Was Christianity the Cause of Modern Science? Sources of the Claim (as of 2000) Richard Carrier     Was Christianity the Cause of Modern Science? This is a list of all known places where the claim is made that Christianity was in some sense the cause of modern science. I am eagerly seeking others that […]

Wanchick’s Closing Statement (2006)   Basic Argument for Naturalism (BAN) Per Carrier, P1 assumes science specifically is the “most reliable method” for finding truth. Scientific indication is sufficient for belief. But Carrier’s opening statement failed to demonstrate that science (or any discipline) provides a sufficient condition for belief. He now says it’s obvious that science […]

Wanchick’s Second Rebuttal (2006)   Leibnizian Cosmological Argument Carrier says the “only evidence” I offer that the universe is non-necessary is scientific. Not at all; I first noted that “the universe appears obviously contingent”: we can easily conceive of its nonexistence. Carrier never challenges this. Alas, he concedes it, stating that possibly nothing or a […]

Wanchick’s First Rebuttal (2006)   Basic Argument for Naturalism (BAN) It’s hard to make sense of Carrier’s opening argument. He aptly labels it his basic argument for naturalism (BAN). Unfortunately, its lack of depth apparently stems from his failure to justify its premises. P1 says propositions entailed by reliable methods trump those supported by less […]

Wanchick’s Opening Statement (2006)   Leibnizian Cosmological Argument It seems reasonable to believe that every substance[1] has an explanation for its existence: it was either caused by something else, or exists necessarily (it cannot not exist). This premise is evidently more plausible than its denial, for if confronted with a new substance, everyone would assume […]

The Rules We Followed (2006)   Welcome to Naturalism vs. Theism: The Carrier-Wanchick Debate. Here Richard and Tom explain the rules of debate they both agreed to follow.   (1) The parties to the debate composed a joint statement specifying the proposition to be defended and defining every term in that proposition to the reasonable […]

What We Are Debating (2006)   Welcome to Naturalism vs. Theism: The Carrier-Wanchick Debate. Here Richard and Tom cowrote and approved a joint statement stating as clearly as is reasonable what claims each intends to defend here. JOINT STATEMENT In the present debate Richard Carrier and Tom Wanchick will each be defending a different thesis […]

Carrier’s Closing Statement (2006)   Wanchick Failed to Make His Case Naturalism Is True The best methods known for ascertaining the facts have only discovered results corresponding to naturalism. Wanchick hasn’t shown otherwise. The results of inferior methods cannot supercede the results of superior methods, because, by definition, the probability of an inferior result being […]

Carrier’s Second Rebuttal (2006)   Wanchick Gets It Wrong Basic Argument for Naturalism (BAN) Wanchick thinks I “beg the question” when claiming scientific methods are the most reliable ones known for resolving questions of fact. Evidence of the superiority of science in ascertaining the truth in every matter of fact is so vast and undeniable […]

Carrier’s First Rebuttal (2006)   Wanchick’s Case Is Insufficient I don’t have room to rebut every false or dubious claim Wanchick makes in his opening statement, so I will focus only on essentials. Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA) Wanchick proposes that (i) “the universe does not exist necessarily,” so (ii) it must have an “external cause,” […]

Carrier’s Opening Statement (2006)   Naturalism Is True, Theism is Not Method If we want all our beliefs to be more likely true than false, then we must proportion our beliefs to the evidence. So if our reasons to believe are few and unreliable, our confidence should be low, and if our reasons to believe […]

Who We Are (2006)   Welcome to Naturalism vs. Theism: The Carrier-Wanchick Debate. Here Richard and Tom explain who they are. Richard Carrier: Richard Carrier is a published historian and philosopher, with a several degrees in intellectual history, including an M.Phil. from Columbia University, where he is currently working on his doctorate in ancient science. […]

Final Assessment by Independent Judges (2006)   Welcome to Naturalism vs. Theism: The Carrier-Wanchick Debate. Richard and Tom agreed to have four independent judges read and assess their debate upon its completion according to The Rules We Followed, especially rules (7) and (8). Those judges present their assessments below. Total Assessment      Glenn Miller [assessment]      Victor […]

Naturalism vs. Theism: The Carrier-Wanchick Debate (2006)   Does God exist? Or is nature all there is? Richard Carrier and Tom Wanchick debate this question below. Who We Are What We Are Debating The Rules We Followed Wanchick’s Opening Statement Carrier’s Opening Statement Carrier’s First Rebuttal Wanchick’s First Rebuttal Wanchick’s Second Rebuttal Carrier’s Second Rebuttal […]

The Rules We Followed (2008)   Welcome to On Paul’s Theory of Resurrection: The Carrier-O’Connell Debate. Here Richard and Jake explain the rules of debate they both agreed to follow.   (1) The parties to the debate composed a joint statement specifying the proposition to be defended and defining every term in that proposition to […]

O’Connell’s Closing Statement (2008)   Response to “On Over What?” Of course, I think that the alternative explanations I propose are not just possible, but probable. However, the audience will have to decide this for themselves. According to several prominent lexicons, the normal meaning of “ependyomai” is “to put on one garment over another garment.” […]

O’Connell’s Second Rebuttal (2008)   The Meaning of “Resurrection” First, to clarify my original point, the word anastasis does not always refer to resurrection. It can simply mean “to rise up” in a mundane sense (e.g. rising up out of bed). But my intended point was that in those cases in which anastasis does refer […]

O’Connell’s First Rebuttal (2008)   Response to “What Paul Said” Carrier here throws out a number of passages which he thinks make better sense if Paul accepted a two-body theory of resurrection (hereafter 2BT). But it can be clearly demonstrated that all of these passages are either better explained on a one-body theory (hereafter 1BT), […]

O’Connell’s Opening Statement (2008)   The Meaning of “Resurrection” Whenever the word “resurrection” (anastasis) occurs in Jewish sources within and around the first century A.D., it always denotes a “one-body” notion of resurrection. This fact has been amply demonstrated by N. T. Wright’s thorough examination of the sources.[1] Although there were disagreements over the details […]

What We Are Debating (2008)   Welcome to On Paul’s Theory of Resurrection: The Carrier-O’Connell Debate. Here Richard and Jake co-wrote and approved a joint statement stating as clearly as possible what claims each intends to defend here. JOINT STATEMENT In this debate Richard Carrier will defend the thesis that the Apostle Paul probably embraced […]

Carrier’s Closing Statement (2008)   The Stronger Case Prevails   I remain convinced. More likely than not, Paul did not believe the corpse of Jesus rose from the dead, but that Jesus left his corpse behind and rose from the dead in an entirely new body. Therefore, Paul did not need to believe the tomb […]

Carrier’s Second Rebuttal (2008)   Possibly is Not Probably   O’Connell’s general mode of argument is to propose possible alternative explanations for everything. But possibility is not probability. And some of his arguments (like those repeating his seed-plant analysis) I already refuted in my first rebuttal, so I will only address here what’s new. 1. […]

Carrier’s First Rebuttal (2008)   A Weaker Case Cannot Defeat a Stronger   O’Connell makes five arguments. None establish his case. I will treat each in turn, then reiterate my conclusion.   1. Vocabulary Argument O’Connell: Whenever the word “resurrection” (anastasis) occurs in Jewish sources within and around the first century A.D., it always denotes […]

Carrier’s Opening Statement (2008)   Two Bodies: One in the Sky, One in the Grave   1. Basic Argument When the Apostle Paul was asked “How are the dead raised? With what sort of body do they come?” he answered “that which you sow is not the body that will come to be” but “God […]

Who We Are (2008)   Welcome to On Paul’s Theory of Resurrection: The Carrier-O’Connell Debate. Here Richard and Jake explain who they are. Richard Carrier: Richard Carrier has a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University. He specializes in ancient science and religion, and has written on early Christianity both online and in print. He […]

I Was a Big Bang Skeptic (2002) Richard Carrier The ultimate resource has now become available online surveying all the evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, compiled by professional cosmologists: Evidence for the Big Bang (2006), by Bjürn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton, in the Talk.Origins Archive. For readers interested in why we should believe the […]

You are probably looking for the article “Was There a Big Bang? I Honestly Don’t Know” by Richard Carrier. It has been removed from the web because I no longer agree with its argument. I have now stated and defended my new position in the essay ” I Was a Big Bang Skeptic” (2002). The […]

Two Examples of Faulty Bible Scholarship (1999) Richard Carrier   In response to remarks by Douglas Wilson in a debate with Ted Drange (see Wilson’s first rebuttal), I have written on two examples of how some Christians don’t understand the importance of scholarship in truly understanding the New Testament, centering around 1 Timothy. The first […]

What Can We Infer from the Present about the Past? (2006) Richard Carrier   In “Do No Miracles Today Imply None in the Past? A Critique of Richard Carrier’s Methodology,” Amy Sayers responds to an argument in my collection of essays “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story” (6th ed., 2006). In particular, she responds […]