This is an archive of past discussions about Richard Carrier. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What Michael Grant writes does not belong in a section on the Reception and criticism of Carrier's work, since Grant died before Carrier published it.--StephanNaro (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Christina Petterson does appear to have a PhD (I think), but I cannot find anything specific on what area she might have it in. Since the books published under her name on Amazon appear to be in the field of religion, I can only conclude that she will be strongly biased against Carrier's methodology and conclusions. --StephanNaro (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
M. David Litwa is another one with a non-specific PhD, but his earlier qualifications do not instill confidence in me that it is in history. The actual points he makes may or may not hold water, but I cannot judge that, and he appears to start from a strongly biased position against Carrier's project.--StephanNaro (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Patrick Gray is apparently an Assistant Professor of Religious Studies.
Aviezer Tucker appears to be an actual expert on historiography, though I see that even he has only a PhD in philosophy.
Larry W. Hurtado is another one with impressive-seeming credentials, but alas, I see no reason to think he was an expert in historiography. Even more strongly devoted to a religious point of view than the rest put together, probably.
Simon Gathercole seems to have a a degree in Classics and Theology...
I can discover nothing about Willem Blom.
All in all, this seems like quite the hatchet-job. It could be that all objections are valid, but certainly the critics' qualifications don't overwhelm me with their unbiased relevance. --StephanNaro (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The Grant quote is relevant as it is in a discussion of Carrier's central idea "Jesus never existed" an idea that is utterly rejected by classical historians such as Grant. The rest of your examples do not show understanding of the way sources are used on WP. We do not examine reliable sources and decide if the writer is biased or not.Smeat75 (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
In other words, for the first few years after On the Origin of Species, the opinions of people who died ten years earlier would have been acceptable. And in further words, first of all, my first reaction regarding bias had to do with some of his critics dismissing Carrier "because bias"; secondly, what you sound very close to saying is that Wikipedia has no standards whatsoever about its sources - as long as any claim has a source, in it goes. Well, after all, I have gotten away with a few edits here, so... what did I expect.
Interestingly, though Raphael Lataster supposedly holds a PhD (Studies in Religion) from the University of Sydney, the article is careful to note that he is a "collaborator and fellow mythicist". Seems like some sort of double standard here, but do have fun. --StephanNaro (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
So the single positive reaction should be given more weight than all the negative because of “bias”? Hmm. I’m not sure exactly why you’ve listed everyone’s qualifications, but as Smeat says, that’s not really relevant. Grant's opinion continues to be held by virtually all classical historians and historians of religion. Carrier is a fringe figure.
Furthermore, having a PhD in religion is not the same as being religious-many of these figures are atheists. They are unlikely to be biased against Carrier for that reason.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly, I did not say that they were religious. This has to do with their careers, and their expertise. Bart Ehrman seems to continually deride people lacking what he considers relevant qualifications, but, you're right, you're not obligated to follow his rules. Nor did I say that positives have to outweigh negatives, merely that I note circumspection only on one side. But, as I already said, don't let me get in the way of your having fun. --StephanNaro (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
He attacks people who are neither religious historians nor historians such as scholars of German literature. All the people you’ve listed above have relevant credentials and have been published in peer reviewed journals in the field. We don’t need to vet them any further than that, particularly given carriers overwhelmingly isolated and fringe status in this field. Furthermore, if you know what history of religion is and weren’t alleging religious bias, I cannot fathom what “bias” you might be alleging (or do you think they couldn’t study The history of religion anymore if Carrier has “proved” that Jesus didn’t exist?).—-Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.", Upton Sinclair. It is not necessary to be biased in favour of religion in order to be biased in favour of keeping the cottage industries around religion alive. --StephanNaro (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
So you want to promote the Christ myth theory and are upset that one of its loudest proponents is rejected by all relevant scholarship? That’s what I’m getting out of this thread. Your accusation is baseless anyway: obviously if you could prove Jesus didn't exist, this would be a much better career move from a scholar of religion than just agreeing with everyone else. And you could then study how Jesus came to exist and why people thought he did. No one's "salary" depends on Jesus having existed. Your thinking so shows a poor understanding of how scholarship works and suggests conspiratorial thinking.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic scholars obviously don't depend on Jesus existing and yet they do not hold mythicist views either - overwhelmingly. The argument collapses when you think about it realistically instead of a binary Christian-atheist fashion. Bart Ehrman has documented how most mythicists are actually atheists and agnostics by the way. Richard Carrier is an easy example of an atheist activist who is obsessed with anti-Christian rhetoric. Most mythicists have affiliations with atheist organizations and the atheist community. They actually do depend on this money (Carrier explicitly says so in his blog how he depends on his fans for support [1]) and their audience craves anti-Christian material.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
You poor things - all you accomplish is make me laugh. That Carrier is making money off his stance is such an obvious observation to make that I couldn't muster the effort to make it. Wikipedia isn't the platform for promoting things? Really?? How can you say such things? Sinclair conspiratorial! lol Buh-bye now. --StephanNaro (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Its not just that stance on mythicism. He is a full blown anti-Christian and hardcore atheist activist. He certainly has to cater to his flock of fans since he directly depends on their donations for him to live. This is of course an unusual way to earn a living if you are indeed a true scholar. You can see him beg his fans to fund his projects here [2]. Its funny he cites an apologist as a reason to do the same thing. He did not cite a researcher or scholar - probably because researchers and scholars do not earn their money pleasing their fans, but are a little more independent.
Here is Carrier in his own words: "Here's my proposal. In the past, generous private benefactors, on their own initiative, have paid me substantially to research and write various online works (such as Why I Am Not a Christian and Was Christianity Too Improbable to Be False). Could there be anyone else out there willing to fund my work? I'd like to find several benefactors, like those who've approached me before, with similar resources and interests, who would love to pool together to pay me to undertake a serious project over the next four months. That project can be anything, whatever this group most wants to see me complete this year. I'm open to suggestions (from those who really do have a mind to fund a project)."
Looks like his fans control or dictate to a good extent what he researches and what he writes. Give him a banana and he will dance for you. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I found another one on Carrier's blog where he gets his mythicism books stolen and asks his supporters for money (a donation) to help him out with his loss [3]. Seems like he really lives off of his fans. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
If he makes as little money per year as he says he does, I guess I'm not surprised! 15000-25000 a year. The guy needs to get a day job, clearly his books aren't selling that well...--Ermenrich (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
