Neil Godfrey vs Richard Carrier

[wraggy]

You don't understand. We are quite happy to accept foreigners as Aussies if the grow up here. Of course if they have tantrums and throw phones at hotel staff like Rusty, then they are Kiwis.

[gakuseidon]

May 8, 2013 13:19:16 GMT gakuseidon said:

I seriously think there may be something wrong with Godfrey. It's not that he blasts those he disagrees with, it's how he does it. There is a touch of paranoia in it. For example, in the link in your OP, Godfrey writes:

"Because of their [Carrier's and Verenna's] careless oversights (accompanied, one must presume, with a lack of interest in seriously checking to see if their grounds for darkening Zindler’s character were real) both have recklessly cast slanderous aspersions upon the integrity of Frank Zindler."

"Recklessly cast slanderous aspersions"? Who writes like that? He sees personal vendettas everywhere, disagreements are signs of "irrational hatred". If he is sitting at his computer and really thinking that people are motivated by personal vendettas against him or irrational hatred of him (rather than disagreeing because they think he is wrong on occasion) then that is a little sad.

Neil Godfrey continues to find people who are motived by personal hostility against him. Here Godfrey is critical of Sam Harris's view of Islam, citing Scott Atran. Two atheists are responding to defend Harris's comments. Godfrey comments a few times that they are reading him with "hostile intent". Finally, Godfrey writes:
vridar.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/end-of-faith-and-other-pulp-fiction/#comment-49032

"It is pointless debating with people who are clearly hostile towards me personally — I know nothing I can say will be acceptable to such people."

One of the atheists, Jason Goertzen, earlier responded to Godfrey:

"Your continue to insist that it’s my hostility toward you that is making me disagree with you; but repetition doesn’t make it so. Yes, I’m frustrated and annoyed by your arrogance and condescension, but that has come *after* the fact, and so it cannot have been a cause of my original rejection of your arguments, or your first replies. You also seem to forget that I’ve been a loyal reader of yours for a while now–two or three years, maybe. The reason I started exchanging with you on this subject in the first place was because it seemed so out of character or you to be making such terrible, and sometimes disingenuous arguments. I expected you to respond better to criticism. If I have decided that you’re being dishonest, it’s been your behaviour in your replies in this exchange; it wasn’t a bias going in... You, on the other hand, see persecution and hostility, and can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with you without also misunderstanding you–yet you don’t take the initiative and explain yourself better, because you think the fault is always in the person who ‘doesn’t understand.’"

Poor Neil! What are the odds that virtually everyone who disagrees with him is motivated by hostility personally towards him?

[fortigurn]

Jun 11, 2013 8:00:31 GMT gakuseidon said:

Poor Neil! What are the odds that virtually everyone who disagrees with him is motivated by hostility personally towards him?

It's just extraordinary. How does he keep meeting these people?

[fortigurn]

Absolutely hilarious statement from Godfrey in that discussion.

Why the work of specialists in the area is ignored while the pop views of someone who has no qualifications in the area but whose many statements drip with errors should be defended — I’m at a loss to understand this.

Well Neil, you should know better than most.

And again.

I happen to think that scholarly research should have a place on the table in public debates. How else are we to try to ensure public debates are grounded in reality and fact and not just popular prejudice?

More accurately, he thinks scholarly research should have a place on the table in public debates, except on the subject of mytherism.

And again.

What I have argued is that the research data that is published in reputable journals contradicts Harris’s claims and Harris has nothing but inference from media reports to support his assertions.

To be clear: the research data contradicts the claims Harris makes. I prefer to go with the solid research data. I don’t understand why anyone would think this is the wrong thing to do.

And again.

I am trying to find a range of literature on terrorism by scholars whose academic training is in the relevant area and who have published work that has been respected by their peers on the topic. Atran is only one of these. I really am still stunned, still shaking my head, that some readers appear to be quite brazen in their declaration that they have no interest in even knowing the arguments or research of this literature — it is bunk before they even read it! — and would lap up the public diatribes by people who are in no way qualified, not even informally, in the topic.

Jason called him out well here.

And honestly, since when do you have as a standard to *only* consider arguments that are made by citing peer-reviewed scholarship? How many times, on this blog, have you railed against people who insist on this standard?

[fortigurn]

Godfrey has found yet another example of reading with hostile intent; see his article here, in which he accuses James McGrath (naturally), of 'outright incompetence (or is it plain old intellectual dishonesty?) and failure to write a straight and truthful account of Brodie’s Memoir', where Brodie is of course the Thomas Brodie whose work Godfrey admires so much.

McGrath writes in his second paragraph:

Brodie indicates that . . . his inability to find a publisher very early on was a result of things like poor grammar, lack of footnotes, refusal to accept criticisms of and feedback on his claims and interpretations, and attempting to find a Christian publisher for what he wrote on the subject (pp.32,35,40,42).

Right away we see the trademark Godfrey ellipsis, omitting words he does not want the reader to see. This is the paragraph McGrath wrote, intact.

Brodie indicates that he had this conviction even before he had learned to do scholarship, and that his inability to find a publisher very early on was a result of things like poor grammar, lack of footnotes, refusal to accept criticisms of and feedback on his claims and interpretations, and attempting to find a Christian publisher for what he wrote on the subject (pp.32,35,40,42).

Godfrey does not want to tell his readers that Brodie arrived at his mytherist position 'even before he had learned to do scholarship'. Interesting. But let's move on to Godfrey's most vociferous accusation, now we've read the uncensored paragraph from McGrath.

Page 35 does refer to Brodie’s first attempt to find a publisher. But the stated reason for the rejection is exactly the reason McGrath — as is clear from his many statements to the effect — does not want to you to believe!

I quote the paragraph (with my own emphasis):

In Spring of 1975 I produced a manuscript and immediately showed it to a British publisher, and then to a second, but their responses indicated that it was not at all what publishers wanted. What ruled it out above all else was its conclusion that Jesus had not existed. As the first publisher said, ‘It’s not just that we won’t take it. Nobody will take it.’ The second publisher said no Christian publishing house would take it.

That’s it. Yet McGrath cited this page in support of a false claim that Brodie complained the only reasons his works were not accepted for publication were matters like poor grammar and lack of footnotes!

And this is the “scholar” who is to deliver a paper relating to mythicism and academic freedom at a conference! A “scholar” who writes outright falsehoods about the reasons a mythicist argument is refused publication!

Let's see that again. Here's the 'false claim' Godfrey is accusing McGrath of making.

* Yet McGrath cited this page in support of a false claim that Brodie complained the only reasons his works were not accepted for publication were matters like poor grammar and lack of footnotes!

What was that false claim made by McGrath?

* ...a false claim that Brodie complained the only reasons his works were not accepted for publication were matters like poor grammar and lack of footnotes!

Let's see it once more; according to Godfrey, McGrath says this.

* Brodie complained the only reasons his works were not accepted for publication were matters like poor grammar and lack of footnotes!

So according to Godfrey, McGrath says Brodie complained the only reasons his works were not accepted for publication were matters like poor grammar and lack of footnotes.

Now let's go back to what McGrath actually wrote, and see if McGrath says Brodie complained the only reasons his works were not accepted for publication were matters like poor grammar and lack of footnotes.

Brodie indicates that he had this conviction even before he had learned to do scholarship, and that his inability to find a publisher very early on was a result of things like poor grammar, lack of footnotes, refusal to accept criticisms of and feedback on his claims and interpretations, and attempting to find a Christian publisher for what he wrote on the subject (pp.32,35,40,42).

Here are the reasons cited by McGrath.

* poor grammar
* lack of footnotes
* refusal to accept criticisms and feedback on his claims and interpretations
* attempting to find a Christian publisher for what he wrote on the subject

Here again is what Godfrey claimed McGrath said.

* Brodie complained the only reasons his works were not accepted for publication were matters like poor grammar and lack of footnotes!

Already we can see Godfrey is misrepresenting McGrath completely. McGrath did not say the only reasons were 'matters like poor grammar and lack of footnotes'. Now let's read the quotation Godfrey supplies from Brodie.

In Spring of 1975 I produced a manuscript and immediately showed it to a British publisher, and then to a second, but their responses indicated that it was not at all what publishers wanted. What ruled it out above all else was its conclusion that Jesus had not existed. As the first publisher said, ‘It’s not just that we won’t take it. Nobody will take it.’ The second publisher said no Christian publishing house would take it.

Brodie says he was told 'no Christian publishing house would take it. What was one of the reasons McGrath said Brodie found it difficult to get his work published? He said 'attempting to find a Christian publisher for what he wrote on the subject'. Let's compare what McGrath wrote with what Brodie wrote.

* McGrath says one of the reasons why Brodie found it difficult to get his work published was 'attempting to find a Christian publisher for what he wrote on the subject'

* Brodie says one of the reasons why he found it difficult to get his work published was he was told 'The second publisher said no Christian publishing house would take it'

Someone is reading with hostile intent, but it isn't McGrath.

[gakuseidon]

Good comments, fortigurn. That is bad form by Neil Godfrey. To use his own phrase about McGrath: Is Godfrey being incompetent or dishonest? :lol:

I notice also that McGrath even emphasizes his point by putting "Christian" in italics, i.e. "attempting to find a Christian publisher for what he wrote on the subject". Godfrey leaves out the italics when he quotes McGrath, either accidentally (which would show Neil was incompetent) or deliberately (which would show Neil was dishonest).

[fortigurn]

Jun 27, 2013 14:03:29 GMT gakuseidon said:

Good comments, fortigurn. That is bad form by Neil Godfrey. To use his own phrase about McGrath: Is Godfrey being incompetent or dishonest? :lol:

I notice also that McGrath even emphasizes his point by putting "Christian" in italics, i.e. "attempting to find a Christian publisher for what he wrote on the subject". Godfrey leaves out the italics when he quotes McGrath, either accidentally (which would show Neil was incompetent) or deliberately (which would show Neil was dishonest).

Ironic indeed. ;D

[gakuseidon]

Neil Godfrey and Richard Carrier have to be among the most uncharitable readers of other's comments I have come across. Nitpicks (often valid) become examples of "incompetence" and "dishonesty". (I still shake my head over the thousands of words Carrier wrote on Ehrman's single comment on the Priapus "Peter the cock" statue.) Not sure if I would love or hate to see Neil Godfrey and Richard Carrier really get into critiquing each other. The death toll on nitpicks would be incredible.

The difference is that there is often a tinge of paranoia to Godfrey's comments. I noticed today his latest comment on McGrath's review of Brodie's book (my bold):

"McGrath’s review is a classic illustration of New Testament censorship at work. He shuts the gates on Brodie’s thoughts — and the invitation to tell his readers to read the work for themselves is all part of the disingenuous way this censorship works. He has already told the world how “sound scholars” read and understand Brodie. So you can be sure that if you do read it, and you want to get along in the academy, you had better come away with a view in synch with McGrath’s."

It reminds me of Monty Python's "only the true Messiah denies his divinity" comment. Had McGrath wrote "don't read this book", no doubt Godfrey would have used that as well to 'demonstrate' censorship at work.

[fortigurn]

Yes it's classic conspiracy theorist thinking. Everything must be interpreted to support the conspiracy, however strained and unintuitive the resultant reading.

[ignorantianescia]

And WordPress offers even more conspiracy material! The Vridar blog has apparently been suspended:

vridar.wordpress.com is no longer available.

This blog has been archived or suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.
For more information and to contact us please read this support document.

I wonder whether it has been taken down because of his ranting against Carrier and Verenna or because of a complaint of a different nature.

There is a discussion about it on Exploring Our Matrix: www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/06/vridar-no-longer-available.html

Edit: The reason for the suspension was a copyright complaint by the author of Unsettled Christianity, as he explains here: unsettledchristianity.com/2013/06/run-dmca/

In the interest of human interest or e-drama, at Exploring Our Matrix Godfrey is being charitable as usual:

Of course Tom Verenna loves James now --- I wonder what Tom would say if I posted here all his sycophantic emails to me when I started posting nice reviews of his book "Is This Not the Carpenter"?

Yes, I quoted Joel Watt's blog post in full in order to expose him as an incompetent fool. He resorted to censorship -- no argument can be sustained in his head.

Neil

[fortigurn]

I expect it will be up again shortly. If that was Joel's doing (the 'email' Godfrey quoted is just a literary artefact, an ancient trope with many literary antecedents, and very likely just a composite of numerous earlier sources), he's a thin skinned and vindictive drama queen . I saved Godfrey's entire post about Brodie and James before the blog went down, just in case he tries to edit it without acknowledging his error, AKA 'Doing a Carrier'.

[ignorantianescia]

Jun 28, 2013 16:59:39 GMT fortigurn said:

I expect it will be up again shortly. If that was Joel's doing (the 'email' Godfrey quoted is just a literary artefact, an ancient trope with many literary antecedents, and very likely just a composite of numerous earlier sources), he's a thin skinned and vindictive drama queen . I saved Godfrey's entire post about Brodie and James before the blog went down, just in case he tries to edit it without acknowledging his error, AKA 'Doing a Carrier'.

The protasis has been confirmed, both on his blog as well as in the discussion at Exploring our Matrix. I do not know about the apodosis, though.

Does Godfrey try to do the Carrier often?

Update: Update at unsettledchristianity.com/2013/06/run-dmca/

[fortigurn]

No I don't think he does. But his objection to Joel's action is ironic given he deleted a post of mine on his blog and blocked me, after I quoted his own words to another commenter. So Godfrey doesn't like people quoting him either, and will sometimes try to censor such quotations.

[gakuseidon]

Wow. The Vridar blog has been removed from Wordpress, for violating its Fair Use Policy. Apparently Neil Godrey quoted a Joel Watts blog post post in full, Watts complained, Neil didn't remove it, so the Wordpress admin team closed down the Vridar blog altogether. Very harsh! Watts apparently only wanted Neil to remove that one post. But they took the whole thing down, including all the posts and comments on the blog. That's years of interesting posts. Even Watts (and McGrath for that matter) wants the blog back up, sans the latest offending post.

It's a darn shame, because other than Neil's penchant for dipping into paranoia, his blog contains a lot of interesting material.

Neil describes the reason his blog was taken down as this: "My Vridar blog was deactivated by Wordpress because I exposed Joel Watts, a published New Testament "scholar", as a fraud and liar -- He complained to Wordpress that I had quoted his own (fraudulent) blogpost in full as part of my analysis of it. I am therefore deemed to be in some sort of violation of copyright law."

More information here:
www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=326173
www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/06/vridar-no-longer-available.html

[ignorantianescia]

The site is back at vridar.org/, 'classy' as always, the WordPress site is still down.