert to take the advice you just gave?
Of course we cannot retrace all of Carrier's research. But I don't think it's wise to jump ship on the basis of a single talk - especially a talk that endorses a view that you know is held by a tiny minority of scholars who work on the subject! There is a responsible middle in there, I suppose, but it is not represented by those who changed their minds so quickly after Carrier's talk.
A year ago there was another debate with Craig on the exact same subject..... only then he picked on someone who came right back and made it clear Craig was not even fit to be on the stage. I'm talking about his debate with Bart Ehrman.
Since then Craig has debated people like Richard Carrier; a well studies, very serious - and, very young and experienced- historian. You'll note in watching last year's Craig-Ehrman debate that Craig used the exact same presentation, at least at first, that he dumped on Carrier.
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03/09/bart-eh...