|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 26, 2012 15:21:41 GMT
I disagree. Looking at the comments on Carrier's posts - and on other blogs like Jerry Coyne's - the audience to the debate appear to still be on board with Carrier. A lot of the other contributors to free-thought blogs all seem to be tacitly backing him. I think that if he sticks up any kind of response which clouds the issues and comes back with a few more criticisms then he will have 'won'. Bart Ehrman has already said he won't reply so that gives his opponent a free hand so to speak. I think we all know that the criticisms raised by Carrier are trivial - but mud sticks. He's thrown out a lot of nasty comments about Ehrman's book being incompetent and unreliable and that will all be music to the ears of people who have a bias in favour of non-historicity (which is a surprising proportion of the Dawkinsia) Sure the response by Ehrman was good - but I think most people won't bother to read it. I agree. Reading Coyne's blog it's astonishing to see how many of them there are ignorant of basic principles of historiography. They express complete disbelief that anyone can differentiate between truth and fiction in ancient historical accounts, despite the fact that historians have been doing this reliably for around 100 years, and complete ignorance of the fact that criteria such as embarrassment are standard tools used in fields such as secular historiography well outside the field of Bible studies. They also want to compare evidence for Jesus with evidence for gods like Zeus, instead of comparing evidence for Jesus with evidence for other first century messianic claimants and itinerant rabbis in Second Temple Judaism. We're not dealing with rational minds here.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 26, 2012 15:28:26 GMT
I have now read Ehrman's latest to Carrier. It's superb, and shows just how vast the gulf is between a genuine professional and an enthusiastic amateur.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 26, 2012 15:34:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 26, 2012 15:51:57 GMT
Craig's takedown is brutally satisfying!
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Apr 26, 2012 16:28:06 GMT
As a corollary to the "egregious jargon" principle in James Hannam's article, I would suggest the "Henri Lebesgue is rolling in his grave" principle: Those who have no demonstrated aptitude in higher mathematics should not import probability theory when they have no real understanding of its underlying foundations and how it is properly applied. In other words, don't ride a motorcycle when you are suffering from vertigo. There is a reason why probability and its cousin statistics have a bad reputation and it usually relates to those who haven't a clue how to use it. Just a little venting by a former mathematics major.
|
|
joel
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 70
|
Post by joel on Apr 26, 2012 18:34:45 GMT
An amusing comment on Coyne's blog:
Anyway, with Myers and Coyne throwing their weight behind Carrier, I think mythicism is becoming pretty much the norm among enthusiastic internet atheists. Sometimes it's said that the internet opens people's minds and exposes them to different points of view. That can be true, but at least as often it creates echo chambers filled with people who feel exactly the same as you.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Apr 26, 2012 19:02:21 GMT
I predict Carrier is furiously typing up a 30 page reply to Ehrman. He strikes me as the type that needs the last word. In fact, his ridiculously long responses and reviews seem designed to overwhelm his opponents with shear volume just so he can claim the last word on something. If that is the case, I have to wonder if he has Ehrman and other true scholars at a disadvantage. The disadvantage being that of time. Does anyone know if Carrier has a job in the real world? If not, it would seem significant given that Carrier’s followers think Ehrman is supposed to respond to every little detail in their Master’s blizzard of words.
I’m surprised someone like Ehrman just doesn’t say to him, “If you think you have a case, submit it to the peer-reviewed literature and we can discuss it then.”
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 26, 2012 20:35:23 GMT
If that is the case, I have to wonder if he has Ehrman and other true scholars at a disadvantage. The disadvantage being that of time. Does anyone know if Carrier has a job in the real world? If not, it would seem significant given that Carrier’s followers think Ehrman is supposed to respond to every little detail in their Master’s blizzard of words. He doesn't have any on his most recent CV: www.richardcarrier.info/cv.pdfHe's a visiting lecturer for the CfI, which probably pays, but is likely only so often in a week and technically not "in the real world" but online. Ehrman is interviewed at ReligionDispatches: www.religiondispatches.org/books/atheologies/5890/inventing_jesus%3A_an_interview_with_bart_ehrman/
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 26, 2012 20:41:57 GMT
An amusing comment on Coyne's blog: Anyway, with Myers and Coyne throwing their weight behind Carrier, I think mythicism is becoming pretty much the norm among enthusiastic internet atheists. Sometimes it's said that the internet opens people's minds and exposes them to different points of view. That can be true, but at least as often it creates echo chambers filled with people who feel exactly the same as you. I wouldn't be too sure that Mythicism is as entrenched as that. There are plenty of atheists like me out there that recognise it as the nonsense it is, though they tend to be those with some historical training. It's not surprising that the science majors who fawn at the feet of Myers and Coyne lap up Mythicism - their grasp of history is stunted at high school level. A link to my Fitzgerald critique led me to this thread on the Centre for Inquiry forums. Mythers and Carrier fans have popped their heads over the parapet there, but have yet to put up much of a fight. Overall, the sane heads there were either unimpressed with Mythicism in the first place or have come to detect its clear biases and ad hoc kludges for what they are. And John Loftus, who is a pal of Carrier's, has been brave enough to annoy the Mythers by saying they really aren't helping the New Atheist cause. The ubiquitous "Snarling Steve" Carr and the inevitable VinnyJ have turned up in the comments to try to get him back to the agenda, but the fact that Loftus is still refusing to drink Carrier's kool aid gives me some hope that all atheists won't follow Carrier down the Myther rabbit hole.
|
|
joel
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 70
|
Post by joel on Apr 26, 2012 21:02:52 GMT
Well, I did overstate my case somewhat. Coyne and Myers are probably the two most prominent atheists online, though, and they are two of the most followed American ones (Harris and Dennett don't seem quite as popular nowadays). But of course mythers tend to be louder and more likely to (for example) dogpile the comment threads of news sites on religion articles. So perhaps the sample I've been reading is skewed.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Apr 26, 2012 21:07:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 26, 2012 21:31:29 GMT
But hopefully people coming to the argument fresh, without too many layers of accumulated bias, will be able to get something valuable from the debate. For what it's worth, I happened to be having a brief discussion with a former christian now agnostic, who commented that they have enjoyed reading Ehrman's books, and were now enjoying reading Carrier. I gave them some links to this Ehrman-Carrier tiff, and after reading it, they commented: "Carrier really comes off as a jerk. I wonder if he’s jealous of Ehrman? I thought Ehrman comes off as the adult in his reply."So that's the response of one person who was favourably disposed towards him.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Apr 26, 2012 23:16:31 GMT
Ever since Ehrman posted his lengthy reply, Jerry Coyne has suddenly lost interest in the topic. Shame on him.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Apr 26, 2012 23:39:59 GMT
That reply looked like another smack down of Carrier to me. I've always found Paul's description of preaching "Christ crucified" as a "stumbling block for the Jews" as more than sufficient justification for believing Jesus was crucified and the Jews did not expect their Messiah to be crucified. Anyone know how Carrier explains that away?
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 27, 2012 0:07:27 GMT
Hmmm - a certain Stephen Law seems to have turned up....
|
|