Sven

Use your brain, buddy. If you have no success, Richard Carrier has the long article Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story to ponder on.

Jean Valjean

Sven

Richard Carrier has very little credibility in serious scholarly quarters

If you want a scholarly link I can provide it

Jean Valjean

Sven

First: Yes, please do so.
Second: It's bad form to attack the person, the arguments are all that matter. So would you like to comment on his article?

Edited to add: Just that you know, I wrote Richard Carrier a PM, in case he wants to comment himself about this.

Richard Carrier

What does that mean? That I am unknown? Or that the relevant academic community knows my work and actually disregards it as not credible? Since I have published several articles in peer reviewed journals, and have been asked to appear as a scholar on national television twice now, it would seem beyond dispute that the "serious scholarly" community knows me and actually does find me credible.

But if you want to insist, against that evidence, that I am unknown, I can provide a list of Ph.D.'s who know my work and praise it, thus refuting your lie. But if you want to insist that they regard me as not credible, please provide a single example of any "serious scholar" (someone who has an advanced degree in any relevant field and has actually published something in a peer reviewed journal on a relevant subject) who says my work "has very little credibility" (or anything equivalent).

If you cannot produce a single example, how then can you claim to know what the "serious scholarly" community thinks of my work? I suspect you are just making this slander up. Walk softly. My reputation is valuable--which means it is worth a lot of money in a court of law. Do you really want to find out how much? There are consequences to immoral behavior, and a responsible person faces them. Bearing false witness--especially with the intent to harm another human being--is immoral in anyone's book.

Perhaps an apology is in order?

Vinnie

You'll just tarnish all those good scholars in his mind along with yourself. You know, guilt by association

Thank you Sparrow for your response to seebs. You just about said everything I would have said in response and probably articulated a few things better than I could. To reat two separate responses:

Vinnie

Jean Valjean

I should have been more precise in my comments concerning Richard Carrier

I had in mind lack of regard by serious scholars in the Nicene Creed affirming Churches for his conclusions, as distinct from his work ethic which many could regard favourably

I apologise for not making that clear and specific

No harm was intended to any reputation established by hard work and effort outside those Churches, or within them

I was certainly unclear and apologise for any hurt caused by not limiting my comment to scholars of the Christian Church.

I further recognise that even inside those Churches there may be many who have a high regard for the diligence, discipline and work ethic of Richard Carrier without necessarily agreeing with or having a high regard for his conclusions

Jean Valjean

Layman

I don't see that his subjective opinion about your influence in the academic community -- not all of us take the Journal of Higher Criticism, Freehthought Today, the Skeptical Inquirer to be "serious scholarly circles" -- is any less baseless than your threatened legal action. In fact, because you hold yourself out as a public figure on these boards, on t.v., and in other venues, you would be very hard pressed to prove actual malice. Of course, you'd have no chance at all of proving damages. So I guess your threat was even more baseless than his comment.

Or is your reputation so fragile that it is going to be harmed by such comments on your own discussion board? If so, you've done more to confirm his comments than anything else.

TySixtus

I was lurking on this thread, but I had to comment on this doozy...

So Mr. Carrier should let someone just shit on his reputation with hackeneyed, off the cuff ad homs?

In other words, how dare he defend himself?

[/delurk]

Ty

Layman

No, in my words, he has no basis for threatening legal action.

Richard Carrier

Jean's statement did not refer to my "influence" but maligned my competence as a scholar by falsely claiming that the entire community of experts regards my scholarship as not credible. That is, first, a lie, and second, a lie that is meant to harm me, and third, a lie that can cause real financial damages if continued. Thus, there are two issues here: an immoral act that demands an apology from anyone who regards themselves as morally decent, and a warning to avoid carrying out what can become a very injurious campaign.



The Journal of Higher Criticism and the Skeptical Inquirer, just like Biology & Philosophy, Reports of the National Center for Science Education, German Studies Review and the Encyclopedia of the Ancient World, all of which have published my scholarship, are peer reviewed jounals (plus one printed reference)--which means members of the scholarly community decide whether my scholarship is credible. They decided it was. QED.

Now, what evidence does Jean have that any member of that community thinks otherwise?




Only if Jean persists in spreading lies against me that begin to harm the sales of my books by leading people to believe my scholarship has been condemned by the scholarly community--or harms my chances of being hired to a future professorship. Moreover, any efforts I have to engage to prove to the same people the charge is baseless also cost money and can be claimed as damages.

This is a serious matter. I take offense at those who think they can escape moral accountability, and it does not impress me to find someone mocking the institutions we have in place to enforce that accountability. Once upon a time people had enough decency to guide their lives by a sense of honor. Now people will just tell whatever slanderous lies suit their twisted aims. If people will not govern themselves, they may have to be compelled to in a court of law. Accountability must end somewhere. If not your own sense of decency, then all we have left is the law. Don't you agree? Or maybe you think it is enough that Jean will burn in hell for bearing false witness...



Not true. Unlike libel, slander does not require proof of malice. Any false claim that causes me undue financial loss or expense is actionable, so long as the claimant knew the claim was false or reasonably ought to have known (and I only need to convince 7 out of 12 jurors of that). Moreover, it is precisely because I am a public figure that this false claim would be actionable.

But I intend to take no action unless Jean persists in spreading such a lie to an extent that actually costs me money--that is why I warned to walk softly. But set aside the legal issue. There is no excuse for telling lies--least of all lies aimed specifically at harming someone. Why you think there ought to be an excuse for that troubles me. Are you so morally bankrupt?



Unless I can. That's exactly what I am warning against: if I can find even a single person who chose not to buy one of my books because of what Jean said, I can claim the cover price of my book. If I find a hundred such people...

The same goes if I have to defend myself against Jean's remarks in a job interview. If I subpoena the interviewers and they say their decision not to hire was even partly a result of a statement spread by Jean, that constitutes material damages. If I have to undertake financial expenses to earn a job by proving Jean's comments (or any rumor sparked by them) are false, those expenses are actionable.



To the contrary. I have not sued Jean, in case you didn't notice. I only warned that persisting in spreading a damaging slander is both immoral and a civil offense. Thus, contrary to your conclusion, I have actually demonstrated my confidence that this one remark will have no effect upon my reputation or standing as a scholar. But should Jean persist in claiming this elsewhere, or a rumor be generated from here that actually affects people, it does not matter how stupid someone is who makes a decision based on a rumor--if the rumor was false, and was begun by Jean, the damage is done. And damage is actionable. Therefore, as I said before: walk softly.

A decent person would apologize, of course. But for moral reprobates, all we have is the law. And if Jean's actions someday cause me damage, the law will produce all the accountability I need.