Edward Feser has a blog post up that is highly relevant to much of the debate that takes place here at The Skeptical Zone between theists and non-theists.
Lazy shouts of “unfalisfiability!” against theological claims just ignore all this complexity — the distinctions that have to be drawn between empirical claims on the one hand and claims of mathematics, logic, and metaphysics on the other; between extremely general empirical claims and more specific ones; between philosophy of nature (which studies the philosophical presuppositions of natural science) and natural science itself; and between the testing of a thesis and the testing of the auxiliary assumptions we generally take for granted but conjoin with the thesis when drawing predictions from it.
So, falsificationism is a rather feeble instrument to wield against theology. And in fact, atheist philosophers have known this for decades, even if New Atheist combox commandos are still catching up.
So who else has he shown never existed using his methodology?
Bart Ehrman is a Christian?
I don’t think anybody who has followed Carrier’s antics at FTB finds him to be at all trustworthy. That he even supports Myers, when Myers’ many and flagrant false attacks upon others have been exposed, is disgraceful. And who cares much that Carrier’s a polyamorous douche, except that he has to dress it up as a kind of innate condition that he must live vigorously–rather than just saying that his wife just didn’t matter much to him, and he likes to screw a lot of women?
But he’s a self-promoter, and although he rarely does well in peer review, he still gets a book out–and claims peer review for it much as Dembski did for his book, when we all know how low the standard is for books. However, when people claim that peer review matters a great deal, as is typical on this site, they ought to pay attention to how poorly his work goes over in the journals.
But enough of that, here’s a review of Carrier’s book, where he really doesn’t come off well. To be sure, the reviewer states that there is much good there, but that anyone would throw Carrier at us as if he’s the authority on the matter only goes once again to the selectivity rampant among mythicists.
We have no reason to trust Carrier much, from the SJW BS at FTB to his books. At best, I’d say read him skeptically, and alongside people who really have proven to have a good track record.
Glen Davidson
Aside from the fact that you don’t like him, are there any errors in the book?
You could have followed the link that I included.
Yes, there are a lot of errors, from his misuse of Bayes’ Theorem to his misunderstanding of Euhemerism. And then there’s his false dichotomy of Christianity being either messianic, based upon Jesus in the flesh, or celestial, with a view to a heavenly Jesus who may or may not have ever been to earth.
It’s there, if you had cared to, you know, understand rather than to mischaracterize the issue as me not “liking him.” No, I don’t like him, but for good reasons that do reflect on how trustworthy we should find him to be (who stands by Myers by now, other than sleazes, ideologues, and the gullible?).
On the plus side, he actually gets how little mythicism matters in the end, at least in the intellectual sense:
Yes, a rather laughable spread, but at least he notes that the supernatural nonsense is what really matters, intellectually. Possibly the historicity matters in terms of persuasion, but I’m inclined to agree with Jerry Russell (author of the review to which I linked) that trying to push rather sorry cases against a historic Jesus are more likely to backfire.
Glen Davidson
Osiris, Dionysis, Hercules, Mithra, several others. And using the same methodology, he has found excellent reason to believe in the existence of Pilate, Alexander, and others.
This is a very good question. As far as I know, Ehrman is a recognized scholar and authority on the period, the cultures, the languages, etc. He considers the lack of evidence for Jesus in some detail, and says several times in his books that there simply is no compelling evidence. But he also says, over and over, that “Jesus certainly existed.” Without evidence. This kind of “damn the pattern of evidence, faith wins without breathing hard” is the hallmark of a believer. So what do YOU think?
Wow, one seldom encounters such a flagrant example of ad hominem. Carrier is a worthless person, therefore his scholarship should be rejected without reading!
And so you say “yeah, he actually submitted his work to, and passed, peer review (and let’s not forget that most of his peers are hostile to his views), but, well, he’s a lousy person so his scholarship is irrelevant.
Carrier is one authority, of course. There are multiple others. And I suppose it doesn’t matter to you that the pro-Jesus scholars are almost ALL Christians. No conflict of interest there, no sirree…
For sure, I don’t trust Carrier. He comes across as have an axe to grind.
I don’t always agree with Myers. But I do find it useful to follow his blog. My distrust of Carrier is such that I see no point in following his blog.
Ehrman is quite open about having rejected Christianity. He refers to himself as an agnostic.
I’m surprised that you seem unaware of this, given that it is very well known.
Wow, rarely does one encounter such worthless false BS.
No, really, it’s all too common. Appalling, but common.
Gee, why would I link to a review? Oh right, you just have your strawman, what of anything else from someone who cares as little about evidence as you do?
God, could you write more wrong stuff? No he didn’t submit his work to peer review, you incompetent reader, he submitted it to “pal review” as Russell called it. He being so loose with truth elsewhere does matter, but of course no more than your idiotic and false claim that I said it was irrelevent thereby.
I don’t know that, jackass.
More importantly, you certainly haven’t shown any problem with their scholarship, as my link showed problems with Carrier’s work. Then you misrepresented me repeatedly, while ignoring the substance–which clearly is what counts the most, despite your maligning false claims.
Glen Davidson
On a lot of subjects, at that.
Quite. That his problems on the web have no bearing on what one should think of his scholarship is absurd. They could be utterly unrelated, I suppose, but the scholarship seems rather slipshod as well.
Glen Davidson
What’s interesting is, Carrier accurately predicted a whole bunch of “Jerry Russells”. So whose use of Bayes’ Theorem is correct, Carrier’s or Russells? Carrier gives plenty of explanation (he devoted an entire book to it). Russell dismisses it with a handwave. As for Euhemerism, either Carrier or Russell has it backwards. Carrier (and people like Matthew Ferguson) have examined this in great depth. Russell has it backwards, but who cares, since Carrier is a jerk?
Nor does Carrier create the dichotomy Russell dismisses as false. Carrier considers a fairly large number of possibilities. Russell doesn’t tell us this, and Glen Davidson swallows Russell without having read ANY of these books.
Now, I’m not saying Carrier is foolproof, or even necessarily correct. While the evidence preserved from those times is sketchy, this does allow for a good many interpretations equally supported, not just Carrier’s.
Beware the “authority” who has read a single book review (and not the book itself).
One need only read your excretions to see that I was exactly correct.
Uh, your link was to a book review by one of Carriers critics. Your guy Russell’s review does NOT show problems with Carrier’s work, it shows that Russell disagrees with some of it. Now, I realize you can’t tell them apart, so I suggest you content yourself with McGrath. You will LOVE him.
And for the record (if not for Glen), Carrier’s two books on the subject run well over 1000 pages, and are VERY heavily footnoted for anyone curious about anything he says. Agree with him or not, his books are genuine scholarship. Of course he has an axe to grind. But does anyone think a devout Christian “finding” a historical Jesus does NOT have an axe to grind?
According to you, who haven’t read any of it, or according to hostile reviewers saying things you like to hear?
Because it isn’t based on sound assumptions.
OK, so you’re too stupid to find out that Carrier is indeed wrong, and wish to merely misrepresent what I wrote. Shows how ignorant and uninterested in truth you are.
Oh please, why would I read that junk? You’re the gullible target. Sure I follow Russell on this matter, since I haven’t read it. Minor issue, save the fact that “skeptics” like you show what gullible jerks “skeptics” can be. Yes I believe Russell because I have no reason to believe Carrier, and do find mainstream scholarship to be sound.
Since you were completely wrong about Euhemerism and misrepresented my position to boot, I’m really not interested in your opinion on this. I find you to be an ignorant fanboy for mythicism.
God you’re an ass. Who cares that I didn’t read the book? I’m no expert on any of this anyhow, that’s why I included something of substance, no matter how falsely you claimed that it was all about Carrier being the sketchy internet figure that he is. Since you don’t even know what Euhemerism is about (I didn’t, but learned) and claim that Carrier is right, it’s pretty clear how much one should trust your dogmatism.
Glen Davidson
Oh I see, you said it was all about not believing Carrier, then you went on to finally deal with the substance to which I linked.
Not even slightly correct. So you just repeat the falseness that characterizes your “contribution.”
Of course it does, unless you’re the ignorant Flint who believes Carrier’s incorrect version of Euhemerism.
I realize that you can’t deal with the issues, hence you restate stupid shit.
Look, this is pointless, you’re just saying anything no matter how false to back up your earlier BS. Who cares about someone as ignorant and careless with the truth as you? I’m out of here for now.
Glen Davidson
Well, if mung had based a diatribe on a book review without reading the book, or had evaluated a person’s scholarship on his sex life, I know what I would think.
I’m not sure how this is relevant, either way. It’s ad hominem, regardless.
No one seems to have given any sound reason to believe Jesus is anything more than a composit of local preachers, ancient resurrection cultism, and wishful thinking. There’s no doubt that the sentiments published in the bible have sources, but no particular reason to believe the miracle stories.
This one is plain dumb. He already said it’s not about whether he really truly did exist, but about whether there is evidence of that. One might have existed yet not leave evidence, but those are two different questions.
Did Jesus exist?
is not the same question as
Is there evidence that Jesus existed?
Besides, if a person exists, then so did that person’s parents. If Jesus existed, he had a mom and a dad and they were both human. Because, you know, human females don’t give virgin births.
This isn’t about showing that a person never existed. It’s about whether the evidence there is is strong enough to warrant belief.
If you don’t believe the person existed that doesn’t mean you actively disbelieve the person existed. It just means the evidence doesn’t justify belief.
This statement is self-contradictory and in conflict with what you said previously.
Just to make it clear, I’m no fan of Carrier and I actually agree he’s untrustworthy. Particularly when it comes to the subjects of cosmology, physics and some of his attacks on anti-SJW-types are so flagrantly full of misrepresentations and falsehoods.
But on the point here, you actually did imply that Carriers stances on the whole SJW-PZMyers-support-thing this somehow also implicates his general trustworthyness when it comes to his historical writings. It might or might not, but that is how I understood it when you wrote this:
In fact that entire post seems to imply that Carrier, on the whole, should not be trusted at all.
Do you even read what you write? It’s the same thing, no, I don’t think he’s shown himself to be trustworthy/decent/etc., hence I don’t like him. Petrushka was trying to say that I just don’t like him, so screw anything he says, which is a caricature of the whole matter of finding him to act sleazily. Pay attention.
Yes, and that’s what I was saying again, just countering Petrushka’s boorish attempt to recast the matter into one in which I just don’t like him, apparently for no reason..
That said, I did link to a good review, because it’s not impossible (though I think improbable) that academically he could be trusted when one found him untrustworthy otherwise. To be sure, his hubris might be his greatest downfall academically, but then that seems to have a lot to do with his other failings as well.
Yes, but that doesn’t disagree with what I wrote again about finding him not to be trustworthy, not liking him as a result of that, rather than the implicit caricature presented that I didn’t like him so I trashed his work. That’s bullshit.
At all? Whatever. Each and every statement you quote repeats the same thing, that I don’t find him to be trustworthy. And yet you try to say that the first quote where I said I don’t like him because of issues of trustworthiness is in conflict (and equally bizarrely, self-contradictory) with later quotes where I said essentially the same damned thing.
I simply don’t know what you think I wrote in the first quote. All I can see is that it’s apparently something other than what I did write there.
Glen Davidson
Sorry I totally misread the first thing of yours I quoted. I blame… atmospheric disturbances.
Carry on.
Considering how quickly the faith congealed around the figure of Jesus by the early second century, it seems more likely to me that he did exist. The writings of Paul which refer several times to Peter and were accepted by early church writers as accurate would seem to give credence to at least the existence of Peter as an apostle. Not much of a stretch for me personally to believe that Peter was the source of Paul’s ideas of Christ.
I’m not sure how that is even relevant to this discussion. Anyone trying to argue the historicity of the miracles is obviously doing so from faith alone. The question of the existence of a historical Jesus can be completely decoupled from acts of feeding thousands with a serving for one, raising the dead, and walking on water in my opinion.
As for Ehrman, his vocal stance of skeptical agnosticism puts him in a unique position. Most of the very well-read NT and OT scholars have to dance around controversies to avoid crossing purposes with their professed faith. Ehrman has no such prior commitments. I find his writings to be very fair-minded and thorough.
I have no interest in whether a preacher named Jesus existed. Someone osome ones must have. I don’t think it’s wort the time of day arguing.
The biographies are bogus and derivative of earlier religions, and the New Testament writings are a stew of contradictory sentiments.
Not exactly justification for empires, murders, and blue laws.
Without a time machine I’m not sure what objective evidence for an historical Jesus would look like. How much of what is described in the Christian bible would be necessary to consider someone to be that Jesus? The Sermon on the Mount? Throwing out the money changers? Being crucified? Feeding the multitude? Walking on water? Triggering the zombies?
Even if Christianity is based on a single individual (other than Paul) who actually existed, that person was probably nothing like the Jesus of the bible. The point is, there is no evidence that indicates that he ever existed. That doesn’t mean he didn’t, but it does mean that claims that he did are unsupported.
The question I was responding to was why I am commenting on the lack of evidence for an historical Jesus rather than that for Heraclitus.
If you have contemporary evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus, please present it.
While I wouldn’t call myself a mythicist (I simply enjoy seeing Christians sputtering when the utter lack of evidence is pointed out), I don’t think this is a fair comparison. There is literally no contemporary evidence for an historical Jesus. Is it “an unreasonably high burden of proof” to ask for any at all?
Could you please explain how I’ve misunderstood your analogy? It still seems to me that the evidence supporting evolution is vastly greater than that supporting an historical Jesus.
That certainly wasn’t my intent. You asked why I don’t apply the same standard to Heraclitus. I answered: Heraclitus has no impact on modern politics.
I think we’re talking past each other, but I’m not sure where the disconnect is.
Which is exactly why I am an atheist. Some theists have a great deal of difficulty understanding this distinction and insist that I am saying that gods definitely don’t exist.
It seems to me it doesn’t matter what impact it has, it is strictly hypocritical to have a special standard of evidence with respect to Jesus. Technically, if the evidence in favor of Jesus and Heraclitus existing is exactly equal, and you believe on that evidence that Heraclitus existed, then the intellectually honest position is to ALSO believe that Jesus existed. Otherwise you’re holding a double standard.
Now, it might be the case you just don’t care whether Heraclitus existed and as such, have not bothered to investigate it for yourself. In such a situation I would say one can be forgiven for just going with a consensus view among historians. But if you are actually made aware of the relative strengths of the evidence for either individual’s existence, then the rational thing to do is to change your beliefs so they are working from the same standard of evidence. Whether that means you end up rejecting the case for the existence of Heraclitus, or accepting a Jesus figure of some sort existed I’ll leave up to you to determine.
For my own part few subjects bore me more than Jesus historicity. I bought Carriers first book on Bayes theorem (and wanted to buy and read Ehrman’s too to compare them) and simply couldn’t read it through because no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t make it interesting to me. I just don’t care whether it is entirely mythological or was just inspired by some local lunatic and his cult. In either case, nothing makes the miracle stories attributed to this supposed individual rational to believe merely on written accounts from the bronze-age. Miracle stories from 2 millenia ago simply shouldn’t be believed.
If it didn’t matter it wouldn’t matter, but it does matter, so it matters.
There are consequences in the real world to believing or not believing.
People die or go to prison because some people use the divinity of Jesus as a pretext for laws and actions. Same for Moses Muhammad. Although strictly speaking, it is not the existence of these people that matters, but the parts of their biographies that involve speaking the word of god.
I can’t imagine any grown up losing sleep over whether a historical figure really existed.
There is no wasness of the was. There is only the isness of the was. It doesn’t matter whether Jesus existed, but it matters that laws and actions are predicated on how people answer that question. The laws and actions of believers matter. It matters what people believe because people act, often to the detriment of other people.
Yes, that’s how I see it.
The other parts — the miracles, the claimed divinity of Jesus, etc — those are all separate issues. One can believe that Jesus exist, yet doubt much of what is attributed to him, and that seems to be Ehrman’s position.
I have no opinion on the historicity of Heraclitus.
I actually have no opinion on the historicity of Jesus, either. I simply find the fact that there is no contemporary evidence for him interesting, given how so many Christians seem to think they know so much about him.
Exactly. I’ve done a little reading on the standards historians use, but I haven’t studied the issue rigorously.
I’d find it interesting if the actual foundations of Christianity were discovered somehow, but I don’t think that’s likely to happen at this great remove. We have more recent evidence of how it could happen (Mormonism and Scientology). Miracles appear to be unnecessary.
I think that when you stated that all Jesus scholars are Christian that you overstated your case.
🙂
Long may the mythicists reign. They make the rest of us look sane.
It exposes an unacceptable level of either ignorance or willful disregard for the truth.
If someone wants to be a Jesus myther and be taken at all seriously they might want to have some rather basic facts right about the players involved.
LoL.
If Jesus actually existed, and if Jesus actualy did the thing attributed to him, then the New Testament might not be bogus.
So yeah, we can see why you have no interest in whether Jesus actually existed.
I don’t think the players matter.
The default rational position is that all claims of divine revelation or miracles have equal validity, which is to say, none. Doubly so if the claims are functionally equivalent to more ancient claims.
The existence or nonexistence of a preacher called Jesus is of no importance. What is important is that people have been murdered for denying the divinity of Jesus or asserting the politically incorrect version of his divinity. Prohibition laws are based on divine revelation. Apostasy laws. Heresy. Laws against disrespect.
These are important. The factual basis of divine revelation is important.
This is true of all revealed religions. I am not singling out Christianity.
…and if the contents of the Gospels and Epistles could be supported by any logical argument other than gross special-pleading, then the New Testament might not be bogus.
However, that is emphatically not the case since we have no evidence of anyone throughout recorded history exponentially multiplying food, walking on water, controlling the weather, healing the blind, rising from the grave after 3 days, or (and perhaps most importantly) bodily ascending into space with no equipment designed for survival in a hard vacuum.
If wishes were horses…
If Jesus did the things attributed to him, then he did the things attributed to him.
Oh, by the way, if he really, really did the things attributed to him, then claims that he did the things attributed to him might not be bogus.
Oooooookay.
Please bring evidence that he did.
Hi Patrick
I am partial to Ehrman’s scholarship. Here is the Wikipedia take-out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman)
I became fascinated with this question after reading the autobiography of Albert Schweitzer. The field is actually quite more scientifically rigorous than many give credit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
I once lurked about the Jesus as Pagan Myth Yahoo group. I forget their exact name now. Let’s just say that “intellectual incest” jumps to mind when considering the claptrap of Doherty, Gande and Freke.
As best I can make out; the original historical Christ was indeed an apocalyptic Hebrew preacher as Ehrman elucidates better than any author I have ever read. However (as I understand it) “the historical Jesus” was co-opted by Greek pagan traditions leaving traditional orthodox belief and practice far more pagan than Hebrew and rendering “Jesus Christ” just as “christian” as Christmas.
From my limited amateur readings, it seems the early church apologists, such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Tertullian conceded the obvious similarities between Paul’s Christos and earlier pagan mythology and practice. As a matter of fact, church apologists even conceded that plagiarism was obvious! They then concluded that the Pagan-Christian similarities were a satanic attempt at “diabolical mimicry.” Satan supposedly resorted to plagiarism by anticipation with a pre-emptive strike against the gospel stories centuries before Jesus was even born.
According to Plutarch, the Cilician pirates were practicing Mithraic rites by 67 B.C. Many authorities confirm that Paul’s hometown of Tarsus, the capital city of Cilicia, was a major centre of Mithraic practice until Paul’s Christological version of Jesus eventually co-opted pagan practice and not the other way around. http://www.well.com/~davidu/sciam.html
All that said – some chap we now call Jesus Christ actually lived and there were written accounts that predated the Gospels besides Paul such as Q (which no longer exists) and perhaps (emphasis on perhaps) even the Gospel of Thomas and the Didache may predate the Gospels. Again – check out what Ehrman says. He makes a pretty convincing case.
No.
Satan obviously had a time machine, with which he launched a preemptive counterattack.
Why not?
I think Mung is forgetting his 1 Peter 3:15
http://biblehub.com/1_peter/3-15.htm