The Richard Carrier Project

BY R ICH AR D CAR R IER / ON FEBRUARY 15, 2012 / 5 COMMENTS

For a couple of years now a colleague of mine (Ben Schuldt, aka War on Error) has been building a site that collects
every significant critique of my work online or in print. There is so much of this now that I haven’t had the time even to keep
track of it all much less answer any of it. But with all or most of it cataloged in one place, and blogging now a regular
pastime across the world, perhaps others who have that time can undertake the task for me. So I sponsored a simple wiki
site to help Ben get all this up and running, and he says it’s pretty much ready to go.

As Ben has time he keeps adding to it, but now that it’s “live,” feel free to tell him about things he missed. He’ll get them in
there. We are not cataloging forum posts, or comments in threads, or tweets, or Facebook posts, or any random rigmorole
like that, however; only full-on blogs and articles (and of course anything in print). Ben also sometimes doesn’t agree with
me himself, and he has posted and cataloged his critiques as well, and welcomes responses to those just as much as any of
the other stuff. Ideally we’d like it to have good replies (even if those replies amount to me correcting myself, since one of
the aims of the project is to catch my errors; because we all make them, and I’m keen on rooting mine out).

The site he has built is called the Richard Carrier Project. You can hop on over there and read the mission statement,
and explore further if you like. It has some useful extras. For example, he keeps a running catalog there of all the audio and
video of me there is to be found online (and certainly if you know of anything available that’s not there, send him the link).
There is also an amusing Roast page that is full of all the awful things people have said about me (some worse than others).

If you are keen to, there are two ways you can contribute to this project…

1. Independent Response

You can answer anything that’s cataloged in it on your own blog or website, submit the link to Ben, and if it’s good enough
your answer will get in the catalog as a response. What is “good enough”? Well, there is a Project Directives page that
gives you some of the requirements we (mostly Ben) have set. But overall, we would only count as being an appropriate
response to catalog at the site something that does one or more of the following:

1. Treats what I have actually said, compares it with what the critic said (especially the stuff they
curiously left out), and sets the reader straight on the issue (e.g., how far are they missing my
 point or ignoring details of my case).

2. Deals with any claim that I erred as to the facts and assesses who is right on that score.

3. Deals with any claim that a conclusion of mine doesn’t follow from my premises (e.g., a formal or
informal fallacy) and assesses who is right on that score.

4. Deals with any argument I don’t address, but that a critic claims refutes my conclusion, analyzing
that argument for logical validity, and the truth of its premises.

Also, we will not approve any response that lies or makes obvious errors of fact or logic or obviously misses the critic’s
point (and that includes egregious fallacies like ad hominem, since we want well-argued, non-fallacious responses that
stand up on fact-checking; but that doesn’t mean you have to be polite, just right). Responses don’t have to be
comprehensive. You can focus on only one or a few things in a critique. Ideally we’d love a full response, but we can also
construct one by adding several together. We also love responses that improve on my work, for instance explaining a point
better, or providing a more rigorous or less ambiguous analysis of something, or supplying supporting facts I missed, or
anything else.

2. Joining the Team

If you really impress us, and ask to help, we might invite you to become an editor of the project, which will give you more
ability to carry some of the load for Ben, add critiques to the catalog, and build responses of your own within the catalog.
What is “really impress us”? Obviously this is an issue of trust (since you would be given passwords to the site), so you
would have to be an established presence online, enough that we can confirm you are sane, educated, honest, reasonable,
responsible, on the right side of most issues, and not a pill to work with. It can be very hard to verify that for most people,
so please don’t get put out if you aren’t recruited. Most won’t be. It doesn’t mean we think youaren’t that sort of person;
it just means we have no means of confirming that you are.

Finally, a brief disclaimer: The very reason for the site is that I have no time for this stuff, which is why Ben took it upon
himself to do it. Which means I do not necessarily approve of everything on it; because I don’t have time even to peruse
most of it. I trust Ben’s judgment and have no qualms about leaving him to it. But as I haven’t carefully vetted it all, who
knows what I might take issue with. In other words, don’t assume this site represents my views on anything. It’s more a
collaborative fan project than my own work. But we will try our best to keep it at least in the right ballpark. So if you see
anything on it representing me that you think is way off base, feel free to make your case to Ben (except when it’s some
other critic who is way off base; then, just blog about it and submit that link to Ben as a potential response to catalog).

Share
this:

   

PROVING HISTORY! W HY THE W EEK ROCKS

5 comments
TH E N ER D • F EBR UAR Y 1 5, 201 2, 1 0:00 AM

Woot! Go Ben!

R E P LY

BEN • F EBR UAR Y 15, 2012, 10:01 AM

It helps to have an unhealthy interest in the epistemic depravity of others. lol On the other hand, you do
eventually have to sort out all your own philosophical and epistemic issues as well when canvasing the
contentious intellectual career of someone like Carrier. So it’s been fun.

R E P LY

PA ST A SA U C E R O R • F E BR UAR Y 1 6 , 201 2, 9 :32 P M

Swinburne uses a kind of Bayesian…um…something to prove 97/100 that Jesus was God Incarnate & rose
from the dead.
What say you Richard Carrier?
http://bit.ly/xQGEbl

R E P LY

R IC H AR D C AR R IER • F EBR UAR Y 18, 2012, 9 :39 AM

pastasauceror: Swinburne uses a kind of Bayesian…um…something to prove 97/100

that Jesus was God Incarnate & rose from the dead. What say you Richard Carrier?

Chris Hallquist already said it best here at FtB: Bayesian Arguments.

My refutation of Swinburne is effectively chapter 11 of The Christian Delusion.

But you really shouldn’t have to ask. When he says things like “even if it is only as probable
at not that there is a God (that is, a probability of 1/2), and a probability of 1/2 that such a
God would become incarnate…” as if he is conceding something, when in fact these
estimates are lunatic howlers (really…50%? Richard? Come on.), you already know this is
crank bullshit.

For a more sane approach to that question, see my Bayesian analysis of the probability a
 God exists in chapter 12 of The End of Christianity and of the incarnation claim in chapter
2 of same.

Particularly as he says the evidence favors resurrection over all other explanations by a
ratio of 100:1, when in fact it’s the other way around and then some…this is an example of
how apologists are using Bayes’ Theorem to scam you: they start with the same bullshit facts
and untruths and fallacious inferences from the evidence as in any non-Bayesian argument,
and then pick numbers to match; but…garbage in, garbage out. Not even Bayes’ Theorem
can rescue Richard Swinburne from being retarded.

R E P LY

M A T T H E W • F E B R U A R Y 1 7, 2 0 1 2 , 4 : 5 5 P M

Ben is a good choice! I am a fan of his Xanga blog and I love his independent and very fair commentary. Ben is
a very sharp fellow and a freethinker after my own heart!

R E P LY

Add a Comment (For Patrons & Select Persons Only)

Enter your comment here...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search This Blog

Search here...

Get Carrier’s Latest!

 Follow Richard Carrier’s Work & Announcements

 

Categories

Select Category

Archives

Select Month

About The Author

Richard Carrier is the author of many books and numerous articles online and in print. His avid readers span the world from Hong Kong to
Poland. With a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, he specializes in the modern philosophy of naturalism and humanism, and the
origins of Christianity and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, with particular expertise in ancient philosophy, science and technology. He
is also a noted defender of scientific and moral realism, Bayesian reasoning, and historical methods.

Support Dr. Carrier

Subscribe To This Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,459 other subscribers

Email Address
Subscribe

Subscribe

Books By Dr. Carrier

Explore C.H.R.E.S.T.U.S.
 Get Your E-Books Signed!

Take Online Courses With Dr. Carrier

As An Amazon Associate I Earn From Qualifying Purchases Following Links On My Website.

Buying From Here Helps Fund My Work.

Recommendations

Proudly powered by WordPress | Copyright 2016 Danza