Richard Carrier

[Cretinist]

Statements like this can be found in many posts and articles Richard Carrier has written:

In fact, almost every historical work written before 1950 is regarded as outdated and untrustworthy by historians today.

I first encountered it awhile back in one of his posts on this forum, and it was rather puzzling to me. That was the first time I ever heard about something like that. Today I was reading something else Carrier's article on Kersey Graves' book, and I saw that statement above.

Could you elaborate further on this idea? I'm unfamiliar with it and don't really know what to type in a search engine to find more about this idea.

Thanks in advance.

[Richard Carrier]

For the benefit of other readers, you are referring to Richard Carrier, Kersey Graves and "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html) (2003).

To put it simply:

The first day I arrived in the office of my graduate advisor at Columbia University, Professor William V. Harris, a very distinguished scholar of ancient history, one of the first things he said to me is (paraphrasing, since I can't recall his exact words--this was about six years ago) "Don't rely on anything written before 1950 or so unless you can confirm what it says from primary evidence or more recent scholarship." Point blank.

I have since found that his advice was quite apt. That doesn't mean we don't consult such texts (many crucial references were produced in the 1920's and 1940's that have never been reprinted) but generally we only use them as a "guide" back to the primary evidence or to check against later scholarship, etc. Hence the biggest exceptions are works that do little but present primary evidence (e.g. collections of inscriptions, critical textual apparati, etc.). And there are a few exceptions in historical scholarship--but very few. For example, Syme's Roman Revolution (1939) is practically required reading on the Roman Civil Wars. Yet even then no historian would ever use Syme as a source without backing up whatever claim he is relying on with primary evidence or more recent scholarship (as there has been a lot challenging Syme on various points).

Generally, the reasons for our attitude toward early historical work are many, but here are four major ones:

(1) Historians were often for some reason more textually naive before the 1950's, trusting what historical texts and primary sources said too much, and trying too hard to make the evidence fit them. The situation has reversed since then, and archaeology is now more important, and multiple corroboration, and other methodological approaches are required (e.g. showing how a claim fits general cultural knowledge, etc., and conceding uncertainty more often than previous historians did). As a result, a lot of what was argued before 1950 has been refuted or heavily qualified or modified. So you have to check and see in any given case if a claim still stands.

(2) A lot more evidence has come to light (for example, new Arabic texts relating to the history of science; papyrological finds pertaining to the Hellenistic period in Greece, the origins of Christianity, Roman history and economics, Egyptian government and society under Greek and Roman rule, etc.; we have recovered materials from Pompeii and Herculaneum and the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi, and are still recovering texts from Oxyrhynchus; etc.). This evidence has often changed, sometimes radically, the findings of earlier decades. Since you cannot know in advance what has been revised in light of new evidence, you simply can't assume old works stand as written, and must check more recent work to confirm their conclusions.

(3) Social and cultural history were largely (though not completely) neglected before the 1950's, and when addressed, were approached with the less sophisticated tools of the time. Since then significant advances have been made in sociology, psychology, economics, and anthropology, which have changed the way we understand and study other cultures. This has made a significant impact on the study of the history of religions, of ancient economics, social relations and interactions, background assumptions and worldview studies, and so on. And since these things connect with and affect every historical event in some way, improvements in our understanding of culture and its various facets entail changes in the way we understand and interpret historical texts and events.

(4) Finally (though this list is not comprehensive) the methodology of historians has become more scientific after WWII. That is, historians have become more method-conscious, and more concerned about distinguishing opinion from fact, and causal theory from chronological sequence, and much more concerned with thorough documentation, relying as much as possible on primary evidence, and being very critical when forced to rely on scholarship instead. Citation of sources is more meticulous. For example, before the 1950's you will find a lot of historians making claims to fact that, in fact, are really the opinions or theories of earlier historians--and often they won't even tell you that.

A really good example of these factors can be gleaned from reading my dissertation advisor's rather famous book (in our field that is): William Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome: 327-70 BC (1979; new pref. 1991). He basically shows how earlier historians were hugely wrong on this subject--which is really something, since political and military history was the major thing before the 1950's, so you would think that if they could get anything right, it would be that. But no--and precisely because the religious and cultural and economic contexts, for example, were not properly understood or properly taken into account. Of course, Harris also refutes a lot of historians from the 60's and 70's, too, but how he does so is what distinguishes this work (and most works of professional history today) from most pre-50's material: enormously copious (and meticulous) citations, references, and reliance on primary evidence, a careful distinction between fact and theory, and taking into account new discoveries and scholarship, especially (but not only) in the ancillary fields that study human nature and the nature of cultures and societies (psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, etc.).

As a final note: I still recall in high school (in the late 80's) being taught a theory of Roman imperialism that Harris had so soundly refuted in 1979 that his findings became the gold standard and remain unchallenged. And that wasn't the only thing I was taught in high school history classes that I found out was not only false, but soundly refuted, by work well-predating my high school years. It seems that high school textbooks, and teachers, are still relying on pre-1950's work. And that's a problem.

[AdamAppleby]

Hi,
It's listed that Richard Carrier and William Lane Craig debated recently on PAX. For those of us who don't get that channel or who missed it, is there a way to download the audio or get a copy of the transcript?

Also, William Lane Craig often states that there can be no objective morality without God, that we all know deep down there is objective morality, so therefore there must be a God. While I don't know if he used this line of argument with Carrier (I'm guessing he did), I had a question concerning it that I would like Mr. Carrier to answer if he has the time. Does claiming that God is the basis of morality make such a morality subjective? Assuming God does not get his morality from some objective standard (the whole Euth. dilemma), wouldn't God being the creator of morality be, by definition, a subjective morality dependent on the beliefs of one being?

Any response is appreciated. Thank you.
Christopher

[Toto]

Hi,
It's listed that Richard Carrier and William Lane Craig debated recently on PAX. For those of us who don't get that channel or who missed it, is there a way to download the audio or get a copy of the transcript?



You can buy a transcript for $10 on the website for the program, www.faithunderfire.com .

You might want to read this thread in BCH first, which describes the debate:

Carrier vs. Craig on TV Saturday (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=100087)

[Canadian Raven]

I am a big admirer of Richard Carrier. I first got in touch with his teaching on the DVD "The God Who Wasn't There". Brilliant! Why couldn't somebody with a mind like Richard's be president of the United States? Socrates would approve.

:)

Lee Hayes

Canadian Raven

[T. Wanchick]

For a reply to Carrier's general arguments for naturalism, see my debate with him here at Infidels. It's the "Carrier-Wanchick" debate.

Thanks,

Tom Wanchick

[Richard Carrier]

I am a big admirer of Richard Carrier. I first got in touch with his teaching on the DVD "The God Who Wasn't There". Brilliant! Why couldn't somebody with a mind like Richard's be president of the United States? Socrates would approve.

Thanks for the compliments. Why won't I ever run for office? Because atheists are the new Jews: almost everyone hates us and we have zero chance of being elected (see here (http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find)). Socrates didn't get to be "president" of Athens, either. They killed him, remember? :eek:

But I agree with Tom: check out our debate (see here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-wanchick/)). For some strange reason he thinks he's winning. :confused:

[T. Wanchick]

When did I say I thought I was winning? I thought I only said that to a couple of people, but didn't think I mentioned it to you.

Maybe Keith told you. Oh well, we'll see.

[Richard Carrier]

When did I say I thought I was winning? I thought I only said that to a couple of people, but didn't think I mentioned it to you.

I'm sorry. That's my mistake. I assumed the only reason you would break in on this thread (which consists solely of feedback praising my appearance on an unrelated DVD) simply to direct this admirer to our debate, is that you thought it would set them straight. But I see now you could have meant that he would be even further impressed by my success in that debate and therefore you were just being helpful to my fans. I apologize for making a rash assumption to the contrary.

[babelfish]

I am a big admirer of Richard Carrier. I first got in touch with his teaching on the DVD "The God Who Wasn't There". Brilliant! Why couldn't somebody with a mind like Richard's be president of the United States? Socrates would approve.

:)

Lee Hayes

Canadian Raven


I enjoyed Richard's commentary on that DVD as well. I especially loved the part where he explained why God must love black holes. Unfortunately, I believe he is much too intelligent to ever run for president.

:notworthy:

[Unregistered1]

Not christian and not fighting their side.
Too many holes in the argument.

Einstein proved that the earth or ANY planet or ANY point of the universe may be it's center.

Furthermore, "Moreover, the universe behaves like a mindless machine, and exhibits no intelligent action of its own accord" is a really ridiculous assertion, EVEN when you use the word "action" as to avoid using the word "design" at which point you're case would instantly implode. Instead it has a one second fuse.

You're arguments can basically be summed up as, "if there is a God he isn't running the world the way I expect to see it run therefore there is no God."

You just don't think as much as you think you think.

[Unregistered1]

Sorry, at 3am the previous post seemed clear.

I had just read "Proving a Negative" (1999), by Carrier.
I am not a Christian and am not fighting for them. There are too many holes in the article to take it seriously.

The 'you's and 'you're's are referring to Carrier.

Now go back to, "Einstein proved..."

[Richard Carrier]

Too many holes in the argument.

Which argument?

You later added a post explaining you meant an argument in "Proving a Negative (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html)" but you still don't explain which argument there you have a problem with. Nor do I have any idea why all of a sudden you are talking about that article in this thread. Am I in the Twilight Zone or something?


Einstein proved that the earth or ANY planet or ANY point of the universe may be it's center.

That's incorrect. Einstein's Theory of Relativity entails that it is logically meaningless for there to be such a thing as a "center" of the universe (for a "center" only exists relative to a periphery, and according to Relativity Theory, there is no periphery, even if the universe is finite).

But either way, I am baffled at what you mean by saying this in the first place. Are you criticizing some other article of mine? If so, which one? And what's the criticism? Because this certainly has no evident relevance to anything in "Proving a Negative (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html)."


Furthermore, "Moreover, the universe behaves like a mindless machine, and exhibits no intelligent action of its own accord" is a really ridiculous assertion, EVEN when you use the word "action" as to avoid using the word "design" at which point you're case would instantly implode. Instead it has a one second fuse.

Funny. I would have thought the word "like" was the one that prevents my sentence from saying what you seem to want me to have said. But I don't see how swapping "design" for "action" would even make my sentence false, much less cause it to "implode."

Maybe you would benefit from reading what this sentence refers to, which is my argument regarding "high teleology" in my book Sense and Goodness without God (http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewBook&id=933), pp. 273-75.


You're arguments can basically be summed up as, "if there is a God he isn't running the world the way I expect to see it run therefore there is no God."

If you actually read the article you purport to have read, you would know my argument can only be summed up as "If there is a God, he isn't running the world the way a Christian God would run it, therefore there is no Christian God, unless you redefine 'Christian God' so as to make his existence unprovable," which is quite a different argument than you seem to think.


You just don't think as much as you think you think.

This sentence, coming from you, is just too funny.:)


I am afraid I have to agree, William Lane Craig would eat your lunch on most of the arguments you made in this article.

Since I just ate my lunch, that must mean Craig would eat my feces. Wow, that's even more vicious than saying he'd eat humble pie! Thanks for the compliment.


Any my humble comment, you can't cherry pick God's omniscience/omnipotence and be logically consistent.

I have no idea what that sentence even means.


A truly omnipotent/omniscient God would also be capable of knowing and bringing about "perfect justice" and such a God would have all of eternity in order to do so.

I fail to see how this represents a "hole" in any argument in "Proving a Negative (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html)."

At best, you are saying that a world that contains only justice at all times is somehow less perfect than a world that only partly contains justice and only part of the time, which seems to be nonsensical--it's certainly a backwards and bizarre definition of "perfect." But however that may be, all you are doing is exactly what the very next paragraphs in my article criticize. So I can only conclude you didn't actually read the article you claim is full of holes.

[Paul Doland]

Richard,

I know you are a busy man, but I had hoped to continue our discussion of the natural vs. the supernatural form the thread, "The Rubicon Analogy, by Richard Carrier". Perhaps you missed my posts after your last post there.

[Apikorus]

Thanks for the compliments. Why won't I ever run for office? Because atheists are the new Jews: almost everyone hates us and we have zero chance of being elected... Savvy move, then, that this Jewish atheist chose physics instead of politics.

[Paul Doland]

That God wouldof/couldof/shouldof had/have a good reason for giving sentient highly intelligent created beings free will and free moral agency and chose to use eternal purification to perfect this creation, is certainly plausible.

Though I'm sure Mr. Carrier will give a better answer than I, if I may comment: in my view this just isn't plausible at all. For one, how could a perfect God need temporary imperfection in order to bring about complete perfection? This makes no sense. Secondly, if God created this thing called "free will", he created all relevant parameters. He created personality, instincts, drives and desires. Therefore this thing called "free will" is still completely of God's control.

I'm a computer programmer by trade. And sometimes I write a program that does something that I don't expect. I'm not omniscient, and I can't always forsee every ramification of every line of code I write. But if I was God, I could never write a program that could suprise me. I would know the complete ramification of everything I did. Any entity I create, I would know in infinite detail everything they would ever do or think. That is what is is meant to be omniscient.

You respond to Carrier saying that you deny needing to abandon God's omniscience. But, you simply do not recognize that you do so. The entire "free will" argument is an attempt to limit God's limitlessness, an oxymoron. It is attempt to somehow wrestle away from God his complete knowledge and control which he must have if he is omniscient and omnipotent. When you raise the free will argument, you have indeed abandonded God's omnipotence.

[Neng]

Right from the start, Christians can offer no evidence for their most important claim, that faith in Jesus Christ procures eternal life. Christians can't point to a single proven case of this prediction coming true. They cannot show a single believer in Jesus actually enjoying eternal life...

I guess it doesn't rain in places where there is no one to observe it either? Russel on Logical Positivism is helpful in this area, he trys at times (depending what day of the week it is) to avoid hyper empiricism. At least he is coming from a similar atheistic tradition so I think you'd find his criticisms helpful. But perhaps if free thinking is really what you espouse you might want to give a hearing to Derrida and friends who other 'free thinking' atheists tried to bar from the acadamy. Of course while you might not agree with them I think it would make you cautious about putting forward arguments like the above.

[Richard Carrier]

Just because you dont like a given theodicy doesnt make that theodicy logically impossible or implausible.

What makes a theory plausible is evidence. There is no evidence whatever that any theodicy is true. This is very different from, say, Chaotic Inflation Theory, which is still not a scientific fact nor something anyone should believe is definitely true, but merely as plausible--yet Chaotic Inflation Theory has abundant scientific evidence that specifically supports its plausibility. That is why my article makes a specific point about how each element you add to explain away observations must itself be evidentially supported--either directly (if you want to go beyond saying your theory is plausible and actually start saying your theory is true) or indirectly (e.g. evidence of the actual existence of the same theoretical apparatus in a different but sufficiently analogous situation establishes a proof of concept that lends plausibility to a theory). Theodicies have neither.

Otherwise, every claim anyone can imagine can be defended as "plausible" by inventing whatever excuse you can think of for why it fails to fit observations. And that means any theory thus defended is almost certainly false--because the total number of such theories is vast, yet only one theory can be true, therefore the probability of picking one at random that is true is virtually nil. That is why you must have evidence--evidence either of the theory being true, or evidence that supports the theory's plausibility. That it can be made to "fit" observations isn't evidence of either--because any theory can be rigged up to fit any observations. For example, that God is trapped in a magic box in Idaho explains all the unstopped misery in the world, God's apparent silence, and so on. Does that then mean I am warranted in believing there is a God, and he is trapped in a box in Idaho? I can make a far better case that Taoism is true. Does that then mean I should believe in the Tao rather than any God?

Just because you can make up excuses for the failure of a theory does not warrant believing your theory. You need much better reasons than that.

[Richard Carrier]

Christians can't point to a single proven case of this prediction coming true. They cannot show a single believer in Jesus actually enjoying eternal life...

I guess it doesn't rain in places where there is no one to observe it either?

False analogy. I have tons of evidence that it rains at certain frequencies in certain places even when people aren't there, therefore I have full evidential warrant to believe it rains in places even when people aren't there. I have nothing like this for people getting into heaven. I don't even have evidence it's possible to get into a heaven, much less that anyone's magic oil secures a trip there. By analogy, I cannot show a single believer in Magic Healing Wands actually curing cancer with Magic Healing Wands. I cannot show a single person who believes he can teleport himself, actually teleporting himself. I cannot show a single believer in Voodoo curses actually successfully cursing someone with Voodoo. Therefore, I have no more reason to believe in Christian salvation claims than I have to believe in Magic Wands, Psychic Teleportation, or Voodoo. There is nothing problematic about this reasoning. It is entirely sound. And Ayer would fully agree. He didn't believe in Voodoo either.

[Chili]

Right from the start, Christians can offer no evidence for their most important claim, that faith in Jesus Christ procures eternal life. Christians can't point to a single proven case of this prediction coming true. They cannot show a single believer in Jesus actually enjoying eternal life...



If faith in Jesus Christ procures eternal life you can't expect believers to enjoy eternal life. I mean, it would be a contradiction to believe in Jesus while enjoying eternal life, and so, if believers are not where eternal life is found it is also wrong to ask a believer where eternal life is at.

[KPRyan]

I just want to say from my perspective, there are a lot of very transparent arguments in favor of theism being kicked around in here. Like Richard said, what makes a theory plausible is evidence. And evidence is not just saying that something cannot definitively be ruled out.

Someone could say for example that it is possible that ex-heisman trophy winner OJ Simpson will be elected President of the United States in 2008. Well, the following makes that statement true: he is over 35 and he is US citizen. But everyone with any sense of logic knows that there is really no possibility that OJ Simpson will be elected President of United States of America in 2008, or any other year for that matter. The evidence is there if you want to gather it. Run a pole, ask the experts, ask OJ himself if he even intends on campaigning for the presidency. I’m sure you would gather a plethora of information indicating that it is unlikely that OJ will be our next president. In fact, you will be lead to conclude that although we cannot definitively prove that OJ will not be the next US President, he definitely won’t be.

Most religious apologists will say this is a ridiculous analogy, that comparing the existence of God to the prospects of OJ Simpson being elected US President is preposterous. But to an atheist, this analogy is an understatement. Not only is there no real evidence that God exists, but believing in God directly leads to several glaring logical paradoxes. In my mind, the paradoxes are enough to preclude the existence of God. By God, I mean the traditional religious interpretation of God, like the gods of all major religions. (obviously)

[House of Games]

Today, I read your latest book.

Where do I start?

How do I thank you?

Words escape me.....

Thank you for a glorious outline for living!

Be well.......

Michael G. Dallos
N.Y. Mills, N. Y.

[Richard Carrier]

Thanks for the kudos. I appreciate it.

[jdrnd]

Your arguments are helpful in my ongoing discussions with my religious friends. The underlying moral system that I incorporate in my life is that "I don't need the existence of supernatural beings to do the right thing". I sometimes substitute the phrase "imaginary beings" for "supernatural beings", but I believe the use of the former is inflamatory. After all, the "right thing" to do is to express my opinion, not ridicule people who disagree with me.

Jeff

[hallq]

Socrates would approve. I think it would be more accurate to say that Plato (who was something of a fascist) would approve.

[~M~]

I was hoping of giving my appreciation to Richard Carrier. I do enjoy his readings and this year, for Christmas, I received an inspirational card from him. A friend of mine wrote Carrier and told him, I assume, about my liking for his readings. From this, Carrier was kind enough to write me a little blurb.

So, for that, I thank you.

-M

[vernon]

I have also ejoyed Richard Carrier's writings. I have read the Internet Infidels back when the were hosted on tamu.edu and this site helped me greaty in becoming an Atheist. I wonder.what Richard and others thinks about Michael Lerner's arguements aganst the big bang and for plasma cosmology at http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

I don't think that Michael Lerner can be easily dismissed a a crank

[SwoleMan]

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.

This doesn't seem correct. Decrease in surface brightness by a factor ~(1+z)^3 has been measured for galaxies with redshifts up to z=0,92. See here (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566).

[vernon]

This doesn't seem correct. Decrease in surface brightness by a factor ~(1+z)^3 has been measured for galaxies with redshifts up to z=0,92. See here (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566).

I am not a physisist or even good in math. However, Lerner has written a referenced paper that disagrees http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611. There is another interesting paper on red shift http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509630.

Bothe of these papers are referenced in this thread http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-90200.html.

Unfortunately, I am not qualified to determine the validity of any of the arguements. However, based on my extremely limited understanding, big bang cosmology seems to driven by theory instead of observations. It seems that big bang theory has not been able to make any predictions and instead has been modified when new sets of data comes in (inflation, dark matter ect).

String Theory seems like it is a similar situation. Both seem more like a religion instead of science to me.

[Richard Carrier]

On the Big Bang stuff: read what I have written on this very question (I Was a Big Bang Skeptic (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/index.html)). As for whether Lerner (or anyone) has any new evidence, only peer review and study-replication will tell, but it's very unlikely at this point. So until objectors get their work through peer review, we laymen can ignore them. Until then, physicists can debate the matter among themselves.

But so far, the paper by Lerner on surface brightness that people are being directed to here is not a peer reviewed paper published anywhere, but a conference talk delivered in 2005, at a conference Lerner himself organized. A paper which has yet, apparently, to generate any published research. It can safely be ignored until something on this is actually published. I wouldn't hold my breath, though, since Lerner has failed to publish anything on this subject in any peer reviewed journal since 2003 (and nothing before that until 1995, and even his 2003 paper was simply a speculative work outlining his objections to the Big Bang model and his alternative hypothesis, not a paper establishing any new research).

To keep up on this "anti-big-bang" movement in its most recent incarnation, see First Crisis in Cosmology (http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/209/1/The-First-Crisis-in-Cosmology-Conference/Page1.html) and BigBangNeverHappened.com (http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/) and Cosmology Statement (http://www.cosmologystatement.org/). Keep in mind some glaringly obvious criticisms, e.g. Bedeviling Devil's Advocate Cosmology (http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0306/devil/).

[Vernon]

On the Big Bang stuff: read what I have written on this very question (I Was a Big Bang Skeptic (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/index.html)).

I remember reading your paper when it first came out. I remember thinking, wow, I'm glad that Richard Carrier is no longer a crank. No, it looks like I am becoming that crank :)

From you paper:

The first and most important piece of evidence is the observation of redshifts, which can only be explained by assuming that every galaxy cluster in the universe is moving away from every other: the more distant, the greater the speed. Though many scientists have shown or argued that some redshift has other causes, these explanations do not account for even a significant fraction of the observed objects, or of the observed redshift overall, which is simply too enormous to be accounted for by any other known means.

I am curious as to what led you to the conclusion that the observed red shift can only be accounted by an expanding universe. For example, a collection of articles here (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/) seems to indicate other possibilities for the observed red shift and it appears that red shift has been even observed in the sun.

In addition, red shifts due to other causes seem to have already been observed. Please click here (http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp) and here (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509630) for examples.

Although gravitational lensing observations, if correct, may preclude the tired light theory of big bang cosmological red shift, based on my limited understanding, it does not seem to preclude the others possible causes of red shift listed above.

I have not yet read Halton Arp's book, Seeing Red. I have it on order. If I understand his claims correctly, he has made many observations that seem to contradict big bang cosmological expansion red shift.

As for whether Lerner (or anyone) has any new evidence, only peer review and study-replication will tell, but it's very unlikely at this point. So until objectors get their work through peer review, we laymen can ignore them. Until then, physicists can debate the matter among themselves.

I agree that it would be nice to have more peer reviewed papers. However, I don't think that precludes the layman from trying to understand the data and make a judgement. My basic point is that there seems to be other mechanisms for producing red shifts other than big bang cosmological expansion, In addition, it appears that red shifts have been observed that do not correspond with big bang cosmological expansion. Therefore, how do we know that any red shifts are associated with big bang cosmological expansion?

[Richard Carrier]

I am curious as to what led you to the conclusion that the observed red shift can only be accounted by an expanding universe. For example, a collection of articles here (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/) seems to indicate other possibilities for the observed red shift and it appears that red shift has been even observed in the sun.

Explore that website. It's written by cranks who deny Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory. I'm astonished they don't also write apologetics for phlogiston and the four humors.


In addition, red shifts due to other causes seem to have already been observed.

You just quoted me saying exactly that. Maybe you missed the key sentence: "Though many scientists have shown or argued that some redshift has other causes, these explanations do not account for even a significant fraction of the observed objects, or of the observed redshift overall."

[Steve Weiss]

For the benefit of other readers, you are referring to Richard Carrier, Kersey Graves and "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html) (2003).

To put it simply:

The first day I arrived in the office of my graduate advisor at Columbia University, Professor William V. Harris, a very distinguished scholar of ancient history, one of the first things he said to me is (paraphrasing, since I can't recall his exact words--this was about six years ago) "Don't rely on anything written before 1950 or so unless you can confirm what it says from primary evidence or more recent scholarship." Point blank.

I have since found that his advice was quite apt. That doesn't mean we don't consult such texts (many crucial references were produced in the 1920's and 1940's that have never been reprinted) but generally we only use them as a "guide" back to the primary evidence or to check against later scholarship, etc. Hence the biggest exceptions are works that do little but present primary evidence (e.g. collections of inscriptions, critical textual apparati, etc.). And there are a few exceptions in historical scholarship--but very few. For example, Syme's Roman Revolution (1939) is practically required reading on the Roman Civil Wars. Yet even then no historian would ever use Syme as a source without backing up whatever claim he is relying on with primary evidence or more recent scholarship (as there has been a lot challenging Syme on various points).

Generally, the reasons for our attitude toward early historical work are many, but here are four major ones:

(1) Historians were often for some reason more textually naive before the 1950's, trusting what historical texts and primary sources said too much, and trying too hard to make the evidence fit them. The situation has reversed since then, and archaeology is now more important, and multiple corroboration, and other methodological approaches are required (e.g. showing how a claim fits general cultural knowledge, etc., and conceding uncertainty more often than previous historians did). As a result, a lot of what was argued before 1950 has been refuted or heavily qualified or modified. So you have to check and see in any given case if a claim still stands.

(2) A lot more evidence has come to light (for example, new Arabic texts relating to the history of science; papyrological finds pertaining to the Hellenistic period in Greece, the origins of Christianity, Roman history and economics, Egyptian government and society under Greek and Roman rule, etc.; we have recovered materials from Pompeii and Herculaneum and the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi, and are still recovering texts from Oxyrhynchus; etc.). This evidence has often changed, sometimes radically, the findings of earlier decades. Since you cannot know in advance what has been revised in light of new evidence, you simply can't assume old works stand as written, and must check more recent work to confirm their conclusions.

(3) Social and cultural history were largely (though not completely) neglected before the 1950's, and when addressed, were approached with the less sophisticated tools of the time. Since then significant advances have been made in sociology, psychology, economics, and anthropology, which have changed the way we understand and study other cultures. This has made a significant impact on the study of the history of religions, of ancient economics, social relations and interactions, background assumptions and worldview studies, and so on. And since these things connect with and affect every historical event in some way, improvements in our understanding of culture and its various facets entail changes in the way we understand and interpret historical texts and events.

(4) Finally (though this list is not comprehensive) the methodology of historians has become more scientific after WWII. That is, historians have become more method-conscious, and more concerned about distinguishing opinion from fact, and causal theory from chronological sequence, and much more concerned with thorough documentation, relying as much as possible on primary evidence, and being very critical when forced to rely on scholarship instead. Citation of sources is more meticulous. For example, before the 1950's you will find a lot of historians making claims to fact that, in fact, are really the opinions or theories of earlier historians--and often they won't even tell you that.

A really good example of these factors can be gleaned from reading my dissertation advisor's rather famous book (in our field that is): William Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome: 327-70 BC (1979; new pref. 1991). He basically shows how earlier historians were hugely wrong on this subject--which is really something, since political and military history was the major thing before the 1950's, so you would think that if they could get anything right, it would be that. But no--and precisely because the religious and cultural and economic contexts, for example, were not properly understood or properly taken into account. Of course, Harris also refutes a lot of historians from the 60's and 70's, too, but how he does so is what distinguishes this work (and most works of professional history today) from most pre-50's material: enormously copious (and meticulous) citations, references, and reliance on primary evidence, a careful distinction between fact and theory, and taking into account new discoveries and scholarship, especially (but not only) in the ancillary fields that study human nature and the nature of cultures and societies (psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, etc.).

As a final note: I still recall in high school (in the late 80's) being taught a theory of Roman imperialism that Harris had so soundly refuted in 1979 that his findings became the gold standard and remain unchallenged. And that wasn't the only thing I was taught in high school history classes that I found out was not only false, but soundly refuted, by work well-predating my high school years. It seems that high school textbooks, and teachers, are still relying on pre-1950's work. And that's a problem.

In addition to all of the valid points above I would like to make two. How many historians in post-Constantine times have not had an ax to grind for Christianity (or some other religion)? How many historians have identified the stories of the bible as the obvious fictions that they are?

[Steve Weiss]

Greetings Mr Carrier

You said "The Nazis found in the Bible support for the extermination of the Jews. Southern slave owners found support for the brutalizing enslavement of blacks"

If you don't mind can you please show me the verses in the nt that the nazis used to justify the extermination of the jews and then your understanding of why these verses gives thumbs up for exterminating the Jews

thank you

Speaking, as I am, from post-apartheid South Africa, I seem to recall that not so long ago leaders of the Dutch Reform Church here used to rely upon a passage in the bible that identifes the indigenous people of this region as the descendants of Ham who are "fit only to hew wood and carry water" if I am not mistaken. For that "reason" it was thought that it would be unnecessary and wasteful to teach math to the locals because they would not be capable of understanding it. Perhaps those more familiar with the details of the bible will be able to find the exact citation or deny its existence.

Futhermore, in Luke 19:27 Jesus states that anyone who is a non-believer deserves immediate death. So the proposed holocaust extends beyond the Jews to everyone who does not conform to the doctrines of the "Prince of Peace."

[Steve Weiss]

I remember reading your paper when it first came out. I remember thinking, wow, I'm glad that Richard Carrier is no longer a crank. No, it looks like I am becoming that crank :)

From you paper:

I am curious as to what led you to the conclusion that the observed red shift can only be accounted by an expanding universe. For example, a collection of articles here (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/) seems to indicate other possibilities for the observed red shift and it appears that red shift has been even observed in the sun.

In addition, red shifts due to other causes seem to have already been observed. Please click here (http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp) and here (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509630) for examples.

Although gravitational lensing observations, if correct, may preclude the tired light theory of big bang cosmological red shift, based on my limited understanding, it does not seem to preclude the others possible causes of red shift listed above.

I have not yet read Halton Arp's book, Seeing Red. I have it on order. If I understand his claims correctly, he has made many observations that seem to contradict big bang cosmological expansion red shift.



I agree that it would be nice to have more peer reviewed papers. However, I don't think that precludes the layman from trying to understand the data and make a judgement. My basic point is that there seems to be other mechanisms for producing red shifts other than big bang cosmological expansion, In addition, it appears that red shifts have been observed that do not correspond with big bang cosmological expansion. Therefore, how do we know that any red shifts are associated with big bang cosmological expansion?

I also question the Big Bang thesis. Although I am no expert I do observe at least two aspects of the theory that give me pause. One is the lack of correspondence between theory and observation, for example, the existence of large-scale structures in the universe and missing matter. The solution offered is to create concepts like dark matter and energy in order to plug the gaps. That's a rejigging that damages credibility in my view. The other is predicting one thing, getting another and then modifying the prediction to fit the facts, such as with the expected value for the cosmic background radiation.

I have read Arp's book, and I find his observations to be plausible. It also seems that there is a lot of controversy about what is in the foreground and what is in the background of the star field. Furthermore, there is extensive discussion of the red-shift and its possible explanations (there are several), and almost none about blue shifts. In any case, the BBT is usally presented as established fact, as the litmus test for membership in the scientific community, but as John Boslough indicates in his "Masters of Time" this tends to make the BBT more of a theological concept than a scientific one. To quote him on page 223, "For the time being, the big bang remains a scientific paradigm wrapped inside a metaphor for biblical genesis, a compelling although simplistic pseudoscientific creation myth embodying a Judeo-Christian tradition of linear time that led to Western ideas about cultural and scientific progress and which ordained an absolute beginning."

I don't agree that the BBT is settled doctrine, as uncontroversial as the fact of evolution. On the contrary, I think that the BBT raises at least as many questions as it answers and may be in need of a major overhaul or an entirely new paradigm to replace it.

[~M~]

Richard,

I was browsing Wood's site and stumbled upon this article:
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/resurrection-dodgeball-a-critical-review-of-the-habermas-licona-carrier-exchange.html

I am curious as to whether or not his criticism has any sort of veracity; or, if your performance was not up to par, so to speak, during your Licona-Habermas discussion.

[Richard's Buddy]

I was browsing Wood's site and stumbled upon this article:
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/resurrection-dodgeball-a-critical-review-of-the-habermas-licona-carrier-exchange.html

I am curious as to whether or not his criticism has any sort of veracity; or, if your performance was not up to par, so to speak, during your Licona-Habermas discussion.

That article is in regards to a different discussion, not the DVD debate, but a discussion on the "Infidel Guy" show. Here is Richard's thoughts about that particular discussion on his blog:

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/search?q=Licona

[~M~]

That article is in regards to a different discussion, not the DVD debate, but a discussion on the "Infidel Guy" show. Here is Richard's thoughts about that particular discussion on his blog:

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/search?q=Licona


Thank you. However, I didn't have any choice as to where my question was directed. As you may know, this forum is highly regulated by mods.

[Brahma's atheist]

Hi Richard, I just read your post at the beginning of this thread and agree with it. I was thinking of writing something like it in II.
What I thought was that you can't trust the history that you learnt from pre-x sources because it was mainly written by white, Christian men with all that that implies.
What do you think?

[LambChowder]

Hi Richard, I just read your post at the beginning of this thread and agree with it. I was thinking of writing something like it in II.
What I thought was that you can't trust the history that you learnt from pre-x sources because it was mainly written by white, Christian men with all that that implies.
What do you think?

uh a lot of modern historians are white Christians

[Brahma's atheist]

So lambchowder, are you saying that the white christians of today have the same attitudes as the white christian men of yesteryear?
I would say some have and some haven't. But clearly those of the past had beliefs and attitudes that weren't great and lead to much falsehood and misinformation, bias and misinterpretation. There are many examples of it today I'm sure. You know people who look for xtian explanations to things as opposed to simply scientific.

[Richard Carrier]

Speaking, as I am, from post-apartheid South Africa, I seem to recall that not so long ago leaders of the Dutch Reform Church here used to rely upon a passage in the bible that identifes the indigenous people of this region as the descendants of Ham who are "fit only to hew wood and carry water" if I am not mistaken. For that "reason" it was thought that it would be unnecessary and wasteful to teach math to the locals because they would not be capable of understanding it. Perhaps those more familiar with the details of the bible will be able to find the exact citation or deny its existence.

Futhermore, in Luke 19:27 Jesus states that anyone who is a non-believer deserves immediate death. So the proposed holocaust extends beyond the Jews to everyone who does not conform to the doctrines of the "Prince of Peace."

This was in response to another, very old, thread, where someone said: You said "The Nazis found in the Bible support for the extermination of the Jews. Southern slave owners found support for the brutalizing enslavement of blacks." If you don't mind can you please show me the verses in the nt that the nazis used to justify the extermination of the jews and then your understanding of why these verses gives thumbs up for exterminating the Jews.

I answered that a while ago (see Christianity Miscellany (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=164383)) but I suppose I should add, first, I don't believe they give a thumbs up and didn't say so, and, second, for how Nazis twisted the bible to justify their antisemitic policies see Doris Bergen's discussion in Old Testament, New Hatreds: The Hebrew Bible and Antisemitism in Nazi Germany (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/bergen_033001.htm). She doesn't mention the specific case of drawing inspiration from the book of Joshua, where God ordains the genocide of a wicked race, though she could have. For example, in Hitler's Table Talk (the authentic German version) Hitler said he was chosen by God to launch the Third Reich, and compared himself to Moses just before seeing the Promised Land (an allusion to the racially genocidal campaigns of Joshua). See, for example, the entry there for the afternoon of 27 February 1942.

[Richard Carrier]

One is the lack of correspondence between theory and observation, for example, the existence of large-scale structures in the universe and missing matter.

This misconstrues the actual philosophy and methodology of science. If you were this picky elsewhere, every theory would fall.

Relativity Theory also fails at the Quantum scale. So there is a lack of correspondence between theory and observation. Is Relativity Theory then false? Projectiles almost never obey the predictions of Newtonian Mechanics, due to a vast array of interfering causes, hence every scientist acknowledges his laws describe ideal cases that are never actually observed. So there is a lack of correspondence between theory and observation. Is Newtonian Mechanics then false? There are countless biological structures that evolution theory has yet to "predictively" explain, without the introduction of theoretical assumptions and hypothetical models. For example, as Behe points out, we have no scientifically confirmed explanation for the evolution of bacterial flagella. Though we have many very plausible theories, we haven't tested and confirmed any of them yet and might never be able to. So without those hypothetical inserts there is a lack of correspondence between theory and observation. Is Behe then right--is evolution theory, as a result, dubious or false?

The answer is no. Because science doesn't work the way you and Behe assume. The validity of a theory is derived from an argument to the best explanation that confers not absolute proof but a high probability of being true even despite seemingly contrary evidence and observations and the universal necessity of relying on unproven hypothetical causes and entities to get every theory to fit all actual observations.

That said, it is still possible for a lack-of-fit to be acceptably damning to a scientific theory, but the right conditions must be met. They have not been met for Big Bang Theory (BBT). To the contrary, the conditions one could cite have been steadily grinding away under new discovery after new discovery--the trend has a clear direction, and it is toward, not away from Big Bang theory. But, of course, new discoveries could always overthrow it, as for any well-accepted theory.

The solution offered is to create concepts like dark matter and energy in order to plug the gaps. That's a rejigging that damages credibility in my view.

You need to read up on current science. It may have seemed like "rigging" once but the evidence has accumulated and it is now a sound fact. Dark Matter is no longer a hypothetical entity. You should be able to find the latest evidence and discussion on your own. Several good articles and books are now available on the subject.

As for Dark Energy, that only explains an oddity of cosmic evolution. It actually has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory, which doesn't require it. Though it is to be hoped that a completed Big Bang theory will explain what it is (or explain it away), the evidence for BBT stands independently of observed additional accelerations.

The other is predicting one thing, getting another and then modifying the prediction to fit the facts, such as with the expected value for the cosmic background radiation.

All science works this way. We start with a theory until it starts to disagree with observations, then we modify the theory and retest it, and so on, on and on. Examples can be adduced for virtually every foundational scientific theory accepted today. This is actually an argument for the validity of those theories, not for their rejection.

Also, there is a lot of myth and legend spun by detractors as to how BBT has actually changed in respect to COBE data. The truth doesn't quite agree with their accounts. They also ignore the fact that there have always been several competing BB models at any given time, and instead they act like there is only one that keeps changing, instead of a mixed set of theories that keeps winnowing and evolving in a complex way.

I have read Arp's book, and I find his observations to be plausible. It also seems that there is a lot of controversy about what is in the foreground and what is in the background of the star field.

Arp overplays his case. The evidence he finds is valid. It just isn't even remotely sufficient to challenge BBT. You would do well to read actual books on the BBT by scientists who don't have an axe to grind against it. They don't ignore Arp. See my new article on the BBT, which lists the most recent books.

Furthermore, there is extensive discussion of the red-shift and its possible explanations (there are several), and almost none about blue shifts. In any case, the BBT is usally presented as established fact, as the litmus test for membership in the scientific community, but as John Boslough indicates in his "Masters of Time" this tends to make the BBT more of a theological concept than a scientific one. To quote him on page 223, "For the time being, the big bang remains a scientific paradigm wrapped inside a metaphor for biblical genesis, a compelling although simplistic pseudoscientific creation myth embodying a Judeo-Christian tradition of linear time that led to Western ideas about cultural and scientific progress and which ordained an absolute beginning."

This is all old news and was never as stark as presented. There have always been alternative theories appearing in peer reviewed journals. They just never get the same backing in evidence as BBT does. For example, a specific alternative to dark matter theory--a modified gravity theory--is soon to be tested empirically in the next decade, based on a recent paper establishing how to conduct the test. I predict it will fail. But I wouldn't want that prediction to prevent them trying, and they certainly will. Because they are scientists and that's what good scientists do.

Hence the opponents of BBT overplay their evidence and underplay the evidence against them and for BBT. Although they are not (usually) as shameless at this as Creationists, there are methodological parallels between them that warrant the same level of caution. You have to read both sides--and the best that both sides have to offer--on any given point before making a call.

[Richard Carrier]

Richard,

I was browsing Wood's site and stumbled upon this article:
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/resurrection-dodgeball-a-critical-review-of-the-habermas-licona-carrier-exchange.html

I am curious as to whether or not his criticism has any sort of veracity; or, if your performance was not up to par, so to speak, during your Licona-Habermas discussion.

Wood is too long winded for me to bother reading anything he writes anymore. But see my own account (which he knew about long ago, so I hope he links to it):

That Habermas-Licona Interview (http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2006/11/that-habermas-licona-interview_09.html)

[Richard Carrier]

Hi Richard, I just read your post at the beginning of this thread and agree with it. I was thinking of writing something like it in II.

What I thought was that you can't trust the history that you learnt from pre-x sources because it was mainly written by white, Christian men with all that that implies.

What do you think?

I don't think one can assume that as a general rule. You would have to argue for it on a case by case basis, since (1) not all "white, Christian men" are biased or ethnocentric, and even those that are, aren't so to the same degree, and (2) not all history, even before WWII, was written by whites, Christians, or men (at least for ancient history I can name several professional historical works written by women, atheists, and Jews).

Also, textbooks for high schools tend to be written by committees, which makes your theory much more complicated to test.

[Brahma's atheist]

Hi Richard, do you think people are writing false histories now? There are for example scientists who are christian going to the middle east to find evidence for biblical creation, totally ignoring the evidence for x-number of creations written by any number of other cultures, the most famous being the Egyptions I guess.Not to mention histories from other cultures around the world. Then there's just the "real science of reality". I can't remember the names of the scientists, I read them on another website. They were white, christian men.
I guess a bit of old archaeology would be overturned due to poor methodology.

[Richard Carrier]

Hi Richard, do you think people are writing false histories now?...They were white, christian men.
I guess a bit of old archaeology would be overturned due to poor methodology.

Yes, of course false histories are still being written. And again I can name contemporary examples of such pseudohistory written by blacks, women, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Muslims, etc., etc. So?

[lamberthml]

Some respond that there is as much confirmation of Yeshua as there is of any historical character as is alleged in "Why I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist." Richard,perhaps you might write a book on Biblical historiogaphy, showing there is nothing to it whatsoever.

[Brahma's atheist]

Yes, of course false histories are still being written. And again I can name contemporary examples of such pseudohistory written by blacks, women, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Muslims, etc., etc. So?

True, of course.

How do you know who to believe?
I guess you just have to look at several points of view and make an open-minded judgement.

Some respond that there is as much confirmation of Yeshua as there is of any historical character as is alleged in "Why I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist." Richard,perhaps you might write a book on Biblical historiogaphy, showing there is nothing to it whatsoever.

I remember a guy on the telly (John Rohmer?) saying while considering evidence for something biblical that-
"It's like finding the remains of the berlin wall and saying that James Bond was real"

[~M~]

Hey, If i remember correctly, I was reading one of Carrier's articles in the Empty Tomb book and had a good laugh when he (Carrier) spoke of a fist fight he got into with some demon (or delusion). I was hoping he could speak more about this.

Thanks.