Skip to main content

Carrier talk on Jesus, history and reason this Friday - see you there?

This should be a really interesting talk (organized by myself for CFI UK) from one of the world's leading skeptics. He is the author of a controversial new book on the quest for the historical Jesus. Hope to see some of you there...

Richard Carrier: Bayes' Theorem and Historical Reasoning: How Historical Methods Can Be Improved and Why They Need to Be

16th November 2012

Stamford Street Lecture Theatre
7.30pm - 9pm (7.00pm registration)





Drawing from his new book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Prometheus, 2012), Dr. Carrier will explain what Bayes' Theorem is (in terms anyone can understand), how it underlies all valid historical methods even when we don't realize it, and why knowing this can improve historical reasoning and argument in all fields of history.

£7 - General
£5 - Students / BHA members
Free - "Friends of CFI"(and LAAG)

Venue

Stamford Street Lecture Theatre
Franklin Wilkins Building
Waterloo Campus
King’s College London
127 Stamford Street
London
SE1 9NQ
Nearest tube: Waterloo

19.00 for a 19.30 start

About the speaker

Richard Carrier is an American historian and philosopher and author of several books which have received international attention, including The Empty Tomb and Why I am Not a Christian. Richard now specializes in the modern philosophy of naturalism, the origins of Christianity, and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome. Richard also writes for and was Editor in Chief of the Secular Web (Internet Infidels).
http://www.richardcarrier.info

Comments

wombat said…
Regarding historical explanations of the resurrection of Jesus, another data point is in the BBC news today

"Sam Ledward turns 106 after being declared dead in 1936

The former joiner crashed his motorbike in 1936 and says he was in a coma so deep that doctors ordered his body to be taken away.

He was being taken to the mortuary when a hospital porter noticed his "corpse" move and returned him to the ward."

full article here

Even in relatively modern times coma and death could be confused so why not in 1st century middle east?
November 13, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Steven Carr said…
If Jesus was in a coma and revived, why would Paul explain that 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit'?
November 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM
wombat said…
Paul had his own ideas obviously.

What struck me was that the Sam Ledward case was a specific instance of someone who appeared dead in the view of expert witnesses, having suffered serious injury and later revived. Here is a documented resurrection with no divinity involved.
November 14, 2012 at 5:08 PM
Sketch Sepahi said…
Steven Carr, how would Paul know? It's not as if Paul ever had any actual interaction with Jesus. Paul expressed his own beliefs. Whether those beliefs might be mistaken is precisely the subject under consideration. Therefore, those beliefs aren't admissible as evidence for their own veracity. That's circular reasoning.
November 15, 2012 at 6:25 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist...
49 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more