SingleDad:
Your criticisms of Richard Carrier are harsh and attack not only his work but his character. Such accusations are very easy to do from the anonymity of a pseudonym. How rigorous is your own historical scholarship?

SWL: I don't think I attacked his character anywhere. I just feel that much of what I've read of his on the Sec Web is the "height of inept apologetic crap and nowhere near a competent work of historical scholarship" (as Carrier says of Old McDowell). You're free to disagree, but I certainly won't refrain from expressing my opinion on the quality of work on the Sec Web.

SingleDad: And who, precisely is Victor Stenger?

SWL: See my post above. Or type his name into the search engine here at the Sec Web.

SingleDad: Why are you repeating his personal correspondance?

SWL: Because I feel like it.

SingleDad: How can we be sure you're not taking his comments out of context?

SWL: The context is all there. I wrote him asking what he thought of Carrier's work on BB cosmology and that is the message he returned.

SingleDad: I know I am accused of "closed-mindedness" by many of my ow colleagues with whom I merely disagree. Harsh disagreements are common in academia, but an academic should be unafraid to attach his own name to his own criticism, and make his scholarly credentials public.

SWL: Sorry, this is a message board and I can use any name I like and critique/give my opinion on the views of any person I like without having to show my ID to the thought-police.

SecWebLurker

madmax:Its true that you did level more than one accusation at Mr. Carrier. However I dismissed the first slight ("very sloppy") as nothing more than your subjective opinion. It simply doesn't hold any weight. (Historical study can by its very nature be a "sloppy" business.)

SWL: Well, you're certainly free to dismiss it. I don't know how much one's opinion of the overall scholarship of another can be anything but subjective, but my opinions are grounded in my own analysis of his actual work. Perhaps that doesn't "hold any weight" for you. Perhaps you think that a 2% historical probability makes for a very good chance that an historical event occured? I'm not here to police your thought. I was on the thread chiming in with my opinion on the issue of a potential debate-partner for Doherty.

madmax: The second accusation in regards to his historical expertise is more to the point and what I considered worthy of attention. Carrier does have degrees in historical studies so that would make this a more serious acccusation.

SWL: Perhaps it was more of what you were interested in. It wasn't, however, more to the point of my original statement.

Sorry about the confusion.

SecWebLurker

Bede

I'm not so sure as I have not heard back on stuff I submited even to say its crap. The only exception was when I asked on the feedback board but its been silence since then. Maybe they can't find any reveiwers but you have to admit the amount of theistic stuff here is pitiful. This would be fine as long as they don't pretend the situation could be otherwise.

B

Brian Trafford:

Perhaps you should be so kind as to actually name these books so we can examine the evidence independently?

Also, reread the thrust of Carrier's comment. He says specifically that Dever himself (like you) cites no actual books that would render The Bible Unearthed as "nothing new". Indeed, I don't see that Dever actually does cite any such book.

I find your vague declaration that "such books exist" (perhaps written in Serbo-Croation, and distributed to you and a friend of yours?) entirely unconvincing.

I found the original criticism at best trivial and at worst specious. Having read scores of books popularizing Quantum Mechanics (my area of amateur interest) and Computer Science (my profession), I have never judged the overall quality of a work of popularization by the footnotes.

I suspect that, lacking any other criterion, you would have declared TBE's choice of typeface to have undermined the credibility of the work, and professed amazement when such a criticism was declared trivial.

Even if true in every respect, your own points, Brian, betray the lack of any substantive controversy with Carrier's work.


SecWebLurker:

You are correct: You have no obligation. Likewise we are under no obligation to seriously consider the comments of a coward.


Bede

I apologize on behalf of the Secular Web for not adjusting its editorial policy to suit you personally, and for giving the false impression that we are the internet's premier repository for christian propaganda, misinformation, fiction, and incomprehensible theology. I will address my maximum efforts to correcting both of these flaws.

SingleDad: You are correct: You have no obligation. Likewise we are under no obligation to seriously consider the comments of a coward.

SWL: Relax, officer. Its none of your business what my name is. Why do you need/want personal information about me? Is everyone on this board who doesn't wish to reveal their real name a coward, or do you only do ID-checks on those who make negative comments on what they see as low-quality Sec Web writing? If the latter, all the more I wouldn't give you my name. That is scary.

SecWebLurker

SingleDad, that reply to Bede was totally uncalled for. For one thing, the site'sCall for Papers plainly says that papers on both sides of at least some issues will be considered. Moreover, those are just the requested papers; nothing in the Submission Guidelines says they are the only pro-theism papers that will be considered. In any event, expecting the courtesy of a reply to a submission is patently reasonable.

Go ahead. Yell at me now. I can take it.

Bede is probably just being sensitive. I had at least one submission in which no response was ever made. It ain't just the theists.

Michael

To solicit submissions and not respond is unprofessional. That you happen not to mind, Michael, is beside the point.

Bede, I apologize. I misunderstood your objection. I thank Jubal for pointing out my error.

AFAI, the process of dealing with submissions has broken down to a certain degree. The Secular Web is an all-volunteer process and, like other volunteer efforts, suffers from a constant shortage of people's time. Although the obvious theme of the site is secularism, there is AFAIK no intentional editorial effort to exclude relevant work from theists.

If you believe that a submission has been ignored, I recommend you email Bill Schultz, Richard Carrier and/or James Still.

I would offer myself to contribute, but I simply lack the credentials or experience to meaningfully contribute to the library either as an author or as an editor.

[This message has been edited by SingleDad (edited May 27, 2001).]

I can see that SingleDad did not bother to read either all of my post, nor the link that I provided to the original thread. Fair enough, he wants to see the titles of the books again;

I did this in both my original post, and the one you are critiquing. I will give you a more extensive list, and suggest that you read some of them.

From my original post: Who Wrote the Bible? (Richard Elliot Friedman, HarperCollins: New York, 1997)

From Ish’s post: Archaeology and the Old Testament by Alfred J. Hoerth released in June 1998.

Additional reading:
Commentary on the Torah : With a New English Translation by Richard Elliott Friedman
released February 2001.

Editorial Review from Amazon.com: This new commentary draws on recent archeological discoveries, medieval commentaries, and modern textual scholarship "to shed new light on the Torah, and, more important, to open windows through which it sheds its light on us." The book also continues Friedman's ongoing project of making serious religious scholarship accessible to the general reader (as did his previous works, including Who Wrote the Bible and The Hidden Face of God).

What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel by William G. Dever. Since this book was written by the very scholar that Carrier was attacking, and it was released in March 2001, perhaps Carrier can explain why he did not know that this book existed when he wrote his review.

Carrier said very plainly that there are NO books written for the layman about either ancient Israel or the OT that take into account recent archaeological findings of the 1990’s. I have demonstrated that this is patently false, and given that Carrier fancies himself an historian, he should know better than to make such outrageous and broadbased statements that are so easily shown to be wrong.

Maybe if you bothered to read anything (including what I have already written), then you would be able to come up with informed opinions on these matters. In any event, if you have trouble reading these English books, you may want to order a video copy of Who Wrote the Bible? here.

Did you just come from the same red herring sale that Philip recently attended? Carrier said that books for layman on the Bible rarely contain footnotes. I commented that Carrier obviously either does not read enough popular works, or he is being disingenuous here. When it comes to books about the Bible, footnotes are the norm, not the exception, so for Carrier to say otherwise simply betrays his ignorance.

Stick with what you know SD. You are clearly in over your head here.

Brian

[This message has been edited by Brian Trafford (edited May 27, 2001).]