S / T / U / V




S


Author: Amy Sayers ("Answering Infidels")

Updates: (http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/)

Title: Is Atheism a Safe Bet?
Location: http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/is-atheism-a-safe-bet.html
Type: Web article
Merit: So-so
Target: The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Non-Theists Go to Heaven

Title: Two Ancient Teachers, Two Bad Analogies
Location: http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/two...
Type: Web article
Merit: So-so
Target: On Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay


Title: The Real Jesus: A Brief Portrait
Location: http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/the-real...
Type: Web article
Merit: So-so
Target: On Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay


Title: Do No Miracles Today Imply None in the Past?: A Critique of Richard Carrier's Methodology
Location: http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/do-no-miracles...
Type: Web article
Merit: So-so
Target: Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story



Author: Ben Schuldt (atheist, "WAR ON ERROR")

Updates: (http://war-on-error.xanga.com/tags/richardcarrier/, RSS)

Title: (debate review) William Lane Craig vs Richard Carrier on the Resurrection of Jesus
Location: http://war-on-error.xanga.com/696331128/debate-review-william-lane-craig-vs-richard-carrier-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/
Type: Blog
Merit: ...
Target:

  • Argument: Carrier made some poor preparation choices and should have stuck with a classic simplistic negative approach based on all of Craig's material and videos which have long been available online, like what Carrier did in both Mike Licona debates.
  • Response: Carrier agrees he did not do his best and does not believe that engaging Craig is professionally feasible within the context of a debate.

Title: Richard Carrier & "David Marshall's Review of Sense and Goodness" (updated)
Location: http://war-on-error.xanga.com/698167552/richard-carrier--david-marshalls-review-of-sense-and-goodness-updated/
Type: Blog
Merit: ...
Target:

  • Argument: Carrier implausibly portrays Marshall as a dishonest reviewer rather than merely a biased one who looks for confirming evidence and understands things from a completely different point of view that Carrier does not sympathize with.
  • Response: Carrier agrees that some of his accusations were unfounded, but in some instances still cannot bring himself to believe that Marshall wasn't dishonest.

Title: (Bible Prophecy) Ezekiel, Tyre, and Nebuchadnezzar
Location: http://war-on-error.xanga.com/703285132/bible-prophecy-ezekiel-tyre-and-nebuchadnezzar/
Type: Blog
Merit: ...
Target:

  • Argument: It is unlikely that the author of Ezekiel so directly contradicts himself and the apologetic defenses on that point are convincing.
  • Response:

Title: Richard Carrier and "Can One Infinity Be 'Bigger' Than Another?"
Location: http://war-on-error.xanga.com/714114027/richard-carrier-and-can-one-infinity-be-bigger-than-another/
Type: Blog
Merit: ...
Target:

  • Argument: It is incoherent to say that one unlimited quantity can be "more" or "less" than another unlimited quantity.
  • Response:

Title: (book review) "The Christian Delusion" - Ch. 1: The Cultures of Christianities
Location: http://war-on-error.xanga.com/725837451/book-review-the-christian-delusion---ch-1-the-cultures-of-christianities/
Type: Blog
Merit: ...
Target: The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails

  • Consult: The Christian Delusion
  • Argument: Carrier agrees with David Eller that Christian missionaries who make use of cultural education in their ministry refute the core of their beliefs. This clearly misrepresents the position of the missionaries who do not agree that religion = culture.
  • Response: Since I am making the argument and making the response, the best I could say here would be that Eller simply overstates his case (and Carrier agrees with Eller) and that he is making an argument from the perspective if he were in the shoes of the missionaries and believed what they believed about religion and culture and did what they did, he would feel like he'd refuted his own faith. That is an understandable position, but it is not a rigidly logical one.


Author: ("Shiny Ideas")

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

Title: A Weakness In The Defense of Atheistic Morality
Location: http://aleph-nought.blogspot.com/2010/05/weakness-in-defense-of-atheistic.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target:

  • Consult: How many little girls are slaughtered unnoticed?
  • Argument: Richard Carrier and Sam Harris cannot defend their moral claims.Shiny Ideas: "...[Atheists] openly acknowledge that their respective moral systems are a result of their own moral intuitions. If they're intellectually honest they will recognize that the other individual's truth claims are equally as strong as their own, at which point they'll be left with no way to break the tie..." "Getting back to PZ's post, I find it not the least bit contentious that he can take a firm moral stand on the slaughter of a young girl. But what if someone were to challenge his position, framing it as a conflict between individual liberty and oh... say... "family honor"."
  • Content:
  • Response: It is implausible that members of the same species truly occupy entirely different moral universes (unless their brains are broken). Carrier's "goal theory" entails that we inevitably have to break different positions down conceptually and do the moral math in terms of the common denominators that can be discerned. What is the point of liberty? What is the point of honor? How are each dealt with in each moral system? What other considerations are there in each respective scheme of things? Who is pulling off one, the other, or both better? This just makes the task difficult, not impossible and people give up prematurely. We can find common units if we try if we are talking with reasonable introspective people. Muslims may well agree that following Allah's will objectively entails the best of that the human condition has to offer in generic terms we can all agree with. But is that actually the case when they get specific? What if following some other god or humanist philosophy entails that humans are enabled to be all that they can be? How embarrassing for any given religion if that is so. Otherwise, Muslims can't hope to appeal to infidels any more than infidels can hope to appeal to Muslims. It is a moral skill to learn how to appeal to the common ground between seemingly wildly divergent moral systems and work to show who is actually being the most consistent and successful in terms of our common humanity (what Harris might call "mental capacities").


Author: Adam Smith ("Discipler Network")

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

Title: The Case For the Real Jesus (Chapter 3, Part 2)
Location: http://disciplernetwork.blogspot.com/2010/01/case-for-real-jesus-chapter-3-part-2.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Debate with Mike Licona part 1 and part 2

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Smith: "Carrier tries to explain away Jesus resurrection appearance to Paul by stating Paul felt guilt over his persecution of Jesus, His theory does not account for the conversion of the skeptic James (Jesus brother). It would only account for Paul's conversion, It also does not account for the empty tomb, There were also eyewitnesses who saw Paul's conversion. It was not merely psychological."
  • Response: One must always accept the possibility of a psychologically induced hallucination--especially a claim of a vision that happened thousands of years ago. The Biblical at-face-value case for the conversion of James (as opposed to Paul) is not as credible (and not as explicit); though James too may have had a similar guilt induced hallucination following the execution of his brother and the subsequent fervor of his following (and suggestive nature of it), which did not die out after all, as might have been expected by an incredulous family member. Who knows? Bodies go missing for all sorts of reasons that do not require supernatural explanations--though Carrier has much to say about the legend of the empty tomb in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave. Paul, who would be a more reliable source than the author of Luke and Acts, doesn't actually get into the details of his conversion (Galatians 1:13-15, 1 Corinthians 15:9, Philippians 3:6) to tell us if there were witnesses or what exactly they were supposed to have witnessed. Acts has three seemingly contradictory accounts (Acts 9:3-8, 22:6-11, 26:12-18), which while not refuting themselves necessarily, does cast doubt on any of the particular details that might be used to indicate the external corroboration of the event to distinguish it from something that only happened in Paul's mind. That also assumes they aren't just three different spins on a common Pauline legend that the author of Luke collected and uncritically assimilated into his document. We can't hope to know for sure, or at least not sure enough to really make a good case for a veridical vision on behalf of Paul, James, or anyone else. Taking all the documents in the Bible at face value for every detail seems to be the problem.


Author: Kris Smith ("Explanation Blog" or "Debunking Atheism")

Updates: (http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/?s=richard+carrier&submit=GO, RSS)

Title: Luke and the Census of Quirinius
Location: http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/luke-and-the-census-of-quirinius/
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: The Date of the Nativity in Luke

Title: Josephus and Herod the Great
Location: http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/josephus-and-herod-the-great/
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: The Date of the Nativity in Luke

Title: A “most prominent” census: Carlson vs. Carrier
Location: http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/a-most-prominent-census-carlson-vs-carrier/
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: The Date of the Nativity in Luke


Author: Stan (agnostic?, "Atheism Analyzed")

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

Title: Richard Carrier: Advice to Everyone on Becoming a Philosopher.
Location: http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/08/richard-carrier-advice-to-everyone-on.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: How to Be a Philosopher

Title: Richard Carrier on Naturalism aka Philosophical Materialism
Location: http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/08/richard-carrier-on-naturalism-aka.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: On Defining Naturalism as a Worldview



Author: Thom Stark (liberal Christian, "Religion at the Margins")

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

Title: The Death of Richard Carrier’s Dying Messiah
Location: http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/04/the-death-of-richard-carriers-dying-messiah/
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: The Dying Messiah


Title: The Torturous Death of Richard Carrier’s Dying Messiah
Location: http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/05/the-torturous-death-of-richard-carriers-dying-messiah/
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: The Dying Messiah


Title: It Is Finished for Richard Carrier’s Dying Messiah: Part 1
Location: http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/06/it-is-finished-for-richard-carriers-dying-messiah-part-1/
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: The Dying Messiah Redux


Title: It Is Finished for Richard Carrier’s Dying Messiah: Part 2
Location: http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/06/it-is-finished-for-richard-carriers-dying-messiah-part-2/
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: The Dying Messiah Redux



Author: Jason Stellman ("Creed Code Cult")

Updates: ( , RSS)

Title: Seeing is Overrated
Location: http://www.creedcodecult.com/2011/08/seeing-is-overrated.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so.
Target: Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story

  • Argument: Carrier is obviously hypocritically hyper-skeptical, biased, uses exaggerated rhetoric, and makes historical arguments that are not worth taking the time to refute. This is all beside the point since Carrier also misunderstands the nature of Christian doctrines which entail faith in the unseen.
  • Consult: Stellman's previous post (where he sets up the current one), "Well I Don't Care About History...."
  • Response: In Stellman's previous post, he adequately summarized Carrier's case without turning it into a hyperskeptical strawman and yet in this one he almost seems to have forgotten what he had said in order to pretend like Carrier's standards of evidence were not lifted from Christian claims about the comparative evidence between the resurrection of Jesus and Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. Ultimately Stellman has just made accusations with no argument. From there we have the classic Christian move into immoral epistemology where not having good evidence and argument is considered a virtue rather than a Pandora's box of epistemic insanity. This completely avoids the issue of how we know any given hearsay supernatural claim is actually true rather than some other contradictory one. And of course with the story of doubting Thomas who is reprimanded for getting the kind of evidence everyone else will never get, we have an all too easy refutation of the moral authority of the Christian worldview since it overtly and directly promotes the evil of epistemic negligence as an ideological rule. Stellman's post also provides a picture of a Luke Skywalker action figure with lightsaber and blast-shielded helmet from the Star Wars movies who represents a lesson about faith in the unseen Force. I have to note that we could readily *see* that Luke Skywalker could *actually* deflect laser bolts while blinded and that there were many Jedi with magic powers running around the galaxy just 2 decades prior that implausible skeptic Han Solo (who would have been 10 years old at the time) probably should have known about. And like it or not, fanbois, there was a predictive science of midi-chlorians that gave the Jedi access to their powers which also probably would have been taught in comparative species and biology at schools on Corellia which would have been Solo's homeworld.



Author: Christopher Stephens (atheist, "Ziztur")

Updates: (http://ziztur.com/?s=richard+carrier&searchsubmit=, RSS)

Title: So, meat good, then?
Location: http://ziztur.com/2011/12/so-meat-good-then.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: Meat Not Bad



Author: Steve ("Finding Truth")

Updates: (http://findingtruth.co.za/?s=richard+carrier, http://findingtruth.co.za/tag/richard-carrier/, RSS)

Title: Licona vs Carrier
Location: http://findingtruth.co.za/2011/08/licona-vs-carrier/
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so.
Target: 2nd debate with Mike Licona

  • Argument: 1. The Christian worldview isn't required to make sense to humans. 2. Is the idea of God saving humanity really that bad of a concept? 3. The doctrine of hell is "there" but really isn't that important to the Christian message.
  • Response: 1. The Christian worldview may be true, but it would appear we are not qualified to comment on it or even believe in it if we take these common Christian excuses for granted. We should instead be saying, "I wouldn't know. I'm just a human," to be logically consistent. However, if deferring to fallible human understanding is just a convenient excuse when a worldview fails to make sense, it seems we are qualified enough to judge the big picture the Bible presents. 2. The Christian salvation picture is a "really bad concept" because the hero of the story willingly allows two people (Adam and Eve) to put the entire human race at a significant disadvantage apart from anything they could have done to avoid being in that compromised sinful position to begin with. He then so graciously is willing to "rescue" us from that predicament, never minding the negligence part that got us there in the first place in principle. In any other story, we recognize that kind of hero as the villain who merely wants the glory of saving the day in appearances rather than actually caring about people in fact. Superman saves Lois Lane = good. Lex Luthor puts Lois Lane in jeopardy so he can rescue her on national TV and show up Superman = evil. 3. And btw, Jesus is the *number 1* proponent of eternal damnation in the entire Bible (try finding anyone else going on and on about it) often connecting it to some form of "if you don't do what I say...." Pretty much the entire theme of all of the moralizing inevitably coasts into lessons on judgement day and hellfire making almost the entire gospel message about avoiding hell. It can't just be brushed under the carpet any more than atheists can do the same when they want to ignore all the moral extremism and call Jesus at least a "good teacher." It's just not true. See the argument map, "The Doctrine of Hell is Unjust."


Author: Jason Streitfeld (atheist, "Specter of Reason")

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

Title: Naturalism Defined
Location: http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2010/06/naturalism-defined.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: On Defining Naturalism as a Worldview

  • Consult: Russell Blackford's "Richard Carrier on defining naturalism"
  • Argument: Streitfeld: 1. "naturalism and supernaturalism are not exclusively theses about minds or mental entities. For example, Carrier excludes the possibility of David Chalmers' variety of naturalistic dualism." 2. "...supernaturalism is usually defined as the belief that nature is subservient to another realm." 3. "The reason it is impossible to scientifically falsify naturalism is that, to do so, you'd have to have scientific evidence for something which was not natural. Since "natural" is defined as what is describable by science, this is a priori impossible." Streitfeld quotes Carrier as saying: "[there is] a trend in science and law to define the word 'supernatural' as 'the untestable.'" Streifeld then says: "He doesn't offer any evidence for this assertion, and I find it highly dubious. True, naturalists believe that supernatural claims are untestable. That is one reason, perhaps the main reason, why they reject them. But that is not the same as defining 'the supernatural" as 'the untestable.'" 4. "Jedi powers do not indicate mental powers or properties which are not caused by non-mental powers or properties." 5. "Perhaps there are mechanisms which we are currently unable to describe or observe. But how could we arrive at the conclusion that they were theoretically undescribable and unobservable? We couldn't." "To reject my view of science and naturalism, you would have to accept the claim that there are inherently indescribable facts. But facts are describable by definition. So it's a contradiction in terms."
  • Content:
  • Response: In general, Streitfeld offers nothing in the way of actually dealing with the category of non-physical mental things directly, which appears to be a significant weakness to his perspective and a strength of Carrier's. 1. Streitfeld's counterexample fails because of a labeling issue. Naturalistic dualism is partially supernaturalism. Just giving it a title doesn't cancel that out or make that evidence against the superior utility of Carrier's definitions. 2. Streitfeld's definition of supernaturalism would make the real world outside of the Matrix a "supernatural" world. But even that could be testable inside the Matrix, since there's no reason one could not have telepresent robots who link to the outside and do experiments for scientists on the inside of the Matrix. So, Streitfeld's distinctions are not philosophical, they are merely practical, since it makes no other distinctions. Angels, demons, and Jesus could manifest in ways within the boundaries of scientific inquiry. They simply choose not to. Would that make them natural? Should Christians call themselves impractical naturalists? 3. All supernatural claims could be untestable by definition without all untestable claims being supernatural by definition. Hence the trend Carrier points out is not rebutted by Streitfeld's articulated incredulity. Further, Streitfeld's view presupposes scientists have thought through their own inconsistency. 4. Assuming Qui-Gon Jinn knows what he's talking about, midichlorians in a Jedi's cells communicate with the Force which is presumably not a machine in another dimension that could be described by science. It is likely some irreducible agent with some intentionality, just as Carrier says it should be based on his definition of supernatural. 5. There are different levels of facts. That dark matter exists may be a fact, but that doesn't mean we can tell you all about how it works yet. And it may come down to an inference that there is still more to the story, but that we don't know all about that story and have exhausted all possible means of physical inquiry. Who knows. Perhaps there will be some way to even prove we cannot know more about something specifically explicitly because of the inconvenient structure of the universe.

Title: Richard Carrier on Moral Realism
Location: http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2011/03/richard-carrier-on-moral-realism.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Moral Ontology

  • Argument: 1. Carrier erroneously claims that the existence of moral realists makes moral realism true. 2. Contrary to Carrier's claims, not everyone even if they knew all the facts and reasoned correctly would arrive at the same conclusions. 3. We don't ever have all the facts so what is Carrier talking about? 4. Carrier claims that moral oughts are regular oughts that supersede all others, and yet this means we'd need to know more than an all knowing person would in order to be moral. 5. Streitfeld claims he cannot decide if buying rolls or not is a moral ought based on Carrier's theory. 6. Streitfeld claims that he does not consider giving to charity that important, but he says Carrier's theory cannot account for the clear moral dimension to it. 7. Moral oughts are unique in that they are obligations and not just based on their relative strength. 8. People can agree on facts yet disagree about values or assign different weights to different values. 9. Streitfeld says: "[Carrier] tries to ground moral facts in social welfare..." 10. Streitfeld says: "...you would need some metric for measuring the prosperity of society at large, and you would need some way of showing that your metric was the right one."
  • Content: Streitfeld bizarrely claims Carrier's argument is that the presence of moral realists proves moral realism is true, and misapprehends a half dozen other things about Carrier's position (all the while "correcting" himself with "interpretive charity") to try to show that Carrier isn't a moral realist after all.
  • Response: 1. I don't know where Streitfeld gets this claim. 2. Carrier is fine with moral pluralism. 3. Carrier is setting the high bar acknowledging that past decisions that were thought "good," though based on poor or incomplete information, can be judged properly in hindsight with new information. 4. Carrier means that moral oughts are just the most important oughts (which Streitfeld acknowledges after he decides to start being "charitable"). 5. Surely Streitfeld can figure out that eating is important, and that health is important, though the particulars of whether you buy rolls or not, or specific kinds of rolls trails off into non-moral terrain. 6. If Streitfeld's moral theory entails absolute obligations, then why is he not giving to charity? If there are complicated shades of gray, then why does he fault Carrier's theory? 7. There are no absolute obligations since it is merely a fact that we don't have to do anything at all and so only relative strength remains to distinguish moral oughts from other oughts. 8. If values are immutable or arbitrarily inherited, then there is no way to sort through them and you cannot even find yourself mistaken (in which case moral pluralism is still a version of moral realism, just a more complicated one). If you *are* able to find yourself mistaken, then there must be facts that your values turn on. 9. Even the sentence Streitfeld quotes to demonstrate his point here (Carrier says, "social *and* psychological homeostasis," emphasis mine) shows that only "social welfare" doesn't address the grounding in common psychology Carrier is appealing to and hence Streitfeld continues with his misrepresentation into other points. 10. Carrier's moral metric is happiness and happiness is grounded in discoverable psychological principles. If happiness is by definition the most desirable frame of mind (if you knew all there is to know about what is possible along those lines), and if you are a human being with that psychology, it would be foolish to resist that standard, by definition, wouldn't it?



Author: Lee Strobel ("Faith Under Fire")

Updates: (RSS)

Title: On what basis does Richard Carrier deny the resurrection?
Location: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpvgOL3soA0
Type: Youtube video
Merit: So-so
Target:

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Carrier can't psychoanalyze a historical figure to disprove the resurrection. There is no need to speculate with wacky, grasping at straws ideas, since Paul tells us why he converted. Paul says he encountered the risen Christ. This wasn't just in his head because there were people with him at the time and they saw the same light and heard something even though they didn't understand it. Multiple historical accounts verify that Paul was willing to die for his convictions. Carrier's psychoanalysis doesn't explain the empty tomb, the other disciples' experiences, and especially James who had no psychological reason to put his faith in his brother and be martyred. There are probably no examples from history of people willing to knowingly die for a lie.
  • Content:
  • Response: Carrier is not attempting to give definitive psychoanalysis. He's proposing a mundane naturalistic alternative possibility which can't hope to be eliminated before responsibly concluding an extraordinary supernatural event probably occurred. Further it isn't Paul who tells us that anyone else saw a light and heard the noise even though he had the perfect opportunity to do so in Galatians 1:11-24. And we can only speculate about Luke's sources for his three contradictory accounts in Acts 9:3-8, 22:6-11, and 26:12-18. His sources, who may not have been Paul, may have been inclined to add in some extra details to deal with the very same objection that historians like Carrier are making today (that even Paul was attempting to rebut from the beginning!). Strobel says we can't psychoanalyze a historical figure but how can he tell us that James had NO psychological reason to convert? That's hypocritical. Maybe James was rebelling all those years against his brother's ideology, and then the reports of his brother's movement taking off after his death was the straw that broke the camels back and contrived a contrary hallucinatory experience for his mind as well? It's just the power of suggestion. Carrier never claims that any of them went to die for a lie, since hallucinations in the right cultural context can be fully persuasive realities for them. Is it really that shocking to suppose that a collection of religious documents over the period of many years from different authors managed to collectively generate an at least slightly better case (at pure face value) than they really originally had in reality? Naturalism doesn't need a proverbial magic bullet because history and self-reporting are just too slippery to land a solid "argument to the better explanation" for Christian apologetics here. We just can't trust that extra detail here and there that may make a naturalistic explanation seem less plausible.


Author: (non-Christian, "The Stroppy Rabbit")

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

Title: Classical Pagan Science
Location: http://stroppyrabbit.blogspot.com/2008/04/classical-pagan-science.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Science and Medieval Christianity

  • Argument: Carrier's definition of religion only applies to "creedal" religions and he underplays the abilities and accomplishments of the value systems of the Pagans, Hindus, Muslims, and others.
  • Response: See Carrier's comments.



T



Author: (atheist, "The Teapot Atheist")

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

Title: Richard Carrier on naturalism
Location: http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2010/03/richard-carrier-on-naturalism.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: On Defining Naturalism as a Worldview


Title: Richard Carrier on Richard Carrier on naturalism
Location: http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2010B/03/richard-carrier-on-richard-carrier-on.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: Defining Naturalism



Author: Scott Terry ("Shotgun Barrel Straight")

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

Title: Richard Carrier’s Bogus Epistemology
Location: http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/richard-carriers-bogus-epistemology/
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God, page 23

  • Consult:
  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Response: Testing the success of truth criteria with experience is the only measure anyone is ever going to be able to find regardless of its flaws. Even the truths of pure logic have to be experienced. As Sam Harris has pointed out, we cannot even know if something is true or false without being able to feel what that means. I challenge Terry to do better or to demonstrate that he does things in some way not described by Carrier. The counter example given by Terry pretends like a rigorous approach to his Indiana Jones problem is impossible or he pretends like if we really did only have one tiny bit of evidence on some claim, we wouldn't all be proportionately less confident. This is all very mundane earthly territory and to disagree here makes someone sound hyper-critical without cause. What Terry calls "flaunting his arbitrariness" others would call "epistemic versatility." We live in the metaphysical wild and have to work with whatever crazy things are thrown our way. Making epistemic lemonade out of those lemons is in fact a skill. Carrier would actually agree with Harry Frankfurt's claim about self-refuting doubt so there is no need for what he says to be contrasted with it since Carrier is talking about what to do beyond that.


Author: ("Theologician" at "Christian CADRE")

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

Title: Is Richard Carrier Wrong about The Assumption of Moses?
Location: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/01/is-richard-carrier-wrong-about.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave, chapter 5

  • Consult: Chris Price's The Assumption of Moses and Carrier's Spiritual Body FAQ
  • Argument: Theologician:"The main problem with Carrier’s use of this passage to support his “two body” theory, is that the text clearly does not say Moses had two bodies and it is entirely compatible with Moses going on to an intermediate spiritual state prior to the resurrection."
  • Content:
  • Response: Theologician notes that Carrier may not be exactly using "The Assumption of Moses" in a straight forward way and Carrier says his usage did not hinge on whether or not "two bodies" were being described though he says that explanation is the most likely anyhow. See also: http://www.richardcarrier.info/SpiritualFAQ.html#moses In context, Carrier says: "...the idea of a disembodied life separate from one’s body is well-established." [emphasis mine] Further 1 Sam. 28:7-20 which Carrier footnotes has not been addressed but makes the same point. Theologician goes on to say that the intent of the passage may have been to use a metaphor for the difference between how deeply some people see realities. However, this seems to necessitate that the basis of that metaphor is one that supports Carrier's thesis. Metaphors that play off of events don't cancel out those events.

Title: Is Richard Carrier Wrong About what Josephus and the Pharisees Believed?
Location: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/04/is-richard-carrier-wrong-about-what_27.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave, chapter 5

  • Consult: Spiritual Body FAQ
  • Argument: Contrary to what Carrier claims, Josephus "could have been more clear" about his views on the resurrection in ways that would conform to Carrier's thesis. The Josephus passages are compatible with the transformation view. Carrier does not tell his readers that Josephus is writing for a Greek audience and will freely use their words and concepts to express Jewish views (in ways that even misrepresent them). Hence we must be cautious when drawing any conclusions from a superficial reading.
  • Response: Carrier's overstatement can be read, "Josephus did not need to be more clear." Theologician quotes N. T. Wright against Carrier's interpretation, but even Wright says the reading is valid as is though he believes it can be interpreted otherwise based on other information. If Josephus did not have a problem expressing it in terms of "reincarnation" that is effectively a "two body" doctrine and hence the idea is "feasible" for Pharisees as Carrier claims in one way or another. It's just not that huge a conceptual leap.


Author: Jake Thompson (youtuber: "migkillertwo")

Updates: (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=migkillertwo&view=videos)

Title: the resurrection of Jesus was physical and not spiritual
Location: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o95Kuk2kB-M
Type: Vlog
Merit: So-so
Target: The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave, chapter 5


Title: the resurrection was physical, not spiritual, part 2
Location: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BYoIFtXIQI
Type: Vlog
Merit: So-so
Target: The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave, chapter 5


Title: Debate between Richard Carrier and William Lane Craig over the Resurrection
Location: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edUHOMkQsec#t=1m09s
Type: Vlog
Merit: So-so
Target: Craig Debate Wrap

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Proper study of the gospels requires evaluating the reliability of a particular story rather than the entire gospel itself.

Title: On urbster1, foundationalist epistemology, and metaethics
Location: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw-aTt3mYHU
Type: Vlog
Merit: So-so
Target:

Title: Response to Richard Dawkins and Lee Smolin on the anthropic principle
Location: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZKWFIVrBkc
Type: Vlog
Merit: So-so
Target:



Author: Vincent Torley ("Uncommon Descent")

Updates: (custom google search, RSS)

Title: We hold these truths to be self-evident…
Location: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/we-hold-these-truths-to-be-self-evident/
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target:




U




Author: "Uncommon Descent"

Updates: (custom google search, RSS)

Title: New atheist Richard Carrier on why the human body wasn’t designed
Location: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-atheist-richard-carrier-on-why-the-human-body-wasn%E2%80%99t-designed/
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Unintelligent Design

  • Consult: Would the human body make more sense if it were not designed?
  • Content/Argument: The link is a contest to "count the fallacies" of Carrier's position on intelligent design and only attempts to make a semi-point with this: "Name one healthy body part you’re sure you’d be better off without."
  • Response: Aside from not actually pointing out any of the fallacies, one fallacy is quite evident that the IDers can't tell the difference between an organ working inefficiently and being poorly designed and not needing that argument at all. On balance it may easily be the case that keeping all your body parts is the best deal, but that doesn't make it the best possible deal.




V



Author: Bill Vallicella ("Maverick Philosopher")

Updates: (MP1, MP2, MP3, http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com, custom google search, RSS)

Title: Naturalism and the Status of Logical Laws
Location: http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/07/naturalism-and-status-of-logical-laws.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason


Title: More on the Status of Logical Laws
Location: http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/07/more-on-status-of-logical-laws.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason


Title: The Argument from Reason: Reppert Replies to Carrier
Authors: Bill Vallicella, Victor Reppert
Location: http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/10/argument-from-reason-reppert-replies.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason



Author: Daniel Ventress ("COMMON-SENSE INFECTED RATIONAL GAZE")

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

Title: The Never Ending Story
Location: http://religiousyetsane.blogspot.com/2009/12/never-ending-story.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target:

  • Content: Ventress: "Only two "scholars" alive think Jesus never existed and those two are Richard Carrier and Robert Price (who are notoriously dishonest and heavily slated for their counter-consensus views)"

Title: Richard Carrier's Biggest Lie Ever
Authors: J. P. Holding, Daniel Ventress
Location: http://religiousyetsane.blogspot.com/2010/01/richard-carriers-biggest-lie-ever.html
Type: Blog, forum repost
Merit: Lame
Target: The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave, chapter 10


Title: Why Are Atheist "Scholars" So Dishonest?
Location: http://religiousyetsane.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-are-atheist-scholars-so-dishonest.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Jewish Law, the Burial of Jesus, and the Third Day

Title: Richard Carrier Does Not Exist
Location: http://religiousyetsane.blogspot.com/2010/12/richard-carrier-does-not-exist.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: