Richard Carrier Reports on the Amherst Conference Concerning The Jesus Project

You can read his detailed report right here. I want to highlight some of his statements, make some comments on what he wrote, issue a caution to him, and make a suggestion or two. Get ready. Here we go again.

About Paul Kurtz's speech, Carrier said that
"...it was so full of historically naive or inaccurate statements that it seems to have embarrassed some of the scholars.” “I know it's impolitic to speak ill of the Grand Lord of Humanism (legend has it his wrath is reminiscent of Ruper Murdoch on a bad day), but I'm a suicidally honest man, and I honestly have to say there was no reason for this speech other than to please the Kurtz fans in the audience. Since that's where the money comes from, I suppose this was a practical tactic, though that's generally not how scholarly conferences are oriented.
I have to respect someone like Carrier who is a true freethinker and willing to offend Paul Kurtz, whom I have nothing but respect for at 80 plus years old and going strong. I've heard Paul speak too, and he does ramble. He seems disorganized as well. But he's probably done more for skepticism than any other living person. As far as I know he committed the funds for the conference in the first place. The organizers merely honored him by asking him to speak. He deserves that honor. [Last I read from Paul Kurtz he thinks Jesus existed. See his 1991 book, The Transcendental Temptation. He wrote: “[I]t seems to me that some such man lived, most likely in Palestine in the first half of the first century, that he was crucified or hanged, and that a sect of Christians developed proclaiming his divinity. We know very few authentic facts, however, about Jesus beyond this bare outline.” (p. 114)]

About Robert Price, Carrier said:
“...though most of the scholars I found were unhappy with Price, finding him a bit of a kook, I found him funny and erudite and generally right.”
*Ahem* Richard, that means most of the scholars there would think you are a kook too. [I'm not saying you or Bob are kooks. I'm only commenting on what you yourself said]. As I have said before, do not become marginalized as a scholar. Your scholarship is too good for that to happen to you. Make sure that your book contains convincing arguments. I have no reason yet to suspect it doesn't do this. I wish you the best and I will read your book. What typically happens is that someone writes on a topic of interest and when scholars call the author a kook he will write a response in order to save face. And if this isn't convincing he will devote his whole life to defending himself. If this happens to you let it drop. Move on to other more important topics. You have so much to say about so many things. Say them. Make your statement and move on to these other topics if that happens.

About Ronald Lindsay, Carrier reported:
“He...used Plato's dialogues as an example of the rapid fabrication of sayings and conversations of a historical person (it is generally acknowledged that these are not a verbatim record, and often not even true at all, of what Socrates said), proving two points in one: that rapid fabrication of unchallenged legends is not improbable but in fact routine, and that such fabrication does not entail the non-historicity of the speaker.”
I believe this is the honestly respectable position, and I applaud Lindsay for this.

About Frank Zindler, Carrier noted that
"...he is somewhat infamous for excessive skepticism.”
Yes he is. Frank sent me a copy of his opening statement. As a scientist he's asking us to do history just like we do science. He wrote:
"The crucially important difference for us to note today is that for all claims of existence, science presumes the negative. It will ignore all affirmative arguments if they are not supported by evidence and facts." "[T]he problem is that we have not even been trying to use the scientific method in the field of religion studies." And later reiterates his point by saying: "For the last time I shall remind you that we must always remember that in science it is not necessary to prove a negative. Science assumes the negative. If no one can provide convincing positive evidence that Jesus of Nazareth once lived, we must then resort to the tried-and-tested, successful methodology of science to account for the origins of Christianity....Any hypotheses that survive rigorous tests can then be elevated to the rank of theory. In time, one of the rival theories will predominate and gain the scientific consensus." [Emphasis is his]
My claim is that if we treat the historical past according to these rigorous scientific standards then there will not be much for historians to write about. He's demanding that the paucity of evidence found in the historical past should shoulder the burden of proof when it comes to the existence of an end times apocalyptic prophet like Jesus is depicted to be. Prophets like these were Legion in those days. My claim is also that how someone views the past is guided by control beliefs which must additionally be defended. There are several different philosophies of history that must be defended as one looks at the evidence of the past. The historian looks at the past with his particular outlook on life and it's probably impossible to do otherwise.

If one reads Carrier carefully we see that Gerd Lüdemann, Robert Eisenman, Dennis MacDonald, and Bruce Chilton all think there was a man behind the mythic traditions. I think it's important to add that G.A. Wells used to argue Jesus didn't exist, but has since changed his mind. It should also be noted that Bart D. Ehrman, one of skeptics best scholarly friends, thinks Jesus was an apocalyptic end times prophet, as I do.

Having said this it's an interesting question to me, but the money could be spent on better things. It seems as though skeptics have long ago concluded that religion is "bullshit" (ala Penn and Teller) and have now moved beyond that question to investigate other topics of interest to them. Most of them come from a scientific background, too. Since these other topics are interesting questions to them they focus on them. Having already debunked religion, including Christianity, they are looking for other things to debunk (why beat a dead horse, right?). The problem I see with such worthy interests is that there are still a great number of Christian believers in the world who will not seriously consider the possibility that Jesus did not exist. I would like to know if any Christian has walked away from his faith because of these arguments. I dare say that no one ever has (although this might change, I cannot say). It might be the equivalent of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. No one has ever become a believer from that argument that we know of (Bertrand Russell flirted with belief because of it but eventually rejected it).

Given our recent poll on the question of who Jesus is/was, an overwhelming number of skeptics think Jesus was a mythical fictional character. Some of the skeptical voters have not been reading my arguments of late. They came here just to vote because of a request to chime in on our poll, which was posted on a very popular skeptical website. They came, they voted, and they left. Still it's good they did. It shows what most skeptics believe.

There are many topics that are of interest to me, while there are only a few that I'm concerned about. The question of The Jesus Project is of interest to me, but I'm not concerned about the results. I think Christianity fails whether Jesus existed or not. I base my arguments on Jesus's existence not unlike how St. Aquinas based his arguments for the existence of God on the eternality of the universe. He thought if he could show God existed based on the eternality of the universe, then how much more so can he show God exists if the universe did come into existence at some point in time. I can do that in reverse. Even if Jesus existed then Christianity still fails.

Where can the money be better spent? I need grant money to continue my work. There is a donate button in our sidebar that helps me stay alive in these hard economic times. I need your help. I need people who are willing to donate on a regular basis, a monthly commitment if you can. Unless more money comes in I’ll be forced to get a second job. Spinoza ground lenses during the day and researched at night. What if he had to have two jobs? I’m no Spinoza by a long shot, but what if Spinoza never had to grind lenses for a living and could research and write all day long? How much better would his arguments be?

Call me arrogant if you will, but I am one person who has the arguments that can be the undoing of Christianity. [BTW, Keith Parsons emailed me recently and said: "Humility is a Christian virtue. Be proud of your accomplishment!"] I’d like for CFI and Paul Kurtz to send me on a speaking tour, allow me to revise my book one more time (if I had time I could condense it and make it more accessible to the masses), fund me to debate some high profile Christians, make me a research scholar for the CFI institute. These requests have been made by me to them, with one important person who is advocating on my behalf, and maybe some or all of these requests will pan out in the near future. But my goal is not just to understand the world, as Marx said, but to change it.

Skeptics, yes, we need to move on to other issues and be on the cutting edge of them. Let's just never forget what our common goal is and how daunting the task is. We must major on the majors and minor on the minors and know the difference between which is which.

33 comments:

David Parker said...

Recently, James White reviewed an episode of the Infidel Guy in which Bart Ehrman was the guest. Apparently the Infidel Guy wasn't very happy that Ehrman believed that a person named Jesus existed.

Ehrman seems to look down on Robert Price a bit, which honestly shocked me given that Robert Price is very historical in his approach. Ehrman basically makes an argument from authority in which he says "I know thousands of historians, and none of them doubt that Jesus existed or Paul wrote Galatians."

Anyways, you can hear a Christian reviewing a discussion between an agnostic and an atheist...pretty interesting.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3080

Dan Gilbert said...

Without going into detail on the whole piece...

"I think Christianity fails whether Jesus existed or not."

I wholeheartedly agree... and I'm getting your book pronto so I can back up my agreement. ;-)

Thanks, John!

SirMoogie said...

John,

you said:

"Richard, that means most of the scholars there would think you are a kook too. [I'm not saying you or Bob are kooks. I'm only commenting on what you yourself said]. As I have said before, do not become marginalized as a scholar. Your scholarship is too good for that to happen to you. Make sure that your book contains convincing arguments. I have no reason yet to suspect it doesn't do this. I wish you the best and I will read your book. What typically happens is that someone writes on a topic of interest and when scholars call the author a kook he will write a response in order to save face. And if this isn't convincing he will devote his whole life to defending himself. If this happens to you let it drop. Move on to other more important topics. You have so much to say about so many things. Say them. Make your statement and move on to these other topics if that happens."

I'm not sure what you're advocating, it really depends on how much information you've decided to load into the action of calling someone a "kook". If the community of Bible scholars call Richard a "kook", what does that have to do with anything? If they say Richard you're wrong, and provide reasons justified by rational argumentation and appeal to evidence, not popularity, that would be one thing. However, if they just dismiss him as a "kook" a priori, this doesn't seem reasonable. Given this latter option, Richard probably doesn't need to write a response, as he wasn't given legitimate criticism.

Anonymous said...

SirMoogie asked:If the community of Bible scholars call Richard a "kook", what does that have to do with anything?

It has to do with credibility as a scholar within the scholarly community. This is obvious and non-controversial.

SirMoogie said:...if they just dismiss him as a "kook" a priori, this doesn't seem reasonable.

Get used to it. That's what they do. That's what we all do with beliefs way outside the bounds of what we think are defensible. This too is obvious and non-controversial.

It'll be an interesting conversation. I'm listening in and hoping he raises the bar. He can't be upset over the controversy because controversy sells books.

SirMoogie said...

"It has to do with credibility as a scholar within the scholarly community. This is obvious and non-controversial. "

Well, then his credibility isn't damage much if they don't have a reasonable means for dismissing the arguments except to declare an individual a "kook". IOW, to be called a "kook" by the irrational doesn't seem like much of an insult.

"Get used to it. That's what they do. That's what we all do with beliefs way outside the bounds of what we think are defensible. This too is obvious and non-controversial."

Yes, but the premise of this discussion was that Richard presented a position well argued from the evidence. Ergo, this is a non-sequitur.

Luke said...

John,

Yours is the best atheism book I've read, but I can't usually recommend it to people I speak with because I know it will be too long and heady for them. I would LOVE for you to write a briefer version.

Darrin said...

Luke,

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_loftus/christianity.html

Hope that helps :)

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

there is much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

Jon said...

The problem I see with such worthy interests is that there are still a great number of Christian believers in the world who will not seriously consider the possibility that Jesus did not exist.

Why do you want to change people's minds, John? Does it really matter? I'm married to a Christian, and if she never sees things my way I don't care.

I say, participate in the discussion if you find it interesting. Go wherever the evidence leads you no matter what others think, and no matter whether or not this would affect a deconversion. If a Christian becomes more entrenched because of my argument for mythicism I really don't give a damn.

Steven Bently said...

Jon " Why do yo want to change people's minds? Does it realy matter?"

My fundy aunt told me that her frying pan caught on fire and she prayed to god to order satan to put the fire out, so she put a wet cloth over the frying pan and put the fire out, and she gave all the glory and thanks to god.

I told my fundy mom about what my aunt told me and she said that she prayed to god to give her the strength to put out the fire, so I told my mom if the house catches on fire to call 911 first before she prayed to god, she said she would.

John is just trying to erase people's misguided delusional thinking.

How many delusional people will die waiting for their imaginary god to come and rescue them?

Jon said...

Let me pose a hypothetical. Let's suppose we conclude that overwhelmingly the evidence supports mythicism. Let's also suppose that this is not palatable for evangelicals. What do we do? Should we present them with arguments we don't believe just to try and get them to change their minds? Is that the right thing to do?

I see John as partly favoring historicism for this reason. I know he says he's convinced of it, and I believe him. But there's talk of such things as "common goals" in relation to the conclusions we draw on this subject. Is this really what should be driving us? Or rather truth for truth's sake.

And at the end of the day, contrary to my hypothetical, I think seeking truth for truth's sake is more persuasive anyway. Maybe not short term, but long term. When convincing others is the goal, rather than just knowledge of the truth, then we're not as convincing.

Anonymous said...

Jon,

Hypothetical cases mean nothing here. Reality does. I could propose a hypothetical too, you know, that the evidence firmly supports the historicity of Jesus. Then what?

And you fail to see what Aquinas and I am doing. We are granting the best case scenario for those on the opposite side and still arguing for our side. That says nothing against truth for truth's sake. It's an argumentative strategy.

Jay said...

I wasn't aware that people still debated the existence of Jesus. I thought this was pretty much settled by historians that He existed years ago.

How funny and rediculous some atheist are.

Jon said...

I could propose a hypothetical too, you know, that the evidence firmly supports the historicity of Jesus. Then what?

That's not analogous to my hypothetical. I said suppose we conclude that overwhelmingly the evidence supports mythicism. Mythicism might be right or wrong on this scenario. The evidence may or may not support mythicism on my hypothetical. What matters is that I've concluded that it does. What should I do? Should I modify my public statements about the issue because it is not palatable to evangelicals? Should the impact on what you claim is our "common cause" affect my presentation?

I say "To thine own self be true." Who cares what Robin thinks, or if he/she is always a Christian.

So on your hypothetical, what if we conclude the evidence supports historicity. Then go with it. Make public statements about it. Robin will prefer it. Fine. But if he/she didn't prefer it, and yet I was convinced of it, it would make no difference to me. And if others are prejudiced against me, so what? My goal is to understand things, not appear credible in Robin's eyes.

Anonymous said...

Jon, I don't think you understand me. I do believe there was a man behind the Jesus cult. And contray to you my goal is NOT JUST to understand the world, but to change it.

Emanuel Goldstein said...

John, given your remark that you are "one person with the arguments" etc., I no longer think you are arrogant.

I think you are truly having delusions of grandeur; i.e., I think your guilt and the lies you have told have driven you insane.

I know, of course, that you will not pubish this.

I just want you to know that I will comment for the rest of my life from time to time.

This is my vow.

And you are going to have to moderate comments FOREVER.

Jonathan MS Pearce said...

Don't condense the book! That would be criminal.

Teleprompter said...

Andrew,

You were wrong--you got published.

It's time to 'fess up and acknowledge that John is a better person than you give him credit for being.

I am glad John believes in free speech: so do I.

By the way, I've decided to read your book.

Bart said...

John, I think you might be missing two vital points.

When you referred to the pharygylal hoard descending to influence the poll, you mentioned that they didn't bother to read your arguments. I think if you had a chance to sit with any of those skeptics, you could build a positive case for a real individual behind the Jesus cult. But when you ask the question 'Who was/is Jesus' to a skeptic, they think of the miracle worker, son of god, etc... They (and you) think this person is a myth. For the hard skeptic Jesus is a myth. If you want to argue the details of the issue, and claim that the evidence points to a person, and that person is quite likely the origin of the Jesus myth, thats a very detailed argument that a hard skeptic won't have time for. Unless they are interested in the history of Christianity in a scholarly way, which is how I describe myself.

Its just like the Paul Bunyan myth. There is good evidence that there was a Swede lumberjack named Paul that was the inspiration for the Paul Bunyan myth. Does that mean Paul Bunyan was real or a myth? It depends on how you define the terms, and how interested you are in the story. The short answer is yes, Jesus is a mythical person. The long answer gives a real person, very likely NOT named Jesus Christ, who was the inspiration for the Myth.

The other point I think you're missing is peoples desire for change. I speak with many close friends who are Christians. They have more than enough arguments, and evidence to throw their beliefs away. They just simply choose not to. Like the alcoholic, drug addict, and cigarette smoker, change must come from within, not from without. You can send mountains of good evidence, persuasive arguments, and they will never change, unless they want to.

Philip R Kreyche said...

Andrew,

I just want you to know that I will comment for the rest of my life from time to time.

This is my vow.


And you say that John is insane??

Hambydammit said...

I wasn't aware that people still debated the existence of Jesus. I thought this was pretty much settled by historians that He existed years ago.

How funny and rediculous some atheist are.


Wow. It's almost like people believe the majority regardless of the strength of their arguments. Wouldn't it be nice if only people who really knew what they were talking about would pronounce things about how certain a historical Jesus was.

It's like... it's like some people are using their popular blogs to promote an idea they can't back up, and lots of people believe them.

Scandalous, if you ask me.

Teleprompter said...

It doesn't matter that much to me whether or not Jesus actually existed, as an atheist.

There are other factors which are far more persuasive to me. For example, think about his failed prophecies.

Read Mark 13, and the corresponding passages in the other Gospels. He said "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place". The things which were predicted to happen? Not all of the things which were predicted did come to pass.

What does the Bible say about how to detect false prophets?

Let's check Deutoronomy 18:32 --

"When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is a thing that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you should not be afraid of him."

YouTube user ProfMTH has a video series on this subject.

Even if Jesus existed, he's still made some failed prophecies, and according to his own scriptures, he should be ignored.

Steven Carr said...

Whether or not Jesus actually existed is a bit like asking whether or not the Maitreya actually exists.

Nobody is going to convert even if there really is a Maitreya living as an obscure Muslim in the East End of London.

Anonymous said...

Hambydammit and Carr, most of the scholars in the Jesus Project believe there was a man behind the Jesus cult.

Why do you think that's the case?

Bart said...

John, I don't want to speak for those two, but I believe I answered that question.

Define Jesus.

I'm betting that Hambydammit and Carrs definition of Jesus is: The miracle working born of a virgin son of god referred to in the New Testament.

I think you would agree that person is a myth.

If there was a person who inspired the cult, it is unlikely that his birth name was Jesus, or even Yeshua.

I think most reasonable people who look into your evidence would agree that there probably was a real person, or people, behind the origins of the New Testament. For most rationalists, this is more of an argument of semantics than an argument of substance.

Anonymous said...

Bart, I appreciate your responses. I've read them and they are insightful ones. For me it's a matter of merely being honest. There was a man behind the legends. I think that's the case. He was an apocalyptic prophet who was a follower of John the Baptist who gathered together some followers who was crucified. Most scholars agree. Prophets like these were Legion, as I said. The hard work is figuring out where the legends begin and where they end. But to say as the mythicists say that it's all myth is not credible to me or even most of the scholars represented in the Jesus Project. It's certainly not credible to my target audience, so why bother making that case like Dan Barker or Michael Martin attempted in their books?

You and I fundamentally agree. The hard part is to figure out what is fact and what is fiction.

Teleprompter said...

John W. Loftus, for lack of a better phrase to call you by,

you said:

"There was a man behind the legends. I think that's the case. He was an apocalyptic prophet who was a follower of John the Baptist who gathered together some followers who was crucified. Most scholars agree."

See, I have no problem with an intellectual disagreement. I don't have a clear opinion on this one way or another.

However, we can't allow this to get personal. We waste valuable time and resources quibbling over this issue. Why?

We don't need to demonstrate that Jesus didn't exist. If we listen to the things which Jesus was supposed to have said, we already know enough to discredit those words. There are stronger arguments out there, as you yourself know so well.

Please don't take this observation personally. I think the Jesus mythicists need to relax, too. You all need to relax.

In the grand scheme of arguments for and against religion, or even for and against belief in Christianity, there are many other things we could be saying instead.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Player Piano, for lack of a better phrase to call you by. ;-)

I agree.

But I also think we should be majoring on the majors. As I said the money could be spent on better projects, much better ones, but no, skeptics want to put their money where it will only make a ripple of a difference. I'm for ripples, of course, but the money being spent to fund this research could make waves if put to better use.

Teleprompter said...

John W. Loftus,

I agree with you: the money that is being spent has far better uses.

Steven Carr said...

What did this Jesus do?

Luke 10:8 'When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you.'

I wonder why there was such an almighty fuss in the early church about whether or not Christians should eat some pagan foodstuffs, when Jesus said Christian missionaries should eat whatever food the people they visit set before them.

It was almost as though their Lord and Saviour had not said anything remotely relevant to the question of whether or not Christians should eat whatever was set before them.

Hambydammit said...

Hambydammit and Carr, most of the scholars in the Jesus Project believe there was a man behind the Jesus cult.

Why do you think that's the case?


John, two things:

1. I have it straight from someone in the Jesus Project that this is just bunk. Part of the stated purpose of the Jesus Project is to reexamine what the very question of a historical Jesus means! Are you suggesting that before going in, half of the project has already determined the outcome?

2. When are you going to stop appealing to authority? That's what I've been busting your chops about this whole time. It's about methodology, methodology, methodology. If a hundred thousand scholars have used bad methods and reached the same conclusion, their conclusion is invalid even if it turns out to be correct.

Anonymous said...

Hambydammit, I aksed a question and your answer is basically that the scholars that disagree with you don't know what they are doing, eh? And neither do I. In fact, anyone who disagrees is basically ignorant, right?

Well then, who are you? State your name and your credentials. And please tell me why you have such an interest in this issue. I mean, really, would you be so passionate about any other historical conclusion? What do you have invested in this such that you cannot be an objective about it?

Anonymous said...

Hammbydammit, you remind me of many conspiricy theorists who claim to have hidden knowledge that the CIA/FBI won't release to the public. Conspiracy theorists are mostly passionate paranoid people who think outside/ independent thinking threatens their identity; they fail to see the big picture, and they think of themselves to be superior than others because of special knowledge (i.e., gnostics) that few people can yet appreciate.

If there is a case, make it. Don't behave like a child.