A good evolution book available used for under $10
Evolution is a powerful idea for us secular folks. Back in 2013, when I would tell people that I had a plan for a children’s book on evolution, their eyes would light up. Their reflexive enthusiasm told me that I should take my book to Kickstarter, and the following year Karen and I raised over $30,000 for Grandmother Fish. Secular adults like seeing evolution as a kids’ book because it is our origin story. There are few things that secular people have in common, and evolution is one of those things. Secular people don’t want to rally around a flag or recite a creed, but evolution is an origin story that includes everyone. It’s universal, not parochial. Karen and I knew that parents would like Grandmother Fish, and once the book was published we could see that kids love it, too. Kids love animals, they love families, and they love seeing where they fit in the family of animals. The power of evolutionary thinking, especially for kids, means that Darwin Day has a lot of potential for exciting the imagination. I’d love to see Darwin Day celebrations catch on around the world.
Those of us who are enthusiastic about evolution are lucky in that our “patron saint”, Charles Darwin, was someone worth emulating. Darwin was already a famous, widely read naturalist before he proposed the theory of natural selection. As a scientist, he observed closely and wrote cogently. He had found through experience that he was more likely to forget a fact if it was a fact he didn’t like. After noticing this pattern, he made special note of facts that he didn’t like. Darwin’s encounters with people from far and wide showed him that people are more alike than different, and his critics thought that his theory made him irrationally soft-hearted toward “primitive” people. We could use more people like Charles Darwin.
Darwin Day works great as a kid-friendly celebration. Kids love animals, especially dinosaurs, and the connection to evolution is clear. Bringing kids to a Darwin Day event makes sense in evolutionary terms. The relationship between parents and children is central to natural selection. Evolution is about whose DNA gets spread into the upcoming generations, and parental care has been central to the success of mammals, not to mention birds, scorpions, lobsters, wasps, and octopuses. By bringing a kid to the event, you’re parenting, or, if it’s someone else’s kid, alloparenting. Most of the activities I have run are for kids, such as the Charles Darwin Dance, but some are for adults.
Darwin Day traditions, I propose, should include buying evolution-themed books for children, teachers, schools, or libraries. May I recommend Evolution: The Story of Life by Douglas Palmer? It’s a big, weighty book full of color illustrations, and you can get it used for under $10, including shipping within the US. For little kids, this book has tons of illustrations with countless unusual creatures. For older kids, it has lots of handy science information. It helped me with Grandmother Fish, with Clades, and especially with Clades Prehistoric. For adults, the book is a monumental reminder of mortality. In spread after spread, you see animals that were successful in their day but that went extinct long ago. If instead of a book you want to give an evolution game, that works for me, too.
I hope you can find a Darwin Day event near you. Here in Seattle we’re lucky to have a kid-friendly Darwin Day celebration on February 9th, with The Reptile Guy to put on a show that sounds amazing. If you don’t have a Darwin Day celebration in your area, maybe talk to some people about starting one next year.
Seattle’s Darwin Day, hosted by Seattle Atheist/Agnostics
Saturday, February 9, 2019
2:00 to 6:00, show starts at 3:00
The 2100 Building
2100 24th Ave S, Seattle, WA
Donations warmly accepted.
My evolution activities for kids and adults, including the Charles Darwin Dance.
In the book Sharing Reality, Jeff T. Haley and Dale McGowan promote the idea that we science-oriented secularists should promote not particular philosophical conclusions but instead a disciplined respect for evidence. They point out that religions have been becoming more evidence-oriented, and they would like to hasten the trend. The two suggest a neologism—evidism—as the term for this approach to personal belief and public policy. In the tribal conflicts between atheists and believers, it’s easy for atheists to focus on hot-button issues, such as nativity scenes or the Ten Commandments on public land. Haley and McGowan propose that we should instead focus on respect for evidence and on spreading the norm that policy-makers use evidence to guide them. They have a point. “Evidence” is a winning touchstone to help people agree and collaborate.
At Seattle’s March for Science in 2017, I said that evidence can bring people together. Sharing Reality makes a similar point. An advantage of pointing people toward evidence is that almost everyone says that they value evidence and thinks that they value it. Atheist PZ Myers makes the point that creationists try to bolster their position by portraying it in scientific terms. For example, they love to talk about the laws of thermodynamics, as if natural selection contradicts those laws. Even the people who disagree with scientists still affirm the authority of science. Likewise, almost everyone affirms the importance of evidence. Will evidence really convince anyone that they’re wrong? But without evidence the odds are zero. The authors expand on the topic at length, discussing the value of evidence and the best ways to communicate the importance of evidence. They show how a respect for evidence leads naturally to agnostic and secular behavior, even for people who believe in God and scripture.
In my personal experience, I can confirm that people usually can’t ignore the importance of evidence even when they wish they could. People arguing on the Internet often rely on abstract arguments, but they recognize the value of evidence when you ask them for it. Focusing on the evidence might not change the mind of one’s opponent in a debate, but it impresses the audience.
The term “evidism”, however, doesn’t grab me. If lots of people start using the term, I won’t be the last, but I’m not going to be the first, either. I’d rather call it empiricism. For some people, empiricism has negative connotations suggesting soullessness or faithlessness. That’s fine by me. I’d rather use a word that people care about than one that they don’t.
Haley and McGowan say that believing in God demonstrates that the believer isn’t following the evidence, but I would not make the same judgment. While the authors reluctantly agree that it would be worth working with science-oriented believers, I would be enthusiastic about it, not reluctant. I don’t care if someone believes in God, but I do care if they respect science. I have more in common with an evidence-oriented believer than with an atheist who thinks that reality is constructed by language, by power hierarchies, or by the power of positive thinking.
Sharing Reality makes an important point, that focusing on evidence is a promising way to improve dialogs about policies, injustices, and other issues of general concern—especially with religious people.
Sharing Reality: How to Bring Secularism and Science to an Evolving Religious World.
By Jeff Haley and Dale McGowan. Pitchstone Publishing (US&CA), 2017
In 2017, New Mexicans crowded into a public hearing to speak up for scientific literacy, and the state Department of Education listened. Citizens criticized the department’s plan to drop climate change, the age of the Earth, and evolution from the science standards. In response to backlash, the DOE dropped its plan to edit the standards. Instead it will follow the Next Generation Science Standards in full, as developed by a consortium of states and organizations, such as the National Science Teachers Association. This news is a welcome change in a world that has increasingly rejected evolution science. Recently, governments from Turkey to Florida have been undermining children’s education in evolution. Our kids deserve a scientific understanding of who we are and where we came from. Evolution is more than just the bedrock of biology. Humans evolved from earlier life forms, and a scientific understanding of that fact promotes self-understanding and justice. From biology, we learn that each of us is born unique, that we are related to all life on Earth, and that we are connected to each other.
The theory of evolution tells us that humans can never fit neatly into categories. Natural selection works because the organisms in a population always vary among themselves. Today we need this lesson especially in the realm of gender diversity. Human brains prefer simple binary thinking, so it’s common for people to consider “male” and “female” to be all there is to say about gender. Obviously, we see more diversity than that, and biology tells us why. Biology is messy. The concepts of “male” and “female” are handy shortcuts, but the messy truth is that all sorts of different developmental processes contribute to that dichotomy, and human populations exhibit variety in all those processes. Generating adult male and female humans requires many steps. The fetuses’ genitals develop, their brains masculinize or feminize, the infants experience life either revved up on testosterone or not, children develop gender identities, and they develop sexual attraction. Finally, puberty hits and hormones activate the hormone-sensitive brain structures that were laid down during fetal development. Humans differ from each other in all those biological processes, most commonly in terms of sexual attraction. If all this built-in gender variety isn’t enough, the brain evolved for behavioral flexibility, so of course humans express more variety than found in our genes and hormones. Opponents of gender diversity treat is as if it were a violation of an ultimate, binary division, but evolution says that variety is our birthright.
Paradoxically, while the theory of evolution affirms that we are each unique, it also tells us how much we have in common with the rest of the living world. Traditionalists say that humans are essentially separate from animals, but evolution says we are in fact animals. When I was working on Grandmother Fish, Eric Meikle of the National Center for Science Education impressed on me that the core message of evolution is, “We are all related.” We need this lesson today because scientists say that we are driving our planet into its sixth global extinction. Sixty-six million years ago, an asteroid wrecked the planet, but today the villains are climate change and habitat destruction. The theory of evolution tells us that the species we wipe out are our flesh and blood. The polar bears and all other living things are literally our distant cousins. Furthermore, just as all living things are one family, all humanity is one human race, as Darwin himself recognized. In fact, the entire Homo sapiens population today is just one closely related branch of the human race, which until recently included the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and more. Evolution science says that those of us on humanity’s one remaining branch are more alike than different.
Evolution tells us that we are related to all people not only by our shared DNA but also by our shared social instincts. Zoologists call a species like us “obligatorily social.” In everyday terms, we need each other. If you think that hell is other people, anyone in solitary confinement can tell you the opposite. For the human animal, sociality comes built in. Our natural habitat is not the savanna but the tribe. Our smile, for example, is an instinctive sign of happiness, and it functions only in a group. Our eyes also have white scleras so one human can see where the other is looking. Other primates have dark scleras so that competitors can’t track their gazes, but we humans are born to work together. According to social psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt, caring for others is a moral imperative that our ancestors evolved long ago. Today when politics is so divisive, maybe the theory of evolution can remind us of the value we all place on the primeval drive to care for each other.
Evolution says we are all unique, all related, and all bound up in each other’s destinies. Let’s take that to heart. Opponents of evolutionary theory are undermining the scientific understanding of human origins, gender diversity, and human nature. In this time of cultural conflict, let’s speak up for science like the people of New Mexico did in 2017. Let’s honor our connections—to our neighbors, to all humanity, and to the entire living world.
Atheists love to talk about religion, usually to criticize it. Here are two atheists, Valerie Tarico and me, debating whether religion is mostly good or mostly bad. The debate is the fifth in our series, using a format that prevents the debaters from talking past each other. The debaters also field a question from Daniel Dennett.
After the debate, an atheist from the audience asked me if I really believed the positive things I was saying about religion. He also told me that I had made him think. He told me that twice. The debate format is designed to circumvent the human predisposition to block out what “the enemy” is saying. Most debates make people feel more sure of their own position, and we’re trying to do better than that.
The moderator and I also run moderated one-on-one dialogs between people who disagree on political issues. The dialog uses the same “summarize in a sentence” structure that you see in this debate.
I’d love to get feedback on the debate, especially the format, but also the content.
Valerie’s blog post
Valerie talks about how she “played the gender card” in our debate, as part of her blog post about #MeToo. Link to her post, January 15, 2018.
Aron Ra was kind enough to have me on his podcast to talk at some length about historical Jesus. We met last year in Seattle when he came through on a book tour, and he took an interest in my debate last summer with Dr Carrier. Aron is a mythicist, although he doesn’t follow Carrier’s hypothesis. The conversation meanders a bit, but there’s a lot of good material in here. We talk about the composition of the early Christian church, Paul’s crucifixion theology, the temperament of atheists, and more.
Here’s the video, Episode 77 of the Ra-Men Podcast.
Aron was surprised to learn that sometimes atheists call me a fake atheist for promoting the historical Jesus hypothesis. He actually laughed at the idea. Should I have been surprised to see that people who watched the video left comments about me being a Christian? I was surprised, but only because I’m a fool. Of course that’s what some atheists are going to say, even after watching Aron laugh at such irrational behavior. Aron agrees with me that atheists shouldn’t use the historical Jesus as a point of orthodoxy, and that’s my overriding message, so it’s nice to have him on my side on that point.
We also talked a little bit about the divisiveness that seems to be too common among atheists. Aron talked about the people who will shun and slander you for disagreeing with them on one issue, even if you agree on many others. Sam Harris also talks about this phenomenon, the hyper-critical stance that is common among atheists. In the US, atheists are more analytical and more disagreeable than average, and it shows.
As for historical Jesus, we half agree. About half the stuff he had to say about the New Testament and early Christianity is the same sort of thing I would say. Jesus clearly wasn’t God. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament books contradict each other, and they include a bunch of legendary material adapted from pagan sources. On the other hand, Aron and I disagree on a lot, such as what century the Christian cult started; what the cult that Paul joined was like; whether the first reference to Jesus being placed in history implies that he was born on Earth hundreds of years BC; and why the historical consensus for the last hundred years has been that Jesus was a historical figure. I’ve gotten a lot of practice summarizing others’ points, and I think that habit helped ground the conversation. Most of the conversation was about the historical Jesus.
I did a little homework after the discussion, and after the end of this post are some notes that I think provide a useful context for understanding the discussion. If you haven’t watched the video yet, you probably want to watch it before reading my notes.
The big idea: accepting bias as natural
Everybody’s biased, and that’s natural. We atheists know that our beliefs bubble up from our meat brains. They’re not divine inspiration from above. Our beliefs are fallible and often self-serving. Even mythicists like Aron Ra can agree that when atheists accuse me of being a Christian, that’s tribal bias at work. Maybe we atheists can use the topic of historical Jesus as a way to recognize bias in our own community. Recognizing bias is the first step toward mitigating it.
I got this wrong. A papal encyclical of 1907 prohibited Roman Catholic scholars from evaluating the Bible from an historical-critical perspective, but that restriction was rescinded in 1943. In fact Catholic scholars, such as John Meier, have helped spur today’s renaissance in historical Jesus research.
Timeline
Aron and I had trouble agreeing on the timeline of when various works and ideas entered the historical record. Here is an approximate timeline according to mainstream scholars.
30, Jesus’ ministry and execution 50s–60s, Paul’s writing and ministry, introducing the crucifixion to Christian theology 70, Gospel of Mark, first record of Jesus’ biography 90?, Epistle to Titus, describing elders/overseers, roles that later developed into priests and bishops 90, Josephus, who refers to John the Baptist and Jesus 150, Justin Martyr’s First Apology
Docetics, “phantomists”, early Christian faction
They believed that Jesus had “walked among us”, although he only appeared to be physical. This belief shows how implausible Carrier’s celestial-only Christ would be. Even the early Christians who hated the physical world still taught that their divine-only Christ appeared to people here on Earth. The Gospel of Thomas represents a similar view, in which the celestial Jesus came to Earth temporarily. Docetist beliefs are first documented in 1 John, written about a generation or two after Paul.
Ebionites, “the poor ones”, Jewish Christians
Basically, these were original Christians, before Paul came in and established Christianity 2.0. They were Jewish ascetics who hung out around Jerusalem, fawned on Jesus’ brother James, and waited for Jesus to return and usher in the End Times. There was no faction of Ebionites when Paul joined Christianity. The zealots hanging out around Jerusalem were just regular old fanatics. They became a “heresy” only after Paul’s Christianity 2.0 took off and the hard-core fanatics didn’t go along.
Jesus ben Ananias
Around AD 70, this madman reportedly prophesied against Jerusalem and was killed during its siege. “Jesus” was the sixth most common male name at the time.
Justin Martyr, Christianity’s firs apologist
He wrote the First Apology around AD 150. He argued that pagans should accept Christians because their account of Christ was like stories about their own gods. And why were the stories about Jesus like those of the pagan gods? According to Justin, the gods and heroes were similar to Christ because demons had studied the prophecies concerning the future Christ and had imitated them. Here’s what he says:
When the demons heard through the prophets preaching about the coming of Christ, … they proposed many so-called sons of Zeus, supposing that they could cause people to think the things about Christ were a catalogue of marvels similar to those uttered by the poets… But even though demons heard what was said by the prophets, they did not accurately understand them, but they imitated in error the predictions about our Christ.
Justin expands on the point, showing how various “son of Jupiter” were failed attempts to create fake “Christs” based on Jewish prophecy.
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Chris, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and descended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. Be well assured . . . that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah’s days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter’s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, “strong as a giant to run his race,” has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Aesculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? . . . And when I hear . . . that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.
Historians’ presuppositions
Mythicists commonly say that historians are biased or that they have a blind spot about Jesus. Carrier says they wear “Christian goggles” even if they’re not Christian themselves. Are historians really unwilling to question Jesus’ existence? History says otherwise. From the early 1800s to the early 1900s, it was respectable for a historian to promote one mythicist theory or another. Influential scholars, such as Bruno Bauer from Tübingen, argued that Jesus was a fiction. Mythicism waned over time, and early in the 20th century it collapsed when historians reached a consensus that the gospels were written in the 1st century, not in the 2nd. Historians have all sorts of things to say about how the gospels were written and how that history reflects on historical Jesus. Mythicists, on the other hand, tend to deal lightly with the topic of how and why the gospels were composed. An historical Jesus became the consensus not because historians always assumed Jesus existed but because decades of research along mythicist lines didn’t lead anywhere.
Multiple angels and different Jesuses
Aron was referring to Paul’s letter to the Galatians, in which Paul writes, “But even if we, or an angel from the sky, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let them be accursed” (Gal 1:4). Later in Galatians (4:14), Paul equates Jesus with an angel. Paul thought that Jesus was an angel who had taken on human form to live and die among humans, as part of God’s plan.
Context questions for mythicists
In the future, I’ll try to remember to to ask questions like these. Mythicists like to focus on specific arguments, and questions like these help put the conversation in a broader context.
What scholar do you follow most closely?
What’s the least plausible part of your hypothesis? (Carrier names the cosmic sperm bank and the undocumented switch from celestial to earthly Jesus.)
What’s the best evidence for Jesus’ historical existence?
What cult in history is most similar to the Jesus cult that Paul joined? (Carrier says the Osiris cult.)
What book is most similar to the Gospel of Mark? (Carrier says the account of Elijah and Elisha in the Books of Kings.)
Where did the crucifixion story come from? (Carrier says a vision by Peter.)
About how sure are you that you’re right?
When someone tells you that the scholarly consensus is wrong, how skeptical should you be?
What would happen to a historian who could demonstrate that Christianity started without a historical Jesus?
Narrative of Christian origins
A telltale difference between the mainstream account and mythicist accounts is that mainstream historians can provide a plausible story of Christian origins that fits the evidence we have. Mythicists like to pick at the evidence for Jesus, but they don’t like to explain in any detail how early Christianity developed and how it left the historical traces we have. I would love to see a mythicist narrative that covers these points, all of which are explained by the historical Jesus hypothesis. I am not even asking for proof, just a believable narrative.
How and when did the cult start? Who founded it?
Where did the crucifixion story come from and why do the pre-Pauline creeds and the Didache omit it?
Who were Peter, John, and James (the brother of the Lord)?
When Paul joined, what did the cult structure look like, why did it look like that, who was in charge, and why?
What did Paul contribute to the sect?
How did Mark get written? Why does it include embarrassing details that later gospels had to walk back? Why is Jesus’ messianic identity a secret? On what authority was the gospel accepted by Christians?
How did Matthew get written and where did the strikingly original material in the Sermon on the Mount come from? How did two Beatitudes end up separately in Thomas?
How did Luke get written and why are its phrases harder-edged than parallel phrases in Matthew? Where did the additional parables come from?
How did John get written, how is the story different from the earlier gospels, and why?
How does John the Baptist change from Mark to John and why?
How did the structure of the early church develop from Paul’s time to the end of the first century?
Dr Richard Carrier and I disagree on a lot of points regarding Jesus, but in our debate last summer there was one important point on which we agreed. Most of the Jesus-mythicism scholarship out there is bad scholarship. He called out in particular the parallels between Jesus Christ and Horus as an example. Carrier and I did not delve into why so many atheists are willing to accept bad scholarship about Jesus not existing. To me, the answer is simple: tribalism. Humans have instinctive tribal feelings that lead us to see our own “tribes” in a positive light and to see “enemy tribes” in a negative light. See, for example, The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt and Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene. For lots of atheists, Jesus Christ is the “sacred totem” of the “enemy tribe”. They are willing to accept bad scholarship provided it tells them what they want to hear, which is that Jesus never existed.
The phenomenon that energizes me about this topic is the emotional commitment that many atheists have to mythicism, all while portraying themselves as more objective than mainstream historians. I know an atheist who says that hearing the phrase “historical Jesus” makes him want to retch. That reaction is visceral, not rational. In the local atheist book club, the topic of whether Jesus was historical is prohibited in side conversations. In the past, too many discussion were derailed by emotional arguments over this issue. Christians, for their part, also disagree with mainstream historians about who Jesus was. For example, they consider the gospel of John to be historically valuable. Christians have perfectly understandable reasons for preferring a nonstandard view of early Christian origins. Muslims also have their pet ideas about who Jesus was. So do a lot of New Age promoters, such as Richard Bach, the author of Jonathan Livingstone Seagull. And along come atheist mythicists proving that atheists are human, too. Atheists sometimes let their tribal affiliations channel their thinking, and lots of atheists promote their pet ideas about Jesus over the longstanding consensus of mainstream scholars.
In my dream world, atheists would use the Jesus-mythicism controversy as a reality check. The well-documented willingness of atheists to accept bad Jesus-myth scholarship would wake us atheists up to our own biases and tribal instincts. Even atheists who think that Carrier is right would acknowledge that the track record for atheists evaluating Jesus-myth scholarship is dodgy. Atheists commonly criticize religious people for letting their feelings cloud their judgment, and the Jesus-myth phenomenon could be eye-opening for us atheists. We could acknowledge that being led astray by tribal feelings is part of the human experience. Tribal thinking is not a unique sin committed only by people who believe in the supernatural. Am I dreaming? Can atheists really be the first “tribe” to acknowledge our own tribalism and rise above it? Probably not, but hope springs eternal.
As I mentioned in my debate with Carrier, I once got a little carried away with some bad scholarship about Muhammad not existing. Like any human, I’m vulnerable to having my intellect be swayed by feelings. I also had some unrealistically positive feelings about the historical Jesus before I did the research and accepted the evidence. Contradicting what I’d been taught, I learned that Jesus’ message was to his fellow Jews, not to the whole world. I like Jesus, so I don’t like the idea of him being so “ethnic”, but that’s where the evidence points. My message to my fellow atheists is not, “Be without bias”. That’s unrealistic because we’re all human. If you think you’re without bias, you’re probably more biased than average. Without bias, I couldn’t get up in the morning. Every hour I care more about some things than other things. That’s bias. Instead of “Don’t be biased”, my message to my fellow atheists is, “Acknowledge your own bias and humbly follow the evidence”.
For his part, Carrier sets himself above other mythicists because he takes on a greater challenge than they do. He not only tells people that they “might have reason for doubt” about historical Jesus, he also offers an explanation for how 1st-century Christianity originated. Who started it? How did it develop? How did it leave behind the historical traces that we have today? If there was no historical Jesus, how did everyone—believers, heretics, and skeptics alike—come to think that he had existed on this Earth? Carrier offers an explanation. In brief, someone had a vision (or claimed to have a vision) of an angel being crucified in outer space to free Jews from the Temple, and soon enough the allegorical stories about this celestial angel were misunderstood as historical stories about an actual historical figure. Carrier does a favor to everyone interested in Jesus mythicism by providing an alternative account of Christian origins. We can look at his account and judge how plausible it is compared to the mainstream account. If Carrier is wrong, then most likely Christianity is based on the life and teachings of a Jewish, hillbilly faith healer and preacher. Carrier says that this mainstream account is plausible. In our debate, Carrier did not summarize his own account of 1st-century Christianity, and his 3-page summary in On the Historicity of Jesus is light on details but heavy on argumentation. Here he describes one part of his account as ”not so implausible as it may seem”. He’s written about his history on his blog and Facebook, but it looks like he’s not going to spell out his account in a clear, chronological outline. My guess is that he knows that his account would sound implausible if it were laid out end-to-end with no embellishment.
What Carrier and I agree on is that atheists are too willing to accept bad scholarship that says Jesus didn’t exist. If you hate that statement, and if you can feel that hate in your gut, that’s probably a tribal instinct at work.
- - -
4 minutes of Christian origins: My summary of Christian origins, from Jesus’ career to the composition of Mark (video from the debate).
Am I a fake atheist?: How my fellow atheists treat me when I betray “the tribe”.
Dr Richard Carrier, me, Brandon Hendrickson (moderator)
Below is a link to the video of my debate with Dr Richard Carrier over the historicity of Jesus, which I lost decisively. While I lost the debate, I also feel as though there’s real value here, and it was a useful start at addressing the serious problems with Dr Carrier’s hypothesis of Christian origins. It’s definitely worth a look. Here is some context to help you see what is going on in the video.
First of all, through a miscommunication, Dr Carrier didn’t understand what was being asked of him in the middle section of the first part of the debate. I was asked to give a historical summary of Christian origins, which I did. He was asked to give a historical summary of Christian origins, which he did not. Instead, he focused on the writings of Paul and his evidence that Paul thought Jesus was a celestial angel but not a man. He has debated the historicity of Jesus plenty of times, and he approached the topic the way he is used to doing it rather than in line with our format. The fault lies with us organizers, as we did not explain clearly enough what we meant when we asked him to give a 4-minute spiel on the history of early Christianity, from AD 20 to AD 100, followed by 6 minutes of my critiques and his defense. His account of Christian origins sounds, in his own terms, “incredible”, and the meat of my argument was going to be showing people how implausible it is. Since Dr Carrier didn’t outline his account of Christian origins, I could hardly critique it. For me, that’s where the debate fell apart, and I never really recovered. My central point is that the historical account of Christian origins is plausible while Dr Carrier’s is not. In personal email after the debate, I asked Dr Carrier to provide a spoken or written outline of Christian origins to parallel the one I provided in the debate, and he said he might write up such an account for his blog. To my mind, the more details people know about Dr Carrier’s account, the better.
Second, I apologize for losing my cool during the debate. While preparing for the debate, I was shocked to find out how insulting Dr Carrier is to other scholars. His negative words about Bart Ehrman were particularly galling since I have read a lot of Ehrman’s work and value his contributions to my understanding of early Christian history. Ehrman has taken it on himself to popularize Jesus research so that regular folks like you and me can get a look at what the scholars are saying, and that’s wonderful. In my own humble way, I’m a popularizer myself, having written a children’s book to teach kids that we evolved from fish. Dr Carrier’s comments about other scholars disturbed me so much that I felt quite ambivalent about giving him a platform and helping him sell books, but the debate was already scheduled, and I went on with it. Dr Carrier and I shared our notes with each other ahead of the debate, and he took issue with the way I was going to bring up his treatment of Ehrman and other scholars. I dropped that material from my notes, but it was still on my mind. In the debate when Dr Carrier said that other scholars are 100 years behind if they haven’t read his book, that might seem like innocent hyperbole, but it set me off. The moderator received a question from the audience asking me to explain why that claim set me off like it did, but he declined to ask that question in the Q&A, so I didn’t have the chance to explain myself. Here’s what I was getting at. If Dr Carrier says that other historians are 100 years behind, he’s implying through simple algebra that he is 100 years ahead of other historians. That’s a striking claim, and I don’t want people to miss it. Since no other historians have adopting Dr Carrier’s view, he is, by his own estimation, the world’s leading expert on Christian origins. If his hypothesis is right, he is the only historian who understands how Christianity really started and how the gospels were really written. In fact, he’s not just 100 years ahead of other scholars, if he’s right then he is 2000 years ahead. Dr Carrier doesn’t press this point himself, and in fact he backed off of it when I questioned him about his “100 years” comment, so it falls to people like me to point it out. He also claims to be ahead of other historians in his use of Bayes’ Theorem. Perhaps in the future, Dr Carrier will be recognized as history’s most important Jesus scholar, as well as the founder of truly modern historical research. Perhaps.
Third, the moderator confessed to us at the break that he had inadvertently given Dr Carrier more air time than he had given me. There are plenty of points I never had time to bring up. In addition, the questions after the break were not as useful as we had envisioned. While there was good material in the debate, it did not live up to our expectations.
Despite my loss, I think that the debate demonstrates some points on my side. We get to hear from Dr Carrier himself the negative way in which he talks about other historians. He acknowledges that the mainstream historical account is plausible. He agrees with me that whoever is responsible for the Sermon on the Mount was a counterculture genius. He names the cult of Osiris as the cult most similar to the early Christian cult, which is strange. Perhaps he was answering the question, “Which cult had a savior figure most like celestial Jesus?” because the Osiris cult as a religious organization is hardly like the early Christian sect. Since he didn’t bring up the “cosmic sperm bank” from which he says the celestial Jesus was created, I did. On these and other points, the debate shows the beginning of what could be useful inquiries into Dr Carrier’s account of Christian origins and its many problems.
As I said in the debate, I am not trying to prove to anyone that Jesus existed. My point is that the mainstream historical account is the most plausible account of Christian origins available to us. It might be wrong, but there is no other account that is equally plausible. The small number of historians who agree with Dr Carrier about the historical Jesus being dubious also agree with me that his account is not plausible. When debates about Jesus are filled with competing proof texts, they can make the eyes glaze over, and it’s hard for non-experts to evaluate the evidence. Lay people are better suited to evaluating a debate that evaluates the relative plausibility of two hypothetical accounts of Christian origins. I learned a lot from this debate, and I hope I get a chance to do better in a similar debate some other time.
Honest Debate Format—The format for this debate, plus links to more data on historical Jesus.
Honest Debate: Christianity Good and Bad—Here’s my post on the previous debate. It is a better example of the “Honest Debate” format than my debate with Carrier is.
New Testament Plot Fixes—The New Testament is full of erroneous details invented to paper over the inconvenient facts of Jesus’ life. These inventions point back to the historical Jesus, whose life and ministry they amend and “improve”.
