More from Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier has yet another rebuttal to Bart Ehrman posted.  More of the same.  Solid, substantive, with air-tight arguments.  Typical Carrier.

Also, it links to all of Ehrman’s replies so that readers can easily go there and make sure Ehrman says what Carriers says he says.  I recently received a comment from JesseW saying that Ehrman has not returned the courtesy.

One oddity about Ehrman’s blog post making the reply is that he neglected to actually link to the original review he was replying to. And when I added a comment with such a link, it was rejected (all comments are moderated before posting, similarly to this blog).

I’ve now attempted to post it again, along with a link to this reply. We’ll see if it goes through.

Here’s a screenshot as proof that I did submit the comment: http://imgur.com/2vGBg

I checked to confirm and sure enough, JesseW was right.  This seems like very odd behavior on Ehrman’s part.

  • http://purl.org/NET/JesseW/SundryStuff/ JesseW

    My comment is now apparently posted. I have no idea if this has anything to do with your having highlighted the issue. Presumably not.

  • Andrew G.

    Odd that there is so much spam there despite the moderation…

  • Corey

    Just imagine fancying yourself as the supreme big shot in a field, writing a really arrogant book about how you are the big shot and anyone who disagrees with you is “silly” or psuedo-academic, or whatever. Then, one of the people you called out as being beneath your lofty level, starts public owning you and ripping you to shreds with meticulous care and detail. You have no rebuttal but to claim disrespect and wind up a few convoluted strawmen… and then the guy comes back and slams you even harder. Well, I think Ehrman is acting like any person in his shoes: desperate.

  • http://purl.org/NET/JesseW/SundryStuff/ JesseW

    I’ve posted another comment to Ehrman’s blog, in response to a commenter named John who asked for answers to two of the standard apologetics: “But the Apostles wouldn’t have died for a lie!” along with “But Acts and Luke were written right after Jesus died!”. Here’s the screenshot, for verification: https://imgur.com/2z0I8 . We’ll see if it shows up.

  • Zengaze

    Note Richard is being a control freak on his blog, I don’t believe nobody has commented. In fact I know I did.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ben.schuldt Ben Schuldt

      lol, it’s not a conspiracy. Carrier is just busy and hasn’t approved any comments yet. Be patient.

      • Zengaze

        I assume he isn’t busy as he was able to find time to inform you that he’s too busy, or did he post that he’s too busy, Or are you assuming he’s too busy? In which instance you are pulling a conclusion from your hat. Please pray and try again.

        • http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd JT Eberhard

          Your hypothesis: Carrier is being such a control freak that he’s controlling all the comments, positive and negative, unlike every other post he’s ever written.

          Ben’s hypothesis: The dude is busy and hasn’t gotten to any of them.

          Both Ben and I know Rick. He’s busy. Also, your hypothesis makes no sense.

          Chill dude. Be patient.

          • Zengaze

            I was being argumentative.

            On the balance of probability Ben and your assessment is likely to be correct, but what fun is that?

          • http://www.facebook.com/ben.schuldt Ben Schuldt

            Yay! We cleared up one controversy. lol

          • http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd JT Eberhard

            There needs to be a sarcasm font. :P

  • Abelard Dunkin Smith

    JT,

    This Carrier stuff is all sorts of interesting. I wonder how many community collages are jumping to hire him. I’m sure that plenty of fantasy publishing companies would be ecstatic to publish his work on these issues. It must be expensive for him to do all of that self-publishing.

    Thanks for keeping us all on the update of this cutting edge scholarly work. (For those who didn’t initially get it, that was sarcasm).

    Cheers,

    Abelard

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd JT Eberhard

      Proving History and Not the Impossible Faith both passed peer review (in both history and math for the use of Bayes Theorum).

      So…your sarcasm makes you look ridiculous?

      • Abelard Dunkin Smith

        JT,

        Which is exactly why most specialists on Bayes think he has absolutely no clue what he’s doing when he uses Bayes. It is probably also the reason why he doesn’t have a faculty position anywhere. He must just be too good for any school to hire him.

        Oh and mind you William Dembski and Michael Behe have peer reviewed published work with their work, doesn’t mean it’s not total shit.

        My favorite is the whole self proclaimed ‘world renowned philosopher’ bit. I’ve looked high and low for such a well renowned philosophers publications and all I can find are two publications in journals that don’t even make the Leiter top 20. The guy just blows my socks off.

        The only people that look ridiculous are his little groupies that think that his work actually passes for real rigorous scholarship. No real scholars take him seriously, most just think he’s some two bit hack.

        Cheers,

        Abelard

        • http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd JT Eberhard

          Which is exactly why most specialists on Bayes think he has absolutely no clue what he’s doing when he uses Bayes.

          Says who? His work with Bayes has passed peer review from mathematicians.

          It is probably also the reason why he doesn’t have a faculty position anywhere. He must just be too good for any school to hire him.

          He doesn’t want to leave the Bay Area for reasons I won’t go into.

          Oh and mind you William Dembski and Michael Behe have peer reviewed published work with their work, doesn’t mean it’s not total shit.

          Yes, it does. The work they have published through peer review means it holds up to inspection in those fields. It doesn’t mean their non-reviewed work (like ID bullshit) is good, but it does mean the work reviewed is solid.

          You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just stirring up shit.

          • Abelard Dunkin Smith

            JT,

            Look at Dembski’s CV, there are plenty of peer-reviewed works on ID.

            Just google ‘Richard Carrier Bayes theorem’ within the first few links you can find some real fun reviews from bayes theorists of Carrier that show how hilariously bad he is at using it.

            Oh and yeah, I actually do know what I’m talking about which means I am doing more that merely stirring up shit, though stirring up shit with the internet atheist community usually does result in some great laughs, I am pointing out that people don’t take Carrier seriously AT ALL. There is a reason why no other academics talk about him (save Erhman, but only his popular work [which is once again even more telling]).

            Carriers work is not only intellectually dishonest, it’s incredibly poorly done. “Sense and Goodness without God” was a joke, the title for “Proving History” is itself laughable. I will rejoice in the day that this crowd turns to real scholars to support their positions and defend their views instead of these philosophunculist sophist hacks that are being supported by this online culture.

            Nice to see the lack of rebut on the ‘world renowned philosopher’ point.

            Cheers,

            Abelard

          • http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd JT Eberhard

            Look at Dembski’s CV, there are plenty of peer-reviewed works on ID

            That passed peer review? On ID? Name one. The DI would be all over it if that’s the case.

            And you’re putting google critiques up against peer reviews by mathematicians?

            You don’t have a clue. You’re a troll.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ben.schuldt Ben Schuldt

          The only thing out there against Carrier on Bayes’ theorem that I’ve seen is the stint with Timothy McGrew, who uses the theorem to discover that Jesus was in fact magical. So, good source there.

          http://richardcarrier.wikispaces.com/FAQ#TimMcGrew

          TL;DR version is that Carrier dismissed a paper that McGrew’s wife published based on a misunderstanding that was later cleared up, but in the meantime, Tim McGrew on Victor Reppert’s blog managed to be outraged and nit-picked just 3 problems with Carrier’s online Bayes’ theorem primer. I think only one of those turned out to be a real issue. There are basic errors in math textbooks, and Carrier had other qualified math people vet his book.

  • Abelard Dunkin Smith

    JT,

    Ahhh and the replies shrink and shrink.

    “And you’re putting google critiques up against peer reviews by mathematicians?”

    Keeping in mind that I didn’t want to be naming names and encouraging you to actually get on the horse and do some real work in figuring out the quality of the ‘scholarship’ you delve into I told you to look just a few lines down. There is a critique by a Bayes scholar or Carrier’s use of Bayes (which I believe I already mentioned that they were Bayes theorists, but I can’t say I’m surprised that this was passed over).

    Also as far as Carrier’s book being peer reviewed. My question is: By who? I can’t find any shred of evidence that the math, history, etc. was reviewed by any respectable group of scholars and publishers on these topics. Claiming credible review is not equivalent to having gone through the process.

    Cheers,

    Abelard