Carrier, Habermas, et al: some thoughts on dialogue criticism
Zachary Moore Permalink
15 comments
Richard Carrier appeared recently with Reggie on the Infidel Guy show to interview Dr. Gary Habermas and Mike Licona about the resurrection of Jesus. There has been a flurry of criticism about that appearance, with both James Lazarus and David Wood offering lengthy criticisms of Carrier, prompting Carrier himself to provide some explanation on his own blog. Since I came to these reviews naive of the show, I thought that I would read each review, then listen to the show, and give my thoughts.
It is clear to me that Habermas and Licona came to the table anticipating a very different discussion than Carrier had planned to pursue. I'll also say, right off the bat, that both discussions would be fascinating. As it turned out, there was about half of one, and half of the other- and though it wasn't terribly hard for me to follow along with both, I could tell that the disconnect was apparent enough in the participants to cause some genuine frustration.
In all honesty, I think I would have preferred the show that Carrier planned. Although a strict analysis of the pros and cons of the evidential arguments for the historicity of the resurrection would also have been fruitful, I think the keenly philosophical and theological questions that Carrier had planned were much more interesting, and ultimately, probably would have been more productive in the long run.
Unfortunately, Habermas and Licona used just about every opportunity to sidestep the philosophical and theological questions and submit more of their well-worn evidential arguments. I hesitate to say that this was a failing of their position- I think it's clear from listening to the discussion that neither of them had really comprehended the line of questioning that Carrier was trying to follow. If they had been, I think that the discussion would have been much smoother.
I can get a sense of the discussion that Carrier was hoping to have by reading his explanation, and I agree with him that his questions were not irrelevant at all, and I'm sorry that they weren't able to be explored in more depth. Laz's comments are also understandable- it's clear that he was expecting Carrier to use his more conventional arguments, an assumption that is not unreasonable. The one position that I feel is almost completely unwarranted is that of David Wood- Carrier's approach did not appear to me to be in the least bit disingenuous nor frivolous, nor was he making any concessions about the historical evidence by appealing to philosophical questions. Hopefully Carrier's own explanation of his motives sheds some light for these and other critics.
I, for one, would very much like to see Carrier's questions explored in more depth, and perhaps if given another chance, he'll take the extra precaution to ensure that his fellow discussants are more comprehensively aware of his approach.
Post a Comment
15 Comments:
Hi Zach,
I posted some thoughts about what you said, here:
http://consolatione.blogspot.com/2006/11/zachary-moore-on-carrier-habermas.html
Also, I posted a second response to Carrier, explaining that he interpreted my review in entirely the wrong way, here:
http://consolatione.blogspot.com/2006/11/carriers-reply-to-my-review_07.html
Thanks.
- Jim
Laz-
As this issue is being played out in so many postings, I'll just keep my comments here.
Laz: I think Zach, while reading Carrier's response, felt that Carrier was genuinely addressing the issues that I had raised.
Not at all. Carrier's explanation doesn't so much as address the issues you raised, as much as it provides a justification to why he wanted to talk about something slightly different. Not that I think that he doesn't care about presenting "The Evidence," I just think that he thought he had hit upon something more interesting.
Laz: Zach writes that, "Laz's comments are also understandable- it's clear that he was expecting Carrier to use his more conventional arguments, an assumption that is not unreasonable." In fact, I wasn't expecting Richard to use any arguments at all. I explicitly said to Richard, Gary, and Michael that there ought to be no arguing back and forth - this was supposed to be an interview with probing questions, not a debate.
Right- I didn't mean to imply that by using "arguments" that it would necessarily be a debate. But surely you would agree that over the course of a conversation, even a friendly one, where opposite points of view are being referenced, certain "arguments" will at least be brought up, if not for rhetorical benefit. That's all I meant. If Carrier had pursued the interview in the way that you had intended for it, we would certainly be able to tick off the various arguments that he's made in The Empty Tomb, etc. as he mentioned them.
Laz: I think this is unfair. The whole point of the show was to discuss the historical evidence for the Resurrection, not to discuss alternative theological questions.
This seems to be the crux of your complaint. I'm not privy to the logistical or communicative details prior to the show, although if what Carrier reports is accurate, it's clear that he didn't think himself quite as restricted as you had intended within the topic. From an armchair perspective, I think this is the burr under your saddle, because it was your responsibility as producer to set the stage for the show, and Carrier entered stage right instead of stage left. What I'm saying is- I can understand your frustration, but I still think he put on a hell of a show.
Laz: To give an illustration, if Zach appeared on Reggie's show to discuss his studies in molecular biology, and a Christian co-host kept asking Zach to account for morality in a world without God, would he think it fair if someone said that, "Unfortunately, Zach used just about every opportunity to sidestep the philosophical and theological questions and submit more of his well-worn scientific hodgepodge"?
Actually, when I appeared on the Narrow Mind show and the Biota podcast to talk about evolution, the questions ranged far afield from evolution and into morality, so I personally wouldn't hesitate to stray from my prepared remarks if necessary. But that's a trivial matter of which you wouldn't have been aware- the question comes back to what the hypothetical difference would be between what I expected, and what the host expected the show topic to be. I think it's very reasonable for there to be a fair amount of confusion if that difference is wide, but I would also hope that I could be as accommodating as possible. And I have no doubt that Habermas and Licona would have been more accommodating, if they had really grasped the line of questioning that Carrier had intended. I don't hold them to task at all for their confusion- what I lament, if anything, is the fact that the disconnect persisted despite Habermas' best efforts to understand where Carrier was going.
Zach,
Actually, I had made the scope of the show quite clear to everyone before it happened. So there's simply no reason why Carrier had to have entered "stage left".
- Jim
Laz-
I just want to clarify- Carrier was intended to be the co-host, correct? And you characterized the show by saying that "this was supposed to be an interview with probing questions."
I also recognize that you had intended for the "point of the show was to discuss the historical evidence for the Resurrection."
What I am suggesting is that I think Carrier was trying to conduct an interview by asking very probing questions about the historical evidence for the Resurrection. The distinction, and it is subtle, is that his line of questioning was meta-historical, rather than just historical. I don't know if Carrier considered that distinction relevant to the show, or whether he considered it at all. But I think that this explains why everyone involved thought that they were doing the right thing, and yet nobody could seem to communicate precisely.
David-
Allow me to address some of the points which you say that I implied:
that the discussion was for Richard’s benefit
Certainly not- the discussion was for the benefit of all involved, as well as any audience members.
that Richard had the right to take the discussion in whatever direction he chose
I think that, as an invited co-host who was directed to ask "probing questions," that Carrier felt that it was appropriate for him to lead the conversation. Unless I am mistaken, that is part of the job description for a show's host.
that Gary and Mike, in attempting to actually focus on the topic, were side-stepping Richard’s points
Yes, but not dishonestly. I just don't think that they quite understood why he was asking the questions that he chose, and so kept trying to return to familiar territory.
that anyone who thinks Richard’s questions were off-topic just doesn’t understand him
I'm not suggesting that one must be Carrier's wife or psychologist to appreciate his questions, but I think that the explanation on his blog was enough for me. In fact (although I can't be certain of this), I would guess that even if I had heard the show without reading his explanation I would have understood where he was going with his questions, although I wouldn't expect the same for the average listener.
that the problems were everyone else’s fault.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that the problems were nobody's fault. In fact, I'm a little hesitant to even call them "problems." The only problem, as I see it, is that there were two very excellent discussions being conducted somewhat simultaneously, and neither one got the treatment it deserved. However, if I could suggest a single logistical addition to the show production, it would be to make interview questions available to all participants beforehand.
Zach,
Since the questions that Carrier asked were general theological ones, by "meta-historical" you can only sensibly mean theological views investigated by history. Clearly that is not really what can be meant by the term "meta-historical", however. If you don't mean this, you'll have to clarify much more what you mean by "meta-historical", or at least exactly how Carrier's questions can sensibly be called "meta-historical", when clearly they are questions that most concerns theology.
But, what about Carrier's questions as theological views investigated by history? The point, again, is that they are irrelevant. They are interesting questions, but they simply do not fall within the scope of the program -- the scope that I made clear to everyone prior to the show. Gary and Michael obviously came prepared to discuss that subject, which accounts for the way that they acted throughout the entire show. Carrier, however, entered "stage left", as you put it, for no good reason at all, and felt, as he implicitly emphasized in his response, that this show was actually for his benefit, and not for the benefit of the listeners. Thus, Carrier had his priorities backwards.
I understand the points that you're emphasizing here. You feel that Carrier came up with interesting questions that made for a good show. I agree that they were interesting questions and that the show was interesting. But what needs to be understood is that this is entirely beside the point. Straightforwardly, the scope of this program was intended to focus on the historical evidence directly, not on theological mysteries. Everyone was made aware of this prior to the show. So there's simply no excuse for how it turned out.
At any rate, I'd like to thank you for providing your own thoughts on this. I'm surprised that the review I wrote has provoked this much discussion.
Cheers,
- Jim
Zach,
You wrote, "I think that, as an invited co-host who was directed to ask "probing questions," that Carrier felt that it was appropriate for him to lead the conversation. Unless I am mistaken, that is part of the job description for a show's host."
He is certainly within his rights to lead the conversation, but not wherever he personally feels like. He should have lead the conversation with "probing questions" within the scope of the program, which was, again, made clear to him prior to the show.
- Jim
Laz-
I'll clarify myself.
Laz: Since the questions that Carrier asked were general theological ones, by "meta-historical" you can only sensibly mean theological views investigated by history.
What I meant by "meta-historical" was a description of a question that asks, not about specific historical claims or evidences, but about the frameworks which result from a specific avenue of historical investigation. For example, Carrier's first question asked about supernatural communication as a meta-historical phenomenon- that is, how do historians who accept certain claims of supernatural communication appraise other similar claims? This is, of course, relevant to the discussion of the Resurrection, especially in the context of the evidence presented by Habermas regarding 1 Corinthians 15, in which Paul's knowledge claim of the risen Jesus is based on supernatural communication.
I agree that this probably isn't what you had intended by a discussion of the "historical evidence," but even though he entered stage left, he still ended up on the stage, and I can't fault him entirely for taking the approach that he did.
David-
You say:
David: I’m more interested in why people side with Carrier, even when there’s absolutely no reason to side with him.
I'm not sure you think why I'm "siding" with anyone. I haven't faulted anyone for the discussion- if anything, I'm simply arguing that Carrier wasn't out of line for asking the questions that he did. The problem was logistical, and independent of any person involved.
David: I couldn’t figure this out, yet people kept telling me that Richard’s meaning was perfectly clear, and that I simply didn’t understand him.
I think the problem may be that you're spending too much time talking to other people about Carrier than the man himself. I'm not claiming to speak for him, or to have special access to his thoughts, but that the explanation he posted on his blog about his motives is consistent with what I heard in the discussion.
David: The most obvious problem with this question is that it’s totally false. People today are having the same experiences they were having two thousand years ago.
Well, that's at least an answer. I don't want to side-track my comment by explaining why I disagree with you, but I think that's what Carrier was looking for.
David: It would be relevant, of course, if Richard were able to show that the resurrection appearances were like dreams and visions, but he never showed this.
I don't think he was ever able to get to that, because he spent so much time trying to get a clear answer to his initial question. The obvious relevance, of course, is apparent in 1 Corinthians 15, which was briefly discussed, in which Paul offers his knowledge claim of the risen Christ as precisely such a vision. Habermas claims this passage to be an essential piece of evidence to his argument, and as such, it is extremely relevant to Carrier's question.
David: But you seem to think that a discussion that focuses on what we believe about phenomena but can’t investigate is just as important, and I can’t figure out why anyone would think that.
As I've said, such a discussion is meta-historical, and you're inability to find interest in it is just a statement of prefernce.
David: Can you give me some scenario in which Richard’s question would have been relevant?
As I've said, the question was relevant to the existing discussion. The evidence Habermas submits from Paul's creed is based on supernatural communication through a vision. Therefore, Carrier's question was eminently relevant, and I would greatly have liked to see that answered more fully.
Zach,
I have to say that part of why Wood and Lazarus disagree with you on Carrier's part in the Infidel Guy interview with Habermas and Licona is because you read the reviews before listening to the interview.
I listened to the show when it originally aired, and I was expecting some substantial and important contributions to come from Carrier. But taken at face value, his comments were as irrelevant as many others have already noted. When you listened to it, you had Carrier's rationalizations in the background (to which you are apparently sympathetic) and I think that skewed your interpretation of his "probing questions."
I agree that questioning underlying beliefs surrounding the Resurrection would be interesting, and I would like to see that happen on Infidel Guy in addition to a more focused discussion of what historical evidence Christians actually have to support their claims.
Sophia-
I think it's reasonable to suggest that my assessment of the discussion was colored by my exposure to the reviews of it. But consider, I faithfully read everyone's point of view on the matter- not just Carrier's but Laz and David's as well. As I listened, I tried to keep myself as dispassionate and objective as possible.
I think the same criticism of my objectivity can be leveled at you, however. You say that you were "expecting some substantial and important contributions to come from Carrier." I take that to mean that you had assumed that he wanted to address the standard arguments for and against the Resurrection. I can appreciate that- Laz had those same assumptions. But I think that you may have allowed your own assumptions to color your assessment of the discussion, i.e., since Carrier didn't raise the questions that you thought he was going to raise, you feel that he damaged the discussion.
Again, I'm not privy to the logistical details that were involved in the show's pre-production. Laz states emphatically that the scope was too narrow for Carrier's approach, and yet Carrier didn't seem to think so. Personally, I think that Carrier's own explanation of his questions reasonably justifies his question picks, but that's just my take on it.
David-
Yes, it's interesting that Paul himself does not give any details in his own writings to explain the nature of his communication from the resurrected Christ, but he certainly does seem to equivocate it with the experiences of the other disciples.
And yet, in Acts we find an interesting narrative account of Paul experiencing the risen Christ, but in this account Jesus appears as a bright light and a voice (one of the two not experienced by Paul's companions, depending on which version of the account one is reading). We are told of no other direct communication between Jesus and Paul elsewhere in the Bible, and so we must face three possibilities.
1) Paul experienced Jesus only as a light/voice, and feels that this is equivalent to the experiences of the other disciples.
2) In addition to experiencing Jesus as a light/voice, Paul also saw the risen Christ in some form that he felt was equivalent to the experiences of the other disciples.
3) Paul did not experience Jesus as a light/voice, but saw the risen Christ in some other form that he felt was equivalent to the experiences of the other disciples.
2) and 3) are problematic for the historian, because they postulate the existence of additional data for which there is no evidence. 3) is especially problematic for Christians because it directly contradicts the narrative account in Acts. 1) is the most reasonable to me, given the available evidence, and yet it begs the question of why Paul thought that his vision was equivalent to an experience of the risen Christ in bodily form. This comparison, I think, is what Carrier was trying to explore in his first question (at least, it is what I would try to explore were I in his place).
David: The only way for Richard to disagree would be to present a case for his view, and defend it, in which case the discussion would have been a debate.
This is not necessarily the case. Carrier could have brought up precisely the same points which I have, without becoming adversarial. One good way to investigate a person's views are to ask them questions which contradict them- this happens on Apologia all the time.
David: There's something fishy about his whole defense. Think about it. He rules out the Gospels from the beginning. Gary and Mike aren't allowed to appeal to them.
I don't think that Carrier "ruled out" the Gospels as a source of evidence. Quite the contrary, I think he wanted to grant the evidence from the Gospels for the sake of the discussion.
David: Yet Richard's third question was going to be about a passage in Matthew. Here's how that conversation would have gone:
I would be extremely hesitant about predicting someone else's behavior. Usually this opens a window exposing our own psychological projections. But I think that the Matthew question is also excellent, and I wonder at Christians who balk at addressing it. Clearly, if one grants the Gospel evidence as supremely historical, as Habermas does, then this claim is striking in its dramatic historical impact, contrasted by the hollow resonance of it being a singly-attested historical fact. What Carrier seemed to be curious about (and what I am assuredly curious about) is how Christians who accept the Gospels as historical documents which are filled with fantastical and supernatural claims, balk at just one more?
WOOD
'We have no indication from the text that Paul thought he was seeing a vision. '
CARR
Wood just loves trashing Christian arguments.
In Acts, there is no indication whatever that Paul saw a bodily Jesus.
Yet Wood just trashes Acts which says Paul did not see a bodily Jesus.
I don't even know what Wood means by Paul 'thought' he was seeing a vision.
Paul thought he saw real things in visions and trances, at least according to Acts. Acts says Peter saw real things while in a trance or in a vision.
If Acts is true, you could have asked Paul 'Did you see a real man from Macedonia?', and Paul would have said 'Yes, I saw a real man.'.
You could have asked Paul 'Did you really go to the third Heaven in a trance?', and Paul would have said 'Yes, I went to a real place.'.
Who knows, perhaps we could have asked Paul , 'Did you really have a vision of Jesus appearing to 500 people?', and Paul would have said 'Yes. those were real people that I saw.'
So Carrier's question was very relevant about why visions and dreams were much more widely accepted 2,000 years ago as a way of seeing real events and real people.
It is a good question.
Why did the resurrected saints appear to many in the city of Jerusalem, while the resurrected Messiah did not?
And this was Passover, with many people from all over the Empire visiting Jerusalem.
How could such an event not have become Empire wide news?
After all, Acts says all the residents of Jerusalem learned about the suicide of Judas, a rather private affair, yet dead people appearing to many in Jerusalem - not a word in history to support what would have been the most amazing thing to have happened.
Much more amazing than one suicide, which you can understand history forgetting about.
WOOD
But it seems to be based on a method I find quite common in Richard's writings: "Everything outside the writings of Paul are off limits, unless it's something I can use to argue against Christianity."
CARR
There speaks somebody who said that Muslim sources say Muhammad thought at first he was speaking to a demon.
Not that Wood has any double-standards, of course.
Just that he feels happy to point out problems in contradictory texts in Islam, yet denounces people in vicious terms when they point out problems in contradictory texts in the New Testament.
<< Home