FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-25-2012, 10:06 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngalexander View Post
Ehrman was very urbane and civil which made a rather stark contrast. Carrier will need to be spot on his game with Vol II, for he has won no friends in the establishment with that diatribe.
Ehrman equated those of us who believe that Jesus Christ was a myth, not a man with:

--Holocaust deniers
--Obama birther wingnuts
--extremists
--a separate breed of human
--religion haters
--people with mental illnesses.

Yet you call this "very urbane and civil"?
Grog is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:06 PM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
Default

Quote:
Are you reading this, Earl Doherty? It's fundamentally misleading that you build an argument in exactly the way real scholars do. Don't you see how this will trick and confuse your readers? Stop behaving like a "scholar among scholars" and giving people "the impression" that you're "building a tenable case".
Mea culpa.

Earl Doherty
EarlDoherty is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:14 PM   #33
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngalexander View Post
Carrier will need to be spot on his game with Vol II, for he has won no friends in the establishment with that diatribe.
What??? Carrier has no friends??? You have got to be kidding me.

Ehrman needs some.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:15 PM   #34
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngalexander View Post
Ehrman was very urbane and civil which made a rather stark contrast. Carrier will need to be spot on his game with Vol II, for he has won no friends in the establishment with that diatribe.
Ehrman equated those of us who believe that Jesus Christ was a myth, not a man with:

--Holocaust deniers
--Obama birther wingnuts
--extremists
--a separate breed of human
--religion haters
--people with mental illnesses.

Yet you call this "very urbane and civil"?
None of these accusations are in Ehrman's book. I just did a Kindle word search on the book, and none of those phrases appear in the book.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:17 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post

Ehrman equated those of us who believe that Jesus Christ was a myth, not a man with:

--Holocaust deniers
--Obama birther wingnuts
--extremists
--a separate breed of human
--religion haters
--people with mental illnesses.

Yet you call this "very urbane and civil"?
None of these accusations are in Ehrman's book. I just did a Kindle word search on the book, and none of those phrases appear in the book.
They are in the Huffington Post blog. I'm sure you already knew that.
Grog is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:25 PM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mornington Peninsula
Posts: 1,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Ehrman equated those of us who believe that Jesus Christ was a myth, not a man with:

--Holocaust deniers
--Obama birther wingnuts
--extremists
--a separate breed of human
--religion haters
--people with mental illnesses.

Yet you call this "very urbane and civil"?
I meant in his reply of course - the subject of this thread.
youngalexander is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:27 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngalexander View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Ehrman equated those of us who believe that Jesus Christ was a myth, not a man with:

--Holocaust deniers
--Obama birther wingnuts
--extremists
--a separate breed of human
--religion haters
--people with mental illnesses.

Yet you call this "very urbane and civil"?
I meant in his reply of course - the subject of this thread.

It doesn't matter how he responds. Carrier was responding to him and he'd already set the tone.
Grog is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:28 PM   #38
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Yes, in the HuffPo piece he makes allusions to Holocaust deniers and birthers, and I rapped him for that when the piece came out (I think I might have been to first one on this board to call him out for specifically those comparisons), but that's not in his book, which is, on balance, pretty measured. He says nothing in the same ballpark as some of what Carrier hurled back at him ("hack," for instance).
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:32 PM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdl View Post
Easily the weakest part of Ehrman's defence is when he tries to maintain his criticism of Doherty:
Carrier finds fault with my claim, about Earl Doherty, that he “quotes professional scholars at length when their view prove useful for developing aspects of his argument, but he fails to point out that not a single one of these scholars agrees with his overarching thesis” (p. 252). He points out that Doherty does in fact indicate, in various places throughout his book, that the argument he is advancing at that point is not accepted by other scholars. As a result, Carrier states, my claim is nothing but “falsified propaganda.”

It is true that Doherty acknowledges that scholars disagree with him on this, that, or the other thing. But the way he builds his arguments typically makes it appear that he is writing as a scholar among scholars, and that all of these scholars (with him in the mix) have disagreements on various issues (disagreements with him, with one another). One is left with the impression that like these other scholars, Doherty is building a tenable case that some points of which would be granted by some scholars but not others, and that the entire overall thesis, therefore, would also be acceptable to at least some of the scholars he engages with.
Are you reading this, Earl Doherty? It's fundamentally misleading that you build an argument in exactly the way real scholars do. Don't you see how this will trick and confuse your readers? Stop behaving like a "scholar among scholars" and giving people "the impression" that you're "building a tenable case".
I'm not sure exactly how Ehrman meant it, but if it is the way I suspect he did, I agree with him. This is in fact one of the criticism I make of Dohertys "J:NGNM".

To show this: jdl, if you've read Doherty's book, can you list the controversial concepts raised by Doherty from the perspective of pagan's beliefs? That is, do you think that Doherty shows that the pagans believed in a "World of Myth", and this is something that all scholars with knowledge of the time believe? Or, after reading his book, do you come away with the impression that such beliefs among the pagans are not controversial among the scholars of today?
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:35 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Yes, in the HuffPo piece he makes allusions to Holocaust deniers and birthers, and I rapped him for that when the piece came out (I think I might have been to first one on this board to call him out for specifically those comparisons), but that's not in his book, which is, on balance, pretty measured. He says nothing in the same ballpark as some of what Carrier hurled back at him ("hack," for instance).
The OP invites "others from other sources." I provided them. Carrier, by the way, always referred to Ehrman's arguments. Ehrman did not do that. Carrier says:

"the kind of hack mistake we would expect from an incompetent myther." He's talking about the mistake Ehrman made. Ehrman on the other hand categorizes a whole group of people as insane extremists. I would say the greater error is on Ehrman's part, not Carrier's.

By the way, I criticized Carrier for his tone, too. I'm not saying Carrier has clean hands.
Grog is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:36 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.