I can't say I'm an expert on the works of Carrier, but I did take a look at his webpage. I'm sure there are things he does well, but there are inconsistencies with his overall message.
On his page it says he is a "defender of the freethought movement", which includes looking at things through "scientific inquiry" and without "cognitive" or "confirmation bias."
What it disregards is authority, tradition, revelation, and dogma.
That's all fine and dandy I suppose, but his books all demonstrate such bias in that the premise that Christianity isn't adequate, and as such, you should follow his ideology instead and disregard a said number of subjects associated with Christianity. We can't consider him as an "authority" because that is counter to his religion. So why believe him? As soon as I do, then where is the "freethought." It seems like it would be engulfed in his own unique religion. I guess we could call it "Carrierism." As soon as we disregard "authority" we can't say his opinion is greater than anybody else's who claims to be a philosopher and religious historian.
To look at anything through scientific inquiry, something has to be "observable." If not we're just guessing about what may or may not have been true. That doesn't make something right or wrong, but it gives us an idea of how to proceed. Personally, one of my favorite things are extrapolation studies. We look at how something is measured in the present, then we step back with similar assumptions. Still, it doesn't guarantee precision and one event can throw off what we consider a possibility.
I noticed one of his books and the purpose of reading it is so that we'll believe that "...we shouldn't believe...Christianity was responsible for modern science." Huh? What reality is this guy from? Everything contributes to science. Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduhism, Islam, and even atheism have contributed to modern science, as well as numerous other ideologies.
I have a duel degree in the sciences, have done peer-reviewed studies, and to this day write and publish scientific material at times. But the thing is, "science" is a generic term. Science means "knowledge", so the "scientific method" would be the device we use to obtain further knowledge. The human "conscience" makes us all contributors to "science" because that's what it means to have a "conscience" con = with science = knowledge. That makes everything in this world capable of skill and logic to be contributors of science. When you try to isolate specific things and disregard others without reason, then you're just grinding your wheels and going nowhere. Progression occurs through collective knowledge and re-purposing that knowledge to gain new knowledge. That is the "science" I believe in.
On his page it says he is a "defender of the freethought movement", which includes looking at things through "scientific inquiry" and without "cognitive" or "confirmation bias."
What it disregards is authority, tradition, revelation, and dogma.
That's all fine and dandy I suppose, but his books all demonstrate such bias in that the premise that Christianity isn't adequate, and as such, you should follow his ideology instead and disregard a said number of subjects associated with Christianity. We can't consider him as an "authority" because that is counter to his religion. So why believe him? As soon as I do, then where is the "freethought." It seems like it would be engulfed in his own unique religion. I guess we could call it "Carrierism." As soon as we disregard "authority" we can't say his opinion is greater than anybody else's who claims to be a philosopher and religious historian.
To look at anything through scientific inquiry, something has to be "observable." If not we're just guessing about what may or may not have been true. That doesn't make something right or wrong, but it gives us an idea of how to proceed. Personally, one of my favorite things are extrapolation studies. We look at how something is measured in the present, then we step back with similar assumptions. Still, it doesn't guarantee precision and one event can throw off what we consider a possibility.
I noticed one of his books and the purpose of reading it is so that we'll believe that "...we shouldn't believe...Christianity was responsible for modern science." Huh? What reality is this guy from? Everything contributes to science. Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduhism, Islam, and even atheism have contributed to modern science, as well as numerous other ideologies.
I have a duel degree in the sciences, have done peer-reviewed studies, and to this day write and publish scientific material at times. But the thing is, "science" is a generic term. Science means "knowledge", so the "scientific method" would be the device we use to obtain further knowledge. The human "conscience" makes us all contributors to "science" because that's what it means to have a "conscience" con = with science = knowledge. That makes everything in this world capable of skill and logic to be contributors of science. When you try to isolate specific things and disregard others without reason, then you're just grinding your wheels and going nowhere. Progression occurs through collective knowledge and re-purposing that knowledge to gain new knowledge. That is the "science" I believe in.
