Carrier is the rage on other blogs. Folks seem to think he's a formidable if not superior opponent. But I've seen the Licona/Carrier debate and wasn’t so much impressed with Carrier. I’m pretty sure Licona choked him out!
Even Carrier's reasoning about Craig's comments on the topic of the debate is faulty. Is he honestly claiming that the issue of the reliability of the resurrection accounts -- i.e. a part of the gospels (and epistles, of course) -- is larger in scope than the question of the reliability of the gospels in general? And does he really believe that the gospels have to be generally reliable if one is to defend the resurrection? If Carrier's reasoning is this poor on the day of the debate, Craig won't choke him out -- Carrier will choke himself out!
When Carrier quoted N.T. Wright in his debate with Licona, I was like "WHAT THE ... ????"
That was the biggest quote mine in history.
I mean, Wright spends page after page explaining why Licona is right and Carrier is wrong, then Carrier quotes a passage in which he says "Lol Richard you're wrong" and makes it sound like Wright supports his theory.
For more, check out David Wood's review: http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/tunnel-vision-a-response-to-edward-tabashs-review-of-the-carrier-licona-debate.html
I am just glad they changed the topic. Since Carrier is a historian, and only an amateur philosopher, it makes much more sense for them to debate something like the resurrection than it does for them to debate "Are Moral Facts Evidence for God?" or whatever it was.
As an atheist, I was quite confused why Carrier decided he would affirmatively argue in favor for strong naturalism in his debate with Wanchick; it was certainly a strategic mistake.
That being said, Carrier is certainly a formidable opponent in his area of expertise. Eddie Tabash is a better overall debater, but with less specific knowledge of history. Bob Price has an encyclopedic knowledge of Biblical history, but is less polished as a debater. And so on.
Personally, I'm not that impressed with *Craig* as a debater.
WLC is entirely capable of making some mouth-gaping gaffes, too; and I've seen Richard make some decent points every once in a while (and importantly decent points, too). Plus RC has referent access to a lot of historical data, and that can be impressive sometimes.
But, no, I wouldn't consider Richard even a formidable opponent. Including in how he puts together the referent historical data. (And yes, the Wanchick debate is pretty typical of RC's competence, such as it is. Of course, I'm on record around here as agreeing with Victor on calling it a draw-loss on both sides. {wry g} Poor Victor had to grade the whole thing; I bailed on both Tom and Richard after their respective opening arguments.)
It ought to be a highly amusing debate at least! {g!}
Well, I thought Carrier's comment was reasonable. It makes sense to me that you need to first establish the reliability of the authors before establishing the reliability of their writing a specific thing.
Anon: I'm not really sure what you're asking. Sorry I missed this question until now; the best place to get ahold of me is probably at my blog. Cheers.
10 comments:
Carrier is the rage on other blogs. Folks seem to think he's a formidable if not superior opponent. But I've seen the Licona/Carrier debate and wasn’t so much impressed with Carrier. I’m pretty sure Licona choked him out!
Even Carrier's reasoning about Craig's comments on the topic of the debate is faulty. Is he honestly claiming that the issue of the reliability of the resurrection accounts -- i.e. a part of the gospels (and epistles, of course) -- is larger in scope than the question of the reliability of the gospels in general? And does he really believe that the gospels have to be generally reliable if one is to defend the resurrection? If Carrier's reasoning is this poor on the day of the debate, Craig won't choke him out -- Carrier will choke himself out!
When Carrier quoted N.T. Wright in his debate with Licona, I was like "WHAT THE ... ????"
That was the biggest quote mine in history.
I mean, Wright spends page after page explaining why Licona is right and Carrier is wrong, then Carrier quotes a passage in which he says "Lol Richard you're wrong" and makes it sound like Wright supports his theory.
For more, check out David Wood's review:
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/tunnel-vision-a-response-to-edward-tabashs-review-of-the-carrier-licona-debate.html
I don't rate Carrier at all. You should check his debate with Wanchick: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-wanchick/
His ¨Argument from Mind-Brain Dysteleology¨ was ridiculous.
I am just glad they changed the topic. Since Carrier is a historian, and only an amateur philosopher, it makes much more sense for them to debate something like the resurrection than it does for them to debate "Are Moral Facts Evidence for God?" or whatever it was.
As an atheist, I was quite confused why Carrier decided he would affirmatively argue in favor for strong naturalism in his debate with Wanchick; it was certainly a strategic mistake.
That being said, Carrier is certainly a formidable opponent in his area of expertise. Eddie Tabash is a better overall debater, but with less specific knowledge of history. Bob Price has an encyclopedic knowledge of Biblical history, but is less polished as a debater. And so on.
Personally, I'm not that impressed with *Craig* as a debater.
Hey Andrew,
On another post we were talking about objectivity. My last comment was...
"I used utilitarianism as "one" example of how secular ethics are
ill equiped to ground purpose objectively.
If you do not mind let's hear how you ground purpose objectively."
Can you respond?
WLC is entirely capable of making some mouth-gaping gaffes, too; and I've seen Richard make some decent points every once in a while (and importantly decent points, too). Plus RC has referent access to a lot of historical data, and that can be impressive sometimes.
But, no, I wouldn't consider Richard even a formidable opponent. Including in how he puts together the referent historical data. (And yes, the Wanchick debate is pretty typical of RC's competence, such as it is. Of course, I'm on record around here as agreeing with Victor on calling it a draw-loss on both sides. {wry g} Poor Victor had to grade the whole thing; I bailed on both Tom and Richard after their respective opening arguments.)
It ought to be a highly amusing debate at least! {g!}
JRP
Well, I thought Carrier's comment was reasonable. It makes sense to me that you need to first establish the reliability of the authors before establishing the reliability of their writing a specific thing.
Anon: I'm not really sure what you're asking. Sorry I missed this question until now; the best place to get ahold of me is probably at my blog. Cheers.
Post a Comment