Posts Tagged by Richard Carrier
|September 12, 2011||Posted by Anthony under Antony Flew, apologetics, atheism, Blog, General, Secular Humanism|
A Defense of the Integrity of Antony Flew’s “There is a God” From His Own Letters
Several years ago, word came out that Antony Flew had rejected his atheism. What he accepted was in doubt and in dispute. In a conversation with Dr. Gary Habermas, I was informed that Flew was very disappointed with the introduction to “God and Philosophy” which was to have addressed his views. Concerned that Flew might die before he had a chance to set the record straight, I asked for and received Flew’s mailing address. I contacted him, urging him to settle things. To my surprise, he replied…
|January 19, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, evolution, General, Global Warming, scientism, Secular Humanism|
Richard Dawkins, Richard Carrier, Dan Barker, Austin Cline. I add this to cap off the general lesson that I would like to draw here, as the four names I have listed here are prominent atheistic spokespersons: atheists are not the vanguards of reason that they would like us to believe they are; they make mistakes just like everyone else, and no one should think that they are above being too proud to admit it when they are. These examples I have given are minor in the grand scheme of things but I submit that they illustrate why no one should ever defer thinking to anyone else, regardless of how smart they insist they are, how many degrees they have, how high their IQ is, or even if they currently represent the consensus position on a topic, be it evolution, global warming, climate change, etc, etc, etc, etc.
The intellectual elite which I have called out in this post answer to a higher standard and I hope that this post will elicit some acknowledgment that their arguments are not always as rock solid as they suggest. I predict quite the opposite, so again: remember in your skepticism to be skeptical too of the skeptics.
|February 27, 2008||Posted by Anthony under Antony Flew, apologetics, atheism, Blog, General, Secular Humanism|
The letters I received from Flew that I discuss below have been released in an ebook. This ebook contains this essay as well as a few other remarks looking back on this tempest in a teapot. You may buy this ebook using the links on this page (Kindle, etc.) To my knowledge, Richard Carrier has […]
|October 12, 2007||Posted by Anthony under Antony Flew, Blog, General|
This has been the case for awhile, now, but atheists all over are not giving Flew his due. This site has a great list of taunts. He’s losing/lost his mind. He’s in it for the money. He’s afraid of death. Etc. If this is not ad hominem, I don’t know what is. If the challenge […]
|September 10, 2007||Posted by Anthony under Blog, General|
Now, there is no doubt that such claims are being made by (here unnamed-I wonder who they might be?) Internet bloggers, but Strobel presented this argument by pointing out that it was initiated by scholars themselves! Named are Tom Harpur, Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, and Hugh J. Schonfield! Who exactly is ‘this leading scholar’s analysis’ a sharp rebuke to exactly? It looks to me like the context should suggest Strobel here call out other scholars, but instead he singles out “popular-level authors and Internet bloggers.” Granted, some of these authors were popular level, but these all have some credentials. But what Internet bloggers were referenced exactly? It wouldn’t be-Carrier and Lowder, would it?
Now, I have no great love for Richard Carrier or Jeffrey Jay Lowder. I’ve never found their arguments to be compelling, but having read some of their essays I can see why people find them persuasive. And I certainly don’t have a problem giving scholars their due weight. They’ve worked hard, and it is true, I don’t know Aramaic. I don’t have access in most cases to primary sources. I depend on them to bring me the data. It does not follow though, that I depend on them to interpret the data. No, my real concern here is that the attitude expressed in my quotes (and a handful of others) does two things: 1. It undercuts thoughtful and hard-working Christians striving on the Internet to further the cause of Christ and 2. It does not appreciate the fact that the democratization of the Internet is an asset for us, and even if we preferred that people defer to sober scholars (that we agree with) the fact is that people are going to turn first to sources on the Internet, and only later will they possibly consult some of these more scholarly works.