Richard Carrier - The Hero Savior Analogy

[Mudhammam]

OFC they're not wrong because they're absurd....no one said they were.   Your misapplication of the criterion of embarassment gives you the same reason to believe, for the same reasons...

The "same reasons"...? ...As what? ...the IDers?... That makes no sense.

however, that ther was a "historical creation event" by reference to all these threads on AF where atheists criticize it;s absurdity as the roman critic example does for a historical crucifixion.

Lol... I don't think I'm "smart enough" to follow your "logic." I might just leave it at Wittgenstein, who said in the context of the question, "How do I know I have hands?" "What we can ask is whether it can make sense to doubt it." Learning to separate the myth from the historical narrative, the answer that I've arrived at is no. When I see reason and evidence for the alternative theories, i.e. that there was no man born of a woman just as there was no god born of a virgin, but simply some other dude(s?) -- or was he/were they made up by made-up dudes of further dudes? -- whom conspired to start a new religion based on this irrelevant character, perhaps I'll be persuaded of the grounds for mythicism. Thus far, as it would seem to share with ID some incredible and in my view preposterously unsupportable and improbable suggestions, I'm not.

[Mudhammam]

Applying equal methods to all "historical reports" such as Tacitus' account (above) of how the Hellenistic god Serapis told a blind man to approach Vespasian so he could see again, and, as Tacitus reports, how the man did see again, I was wondering if you were going to now worship Serapis because his miracle stories have even better documentary proof than jesus'.  After all, at least we know who Tacitus was.

Your assumption is that applying equal methods would imply that Tacitus' report is factually correct.... er, why?

[Minimalist]

The criteria of embarrassment works best...if at all...if you take the time to understand who is using it and why.

[RoadRunner79]

[Minimalist]

I think that the problem with the conspiracy theory line of reasoning, such as here, is that there really is no support for it

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

[GrandizerII]

Also, to your claim, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.   I would be curious, what type of evidence, you would require, for someone having an interstellar space craft sitting in their front lawn?

Um, ET aliens?

[Minimalist]

Also, to your claim, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would be curious, what type of evidence, you would require, for someone having an interstellar space craft sitting in their front lawn? How would that differ from someone claiming that their country had a lunar spacecraft sitting in a warehouse or museum?

There is a link above to the whole essay.  Why don't you read it and your question will be answered.

[RoadRunner79]

Also, to your claim, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would be curious, what type of evidence, you would require, for someone having an interstellar space craft sitting in their front lawn? How would that differ from someone claiming that their country had a lunar spacecraft sitting in a warehouse or museum?

There is a link above to the whole essay.  Why don't you read it and your question will be answered.

I asked you, for your opinion.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that the problem with the conspiracy theory line of reasoning, such as here, is that there really is no support for it

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

What exactly are you proposing then?

[Vicki Q]

This is a bit long but the point is compelling.... to all but theists I imagine.

Hero Savior of Vietnam
 <snip>
For it is no better than the evidence proposed for Hero Savior, and that falls far short of the burden that would have to be met to confirm the very extraordinary claims surrounding him.

There are a number of key differences:

Carrier is an ancient historian, and is failing to apply the same sorts of process he used to make historical claims in his doctorate, to Jesus history. He knows well that good history can be extracted from even bad documents, and that statements can be made that are near certainly correct about historical people and events from the ancient time period, using evidence no better than the Xian documents he is dismissing. He's done that process himself.

Furthermore, he uses the argument from silence in a modern context where it would be effective, to an ancient one where it is not.

He is also failing to understand that working with history of religion cannot be divorced from working with theology, and the nature of worldview. If the hero saviour claimed to do very unusual things, what was his worldview on how it worked?

In particular, he fails to deal with the question of how the Early Church arose from within Judaism with the belief set that it had. What caused the earliest Xians to radically change their mind on essential core beliefs?

Carrier's hero saviour has no explanation for his abilities, no context within which they operate, appears from nowhere and goes nowhere.

I've read Carrier's booklet on the rise of early Xianity, and found it totally unconvincing. Carrier has no evidence at all for his claims, contradicts the evidence we have, and fails to answer basic questions about worldview and context.

He would do well to continue to point people to Bart Ehrmann, who does make good arguments.