April 7, 2009

• Richard Carrier & "David Marshall's Review of Sense and Goodness" (updated)

  Intro: 

  Generally I've found atheist historian Richard Carrier (RC) to be charitable in his understanding of opposing criticism, but I have seen him falter on occasion.  David Marshall (DM), author of "The Truth Behind the New Atheists" has written a 14 point review of RC's "Sense and Goodness without God" and posted it on Amazon.  While, in and of itself, the review is pretty lame and does indeed misrepresent the contents of the book, RC's response (while on the mark otherwise) construes these misrepresentations in the guise of deliberately lying about the contents.  [edit: Fortunately it seems RC has backed off after I pointed these things out.  Still, there are some pretty sharp misrepresentations that need to be explained by DM.  We'll see how that goes.]  I've seen a similar trend when evolutionists respond to creationists and more often than not the so called "lies" are really just a really convoluted perspective on the truth that they honestly believe.  It really really really seems like they MUST be lying to get things so drastically wrong, but they aren't (most of the time).  They're just really really really wrong no matter how crazy it seems sometimes.      

  ---

  (link) Rick,

  RC:  "Christians have a tendency to lie about the contents of my book (as a past commenter here on Amazon once noted). Here we have another example. Marshall says I "seem to know the answers to an astonishing variety of questions, with little room for doubt," yet I frequently declare doubt and uncertainty throughout the book. Many of my answers are explicitly tentative and based solely on what current evidence renders most likely, not certain."

  They may be intellectually dishonest arguments, but in all likelihood DM is not lying from his perspective.  It is not as though he took note of the important qualifications and nuances made in the book and then made a conscious decision to lie about it.  Rather, I suspect it is mere confirmation bias.  Many Christians tend to expect a certain dogmatism from prominent atheists and will seek out confirmation of that and ignore disconfirmation.  Notice his opening line, "Richard Carrier is one of the most *confident* writers I have come across." [emphasis mine] Clearly, he "heat sought" your confidence long before he took note of what actually justified your confidence.  And in his preliminary posts on the message board here, clearly he got all bent out of shape over your general impressions of the Bible in your opening chapters and was almost unwilling to even continue.  It is completely fair for you to point out how much his bias does not correspond to the actual content of your book, but it is as unfair of you to accuse him of lying as it was for him to not pay closer attention and make sure his preconceived notions actually checked out before going with them. 

  Ben 

  ---

  (1) (link) Rick,

  RC:  "They have dealt with all the real problems in this field, so I don't have to. I just have to communicate what they have learned. Christians like Marshall refuse to tell you any of this. They prefer to deceive you into thinking my book isn't worth reading, by suggesting I didn't deal with the facts or the literature."

  DM probably just didn't know about your further treatment and just assumed you were blowing abiogenesis off, since from their perspective, it is insurmountable.  Therefore you must just be blowing it off and there's not much reason to double check.  Incidentally, that's not what you were doing as you pointed out.  Such a shallow pass of his isn't the hallmark of conspiracy since, again, confirmation bias will do.

  RC:  "For Marshall to cite him as an opponent of naturalism is simply dishonest."

  DM did not cite Yokey as an opponent of naturalism.  It was only of that one argument of Dawkins. 

  ---

  (2) (link) Rick,

  RC:  "yet I list several books by and about scientists using the term and discussing it's scientific application--another fact he deliberately refuses to tell you."

  Again, confirmation bias before conspiracy.  DM probably just didn't think he needed to check and assumed you fit the mold. 

  DM:  "giving your opponents the dignity of error."  

  I must say even though I disagree with DM's usage of this in context since anyone can be wrong about what is a harmful meme (link) and what isn't, you seem to be falling short right here of that crime incidentally. 

  ---

  (3) (link) Rick,

  DM: "Carrier cannot possibly have investigated all alleged miracles "scientifically," or even historically."

  RC:  "Marshall then lies again by implying I claimed I had conducted these investigations myself, and that I never mentioned anyone else doing so,"

  What is likely going on is that DM is more used to dealing with a skeptic's personal claims of having not seen any miracles and equivocates that with the convention of deferring to more comprehensive peer reviewed investigations.  This is just his bias again infringing on what you say, rather than a deliberate lie. 

  ---

  (4) (link) Rick,

  RC:  "For the fact is, most historians by far agree with me, not him. I'm sure Marshall knows that. So his failure to mention it is dishonest yet again."

  I'm sure at some level he does, but I think it's fair to say that he's drinking his own kool-aid on this one because as a Christian you pretty much have to condition yourself to reject, ignore, or at the very least under-appreciate all such expert consensus on these matters.  Omitting the bigger picture is just part and parcel of their own predisposition rather than conspiracy to lie here. 

  ---

  (5) (link) Rick,

  RC:  "For example, he doesn't seem to understand (or deliberately conceals) the difference between modern texts (which are copies of copies of copies, etc., of lost originals) and ancient documents (like coins and inscriptions) that are originals (or casts of originals) dating from the time in question."

  DM pretty much rebutted himself partially by quoting you on this point and the only thing I object to is the insinuation that he's deliberately concealing information to make your book look bad.

  ---

  (6) (link) Rick,

  RC:  "Marshall thus deceives you by focusing on a trivial point that, like a magician, distracts you from the actual point I made: we could have had better evidence supporting the resurrection, as we do in the case of the Rubicon crossing, yet we don't. That remains a fact."

  Again, I'm sure DM isn't deliberately trying to deceive anyone.  He's just drinking his own kool-aid and misdirecting himself just as much as everyone else. 

  ---

  (7) (link) Rick,

  DM:  "Luke was an exceptional historian,(Carrier calls him "above average" elsewhere!)."

  RC:  "At the time I wrote Sense and Goodness without God (the chapter in question was composed in early 2004), I considered Acts to be a mere extension of Luke's Gospel, and not a genuine history (because, unlike Eusebius for instance, the author of Acts never analyzes his sources or discusses methods or conflicting evidence, or any of the things that define an author as an actual critical historian). I thus included it in my analysis of the Gospels (pp. 244-47)."

  It seems that an above average historian must be writing history.  Seems like DM won that point since you said in S&G:

  "We have not a single historian mentioning the resurrection until two or three centuries later, and then only Christian historians, who show little in the way of critical skill."

  ---

  (8) (link) Rick,

  DM:  (quoting RC) "Paul mentions no other kind of evidence other than . . . (encountering) Jesus in a vision."
  
  "He does, in I Corinthians 15."

  RC:  "Marshall lies again when he says 1 Corinthians 15 mentions any "other kind of evidence other than . . . (encountering) Jesus in a vision." There is no indication that any kind of evidence is meant in 1 Corinthians 15 other than encountering Jesus in visions, exactly as I said."

  I'm sure DM 100% believes 1 Corinthians 15 (link) mentions more than visionary evidence, even though that view is interpretation of rather ambiguous text. 

  ---

  (9) (link) Rick,

  ...

  ---

  (10) (link) Rick,

  ...

  ---

  (11) (link) Rick,

  ...

  ---

  (12) (link) Rick,

  ...

  ---

  (13) (link) Rick,

  ...

  ---

  (14) (link) Rick,

  DM:  "The tolerance of the Greco-Romans was punctuated by episodes of persecution, bigotry, witch-hunting, and murder. Elsewhere in the same book, Carrier admits that one sect began their rituals with the shout, 'Away with the Epicureans! Away with the Christians! . . . this hostility could come to slander and violence. Challenging a popular legend might start a riot, even get you killed.'"

  RC:  "Marshall observes that "the tolerance of the Greco-Romans was punctuated by episodes of persecution, bigotry, witch-hunting, and murder," as if I didn't say exactly that myself. Then he quotes me saying exactly that myself. I don't see how that can be a criticism of my book."

  The above exchange is really unclear to me. 

  DM:  "In short, what I have read so far suggests a widely-read and ambitious internet-style polemicist, more than a judicious and fair-minded philosopher or historian."

  RC:  "I do critique other worldviews in my book, but that is secondary to the bulk of it, which is constructive, not destructive. Marshall apparently hopes you don't learn that, hoping instead that you'll avoid it as if it were yet one more polemical assault on religion, which it very conspicuously is not."

  I don't see why "polemicist" has to be a pejorative term as though you can't be a judicious and fair-minded philosopher or historian who focuses on popular disputes or builds your positive case in light of them.  That's like helpful, isn't it, when you are trying to sort through many different perspectives?  It seems there's a middle ground here where RC can claim to be 80% construction of his own positive views, but DM can claim it seems polemical, even though he goes too far with that.  That's my opinion anyway.  The backbone of the book isn't specifically attacking religion, but it is certainly catered to approaching that audience.     
  

  ---

  Richard Carrier responds (link and link):

  I'll grant Ben may be right to some extent. Maybe I am mistaken in seeing Marshall as misrepresenting the content of my book, as other Christian apologists have done. Maybe he is merely deluded by confirmation bias and somehow literally not seeing all the evidence he is omitting. Maybe he can only see the arguments against things and none of the arguments for things, like some sort of negative hallucination, and then gets so angry he calls the book just polemical. Maybe he is simply too biased and one-sided to even think he should mention the facts that greatly mitigate his arguments against my book.

  But in some cases, like his accusation that I reject the supernatural a priori, are really hard to understand as anything but deliberately dishonest. His omissions there are too peculiar to be a result of mere confirmation bias. Nevertheless, I already granted at several points he might simply just not know certain key facts, and I can see how some is just coloring things his way as much as he can without crossing the line. I don't think he is dishonest about everything, but it's difficult for me to see how everything he said could possibly have been on the up-and-up.

  I've apologized privately to Marshall for claiming more dishonesty than there may have been. I overreacted. I still am having a hard time seeing how he could have been honest in every case, and still believe he was dishonest in some cases, but in others I can see honest mistakes are possible, and in yet others honest disagreements are possible.

  (1) Mea Culpas

  I only said Marshall implied Yockey (a scientist) rejected my (naturalist) position on biogenesis, by claiming he denounced Dawkins' argument for the same conclusion. But I apologize for saying this was dishonest. If Marshall simply didn't know about Yockey's defense of my position, then I agree that was not dishonesty, just jumping the gun with assumptions.

  I doubted honesty could be compatible with implying the consensus of historians supports the truth of supernatural miracle claims in history. Maybe he is lying to himself about that, though a lie is a lie. But perhaps he literally believes most historians agree with him, via some amazing selection bias in his selection of historians to read and in what he assumes the rest think. So I apologize for jumping the gun and assuming deception was at work.

  Likewise, maybe he is so obsessed with the claims that annoy him that he honestly misses the actual argument of my book (such as that we have much better evidence Caesar crossed the Rubicon than we have that Jesus literally rose from the dead). His efforts here seem suspiciously designed to paint my argument as worse than it is, but maybe he has honestly deluded himself into ignoring everything I actually argue and seeing different arguments there instead, which he then denounces.

  Similarly, if Marshall sees the text of 1 Corinthians 15 as claiming anything other than ambiguous appearances of Jesus on isolated occasions, that can only be delusional. It's one thing to argue the text can be interpreted as alluding to other things, but another thing entirely to argue the text actually says those other things. If he is claiming the latter, he is deluded. If he is claiming the former, he badly stated what he meant. On either, though, he could indeed have been entirely honest. So I apologize again for assuming it had to be deception.

  Finally, I did indeed agree with Marshall that my view of Acts had changed since Sense and Goodness came out, and I didn't assume he knew that. Hence I didn't accuse him of any dishonesty on that score.

  (2) Still a Problem

  Marshall can't possibly have "not known" about my further treatment of biogenesis: I specifically cite it in the book he is criticizing. Negative hallucination? Similarly for everything else: he can't claim not to know who and what I cite and list as sources in the book he claims to be reading. Can confirmation bias be so dramatically blinding it literally blocks your eyes from seeing words on a page?

  Likewise, Marshall can't be just "more used to dealing with a skeptic's personal claims of having not seen any miracles and equivocates that with the convention of deferring to more comprehensive peer reviewed investigations" when he deliberately omits the very words and text to the contrary when he selects quotes from my book. Again, am I to believe he hallucinated away those words and literally didn't see they were there?

  ---

  My response:

  Rick,

  I'm glad to see your response. I agree that the accusation of a priori anti-supernaturalism (the selective quoting) is the most egregious example of misrepresentation. But an unsympathetic reader who in the forums here overtly says he was kosher with making an ad hominem attack is not going to be able to read carefully and will be statistically more prone to see what they expect to see. Perhaps he can correct himself as you have if this is pointed out more politely. Perhaps it is delusional to insist 1 Cor 15 proves there was more than visionary evidence, but nonetheless I think it's well known most Christians (who know about it at all) really honestly think it's there. I can imagine any random sample range of them giving the same appraisal because they totally expect Paul to conform to the gospels and any vague reference MUST mean what the gospels would like to purport to expand upon. Circular, but typical. Delusional? Maybe. I suppose "somewhat delusional" and "strongly biased" overlap.

  Ben

  ---

  Outro:

  I wanted to jump on this before DM saw it, but he already has and had the exact reaction I would expect him to have (link).  There's already enough to disagree about without escalating things with unnecessary accusations.  Thankfully it appears DM is taking the high road.  We'll see if we can get RC to follow suit.  [edit:  And it looks like he has!  Yay!]

  Ben

  • 6:28 pm
  • 9 Comments