Thursday, February 25, 2010

Appearing in Tuscon

I will be appearing next month in Tuscon, Arizona, for the Center for Inquiry of Southern Arizona, on Sunday, March 21 (2010) at 10am (until about noon), at the DuVal Auditorium (1501 North Campbell Ave. in the University of Arizona Medical Center, to the right of the lobby, after walking in the main entrance of the UMC). I'll be delivering a reprise of my talk on Not the Impossible Faith (originally delivered in Berkeley, see here for current details). Normally there is a small ticket price at CFI events (and Friends of the Center get in free), but I don't know if that will be the same here. I will be selling and signing my books afterward.

5 comments:

Arizona Atheist said...

Hi Mr. Carrier, I plan on attending this talk. I went to your last one that took place in AZ and am looking forward to this next one. I loved the book so I'm sure I'll love the talk. See you then! : )

tom said...

You've got the Sense & Goodness amazon.com link instead of the Not the Impossible Faith one in there.

Richard Carrier said...

Thanks. Fixed.

Matthew said...

Richard,

A short while back I purchased a copy of Not The Impossible Faith. I thought it was very-well written and I enjoyed it. Have you ever seen Evangelicals back up their claims like how embarrassing it as for women to have discovered the empty tomb? Or how they know that the disciples of Jesus died for something that they knew to be true because no one would die for a lie?

I realized that in reading the arguments of Bill Craig, Gary Habermas, and J.P. Holding is that they never explain how they know these kinds of "facts". They often quote other people hoping to impress readers by appealing to authority but over the past couple of years, I realized how none of these Christian engage in primary source analysis-or at least not competently.

I look forward to your book On the Historicity of Jesus Christ and your contribution(s) to Sources of the Jesus Tradition. I plan to use your work in my own graduate studies! Keep up the good fight!

Matthew

Richard Carrier said...

Matthew said... Have you ever seen Evangelicals back up their claims like how embarrassing it as for women to have discovered the empty tomb?

For an example of their attempts to do this see my discussion in NIF of how Wright and Malina attempt to back that claim up. Neither is an evangelical, but I've only ever seen comparable evidence from anyone else, if they even bother giving any, and what happens when you check such facts is exactly what I report happened when I checked them, in NIF.

A similar example is how Wright argues the exact opposite of what I do in chapter three. NIF wasn't about him, so I don't point it out, but I highly recommending reading my chapter on this, and then go and read his chapter on this. And take note of what's different. You can even make a game of counting the fallacies (not least of omission).

It's valid to ask why he didn't do what I did. Or why anyone should regard him as a competent authority, precisely because he didn't do what a competent authority is obligated to do (which is what I did). Another fiasco exposing him as being just short of a fraud is his inexperienced treatment of the sources for Origen (see my FAQ question on this, plus the entry just after that one).

Or how they know that the disciples of Jesus died for something that they knew to be true because no one would die for a lie?

I've personally never seen them even attempt to offer evidence for this. But then the sort who actually count as scholars (e.g. Habermas, Craig) don't make this argument, as far as I know. On either point I could be wrong. Let me know if you find examples.

Of course some cite bogus evidence or evidence that doesn't even establish the point being made (such as the Acts of Peter's report that Peter was executed, and that for political reasons having nothing to do with his testimony to anything). It's very outdated now, but I have a brief section on this in Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story (per the caveat now attached to that antiquated essay, I don't necessarily still concur with all I say there, but it's a place to start).

They often quote other people hoping to impress readers by appealing to authority but over the past couple of years, I realized how none of these Christian engage in primary source analysis-or at least not competently.

You're entirely correct. And I've caught them at this so many times I no longer believe anything they say anymore. Which is basically the point NIF makes. As for Holding, so for anyone else whose arguments crumble when their sources are checked.