Observations and notes regarding On the Historicity of Jesus, by Richard Carrier

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Observations and notes regarding On the Historicity of Jesus, by Richard Carrier

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:19 pm

Rian wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:46 am
Are you talking about the expert authority lying? Do you have a reputable link to support that? The Stanford link didn't say that, and the other ones I looked at didn't say that either. Maybe they didn't consider lying a fallacy?

Anyway, I finally found one link to an .edu site that added something like "if the authority can't be trusted to tell the truth", but most sites don't put that in; I guess they're not considering lying. Is that what you mean?

(p.s. - funny that I'm asking you for an authority to back up your claim about what the fallacy of argument from authority is! :D )
It's not really about lying. Under free market capitalism the truth is often whatever someone can pay to have proved. I knew a science graduate who got disillusioned because two different companies were paying two different sets of scientists in the same lab to come to opposite conclusions. There are all kinds of motivations for people to find convenient truths. But this itself can be investigated; we can explore claims of bias and see if there is any basis for them. What we cannot do is assume an expert is telling the unbiased truth.

Rian
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Observations and notes regarding On the Historicity of Jesus, by Richard Carrier

Post by Rian » Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:37 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:19 pm
What we cannot do is assume an expert is telling the unbiased truth.
I agree. But I don't know whether or not that falls into the category of the fallacy.

Rian
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Observations and notes regarding On the Historicity of Jesus, by Richard Carrier

Post by Rian » Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:40 pm

btw, I posted this years ago, but it's worth a repost. One of my brothers-in-law has a PhD in artificial intelligence and worked at Stanford University, one of the most prestigious universities in the US. He saw security video footage while he was there of one of the PhD's sneaking into a rival's lab in the middle of the night and pee-ing on his experiment! :D

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Observations and notes regarding On the Historicity of Jesus, by Richard Carrier

Post by SEG » Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:44 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:04 pm
Once you have admitted you are incompetent to discuss a book you have implied also that you are incompetent to recommend it.
No, I am not letting you get away with that. You have declared that I have admitted that I am incompetent to discuss a book and implied also that I am incompetent to recommend or understand Carrier's arguments. That was bullshit and you know it. I was honestly declaring that all of us here including myself are not competent to judge a professor that has accreditation in ancient history in his use of Bayes' theorem. Please retract.
Of course we can ALL comment on any book we like that is relevant to this forum. You landed yourself on new territory when you were supposing what Carrier's objectives were without lifting a page from his book, which made you look uninformed. I really don't think you have a clue what Carrier's objectives were in writing those two books, do you? For a person that claims to be so well read, I would expect you to be aware of his main arguments and how he comes to them. From your last observation, it looks like you are reaching from a lack of information.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:04 pm
Carrier has discussed this frequently in articles and on his blog so unless these contradict the book there should be no issue. It says on the blurb for his book
So this is where you are being hypocritical. Normally you admonish me for skimming over articles and blogs instead of reading books in order to understand the full meaning of the author. If you had indeed read the book you would understand that his purpose in writing the book was not to end the debate but to demonstrate that scholars need to take this hypothesis more seriously before dismissing it out of hand. He said that they need much better arguments against it than they've heretofore deployed. A better refutation is needed, and a better theory of historicity, which, actually, credibly explains all the oddities in the evidence. He uses BT as a tool to make this crystal clear.

He goes on to say, "If this book inspires nothing else, I'll be happy if it's that. But this book may do more. It might inspire more experts to agree with the possibility at least that Jesus Christ was born in myth, not history. And their continuing examination of the case may yet result in a growing consensus against the grain of current assumptions."

Sure mathematics is not his defining expertise and he may have some case to answer in parts of his book, but he has audited his book with the experts in this field. I think he has done an outstanding job of providing a new way of understanding historical methods, particularly of the history of Jesus of Nazareth.

You are correct in that he is advocating a methodological shift. That was his goal.
Last edited by SEG on Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Observations and notes regarding On the Historicity of Jesus, by Richard Carrier

Post by SEG » Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:07 pm

SEG wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:51 am
Of course he is qualified to discuss the book, like all of us here. The thing that sets him apart from us here is he is pontificating about it without having read it!
Og3 wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:30 pm
And of course, you NEVER spout opinions about books you've never read, right? (**Mandatory Trap Warning**)

All the time, but I don't go around criticising others who don't read books first before offering opinions, unlike some little white rabbits!
And from his postings, I can say that he has a far better philosophical, rational, and historical basis for his judgment than you have. So, in essence, you are setting up Carrier as a "towering genius" that neither of you can aspire to
No. Carrier isn't necessarily a towering genius, but a hell of a lot more qualified than any of us here (ok, sorry, you may be an undisclosed towering genius, you shy thing you!)
So in what way is Carrier qualified as a mathematician or a theologian?
So in what way are you or Moonward?
It seems Moonwood has become your own towering genius and doesn't even need to read the book that we have both read to spout opinions in this thread.
I respect Moonwood -- he's very sharp and well-read. I don't know his qualifications, but I respect the content of his posts, both intellectually and for his apparent integrity.

I also respect Marcus, on the other side of the coin, who also appears to be well-read, lest you think that respect is a symptom of Kripkean Dogmatism.
Me too.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: Observations and notes regarding On the Historicity of Jesus, by Richard Carrier

Post by Og3 » Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:25 am

SEG wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:07 pm
SEG wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:51 am
Of course he is qualified to discuss the book, like all of us here. The thing that sets him apart from us here is he is pontificating about it without having read it!
Og3 wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:30 pm
And of course, you NEVER spout opinions about books you've never read, right? (**Mandatory Trap Warning**)
All the time, but I don't go around criticising others who don't read books first before offering opinions, unlike some little white rabbits!
But Seg, you were just criticizing him for that very thing (see above).
And from his postings, I can say that he has a far better philosophical, rational, and historical basis for his judgment than you have. So, in essence, you are setting up Carrier as a "towering genius" that neither of you can aspire to
No. Carrier isn't necessarily a towering genius, but a hell of a lot more qualified than any of us here (ok, sorry, you may be an undisclosed towering genius, you shy thing you!)
So in what way is Carrier qualified as a mathematician or a theologian?
So in what way are you or Moonward?
You asserted that Carrier is "A hell of a lot more qualified than any of us here" meaning that you must support that assertion. It is not on us to prove our qualifications; it is on you to prove that Carrier is qualified as a mathematician and/or a theologian, since he speaks to those fields in his book.
It seems Moonwood has become your own towering genius and doesn't even need to read the book that we have both read to spout opinions in this thread.
I respect Moonwood -- he's very sharp and well-read. I don't know his qualifications, but I respect the content of his posts, both intellectually and for his apparent integrity.

I also respect Marcus, on the other side of the coin, who also appears to be well-read, lest you think that respect is a symptom of Kripkean Dogmatism.
Me too.[/quote]
Excellent. We at least agree that Moonwood and Marcus are both sharp fellows worthy of respect. So that leaves Carrier to discuss...

You see SEG, as we said before, if it's all about who's qualified to judge a matter -- that is, if we're going to say that smart* people rule, and the smarter someone is, the more likely he is to be right -- then we abdicate our own ability to judge how smart someone is OR how right he or she is likely to be.

But if we maintain that smart people can still be wrong, then we have to abandon the idea that "Carrier sounds smart, so he must be right."

Which brings us full circle, that we need a solid and objective base from which to judge anything. So what OBJECTIVE criteria can you use to judge Carrier?
_______________________________________
* For "Smart" substitute well-educated, credentialed, hirsute, plant-based, well-read, well-informed, skeptical, gullible, left-handed, as you see fit.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: Observations and notes regarding On the Historicity of Jesus, by Richard Carrier

Post by Og3 » Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:28 am

Rian wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:40 pm
btw, I posted this years ago, but it's worth a repost. One of my brothers-in-law has a PhD in artificial intelligence and worked at Stanford University, one of the most prestigious universities in the US. He saw security video footage while he was there of one of the PhD's sneaking into a rival's lab in the middle of the night and pee-ing on his experiment! :D
You would be surprised the things that show up on surveillance footage. :lol:
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Observations and notes regarding On the Historicity of Jesus, by Richard Carrier

Post by SEG » Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:57 am

Og3 wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:25 am
But Seg, you were just criticizing him for that very thing (see above).
No, I was criticising his hypocrisy.
Og3 wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:25 am
You asserted that Carrier is "A hell of a lot more qualified than any of us here" meaning that you must support that assertion. It is not on us to prove our qualifications; it is on you to prove that Carrier is qualified as a mathematician and/or a theologian, since he speaks to those fields in his book.
He speaks on a lot of fields in his book, that isn't to say that he is an expert in all of them. What he does with care and precision, is back up, cite and provide evidence of his assertions. Unlike your CS Lewis who makes vague references to a “real” right and wrong, a universal objective morality and all these "facts" that he seems to know about God, but never explains how he knows these facts.
You see SEG, as we said before, if it's all about who's qualified to judge a matter -- that is, if we're going to say that smart* people rule, and the smarter someone is, the more likely he is to be right -- then we abdicate our own ability to judge how smart someone is OR how right he or she is likely to be.
I agree. The exact same reasoning should also apply to the person that you think is the smartest of all, the Christian God. Have you ever thought that he could be wrong occasionally too, and your own judgement right?
But if we maintain that smart people can still be wrong, then we have to abandon the idea that "Carrier sounds smart, so he must be right."
I've never had that idea, have you?
Which brings us full circle, that we need a solid and objective base from which to judge anything. So what OBJECTIVE criteria can you use to judge Carrier?
The same thing that you need to judge God, solid reasoning. I can use this base to check on their morality too. What shall we check on first?

Genocide? Slavery? Tolerance to homosexuals? Birth control? Universal worshipping rights?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: Observations and notes regarding On the Historicity of Jesus, by Richard Carrier

Post by Og3 » Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:27 pm

Well, I don't know that carrier has ever been accused of Genocide, Slavery, Tolerance to Homosexuals, Birth control, or Universal Worshipping Rights. But, sure, let's go with that.

So what solid reasoning did you apply when you read Carrier?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Observations and notes regarding On the Historicity of Jesus, by Richard Carrier

Post by SEG » Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:33 am

Og3 wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:27 pm
Well, I don't know that carrier has ever been accused of Genocide, Slavery, Tolerance to Homosexuals, Birth control, or Universal Worshipping Rights. But, sure, let's go with that.

So what solid reasoning did you apply when you read Carrier?
I've judged him with solid reasoning to find out any evidence of him being involved in Genocide, Slavery, and intolerance to Homosexuals and he didn't
raise an eyebrow. He was also very tolerant in regards to Birth control and Universal Worshipping Rights.

I judged your god with the same criteria and he failed on all counts. Therefore I judge Carrier to be a much more moral personality. Heck, I may even start worshipping him.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Post Reply