A / B / C





A

Author: Ousman Ahmad (Muslim, "Islamic Replies")

Updates: (...)

Title: Refuting Infidels.org "Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists."
Location: http://www.islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2/Refuting_Infidels_Org_Cosmology.html
Type: Web article
Merit: So-so
Target: Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists (2001)



Author: Ana ("A little more sentience")

Updates: (http://alittlemoresentience.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: Abortion, Carrier, Singer, and some peculiarities
Location: http://alittlemoresentience.blogspot.com/2010/11/abortion-carrier-singer-and-some.html
Type: Blog
Target: Abortion Redux
Merit: So-so




Author: ("Andersen Studio Days & Nights")

Updates: (http://asblogz.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: The Importance of Antony Flew
Location: http://asblogz.blogspot.com/2007/12/importance-of-antony-flew.html and http://asblogz.blogspot.com/2007_12_09_archive.html
Type: Blog
Target: Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of, Antony Flew's Bogus Book , Craig the Annoyed
Merit: So-so

  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Consult:
  • Response:



Author: Richard Anderson ("dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos")

Updates: (http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: Response to Carrier and Mason
Location: http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot.com/2005/12/response-to-carrier-and-mason.html
Type: Blog
Target: Luke and Josephus
Merit: So-so

  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Consult:
  • Response:



B

Author: Jim Bailey ("The Herald Bulletin")

Updates: custom search, RSS

Title: Faith: The Evidence of Things Not Seen
Location: http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/opinion/local_story_076080151.html
Type: Online Newspaper Opinion Column
Target: The God Who Wasn't There
Merit: Lame

  • Argument: Bailey accuses Carrier of, "...conveniently ignoring a separate reference by Josephus to the life of Jesus, where he is clearly identified as the Christ."
  • Content: Claims nonbelievers tend to be hyper-empiricists, can't comprehend the probability that a creator set the universe in motion, and that they are missing the key ingredient of faith, which they also don't comprehend. Bailey says he doesn't understand why some nonbelievers will go to such lengths to refute Christianity and that they must be afraid of something. Bailey tells what he says is possibly a fake story about an atheist who files a lawsuit against religious holidays because he doesn't have any to celebrate and the judge tells him that April Fool's day is his holiday (justifying it with Proverbs 14:1). Bailey claims it is pointless to argue with atheists because they are not spiritually elite like he is. Bailey also says that science can't prove faith but the evidence of it is everywhere anyway. Bailey concludes with some lame song lyrics.
  • Consult: "The God Who Wasn't There" (25 March 2009) and (on faith-based epistemology), Sense and Goodness Without God, pp. 60-61, 217-18, 286-87.
  • Response: Perhaps the Holy Spirit should have informed Bailey about the possibility of accidental copyist insertions into ancient texts. Or the fact that Josephus wrote this sixty years after Jesus is supposed to have lived, and may have simply received his information from Christians without independently confirming it (since this passage reveals no knowledge of any details of who this Jesus is). As to the rest, it is somewhat understandable why Christians are perplexed at the lengths some nonbelievers will go in confrontation with their religion. They believe their religion can do no wrong (or that it is not inherently wrong) and thus causes no legitimate obstacle towards social progress. However, if they are mistaken about that, given the widespread and political weight the Christian religion has in this country, it would make sense that some would take it upon themselves to confront the ideology extensively in all the ways it attempts to justify itself intellectually. Do Christians really expect to be unchallenged by the intellectual world? Christians can be found to take their worldview very seriously and see the merit in criticizing what they see as harmful belief systems. There is no shortage of Christian apologetic books devoted to this task. Passionate nonbelievers like Carrier are simply doing the same thing. Christians unwittingly dehumanize nonbelievers by failing to see things from the humanist's own moral frame of reference in evaluating their actions. Further, the April Fool's day joke may be a humorous fiction to some ears, but Christians still have to own the divinely mandated ad hominem since they find it right there in the Bible more than once.



Author: Darek Barefootbrain_transplant.jpg

Updates: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/darek_barefoot/

Title: A Response to Richard Carrier's Review of C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea
Location: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/darek_barefoot/dangerous.html
Type: Online Article
Target: Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason
Merit: Important




Author: Luke Barnes (atheist)

Updates: (http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/?s=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: Probably Not – A Fine-Tuned Critique of Richard Carrier (Part 1)
Location: http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/probably-not-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-richard-carrier-part-1/
Type: Blog
Target: "Neither Life nor the Universe Appear Intelligently Designed"
Merit: Important


Title: What Chance Looks Like – A Fine-Tuned Critique of Richard Carrier (Part 2)
Location: http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/what-chance-looks-like-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-richard-carrier-part-2/
Type: Blog
Target: "Neither Life nor the Universe Appear Intelligently Designed"
Merit: Important



Author: Doug Benscoter ("Fides et Ratio")

Updates: (http://dougbenscoter.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: Resurrection of the Body
Location: http://dougbenscoter.blogspot.com/2010/05/resurrection-of-body.html
Type: Blog
Target: General Case for Spiritual Resurrection: Evidence Against Resurrection of the Flesh
Merit: Lame

  • Argument: Benscoter claims that Carrier concludes Jesus rose in an immaterial body because Paul uses the word "spiritual."
  • Content:
  • Response: Benscoter quote-mines Carrier horribly to portray his argument as though he thinks Paul believed in an immaterial resurrection body. He does this despite the fact that the surrounding text goes out of its way to say the exact opposite. Carrier claims Paul believed Jesus rose in a body made of heavenly materials that are different (and improved) than earthly materials, but are still materials. Benscoter neither portrays Carrier's claims correctly nor engages the vast majority of the evidence Carrier has amassed to support his conclusion (even in an outdated article).



Author: Russell Blackford (atheist, "Metamagician and the Hellfire Club")

Updates: (http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: Naturalistic moral pluralism rant
Location: http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2007/08/naturalistic-moral-pluralism-rant.html
Type: Blog
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God
Merit: So-so

  • Argument: Blackford: "...I see no reason to reduce our values to one ubervalue, or to expect that we will ever have a fully agreed and determinate morality, I call my worked-out version of this idea "naturalistic moral pluralism" ... or just "naturalistic pluralism" for short."
  • Response: Carrier says: "...relativism can be a form of moral realism. Because it's logically possible for different moral facts to be objectively true for different people (and I discuss this in Sense and Goodness without God and in my forthcoming chapter for The End of Christianity)."

Title: Richard Carrier on moral ontology
Location: http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2011/03/richard-carrier-on-moral-ontology.html
Type: Blog
Target: Moral Ontology
Merit: So-so

  • Argument: Blackford: "...it is a leap of faith to assume that there is a single most rational thing for any person at all to do in that situation, irrespective of her initial desire set."
  • Response:

Title: Carroll on Carrier on moral ontology
Location: http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2011/03/carroll-on-carrier-on-moral-ontology.html
Type: Blog
Target: Moral Ontology
Merit: So-so

  • Consult: Moral Realism
  • Argument: Blackford agrees with Carrier against Sean Carroll's point, but states his own concern: "My problem with it is that it's only a hypothetical imperative. We can imagine a rational being somewhere in the universe that, for whatever reason, doesn't care about whether or not its car's engine seizes up, or, for whatever reason, might even want its car's engine to seize up."
  • Response:



Author: Ian Boyne ("Jamaica Gleaner News")

Updates: (custom search)

Title: The war over religion
Location: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20091018/focus/focus4.html
Type: News article
Target:
Merit: ...




Author: Eric Bradley ("Gloria Gratiae")

Updates: None. (deleted blog)

Title: The Blind Knights of Atheism
Location: http://veniagloriaque.blogspot.com/2009/01/blind-knights-of-atheism.html
Type: Blog
Target: (debate between Gary Habermas and Richard Carrier)
Merit: So-so

  • Argument: Bradley claims Carrier has "daddy issues," that Carrier demands too much evidence from God and would never believe in God even if they had proof, that Carrier willingly presupposes too much about reality so that God cannot be known from that basis, that Carrier doesn't realize that demons could use bacteria to cause disease, that Carrier is guilty of scientism, and Bradley claims that science should not be able to prove or disprove the supernatural.
  • Content: It's a stereotypical rant against the neo-atheists focused specifically on Carrier.
  • Response:

Title: The Existential Plunge
Location: http://veniagloriaque.blogspot.com/2009/01/existential-plunge.html
Type: Blog
Target:
Merit: So-so

  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Response:



Author: Reverend Phillip Brown ("CHRISTIANITY VERSUS ATHEISM")

Updates: (http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: Atheists please explain Richard Carrier's Contradiction?
Location: http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/2010/01/atheists-please-explain-richard.html
Type: Blog
Target: Not the Impossible Faith
Merit: So-so

  • Argument: Carrier contradicts himself by arguing both "...that women testimony is valid and that their position in scripture is held in high esteem and then calls them the least."
  • Content:
  • Consult: 11. Did No One Trust Women?
  • Response: The legitimacy of female testimony and their general social status are not the same thing. Further, even if this was a contradiction, it would be a cultural contradiction (meaning cultures can and do have contradictory standards), since the conclusion follows from the cultural evidence presented by Carrier.

Title: Why I think Richard Carrier is wrong.
Location: http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-i-think-richard-carrier-is-wrong.html
Type: Blog
Target: Not the Impossible Faith
Merit: So-so

  • Argument: 1. There is no reason why Mark's gospel had to be about the "least being first" literary motif and Carrier gives no evidence, reason, or argument against other Biblical scholars who think Mark's gospel is about Mark 8:29 to show that Jesus is the Christ. 2. Two Christian slave women were tortured about the time Mark's gospel would be released and so everyone would know that the least would not be first. 3. Brown: "women would not have even been tortured as Carrier argues ‘to attack the powerful’ because Christianity internally commanded them to submit to that authority, not attack it. The only reason for accepting torture can be that because they believed in the resurrection and eternal life with Jesus."
  • Content: Brown blows off his own first point as a mere disagreement about interpretation and then quotes Pliny the Younger to show that Christian female slaves were tortured and therefore not elevated in social status as a result of the gospel, which he then explains away himself. He then asserts that one cannot submit to authority as 1 Peter 2:13 commands and attack it at the same time.
  • Consult: 11. Did No One Trust Women?
  • Response: 1. The two intentions of the gospel of Mark are compatible since Jesus as the Christ would be the mechanism that enables the least to be first. 2. Brown admits his point is irrelevant since the promise of heaven is the ultimate elevation of status that would make the most sense. 3. The term "attack" is only a metaphor as Carrier says (continuing to quote Alan Segal): "in effect 'canceling the power of an oppressor through moral claims to higher ground and to a resolute claim to the afterlife, as the better.'” Hence there is no contradiction between the command to submit to authority and "attacking" that authority with divine moral authority if the situation came down to it. Brown unnecessarily trivializes early Christians as mere heavenly present-getters rather than giving them the dignity of also having moral indignation towards earthly authorities worth dying against.



Author: Harvey Burnett (" The Dunamis Word")

Updates: (http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/search/label/Richard%20Carrier, RSS)

Title: The New Anti-Christ Advocates
Location: http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2008/03/biblical-jesus-stands-every-test.html
Type: Blog
Target: The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave, chapter 5
Merit: Lame

  • Argument: Burnett: "...because of their weakness, [the skeptics] continue to postulate ridiculous fantasies with no basis in actual events, facts, or history. " Based on 2 Timothy 4:4, he says, "...these men have done this because of the foolishness of their hearts." Based on Romans 1:21, he says, "...ignorance can not be an excuse for the serious follower of Jesus."
  • Content: Burnett mentions Carrier's views on Paul's resurrection body beliefs (as well as the views of various other skeptics), and attacks their character with pretentious Bible verses.
  • Consult: See also, "Is Moral Accountability to a Creator Obvious?" and "Cult Think and The New Testament."
  • Response: So skeptics are weak, foolish, and know God exists and that they are morally accountable to him? Talk about ad hominem. Apparently the modern testimony of millions of atheists to the contrary counts for nothing against the case for Christianity Burnett intends to put together. That's based on the testimony of just a few theists from thousands of years ago.

Title: The Raging Battle For The Jesus Of History
Location: http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2008/09/raging-battle-for-jesus-of-history.html
Type: Blog
Target: W. L. Craig Debate
Merit: Lame

  • Argument: Burnett responds to Carrier's complaint that God should have appeared to everyone to get them on the same salvation page with, "Before the world was formed he provided a way of salvation and restoration for man (Rev. 13:8) throughout the ages of mankind he has revealed himself to man both through human conscience and the spoken word of his prophets. (Heb. 1:2) Further, he has demonstrated his association with the world and the people in the world by coming to the world (Rom. 8:3), living in voluntary submission to the elements of the world, dying on the cross (Phil. 2:8) and exercising his power over the arch enemy of mankind, namely death itself. (1 Cor. 15:55) In fact God has always revealed himself to man through and by conscience.(Rom. 1:20) At no point do we see any inaction from God."
  • Content:
  • Consult:
  • Response: None of these supposed actions are verifiable and thus have no bearing on Carrier's objection. The only one that differs is the reference to conscience, which entails no meaningful Christian element. Sociopaths don't necessarily even have a conscience, but I doubt Burnett would think that disproves God's existence. The conscience can be easily understood as an evolved psychological balancing device to keep us morally buoyant in our relationships with other people. Evolution's "survival of the fittest" can entail "survival of the fittest team players." Hence things like justice, fairness, loyalty, respect, empathy, reciprocation, and even a tendency towards altruism can have a place in the tree of life.

Title: Haiti ~ Did God Do This?
Location: http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2010/01/did-god-do-this.html
Type: Blog
Target: W. L. Craig Debate
Merit: Lame

  • Argument: Burnett: "At no point do we see any inaction from God."
  • Content: The content of this post directed at Carrier is identical to the previous entry, but in a different context.
  • Consult:
  • Response: At no point do we see action we know is from God.



Author: John Byl ("bylogos")

Updates: (http://bylogos.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: Naturalist Meltdown
Location: http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2011/12/naturalist-meltdown.html
Type: Blog
Target: On Defining Naturalism as a Worldview
Merit: So-so


C




Author: Sean Carroll (atheist, "Cosmic Variance")

Updates: (search, RSS)

Title: Moral Realism
Location: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/03/16/moral-realism/
Type: Online magazine blog
Target: Moral Ontology
Merit: So-so

  • Argument: Carrier leaves out a hidden premise (from his otherwise unobjectionable setup): "We ought to do that which would bring about what we want," that does not have to do with "facts about the world" which would be necessary to make his moral theory a genuine "moral realism."
  • See also: Robin Varghese's THE ONTOLOGY OF MORAL REALISM
  • Response: It is a fact of the world that we will do what we want to do and so unless Carroll is a dualist (which he may be), the mechanical construction of desires and their necessary implications on the rest of the facts of the world are reducible to quite underwhelming empirical facts. Any further "ought" debate is a practically meaningless quibble over inherited semantics from whenever someone invented the word "ought." See Carrier's comments.




Author: James Chastek ("Just Thomism")

Updates: (updates: custom google search, RSS)

Title: The definition of nature and naturalism by Naturalists (or materialists)
Location: http://thomism.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/the-definition-of-nature-and-naturalism-by-naturalists-or-materialists/
Type: Blog
Target: Defending Naturalism as a Worldview: A Rebuttal to Michael Rea's World Without Design
Merit: Lame

  • Argument: Chastek twists Carrier's definition of Naturalism to be drastically incoherent.
  • Content: Before getting to his own defense of abstract entities, Chastek briefly ridicules Carrier's and Quentin Smith's definition of naturalism.
  • Response: Chastek apparently tries to make it as though it is just so remarkably difficult to make any coherent distinctions between the creation he already believes in and the magical add-ons he shouldn't take seriously. If he can make a mountain out of that mere definitional mole hill, surely everything else he will add (when it comes to something important) in his forthcoming "...rather long piece on our knowledge of immaterial things..." will be even ridiculously more unfair and twisted beyond recognition.



Author: Javed Chaudry (Muslim)

Updates: (http://familyofheart.com/09/May31/COMMENTS/)

Title: TO MIKE JACKSON
Location: http://familyofheart.com/09/May31/COMMENTS/COMMENTS-JIC03.htm
Type: Feedback archives
Target: Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists (2001)
Merit: Lame

  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Consult:
  • Response:

Title: To Zafar Rahmani post # 70 & 90
Location: http://familyofheart.com/09/May31/COMMENTS/COMMENTS-JIC07.htm
Type: Feedback archives
Target: Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists (2001)
Merit: So-so

  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Consult:
  • Response:


Author: Humphrey Clarke ("Quodlibeta")

Updates: (http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/search?q=Richard+Carrier, RSS)

Title: Not Even Remotely Scientific Behaviour !
Location: http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2010/01/not-even-remotely-scientific-behaviour.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: Flynn's Pile of Boners

Title: The 'Sid Meier's Civilization' school of History
Location: http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2011/01/sid-meiers-civilization-school-of.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: Flynn's Pile of Boners

Title: Richard Carrier and the Domesday Watermills
Location: http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2011/02/richard-carrier-and-domesday-watermills.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: Flynn's Pile of Boners




Author: Conservapedia

Updates: (RSS)

Title: Richard Carrier
Authors: Joaquin Martinez, Taj, LiamG, Hsmom, and Fm93
Location: http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Carrier
Type: Wiki
Merit: Lame

  • Content: Extremely brief entry giving the bare minimum facts on Carrier's education and then playing up some cheap shots that amount to slander from a Christian perspective.
  • Response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier


Author: Nick Covington (atheist, "Answers in Genesis BUSTED")

Updates: (http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: The Problem of No Presents
Location: http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2010/12/problem-of-no-presents.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: Santa Lives!

  • Argument: Santa doesn't exist because there are too many good innocent kids who don't get presents.
  • Response: Covington addresses one possible explanation, but fails to take into account further considerations. How do we know that Santa hasn't left precisely enough children presentless who could be given presents via donations? If Santa always allowed only for who would actually give donations, that would not compel enough charity on behalf of those who need to be further guilted into altruistic behavior in years to come.

Title: Was Jesus Raised: Notes on Carrier
Location: http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2011/01/was-jesus-raised-notes-on-carrier.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, chapter 11

  • Argument: 1. Covington: "On page 302 Carrier tells us that Mark 16:9-20 was "'snuck in'" by "dishonest Christians." He says that the story of the woman caught in adultery, long known to be a later addition to the text of John, a "forgery" which was "deceitfully inserted after the fact." He finishes up with, "We have no way of knowing what got added to the version we now have in the Bible." I think this is a little uncharitable." 2. Covington: "And as for Carrier's statement: "We have no way of knowing what got added to the version we now have in the Bible." That is way off," and then notes the merits of lower and higher criticism that have some say.
  • Consult: Two Examples of Faulty Bible Scholarship (1999)
  • Response: 1. I agree. Though perhaps Carrier neglected to present his reasons for the "deception" rhetoric he uses given the limited space of the chapter. 2. Covington's own solution that he presents on Carrier's behalf is probably what Carrier meant: "Carrier may have meant something along the lines of, "We have no way of being absolutely certain about the original text of the New Testament.""



Author: William Lane Craig

Updates: (custom search)

Title: On the Argument for Design from Fine-Tuning
Location: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6123
Type: Web article
Target: Response to James Hannam's 'In Defense of the Fine Tuning Design Argument' (2001)
Merit: Important

  • Content: Craig says that he is not familiar with the exchange between Carrier and Hannam and is responding to a question from a Christian who wants to still make use of the fine tuning argument in light of Carrier's comments.
  • Argument: 1. Carrier mistakenly says there are 6 constants but there are actually a dozen or so. 2. The law of entropy in the early universe is an example of an arbitrary constant that is not reducible to some fundamental structure of the universe. Craig: "...showing every constant and quantity to be physically necessary is[n't] anything more than a pipe-dream." 3. Craig: "...there’s no reason at all to suspect so happy a coincidence that such changes would exactly compensate for one another so that in the aftermath of such an alteration life could still exist." 4. Any theory of everything is only trying to unify the four fundamental forces and will not actually attempt to explain literally everything. 5. Craig: "...it is far from clear that 10[to the 500th power] possible universes is enough to guarantee that even one life-permitting world will appear by chance in the landscape!" 6. Craig: "...we certainly are familiar with minds and the products of intelligent design, so that the appeal to a designer as the best explanation of the fine-tuning is an appeal to a familiar explanatory entity. " 7. Craig: "...we have no evidence of the existence of multiple universes, we do have independent reasons for believing in the existence of an ultramundane designer of the universe, namely, the other arguments for the existence of God, which I have defended elsewhere." 8. Craig: "Interesting to compare this conclusion with the frequent atheist claim that in the absence of evidence for God we should conclude that God does not exist! Do you see the inconsistency?" 9. Craig: "[Carrier is] unaware of the potentially lethal objections to the multiple universe hypothesis that have been lodged by physicists like Roger Penrose of Oxford University (The Road to Reality [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005], pp. 762-5)" and, "...if our universe is but one member of an infinite world ensemble of randomly varying universes, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe." [Craig unpacks some details at the end of the article]
  • Consult: Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design
  • Response: 1. [researching] 2. [researching] 3. Carrier's point there reduces the merit of assuming that many completely unrelated constants are coming together as opposed to ones which are merely inherently related to one another. It is not the entire argument. 4. A theory of "everything" could still go uncomfortably far beyond where fine tuning argument enthusiasts would prefer. 5. It is far from clear that a being like the Christian god could exist just as Carrier is quoted by Christopher as saying: "God is an unknown entity, who cannot be scientifically observed" and "agnosticism is the only justified outcome of this line of reasoning." Note, that Craig elsewhere seems to concede the point: "We appear then to be confronted with two alternatives: posit either a cosmic Designer or an exhaustively random, infinite number of other worlds. Faced with these options, is not theism just as rational a choice as multiple worlds?" [emphasis mine] If the many universes alternative is "just as rational" (and not just some conspiracy to get rid of Jesus) that admits that the many universes alternative is rational and that design is only just another possibility. Competing possibilities are not arguments against each other. Craig may need to clarify his position. 6. The philosopher's god is a designer with vastly different characteristics than any we know (and Craig presupposes he has won the mind/body debate to show that an immaterial mind is what we are in fact observing introspectively) whereas other universes would entail only mild doses of logical extension. As just one easy example, what kind of mind can even be considered a mind if as "atemporal" it clearly would be incapable of having a thought? It makes about as much sense as a circular square and yet this doesn't even remotely compare to tweaking some settings on a universe to imagine other universes. 7. Wow. Just wow. Craig even had to invent a new word to downplay an entity that is classically understood as "unfathomable" and "beyond comprehension." [Craig's other arguments can be refuted elsewhere] 8. The many universes hypothesis doesn't make the kind of interpersonal predictions that a moral providential god hypothesis makes about our experience of this universe (though it may make other kinds of predictions that physicists will have to tease out in further inquiry). 9. [researching] Craig doesn't seem to take into account the anthropic principle or that a small, wildly unpredictable universe may sabotage the opportunities for life to develop. It just means we don't necessarily understand the "physical necessity" factor or what relationships are necessary for life and/or conscious beings to exist. There may be more universes out there where horses do randomly pop into existence. Why does that mean this kind of universe can't exist or that we couldn't be in it? Just like every individual person is unique and "wildly improbable" when compared to the existence of all other individuals, every universe may be similarly unique.

Title: Christ's Resurrection Body
Location: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6963
Type: Web article
Target: The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave, chapter 5
Merit: Important

  • Argument: 1. Craig: "Carrier adopts the line, long repeated in liberal Protestant theology, that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection body, but in a 'spiritual body,' that is to say, an unextended, immaterial, intangible, massless 'body.'" 2 and 3. Craig: "Christ has exited this four-dimensional space-time continuum. Therefore, perhaps we might say that his human nature does not now manifest itself corporeally."
  • Content:
  • Consult: Spiritual Body FAQ
  • Response: 1. Craig misrepresents Carrier's claims: Carrier claims that Paul probably thought the "spiritual" body is a body made of heavenly materials, not non-materials. Craig needs to address the rest of Carrier's arguments with that in mind. 2. Immaterial things are conceptually impossible things which are definitionally indistinguishable from non-existent things. Nothingness isn’t going to change any time soon. Nothingness has no beginning. Nothingness is uncaused. Nothingness isn’t concrete. Nothingness has no height, length, width, depth, or location. Nothingness can’t cause things to happen. We only understand nothingness in terms of what it isn’t. Nothingness isn’t anything in particular. We can’t tell one nothingness from another nothingness. Etc. Nothingness has all the same non-characteristics that immaterial entities have and there is nothing that people can possibly be referring to when they talk about them “existing” in principle in this made up philosophical category. If Craig wants to identify his god with nothing, that's fine by me. 3. Perhaps Jesus' body after his ascension is still floating around in earth orbit waiting for it to be posessed again. ;)

Title: Richard Carrier's Pre-Debate Comments
Location: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6981
Type: Web article
Target: W. L. Craig Debate
Merit: Important

  • Content: Craig discusses some of the politics and misunderstandings revolving around formulating their debate from his perspective and rebuts Carrier's claim that it is "illogical" and "too broad of scope" to debate the resurrection rather than starting with the general reliability of the gospels.
  • Argument: 1. Craig: "...a case for the historicity of the specific events underlying the inference to Jesus' resurrection doesn't depend on establishing the general historical reliability of the Gospels." "...it is viciously circular and therefore illogical to require establishing a document's general reliability in order to establish its reliability with respect to some specific event. For how else could one demonstrate a document's general reliability except by demonstrating its reliability on a good number of specific events?" "Why should we get bogged down in a debate over the historicity of the birth narratives or the date of the Last Supper and so on, when nothing about Jesus' resurrection hangs on the reliability of those reports?" 2. Craig: "...the facts underlying the inference to Jesus' resurrection, such as the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances, are not contentious but belong to the historical core recognized by the wide majority of New Testament historians today. [...] It is [the infidel crowd] who are swimming against the current of scholarship; I am comfortably within the mainstream." 3. Craig: "Whether one is then willing to affirm Jesus' resurrection as the best explanation of the facts is apt to depend more on one's openness to a supernaturalist worldview than on historical considerations."
  • Consult:
  • Response: 1. Carrier seems to err here because he's rolled his positive conclusions that the gospel authors are prone to making stuff up into a debate on procedure. Depending on the document and the nature of its claims, either argumentative direction can be "illogical" or "too broad." 2. Aside from whether Craig is correct about a consensus on those particular facts, Craig seems to confuse that with what he considers "the best explanation." Those are two separate issues, since Craig could simply quote the consensus as directly saying, "Everyone thinks Jesus rose from the dead," but I don't think he can do that. 3. "Openness" is not the issue, but the lack of rather reason and evidence to be open to supernatural explanations. Craig wants to portray it as some kind of spiritual or bias issue rather than an actual debate on modern evidence for the supernatural, miracles, and psychic powers that would then lend inferential credibility to the much more ambiguous and less certain terrain of ancient history.

Title: Debate with Richard Carrier (part 1)
Location: http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Debate_with_Richard_Carrier_pt_1.mp3
Type: Podcast
Target: W. L. Craig Debate
Merit: Important

  • Argument: 1. Craig ridicules Carrier's comments about having fans and brags that he has students, not fans. 2. Craig complains that Carrier reverted back to the original debate and did not make use of the spiritual body hypothesis. 3. Craig says that fans of Carrier overestimated him and the strength of his case. Craig claims Carrier didn't lose because of rhetorical tricks and that he lost because his arguments were weak. 4. Craig claims that Carrier never came to grips with the four historical facts Craig presented, or the lines of evidence supporting the four facts and that Carrier only used "very broad brushstrokes." Craig said his inference to the best explanation relied on criteria of assessment: explanatory scope, power, plausibility, degree of ad hocness, and so forth. 5. Craig claims that most commentators disagree with Carrier on Paul's belief in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus, and Craig says that 1 Corinthians 2 proves the traditional interpretation of the physical/spiritual connection, but just reasserts the transformation tradition. 6. Craig misrepresents how Carrier uses the many faceted gospel appearances. Craig says all of the gospels presuppose a physical resurrection. 7. Craig says that liberal Christianity is the path to becoming unchristian.
  • Content:
  • Consult: Spiritual Body FAQ
  • Response: 1. Craigs fans would be surprised to hear that, just as Carrier's students would be surprised. Craig should lighten up. 2. Note my response to the above entry since I basically agree with Craig here. 3. Carrier did much better in his two debates with Mike Licona and some Christians agree, so I don't think one subjective performance is the judge of Carrier's abilities or his case. 4. Craig fails to note that each of those criteria of assessment falter on his case because in "broad brush strokes" we have no good reason to believe God exists, performs miracles in general, or was interested in raising anyone from the dead. As Carrier said in the debate, ~ "When bodies go missing in history, we don't need to blame God." 5. Carrier lists a number of scholars that agree with his position. 6. [pending] 7. Religious people who fall across the spectrum are not necessarily any more likely to be "on their way" to becoming non-Christian. There are plenty of principled liberal theologians who feel just as strongly about their relationship with God on non-conservative/fundamentalist/inerrantist terms as conservatives feel about their entire collection of ideological beliefs. What conservatives mistake for "erosion" liberals know to be intellectual honesty and the conviction that God would not expect them to distort or lie about the immediate facts of the world for the sake of Christian ideology.

Title: Debate with Richard Carrier (part 2)
Location: http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Debate_with_Richard_Carrier_pt_2.mp3
Type: Podcast
Target: W. L. Craig Debate
Merit: Important


Title: Subject: Independent Sources for Jesus' Burial and Empty Tomb
Location: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7047
Type: Web article
Target: W. L. Craig Debate
Merit: Important

  • Argument:
  • Content: Craig quotes a selection from himself in the debate with Carrier and goes more in depth defending the claim of multiple, independent, early sources for his four facts and asserts that this is only one piece of a much stronger argument.
  • Consult: Craig's Empty Tomb & Habermas on Visions
  • Response:

Title: Subject: Barabbas
Location: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8256
Type: Web article
Target: W. L. Craig Debate
Merit: Important

  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Consult:
  • Response:



Author: James Croft (atheist)

Updates:(http://harvardhumanist.org/?s=richard+carrier&submit=, RSS)

Title: The Freethinkers’ Political Textbook – Steel, Velvet, and the Honorable Duelist
Location: http://harvardhumanist.org/2012/02/16/the-freethinkers-political-textbook-steel-velvet-and-the-honorable-duelist/
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Panel One Skepticon 3 "Confrontation vs. Accommodation"



Author: Wesley Crouser ("Theological Musings")

Updates: (http://wesleycrouser.wordpress.com/?s=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: Evidence for the Resurrection: Introduction
Location: http://wesleycrouser.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/evidence-for-the-resurrection-introduction/
Type: Blog
Target: Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story
Merit: So-so

  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Consult:
  • Response:

Title: Evidence for the Resurrection: Medical Evidence
Location: http://wesleycrouser.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/evidence-for-the-resurrection-medical-evidence/
Type: Blog
Target: Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story
Merit: So-so

  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Consult:
  • Response:

Title: Evidence for the Resurrection: The Empty Tomb
Location: http://wesleycrouser.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/evidence-for-the-resurrection-the-empty-tomb/
Type: Blog
Target: Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story
Merit: So-so

  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Consult:
  • Response:

Title: Evidence for the Resurrection: Post-Resurrection Appearances
Location: http://wesleycrouser.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/evidence-for-the-resurrection-post-burial-appearances/
Type: Blog
Target: Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story
Merit: So-so

  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Consult:
  • Response:

Title: Evidence for the Resurrection: Conclusions
Location: http://wesleycrouser.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/evidence-for-the-resurrection-conclusions-2/
Type: Blog
Target: Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story
Merit: So-so

  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Consult:
  • Response:



Author: Dave Cruver ("To Tell You The Truth")

Updates: (http://www.totellyouthetruth.net/search=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: What Sets Christianity Apart?
Location: http://totellyouthetruth.net/what-sets-christianity-apart.php
Type: Blog
Target: **What an Atheist Ought to Stand For**
Merit: Lame

  • Argument: Saving faith in Jesus is what sets Christianity apart from moralism.
  • Content:
  • Consult:
  • Response: So what? Either Cruver is merely trying to arbitrarily sort out his Christian identity or he is making an argument. If he is making an argument it requires that A: Christianity is actually true and B: That the "fruit of the spirit" or what is called the fruit of the spirit by Christians is not actually evident in moral non-Christians. He's not shown that Christianity is true and/or necessary for producing actual moral behavior.