@@murielpucoe9213 Are you asking for proof that imaginary beings don't exist? The job of finding proof falls on the one who says something exists, all we can do is point out all of your hypocracy and tear all of your stories apart and show their nonesense.
All the questions I've had that no Christian could ever answer for me, I now have answers. Looking at Christianity as history makes no sense. But when you look at actual history, the influence of other religions and the evolution of Christianity, it makes perfect sense when you see it for what it truly is...a manmade construct. I'm glad there are people like Dr. Carrier and Dr. Price that tell the truth about religion. Thanks for posting this.
If Jesus was crucified, he existed and since we know he was crucified he obviously existed and all those who say he didnt exist are just wrong. Bart Erhman Atheists have done themselves a big disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. It makes you look foolish. Bart Erhman Price and Carrier fall under here. Take it from Bart😂
He lied about most of the history that was told here, so your gullibility to change your entire world view over one little kid on youtube is even more fascinating to me than anything else.
Saying he existed and was crucified is one thing. However, saying he was a demi-god, and resurrected are two completely different claims. You would need to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was both “divine” and resurrected. Believers bridge that gap whilst simultaneously dismissing other claims of dying and rising god(s) claims. 🤦🏼♂️
@@koppite9600wow, since you said they are wrong it must be true 😂 Both of those scholars know more about the Bible than you and your entire church combined.
This man, Dr Carrier, has given me an explanation, to questions I have asked, my parents, and priests, since I was 12yo. As to the Christian religion, and where it came from. As science show us how old the earth is, the known universe, Dinosaurs, Evolution etc. So I have never really believed, and was puzzled as to why, every Sunday, my family did the exact same thing, but nothing changed, other than growing older, leaving school, working etc. And the years when by. Now I am in my late fifties, and have an understanding as to where this thing called Christianity comes from. It appears to fit in with the ' Flat Earth myth ' , which makes sense.
Watching his lecture freed me from religion. I no longer think there is a Jesus watching my every step as the whole thing seems like a pyramid scam. It's always felt like one because prayers rarely work and could be explained by biological processes and people's compassion. It's one of the biggest scams in human history and it needs to be exposed.
@@CellGames2006 I feel sorry for those early Christians who were willing to die for someone that's just a myth. They never saw Jesus cure the sick, or feed the hungry...it was all fiction written by four evangelists who all connived to write about this mythological man. They're just all crazy wanting to die for someone they haven't seen before.
@@tikbalang9245 I think there is some power in faith and could be something beautiful, but also can bring the worst in someone who is not very critic when they make choices
If you liked this presentation you should buy the audiobook version of his book “On the Historicity of Jesus” and at the same time buy the paperback version so that you can follow along as Richard reads his own book, then move to “proving history” and do the same thing, and then do the same thing with “Hitler Homer Bible Christ” just those 3 books are over 54 hours, and 1464 pages of material, and those numbers don’t cover reading his blog, articles or chasing down the offshoots his work introduces you to and that you just have to chase to find the answer.
@@rexrambo7686 to each their own some people like to chase scholarship and some don’t, there is so much more to Rick’s work than just discussing the existence of the supposed progenitor of a religion that pushes hate, bigotry, and beliefs that are wholly in consistent with reality. His class series on the New Testament through Derek’s platform is also incredible, but just his “Proving History” work is worth reading as a standalone work without even considering the Historicity of Jesus, but on how to examine history properly, personally it has played a roll in my life as a professional genealogist, after reading it I now look at the facts and stories we compile and prove for families in a different light it really improves your level of discernment and critical thinking.
@@henochparks Who will? Members of any Abrahamic-god based zombie rabbi death cult would be crushed if they attempted to debate someone who knows significantly more about their idiotic beliefs than they will EVER know. Don't be so pathetically antagonistic and foolish.
What makes Dr. Carrier credible is his acknowledgement that humans have commonalities consistent over centuries. When one reflects on the limits of formal education, communication, and common knowledge at the time, the gospels were 'crafted' and 're-crafted' to explain what could not be easily understood and explained. Factor in the human need for some to seen as important and knowledgeable, and things start to make sense. Thanks for sharing the video excerpts.
Hey, check out some research by Paula Fredriksen; she is not a bad storyteller and draws a vivid picture of the Mediteranian worldview in the context of Paul!
it's so ironic that Carrier as an "outsider" has more "insider" knowledge of the mysteries that the gospels purport to hide than the actual insiders who actually look at the texts as is expected of the outsiders
Atheism is focused on objective reality, not myth. Now one can make an argument that objective reality is an allusion. I disagree partially with that assumption. We have a sensory experience. All I can say is that the input of our sensory experience is a true experience based on my sensory experience.
Damn. This was the best two hours of my time I’ve used in a long time. Why two hours? Because I watched it twice. The last several minutes were spot-on!
I have to agree with you. It has been so educational for me that I had to watch it two times as well. It really pulled it together on how many religions localized core ideas in mystic religions to each create something unique that they could claim as their own. We each create our own stories but the Jews, Mormons, Witnesses, Christians and Muslims did it on a grand scale. I can see the whole puzzle much more clearly now. Wow, that was helpful.
he is amazing actually because I'm an unknown writing a book that includes construction of religions and science that proves the supernatural wasn't required for everything that exists, and Dr. Carrier took time to help me with the Pliny letters to Trajan. His personal effort for me was a surprise when I can't even get the time of day from much lesser in the field of refuting religion, like bloggers with only 20,000 followewrs.
This video needs to be on everybody‘s list. (I hope the algorithm agrees.) This is the single most thought provoking video that I watched in a long, long time: especially the end. I binged Richard Carrier yesterday, and I love his Mythical Jesus, but here he is speaking a universal truth: people need to more consciously construct their world view. It is way too circumstantial: depends on where you grow up, who your teachers are, what books you find at the book store, nowadays what videos the algorithm suggests. - How is pedagogy the most important thing I never thought about? - Oh, I get it: I am not a father, thus I am still a kid myself, despite nearing 50 years. - Well, maybe that’s another circumstance.
It really needs more views. Coming to terms with admitting that the dominant world views that have grown in popularity / population size / spread and dogmatic depth over the centuries were even originally creatively crafted / invented by humans in the first place. That the only „revelation“ there ever was, was men’s thoughts „revealing“ themselves by appearing in their minds, is in itself a trivial but world shattering revelation for me right now as I type this. While every now and then there have been genuine new ideas, of course the process also includes a lot of regurgitating and chewing of old problems and solutions, simply because we can’t escape the human condition; we have grown up with stories, were implicitly and explicitly taught by our parents and teachers and peers and culture in general. - Grasping ownership of your very own world view seems like a logical step in intellectual and emotional development. How come that this never occurred to me as a task? That I was accepting all the circumstance of the building of my own mind, without asking too many questions? That I was ok with growing, instead of building / constructing? What could be more important than self-authorship and the building of your own mind? How come I just accepted that I was soaking up ideas and just went with whatever sticked / seemed appropriate? - Shouldn’t there be a process for building minds? Pedagogy should be a solved field after so many millennia? - I‘ve been watching a lot of Joscha Bach over the years: learning to build a mind from the ground up, as he is introspecting and helping invent / create AI. - Why did it never occur to me, that I was attracted to his talks, because my own mind tried to awaken itself into self-authorship? - I was always more fascinated (like Sam Harris) with the idea of things just happening (Free Will as an epiphenomenon), with the laws of the universe, than with the idea of self-made-men and agency. That the only thing one can truly change, is perspective. That form follows function, that the world is built from the ground layer up. - Why did it take me almost 50 years to recognize the importance of agency, of creativity, of self-authorship? - The thing why revolutions don’t happen at a personal and societal level is not, because the situation isn’t bad enough / wouldn’t warrant it, but that the base layer of self empowerment hasn’t been taught sufficiently. When Joscha Bach talks about „getting access to the room with the cookies“ in your mind (= the dopaminergic reward system in your brain) only being the first step, but as an adult you should learn to only reward yourself with cookies for eating your salad, I always knew that I hadn’t even found the key to that room yet, not even talking about the salad. I suspected that I had so few „Eureka“ / revelation moments in my life, because evolution deemed it to be counter productive and found it only appropriate for people in their teens. - Yet it never occurred to me, that key is laying there openly, that one only has to realize it and grasp for it. - Has anything changed today? Have I truly grasped what it means to set my own values, twiddle my knobs not from where they are, but from where I want them to be? Has it become easier to kick myself in the ass now? Did I learn to fly? - Maybe „defying gravity“ is not just a good song, but a life lesson, that I am only now beginning to grasp.
@@Entropy3ko You mean, most "biblical scholars". And that would be because... most biblical scholars are christian, and are terrified of what Carrier has to say.
Came across a site called www.doesgodexistandbeyond.com/ looks at faith with Reason, Logic and Primary Evidences. Has some very interesting information about non biblical sources on the resurrection accounts that's not well known. Worth a read if anyone's interested.
Entropy3ko That is because they have not read his books or listened to his talks. They have only “heard” he is a Jesus mythicist, and write him off. Jesus mythicism is only a portion of his entire content. Further, he does not assert that a historical Jesus was an impossibility. However, the supernatural, demi-god Jesus of the gospels certainly is a myth. That is definitely the “mythicization” of a possible historical figure. Bart Erhman must oppose Carrier, because he would lose his job at Chapel Hill, otherwise.
Another excellent breakdown. You are a gifted communicator. You have done a great job finding the right puzzle board for all these puzzle pieces that generations of scholars and we masses have been stumbling over for generations. Thanks you for a gambit at clarity on these important issues.
Always enjoyed Dr. Carrier's work. Was suprised to learn his view on the Q/Quelle/source. The overview was incredible. The sequence of events and knowledge on the subject of the history of the gospels, was definitely packed with valuable info. Thank you!
He wasn't wrong when he said the field was either filled with bias or Amateurs back in 2012. His ground work will lay the foundation for the future of rigorous fact checking of accepted authority.
Well reasoned? The guy is nuts. At 4:14 he makes up a convo with Carro and they come up with a conclusion. At 21:00 when talking about Mark he becomes a psychic .. he automatically knows Mark is rewriting Moses.
Carrier, a treasure trove of information.. He needs to do more debates, to expose more unsettled or doubtful assumptions about history... Seems Apologists and Historians alike fear a confrontation with him.
He's a globe-earther in a flat-earth world. Very likely that people will look back at him as not a visionary but a brave iconoclast since he's not really saying much that is new, it's just that he's one of the first scholars willing to say what many before said behind closed doors.
Reasonable Speculation sadly I can’t remember who pointed it out but his talk here reminds me of someone who simply said ‘Jesus was a Jew, preaching Judaism to Jews.’ This fact has been obliterated by current Christianity in which we are persuaded that Jesus was preaching something entirely different.
I love listening to Dr Carrier articulate his knowledge on the subject. He has definitely done his homework and an expert in his field. He is so much easier to understand as opposed to the confusing explanations from the various apologists. I've tried several times to listen and see if the apologists can give an understandable scholarly response. I think actual research material to support their beliefs are very limited so the apologist's argument becomes bogged down in semantics.
Carrier’s work is crucial to biblical criticism and I enjoy his work. I do not arrive at the same conclusion for every point, but his perspective is vital for arriving at the truth.
I agree with you. We provided the interview because it adds to the larger discussion on the historicity issue as well as context. Thank you for checking it out.
I never get tried or bored listening to Richard Carrier's ideas. He makes complete sense.. especially is a backdrops of Joseph Campbell's & Alan Watts' theoretical concepts of religion.
This is an amazing interview. The first ~2/3 is interesting in a historical sense, but the last 20 or so minutes where he talks about the push-back from the entrenched status quo and its chilling effect on honest scholarship and the pursuit of truth really gives perspective and a sense of outside objectivity that is exceedingly rare in society at large or at all in popular culture. I was also pleased to see him mention how fiction has been taking the place of faithfully (naively) believed religious dogmatic scripture. The messages and the *quality* and *honesty* of Hollywood movies and popular books is extremely important. And then he goes even further to expound upon how our mode of thinking is based on religious dogmas that have taken the place of attempts at evidence-based classical philosophical structures. I have a pretty low opinion of pure philosophy, but when used in the sense of empirically-informed philosophy of science, it's a vital part of humans comprehending the world and making informed rather than arbitrary dogmatic moralistic decisions.
Carrier admits plenty of uncertainty about the origins of Christianity and the Gospels. Christians, however, admit no uncertainty about these things (although they often disagree among themselves about them).
Even the Gospels have plenty of uncertainty about the origin of Christianity, assuming that Christianity begins with the birth of Jesus. According to _Matthew_ 2:14, after the birth of Jesus, Joseph "took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt." I.e., to escape the wrath of Herod (who died 4 BCE), Joseph & family left Bethlehem to the *southwest,* to Egypt. But according to _Luke_ 2:22, after the birth and circumcision of Jesus, the family left Bethlehem to the *northeast,* to go to Jerusalem. In Jerusalem they walked right past the king's palace, to get to the Temple and make the required blood sacrifice for a first-born male child. So, which is correct? Exit Bethlehem to the southwest or northeast? Those are exactly opposite directions. Flee the king of Judaea or walk right past his fortress? Clearly the 'inspiration' of an all-powerful god is not all it's cracked up to be. Or, as Carrier proposes, the Gospels are just stories; historical fiction created decades after the purported events by fallible human authors, working with nothing but their own imaginations and the knowledge of other Ancient Greek stories.
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.” - Bertrand Russell
@@broddr: I'll concede your point about leaving Bethlehem in two different directions, but you like so many atheists are confused when it comes to the direction of the Gospels influence. Matthew may not have written an accurate history of the life of Jesus, if that was really his intention, but his influence wasn't Greek but Hebrew. His declarations about the deity and christology of Jesus is rooted in the Exodus, and the Law and the Prophets. Luke's influence is rooted in 1st and 2nd Samuel and the book of Daniel. Drop the Greek influences idea. It doesn't work, not even with the mythology.
We will try! We just interviewed Sam a couple of weeks ago. shepherdexpress.com/arts-and-entertainment/books/a-human-conversation-with-author-sam-harris/
Hi@@dbz1978Howard, I have read about 90% of what Carrier has published and maybe 80% of Sam. And nearly every time Sam's trajectory moves towards the Historical and Biblical I cringe. Sam would do so much better in discussions if he could load Carrier's Bayesian Jesus info. It's like a biologist debating a creationist but the biologist doesn't know about DNA. Here is an example, imagine Josephus come up, wouldn't it be nice if Sam knew the entire Testimonium of Josephus is a near perfect noun and verb paraphrase from Luke 24:19-21.
@@dbz1978 wow...wrong...totally WRONG... Dr. Carrier and Dr. Harris are complete opposites in regards to political leanings... Harris is a non-liberal, non-SJW Atheist and Carrier is a 100% Liberal, 100% SJW, 100% Feminist Anita Sarkeesian worshiping atheist...
@@sailure1 Sam Harris cares strongly about democracy, climate change, scientific thinking. He diverges from many of today's liberals in his criticism of Islam, and especially of Islamists - those Muslims who would impose their religion on others. Harris is critical of Christianity too. His small book 'Letter to a Christian Nation' leaves no doubt of that.
Your explaining of the Hellenistic culture and mystery religions, the basic shell, eventually taken up by the Jews who called it their own was extremely helpful to me in understanding the picture. Each religion internalized their practises as self-discovered, leading to professing as the only authentic religion, stigmatizing other religions. This is why they have totally rejected the Mormons, Muslims, etc. I’ve always wondered why the Christians to strongly rejected the Muslim faith as false, but the Christians have followed the same path of developing and collating unauthenticated stories from a variety of sources to compile their own unique”Bible”. Your lecture has been enormously enlightening to me!
Watching TH-cam can be depressing, especially the "ancient technologies" and "pyramids are power conductors" malarkey. But then I watch this. There is hope.
I really resonate with his final remark, the current discussion is to much on an academic level. As I have been tought in school by my teacher is , don’t believe anything I say but go out and find out for yourself
Very insightful! I agree. People must find their path inwardly. The Gnostics understood. Use experience as your guide. The error lies in trusting the outward. The guidance is inward.
I agree, at least to the extent that I am not going to believe any theology just because of peer pressure or because of what some ancient book says. I figure that if there is anything that God wants me to know, then he can tell me himself.
@@george5120 God, within you, is always speaking. The individual is often not attuned, not able to hear. In silence, inward silence, you will hear. God is like a television set within you, if I may use so crude an example. Although it is turned off, the broadcasting of insights and wisdom is always available when you turn it on ----- that is, when you are connected to the source through the consistent practice of inner silence.
Idk why i watch this so much. There's maybe ten or twenty videos that i usually listen to or watch while I'm relaxing and getting ready for bed. This happens to be one of those videos
There is Carrier, then there is everyone else. I wish he was around when I was in second year theological college, it took 5 years to realise the bs I was taught. He would have convinced me in an hour.
Wow. I am amazed at some of the conclusions Carrier makes in the last few minutes: “The Bible doesn’t speak to people so well any more. In fact, Jesus is kind of a dick” “Fiction has replaced the Bible for many people - Star Trek, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones - for creating a moral worldview” “In ancient times, Philosophy replaced Religion as a rational alternative to the (superstitious) worldview. However today Philosophy is seen as abstract and not relevant to everyday problems. It would be great if Philosophy were to be reinvigorated as an active cultural discussion about a moral worldview” “Political belief for many has replaced religion” (He doesn’t mention the Trump Cult, but that’s the biggie obv) I could listen to Richard Carrier talk forever.
@Jeffrey Janzer isn't that's what you're doing? Notice how Carrier shows no primary sources to back up his claims, just a bunch of hypothesis. The Bible on the other hand has historians, archaeologists and scholars who agree that the Bible is legit. Notice he's the only one making these arguments with no proof whatsoever. The only people who want to jump on the Carrier bandwagon are those who made up their minds from start to reject Jesus Christ. That's cognitive bais.
@@danamurphy5241 Dr. Randel Helms, professor at Arizona State University: "The Gospels are, indeed-and to a much greater degree than those who read them with pious inattention even begin to realize-imaginative literature, fiction, and critics have been using such terms about them for a long time." Gospel Fictions, pg 11, www.amazon.com/Gospel-Fictions-Randel-Helms/dp/0879755725
@@danamurphy5241 Dr. Alvar Ellegård, Professor at the University of Gothenburg, "the Jesus of the Gospels is essentially a myth. The Gospels are largely fiction." Theologians as historians, journals.lub.lu.se/index.php/scandia/article/download/1078/863
@@danamurphy5241 Dr. Thomas L. Thompson, professor at the University of Copenhagen: "the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the Gospels never existed." www.amazon.com/Messiah-Myth-Eastern-Roots-Jesus/dp/022406200X
It would be good to include his perspective in some Historical Jesus Course curriculum. Carrier explains why institutions are reluctant to have the conversation in this video. A non historical fictitious person is not going to garner financial support/funding or an institutional position. Imagine how even the consideration of this idea would impact the religious coffers. Carrier believes that philosophy would be able to replace religious dogma. We partially disagree. Some people may be more driven by experiences, feeling or sense of communal belonging. This may be as important as an individual rationalized guiding principle. I find it interesting in my brief experience that most atheist or non theist conferences/discussions are predominantly attended by men.
Excellent Richard! This is very informative and brilliantly expressed on such a maze of tampered and obscured information. And your summary of philosophy as the best way for people, I hope eventually does replace religion, but we have a very long way to go with all the various motives to keep some or all of religion alive. The very complexity caused by centuries of loss and medleing from so many involved in various changes make this topic avoided by those who don't even want to try and understand it, but there are still MANY who want to know, and you are in my mind the new front runner of truth on this subject.
Richard is a mangina, your very close to existential penetration. Aristotle's argument is this: In a substantial change, such as the generation or corruption of an organism, there is a movement between contraries, say from being alive to being dead. Logically, the initial form, the actuality of being alive, cannot explain dying, nor can the final form, a corrupt body, because it is not yet present. Only _hyle_ is left to explain the change. Thus, _hyle_ actively tends to generate or corrupt forms. _Hyle,_ with its intrinsic, _active_ tendencies toward form, is not Plato's _chora,_ waiting passively for a form to be impressed into it, as a seal into wax. Still, Hugh R. King argues that Simplicius and other Neoplationists conflated Aristotle's _hyle_ with Plato's Nurse of All Becoming.47 Scholastic Version. Scholastic hylomorphism48 was received via these Neoplatonists. Consequently, it grafted Aristotle's theory of change onto Platonic rootstock. In it, _substantial forms_ are the _sole_ source of activity and intelligibility in bodies. Forms embody Neoplatonic divine exemplars rather than Plato's subsisting Ideas, but otherwise theory is straight out of the _Timaeus._ Substantial forms are instantiated in prime matter,49 which, like _chora,_ is a _purely passive potency bearing no intelligibility._ Still, Scholastic hylomorphism has one great advantage over the Cartesian dualism that replaced it. It solves the mind-body problem, or rather the mind-body problem never arises. If we put the Scholastic idea of form into modern terms, the form or soul is the law of the body.50 It specifies, as do modern laws of motion, the operations of the body. Just as electrons are inseparable from the laws of quantum electrodynamics, so the body is inseparable from the soul, as its law of operation. When we think of the souls as laws of operation instead of incorporeal substances (res cogitans), the mind-body problem never arises. Nevertheless, Scholastic hylomorphism is problematic. First, the idea of Divine exemplars is untenable because God has no need in simplifying abstractions. Second, the unintelligibility of prime matter raises difficulties: (1) How can we know prime matter if it has no intelligibility? (2) How can something unintelligible function as a principle of _explanation?_ N. Lobkowski asks: How can a purely potential substratum which has no determination whatsoever, no existence of its own, account for continuity of change? If potency has its existence from form, whenever form disappears, whatever accounts for the existence of potency will disappear too.51 These problems make Scholastic hylomorphism logically incoherent, but they seem to have passed unnoticed until recently. These weaknesses of Scholastic hylomorphism are not in Aristotle's version. It has neither substantial Ideas nor Divine exemplars. His _hyle_ is not radically unintelligible, but has determinate tendencies observable in their fruition. In living things, these tendencies are normally subordinated to the organism's integrity, form or actuality. Still, _hyle_ has an independent agenda that may lead to the organism's death. For example, in mammals hydraulic laws controlling the circulation of blood are subordinated to the good of the organism. Yet, they also have an agenda that can cause the organism to bleed to death. The relevance here is that _Aristotle's theory is open to universal laws of nature,_ while the Scholastic theory is not. In the Scholastic version, human's intelligibility is confined to our form or soul, while for Aristotle it is distributed between _psyche_ and _hyle._ In living beings, _hyle's_ tendencies are subordinated to the ends of the organism, but they are continuous from before an organism's generation to after its death. While Aristotle had no inkling of _universal_ laws, _hyle's_ continuing tendencies can be assimilated to universal laws. Scholastic _prima materia_ has no active tendencies explicable by universal laws. 36 _Physis_ derives from the Indo-European FU, whence _fudi,_ to pour out. Aristotle says _physis_ is defined as though pronouncing the upsilon long (Metaphysics iv, 4, 1014b16), uttering _phyo,_ to bring forth. Heidegger (1959), _An Introduction to Metaphysics,_ emphasizes _physis'_ dynamism as a "self-blossoming emergence (e.g. the blossoming of a rose), opening up, unfolding that which manifests itself in such unfolding and perseveres and endures in it....", pp. 11f 37 _Physics_ iv, 3, 209b33 (less specifically I, 9, 191b35); _De Generatione et Corruptione ii, 1, 329a13-23; (also ii,5, 332a34f); _Metaphysics_ xiv, 4,1092a1-2. 38 _De Generatione et Corruptione ii, 1, 329a24f. 39 Driscoll (1979), "The Platonic Ancestry of Primary Substance." 40 Ibid. p. 258 41 Normally called the formal, material, efficient and final causes. 42 _Posterior Analytics_ ii, 11, 94a22, (C. R. G. Mure's Oxford translation.) 43 _Physics_ ii, 3, 195a15ff. 44 E.g., _Metaphysics_ vii, 12, 1038a5. 45 _Physics_ ii, 9, 200a30f: "The necessary in nature, then, is clearly what we call by the name of matter, and the changes in it." _De Partibus Animalium_ i, 1, 639b27-640a8. 46 _Physics_ i,9, 192a14ff (Hope translation). 47 King (1956), "Aristotle without _Prima Materia."_ 48 E.g., Aquinas, _De Principiis Naturae._ 49 William Charlton notes that the "first genuine appearance" of prime matter was among the Stoics. Charlton (1970). _Aristotle's Physics I, II,_ pp. 129-145. 50 This idea is already in Aristotle, _De Anima_ ii, 4, 415b21-3. 51 Comment in McMullin (1963), The Concept of Matter, pp. 100f. God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D. Richard's attempts to do whatever it is he's trying to do, don't ever correspond to anything in reality. The only thing we can know for sure about Richard is that he exists, coif and queefing mangina. You seem triggered by the word "Religion" but it makes him oodles of money. If you understood Richard's religion like my friend and I do, The Physicist's work shown here, then you'd know why he's not triggered by it, he deceives people like you claiming "I don't have any religion, I don't have any beliefs, I"m a non-believer." Sure.
Not even close. It is amazing that people who claim they want to learn the Bible will learn it from people who admit they don't believe it. At one point most people on earth didn't believe it could ever rain. Fortunately 8 people believed it could rain, or we wouldn't be here today.
One of my two favorite authors about Christianity. Too bad Ehrman (my other favorite) won't have a debate or at least a discussion with Carrier. That would be really cool.
An excellent presentation about how people can be misled by myths and propaganda for centuries. It makes one ask the question where is humanity headed if facts and truths are kept from the masses?
Thank you. I think critical perspectives on these types of narratives have been around for a while and sometimes in plain site. Greek (rational) philosophers were critical of the belief in gods. Many of the founding fathers of the United States were Deists, not Christians. Thomas Jefferson had his own redacted gospel minus the supernatural activities.
Someone should write that: "Philosophy for the common man". However, it might not spread far in book form. The common man doesn't read books, much less books on philosophy. Most religious people learned about their religion aurally through authority figures: clergy speeches, parents, school, etc. Instead, make the new message a TV or film series with various tie-ins: posters, web and social media, etc. I can't wait to read it!
Actually, Richard identified that we are already doing this through things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings, etc. These really are the modern-day popular philosophies of our time (and, IMO, hold up far stronger than Christianity ever did!).
I like Dr Carrier, he has a good knowledge of history, it all seems very obvious how he explains it. Although brought up to be an obedient christian, I never really believed all the unlikely tales. Regarding taking beliefs and morals from fiction, I had a good friend in London, and he quoted Mr Spock constantly, always made me giggle. Dr Carrier recommends think it out for yourself, straight from Life of Brian. 🙂
I got to where I am politically by examining the things I claim to value and seeing how well they hold up to intense scrutiny. My favorite example is a category of what I consider to be human rights: The things you need to live. I was taught, "He who shall not work, shall not eat." Initially it was phrased to condemn people who couldn't work as well, but a reexamination of it revealed the word "Shall." Okay, so it only refers to people who refuse to work, right? So, the people who don't work because they are disabled, or don't because there isn't any work to be had, should still be fed, right? After all, the expression came from a time long before we ever solved the issue of food availability. Just like that, I was no longer angry about people using welfare. Sure, I could be mad at people abusing the system, but I was able to relax about them and treat them as just part of the cost of making sure people who don't deserve to starve, don't starve. Things carried on for a few years until I was brought to mind of the prison system and how poorly they are run. But at least we feed them, right? We have to. Not feeding them would be cruel. We accidentally acknowledge that even prisoners, those who are under confinement for breaking our laws, shall not be cruelly treated by starvation. If the lowest of the low, those who broke society's rules, still deserve to eat...then doesn't that mean everyone deserves to eat? They deserve to eat because, in the prisoners' case, if you don't feed them they will die, and any sentence becomes a death sentence. But that still means we acknowledge that our lowest humans have the right to that which they need for survival. Suddenly that opened a new sphere, and it's one of a few I dwell in now, and am still exploring, that everything you need to live is a human right. Clean air, water, and food. Shelter. Healthcare. *I say all of this to provide an example of what I think Richard Carrier is talking about when he says that we need the skills to question our worldviews and build our own based on what holds up and what doesn't.* I had help finding my legs here, sort of, in that I did have some exposure to formal logic and debate in high school and college. I had further help from people who didn't realize what they were doing. They thought they were just making conversation to help a slow watch pass faster, by first taking things people said, then taking an almost absurd extreme of them, to see where the break points were. While they weren't talking much about politics, it was still a practice which I carried with me out of the Navy and into civilian life. Yep. I arrived at a leftist worldview in part due to the accidental practice I got of examining worldviews while I and my crewmates were bored on our ship in the Navy, and from the necessity of admitting I was wrong if I was holding to a wrong position, a principle taught and reinforced in logic classes. I graduated a pro-life abstinence-only Christian Reaganite Republican. I am now a godless socialist. Like, an actual socialist, not the farce of state capitalism that is China, nor the lie of authoritarian bureaucracy that was (and still is) Russia. Bernie was my guy in 2016 and 2020, but in truth I want someone to the left of him as well. Anyway, good luck out there. I know I'm two years late to the discussion.
I would give you a fractal of thank yous. I resonate with you in my arrival to become a leftist. Enjoyed your creativity with words, from a linguist and non-religious person, but love me some Buddhism. Good luck out there.
This is why I find it so laughable that “fervent” US Christians are partial to Trump - a man who best approximates Satan from the Gospel - while vilifying Liberals, who are uniformly in favor of the ethical teachings of Jesus. Their “religion” has made them blind rather than elevating them. My father, a hateful racist, remains a fervent Catholic. He is not Christian in any way, except for showing up at Mass on Sundays.
I think a good tool of trying to figure out Christianity’s “origins” would be to look at the groups/sects that came out of Christianity centuries later: Protestantism, Seventh Day Adventists etc....in what I have learned from my own continuing journey through knowledge and self enlightenment, it seems that mass faith movements lose incredible steam after their initial “runs,” not being able to answer key existential questions and falling into mythological stories to maintain power over large human populations. They just reach a point where they are not enough. Fundamentalist movements try to purge and return beliefs - basically “repackaging the old” - in a vain attempt at re-selling the antiquated while relying on new “modern zeal” and “consumer marketing.” Our “god” Now is either a CEO, a Military Autocrat, or a Pit Boss in a casino crossed with a new car salesman or tele-marketer.
I'm only familiar with the basics about Christianity, so a lot of this detail goes over my head. I would need a schematic diagram to follow your explanation. But I do know that in a world where people would sit around a fire at night, any stories would have to be simple and entertaining to engage the audience. Most people couldn't read and write so they would require someone to spread the stories by word. For those religious academics who could read and write, I would imagine writing stories was in itself a new and exciting technique. There must have been a lot of experimentation on how you write a story with both language and plot. It would also suggest paper and ink had become available in affordable quantities. The Romans had industrialised the production of paper. Manuscripts would no doubt be traded and some become more popular than others. They would have been in competition with each other. There is also a tint of early socialism embedded within the gospels I've heard of. But fundamentally, it all based upon the ancient ceremony of human sacrifice to appease the gods.
Thank you for the insightful comments! Carrier argues that Christianity, like most religions, was shaped by a highly educated elite. The Gospels and letters are composites influenced by Homer, Greek and Roman hero motifs, Stoicism, Hellenism, Dionysus, Jewish mysticism, and Platonism, among others, making it a syncretic tradition. In its first few centuries, Christianity was notably diverse and inclusive, contributing to its widespread appeal. This spread was further influenced by factors such as the Jewish wars, the displacement of rebels and authorities, the roles of women and slaves, and the invention of the codex (bound pages). I differ slightly from Carrier in that I believe Christianity did not originate from a specific individual but rather emerged as a broader movement that spread throughout Greece and the Jewish diaspora.
Being this specialized in a subject takes years and years of devoted scholarship in a narrow field. Reading helps but can't necessarily provide the natural recollection and synthesis of info that Carrier has
@@davidjackson6152 - So says an idiot. How many times have you read the Bible? Have you studied it? Do you have a PhD in early history? Do you have a degree at all? But he is the idiot?! Right.
Average intelligence, lots of experience and research. Other people could be in his shoes. I love his work, but he’s not exceptionally smart, just learned.
This was excellent. Got more out of this interview than from Ehrman's "How Jezus became god" (still, probably worth reading though). Thank you dr Carrier.
I haven’t read all the comments here so others may have already asked these questions. My apologies if these questions are a repeat. Anyway. Who might have written Mark? One guy or several writers editing each other? Did he or they believe in what they were selling or was it all for literary artistry. In others words, how was he or they benefiting personally coming up with work?
That was a very thoughtful inquiry. There is no author or authors subscribed to the Gospels as the moniker happened at a much later date. Carrier and other scholars believe the narrative was written by one person. This could have been a gospel of the Essenes. This could have been a gospel narrative that is expressing or commenting about the war at the time. This could have been influenced by Roman occupation to write a gospel that would pacify the Jewish rebellion. The gospel of Mark was written in the language of Homer....like a play. I believe the gospels which were written in the heat of the battle between the Romans and the Jews was a commentary about the war. A mixture of teaching and a bit of censoring. It would have benefited those who did not agree with the Jewish rebellion.
@@davidlanzillotti4441 I would say the loss of the war, the fall of the Temple and persecution of Jewish practices in the 1st century had major influence on the synoptic gospels and the expansion of early Christianity. However John’s gospel and Paul’s letters alone could have offered a different theological fate. My inclination and research has led me to posit that proto-Christianity was well established before the synoptic gospels. When the war ended those writers imposed more meaning and narrative on why the rebellion failed and offered another interpretation.
@@11thstory Can you speculate at all what alternative theological fates the gospels or Paul’s letter might have been formulated if the Jews had won the war?Would a dying and rising savior figure have still been the main focus?
@@davidlanzillotti4441 In the case of Paul, it would be the continuation of Jewish Hellenism and the unification of Jews and Greeks as one body of believers and a return to the Garden experience and understanding. I think what tied both Pauls’ writings, the gospels as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls was this idea or experience of returning back to the Garden. The Essenes had a take on it. I think the NT was a strong commentary and take on what that means. The book of Revelation does a good job on this synopsis and interpretation. Much to unpack here that should be done by a series of videos. In some ways the gospels were an anti-Messianic message and response to the suffering.
Long before you were born, people like you had been written by Paul. He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
They should teach rationality but they won't because it will destroy religions, look at Europe we do teach rationality in school and we've abandoned Christianity.
Imo, a movement among certain followers of Judaism, emerged during a period of upheaval when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE. This event left many Jewish believers searching for answers. During this time, Jewish "zealots" or "nationalists" engaged in a prolonged conflict with the Romans, waging a war across Palestine from 66 CE to 130 CE. The conflict ultimately resulted in the expulsion of Jews from Judea by the Romans. According to the Roman historian Josephus, Jews were subjected to torture for adhering to their practices. Ironically, Christianity, which emerged in this context, also distanced itself from Jewish customs. The narratives in the Gospels primarily depict a figure sent to the Jews to warn them of impending destruction, admonishing them for their failure to understand their own scriptures, which led to their downfall. Jesus is portrayed as being friendly toward the Romans and untroubled by violating Sabbath traditions. Much of the Gospels center around confrontations between Jesus and the Pharisees or Sadducees, as well as his corrections of his followers' misunderstandings. Jesus embodies both mythic and historical elements drawn from Greek, Roman, and Jewish traditions. He represents a synthesis of ideas and characters that would have resonated with people during the 1st century Roman-Jewish war.
This was gold. Now all I need is a debate between this awesome dude and some other pro-historicity atheist and I'll be settled on the matter. About the question of philosophy as a substitute to religion, that would only get rid of the tradition crap while keeping an unnecessary spiritual drive. As a scientist it feels to me like we should also get rid of that spirituality/mysticism. Why can't we all be humans that accept the truth of our mortality and stop the futile searches for a meaning of life? And as for the religious morality and whose philosophical equivalent is ethics, science tells us there isn't an absolute one. But that's ok too, we don't need absolute ethics either, we can just decide as humans, independent from religious or scholars, what we think is good or not. That's what democracy is supposed to be after all. We could all realize for instance that if we're all being selfish dicks, life is going to be hell, so we make laws and social ethic codes that ban those behaviours and we're set. We don't need religions nor philosophy, we need science aka the truth, because the truth, yes it hurts, but it's amazing... I wouldn't give up my knowledge of anything even for the greatest of spiritual comforts.
You might like the Science of Consciousness, which seems to be where the religious/spiritual debate is heading. You might find interesting.... www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is?
As much as I do enjoy listening to Dr Carrier discuss the subjects he's an expert in, MY GOD MAN! The word "Ancient" does not have a "G" in it! It drives me up the walls!
@Stacy Caruso The truth: Jesus is a character in a book of debunked ancient fairy tales who tricked gullible believers into killing themselves: "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools think fairy tales are real? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html
You're missing the key question after your final point, Dr. Carrier. I agree that philosophy is what replaces religion, but the key question then becomes: "Why is religion so attractive to people, and philosophy isn't?" It's because religion gives something philosophy doesn't, something essential that everyone desperately wants but very few actually have. Intimacy. Closeness. Love. However you want to call it, the belief in an omnipresent God has an amazing advantage of a perfect lover for anyone, something philosophy doesn't offer to the average person. You can get that kind of intimacy from philosophy if you go deep enough and realize how you're connected to everything through actions and consequences, but it's not the same as just telling someone that the greatest Being in the Universe knows everything about them and loves them deeply despite everything (and might help you avoid death). A whole lot of people can't even get love from their own families, and while it may be a delusion, you know a belief in the love of a God has comforted an uncountable number of people through some horrible times. This is why religion, specifically the Abrahamic religion, is so strong, and will probably not go away until the entire species undergoes a collective maturation, whatever form that takes.
We are thinking, feeling and sensing beings. Religion just doesn't provide ideas, but ritual and community which may give comfort in difficult times. However, we might be entering a new age of science which may offer a greater experience. I recommend the book "Stealing Fire" for anyone interested in moving beyond religion and philosophy. stealingfirebook.com/
Religion promises an eternal life (although provides no evidence of it) and people really don't want to die. So it has won out over philosophy for some, as philosophy only discusses this life.
For some , maybe mostly older generation, they need a belief in a higher power to get past the pain, to recover from grief. Faith and meaning to help them overcome. But maybe movies in the future will show how characters learn to grieve from and recover from watching or listening to someone's philosophy ?
@William Burns Jesus Christ this is accurate. I love when a writer writes "good, mentoring Janeway" lik in "The Omega Particle", but she really is reckless as hell and an egoist.
@@11thstory in my opinion it is absolutely crucial, as the historical records research is in a class of its own. Richard Carrier needs to be heard by a vast audience.
You've bought into crankery, Nurse Grace. No serious historian doubts the existence of a real-life Jesus - it's the best explanation of the evidence (like Paul writing in the 50s about meeting Jesus' brother James). You really have to twist like crazy and go way against Occam's razor to fall for the notion that Jesus never existed.
Understanding the words coming out of his mouth is freedom. I've been in Christian prison all my life. Thank you. ❤️
Welcome to freedom!
He has no actual proof... he read all books but no proof
@@murielpucoe9213that sums up every religion
@@Nick-Nasti BINGO! Give this winner a Cuban cigar! 👍
@@murielpucoe9213 Are you asking for proof that imaginary beings don't exist? The job of finding proof falls on the one who says something exists, all we can do is point out all of your hypocracy and tear all of your stories apart and show their nonesense.
All the questions I've had that no Christian could ever answer for me, I now have answers. Looking at Christianity as history makes no sense. But when you look at actual history, the influence of other religions and the evolution of Christianity, it makes perfect sense when you see it for what it truly is...a manmade construct. I'm glad there are people like Dr. Carrier and Dr. Price that tell the truth about religion. Thanks for posting this.
If Jesus was crucified, he existed and since we know he was crucified he obviously existed and all those who say he didnt exist are just wrong.
Bart Erhman
Atheists have done themselves a big disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. It makes you look foolish.
Bart Erhman
Price and Carrier fall under here. Take it from Bart😂
@@koppite9600 good reply 👏
He lied about most of the history that was told here, so your gullibility to change your entire world view over one little kid on youtube is even more fascinating to me than anything else.
Saying he existed and was crucified is one thing. However, saying he was a demi-god, and resurrected are two completely different claims. You would need to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was both “divine” and resurrected. Believers bridge that gap whilst simultaneously dismissing other claims of dying and rising god(s) claims. 🤦🏼♂️
@@koppite9600wow, since you said they are wrong it must be true
😂
Both of those scholars know more about the Bible than you and your entire church combined.
This man, Dr Carrier, has given me an explanation, to questions I have asked, my parents, and priests, since I was 12yo. As to the Christian religion, and where it came from. As science show us how old the earth is, the known universe, Dinosaurs, Evolution etc. So I have never really believed, and was puzzled as to why, every Sunday, my family did the exact same thing, but nothing changed, other than growing older, leaving school, working etc. And the years when by. Now I am in my late fifties, and have an understanding as to where this thing called Christianity comes from. It appears to fit in with the ' Flat Earth myth ' , which makes sense.
Watching his lecture freed me from religion. I no longer think there is a Jesus watching my every step as the whole thing seems like a pyramid scam. It's always felt like one because prayers rarely work and could be explained by biological processes and people's compassion. It's one of the biggest scams in human history and it needs to be exposed.
@@CellGames2006 I feel sorry for those early Christians who were willing to die for someone that's just a myth. They never saw Jesus cure the sick, or feed the hungry...it was all fiction written by four evangelists who all connived to write about this mythological man. They're just all crazy wanting to die for someone they haven't seen before.
The thing he really drove home is that the Greek culture influenced all religions around the Mediterranean.How liberating is that?
@@tikbalang9245 I think there is some power in faith and could be something beautiful, but also can bring the worst in someone who is not very critic when they make choices
Dr Carrier you’re the best thank you !
Wow! This was the equivalent of a semester of class. Thank you Dr. Carrier. We need so much more of this. I wish you tons of success.
Glad it was helpful!
If you liked this presentation you should buy the audiobook version of his book “On the Historicity of Jesus” and at the same time buy the paperback version so that you can follow along as Richard reads his own book, then move to “proving history” and do the same thing, and then do the same thing with “Hitler Homer Bible Christ” just those 3 books are over 54 hours, and 1464 pages of material, and those numbers don’t cover reading his blog, articles or chasing down the offshoots his work introduces you to and that you just have to chase to find the answer.
@@rexrambo7686 to each their own some people like to chase scholarship and some don’t, there is so much more to Rick’s work than just discussing the existence of the supposed progenitor of a religion that pushes hate, bigotry, and beliefs that are wholly in consistent with reality. His class series on the New Testament through Derek’s platform is also incredible, but just his “Proving History” work is worth reading as a standalone work without even considering the Historicity of Jesus, but on how to examine history properly, personally it has played a roll in my life as a professional genealogist, after reading it I now look at the facts and stories we compile and prove for families in a different light it really improves your level of discernment and critical thinking.
@@Pym1975he doesn’t know how to examine history properly
@@michaelbrickley2443can you please provide a justifying supporting statement?
I’d love to be there when the Mormons come to his doorstep.
Same!
Omg so would I! He'd destroy them!👊
@@Sammy_shammy24 no we will prove he is a fraud.
@@henochparks Who will? Members of any Abrahamic-god based zombie rabbi death cult would be crushed if they attempted to debate someone who knows significantly more about their idiotic beliefs than they will EVER know. Don't be so pathetically antagonistic and foolish.
They would just agree that the nt has issues and say "well that's why you need the book of Mormon"
I feel bombarded by 10 hours worth of material in 40 minutes
We have the chapter/topic links in the description for navigation and review. Thanks for watching!
Yeah I gotta read his books now 😂
What makes Dr. Carrier credible is his acknowledgement that humans have commonalities consistent over centuries. When one reflects on the limits of formal education, communication, and common knowledge at the time, the gospels were 'crafted' and 're-crafted' to explain what could not be easily understood and explained. Factor in the human need for some to seen as important and knowledgeable, and things start to make sense. Thanks for sharing the video excerpts.
Best video on the earliest history of Christianity I've ever seen. Clear and concise. I've read several of his books but still learned stuff here.
Thank you! We hope to dig a bit deeper with more videos this year.
Hey, check out some research by Paula Fredriksen; she is not a bad storyteller and draws a vivid picture of the Mediteranian worldview in the context of Paul!
Huge fan of this bloke. His arguments are so logical and clear
it's so ironic that Carrier as an "outsider" has more "insider" knowledge of the mysteries that the gospels purport to hide than the actual insiders who actually look at the texts as is expected of the outsiders
Religion makes one perceive themself as knowledgeable, intelligent for no reason other than superstitious intuition.
@@drbeavis4211 ironically, atheism does precisely the same thing.
Atheism is focused on objective reality, not myth. Now one can make an argument that objective reality is an allusion. I disagree partially with that assumption. We have a sensory experience. All I can say is that the input of our sensory experience is a true experience based on my sensory experience.
@@MGR1900 everybody thinks they're smarter than at least a significant portion of the human population
Are you kidding? Carrier is the equivalent of a flat earther.
This guy deserves a Nobel Prize.
Damn. This was the best two hours of my time I’ve used in a long time. Why two hours? Because I watched it twice. The last several minutes were spot-on!
Gotta watch them every now again. Every piece is gold. Just to celebrate Christmas I watched "Why I think Jesus didn't exist" yet again.
I have to agree with you. It has been so educational for me that I had to watch it two times as well.
It really pulled it together on how many religions localized core ideas in mystic religions to each create something unique that they could claim as their own. We each create our own stories but the Jews, Mormons, Witnesses, Christians and Muslims did it on a grand scale.
I can see the whole puzzle much more clearly now. Wow, that was helpful.
He does such a good job explaining all this. I love it that he takes the time and makes the effort to share his knowledge.
he is amazing actually because I'm an unknown writing a book that includes construction of religions and science that proves the supernatural wasn't required for everything that exists, and Dr. Carrier took time to help me with the Pliny letters to Trajan. His personal effort for me was a surprise when I can't even get the time of day from much lesser in the field of refuting religion, like bloggers with only 20,000 followewrs.
He lied about q, mark goodacre is one of the only scholars who denies the existence of the q document
@@gabepearson6104 What was his lie?
Hopefully someday you'll listen to someone who is actually knowledgeable in the gospels. This guy just makes up connections that don't really exist.
"Good job [?]...
120k subs [can't all be wrong]"
Truth is, and history isn't, a numbers game. Carrier articulates how it can be the other way around.
Phenomenal. Thank you.
Glad you liked it!
I love Richard.......Very knowledgeable and highly intelligent.
.
Richard carrier is brilliant, thanks again, DUDE master of history.....
This is fabulous. Dr Carrier at the end explains exactly what we need to do now that we live in the post-Christian age. Phenomenal talk.
Really breathtaking, how much it brought everything together for me.
I think Friedrich Nietzsche might have liked him too.😊
This video needs to be on everybody‘s list. (I hope the algorithm agrees.)
This is the single most thought provoking video that I watched in a long, long time: especially the end.
I binged Richard Carrier yesterday, and I love his Mythical Jesus, but here he is speaking a universal truth: people need to more consciously construct their world view. It is way too circumstantial: depends on where you grow up, who your teachers are, what books you find at the book store, nowadays what videos the algorithm suggests. - How is pedagogy the most important thing I never thought about? - Oh, I get it: I am not a father, thus I am still a kid myself, despite nearing 50 years. - Well, maybe that’s another circumstance.
We appreciate your sentiment! May the Algorithm be with you!
I love how Carrier is both brilliant and outspoken. He helped me leave religion behind and I believe it is for the better
Thank you Dr carrier for all the great work you have done
This video needs 8 billion views
Very unlikely
It really needs more views.
Coming to terms with admitting that the dominant world views that have grown in popularity / population size / spread and dogmatic depth over the centuries were even originally creatively crafted / invented by humans in the first place. That the only „revelation“ there ever was, was men’s thoughts „revealing“ themselves by appearing in their minds, is in itself a trivial but world shattering revelation for me right now as I type this.
While every now and then there have been genuine new ideas, of course the process also includes a lot of regurgitating and chewing of old problems and solutions, simply because we can’t escape the human condition; we have grown up with stories, were implicitly and explicitly taught by our parents and teachers and peers and culture in general. - Grasping ownership of your very own world view seems like a logical step in intellectual and emotional development. How come that this never occurred to me as a task? That I was accepting all the circumstance of the building of my own mind, without asking too many questions? That I was ok with growing, instead of building / constructing? What could be more important than self-authorship and the building of your own mind? How come I just accepted that I was soaking up ideas and just went with whatever sticked / seemed appropriate? - Shouldn’t there be a process for building minds? Pedagogy should be a solved field after so many millennia? - I‘ve been watching a lot of Joscha Bach over the years: learning to build a mind from the ground up, as he is introspecting and helping invent / create AI. - Why did it never occur to me, that I was attracted to his talks, because my own mind tried to awaken itself into self-authorship? - I was always more fascinated (like Sam Harris) with the idea of things just happening (Free Will as an epiphenomenon), with the laws of the universe, than with the idea of self-made-men and agency. That the only thing one can truly change, is perspective. That form follows function, that the world is built from the ground layer up. - Why did it take me almost 50 years to recognize the importance of agency, of creativity, of self-authorship? - The thing why revolutions don’t happen at a personal and societal level is not, because the situation isn’t bad enough / wouldn’t warrant it, but that the base layer of self empowerment hasn’t been taught sufficiently.
When Joscha Bach talks about „getting access to the room with the cookies“ in your mind (= the dopaminergic reward system in your brain) only being the first step, but as an adult you should learn to only reward yourself with cookies for eating your salad, I always knew that I hadn’t even found the key to that room yet, not even talking about the salad. I suspected that I had so few „Eureka“ / revelation moments in my life, because evolution deemed it to be counter productive and found it only appropriate for people in their teens. - Yet it never occurred to me, that key is laying there openly, that one only has to realize it and grasp for it. - Has anything changed today? Have I truly grasped what it means to set my own values, twiddle my knobs not from where they are, but from where I want them to be? Has it become easier to kick myself in the ass now? Did I learn to fly? - Maybe „defying gravity“ is not just a good song, but a life lesson, that I am only now beginning to grasp.
Thanks for educating Theists about their own religion.
You might not realize this but most scholars laugh at Carrier.
@@Entropy3ko You mean, most "biblical scholars". And that would be because... most biblical scholars are christian, and are terrified of what Carrier has to say.
They laugh at him but they won't debate him
Came across a site called www.doesgodexistandbeyond.com/ looks at faith with Reason, Logic and Primary Evidences. Has some very interesting information about non biblical sources on the resurrection accounts that's not well known. Worth a read if anyone's interested.
Entropy3ko That is because they have not read his books or listened to his talks. They have only “heard” he is a Jesus mythicist, and write him off. Jesus mythicism is only a portion of his entire content. Further, he does not assert that a historical Jesus was an impossibility. However, the supernatural, demi-god Jesus of the gospels certainly is a myth. That is definitely the “mythicization” of a possible historical figure.
Bart Erhman must oppose Carrier, because he would lose his job at Chapel Hill, otherwise.
Another excellent breakdown. You are a gifted communicator. You have done a great job finding the right puzzle board for all these puzzle pieces that generations of scholars and we masses have been stumbling over for generations. Thanks you for a gambit at clarity on these important issues.
Glad it was helpful!
Always enjoyed Dr. Carrier's work. Was suprised to learn his view on the Q/Quelle/source. The overview was incredible. The sequence of events and knowledge on the subject of the history of the gospels, was definitely packed with valuable info. Thank you!
He wasn't wrong when he said the field was either filled with bias or Amateurs back in 2012. His ground work will lay the foundation for the future of rigorous fact checking of accepted authority.
LOL let me guess; you're often taken for a ride?
@ There is very good evidence that you live in a brainwashed delusional fantasy world.
tell me this guy isnt a doctor
Sons of Thunder he actually knows what he is talking about unlike ppl like u.
I think Richard Carrier is a refreshing breath of fresh air.
Richard Carrier is so articulate and well reasoned. You can immediately see the difference compared to an emotional idealogue.
Well reasoned? The guy is nuts.
At 4:14 he makes up a convo with Carro and they come up with a conclusion.
At 21:00 when talking about Mark he becomes a psychic .. he automatically knows Mark is rewriting Moses.
@@koppite9600 You must think of yourself as much more knowledge.
Spot on, assassin2a978! 😊
Carrier, a treasure trove of information.. He needs to do more debates, to expose more unsettled or doubtful assumptions about history... Seems Apologists and Historians alike fear a confrontation with him.
they hate him because they can do nothing but appeal to authority against him. And he's fact checked every authority they appeal to. lol
fear
He's a globe-earther in a flat-earth world. Very likely that people will look back at him as not a visionary but a brave iconoclast since he's not really saying much that is new, it's just that he's one of the first scholars willing to say what many before said behind closed doors.
Reasonable Speculation sadly I can’t remember who pointed it out but his talk here reminds me of someone who simply said ‘Jesus was a Jew, preaching Judaism to Jews.’ This fact has been obliterated by current Christianity in which we are persuaded that Jesus was preaching something entirely different.
@@jckensway2956 I can't remember who said it either, but I agree. Jesus can't have been a Christian, Christianity began after him.
I love listening to Dr Carrier articulate his knowledge on the subject. He has definitely done his homework and an expert in his field. He is so much easier to understand as opposed to the confusing explanations from the various apologists. I've tried several times to listen and see if the apologists can give an understandable scholarly response. I think actual research material to support their beliefs are very limited so the apologist's argument becomes bogged down in semantics.
Thanks for sharing!
Carrier’s work is crucial to biblical criticism and I enjoy his work. I do not arrive at the same conclusion for every point, but his perspective is vital for arriving at the truth.
I agree with you. We provided the interview because it adds to the larger discussion on the historicity issue as well as context. Thank you for checking it out.
Great video, I could listen to him talk about this for hours.
This is real knowledge keep going Richard thankyou
I never get tried or bored listening to Richard Carrier's ideas. He makes complete sense.. especially is a backdrops of Joseph Campbell's & Alan Watts' theoretical concepts of religion.
You should know he is weak because he cannot be falsified. He will always have a likely answer to any question. He controls what he knows
@@koppite9600I hear all the aspiration in your voice. Good luck!
This is an amazing interview. The first ~2/3 is interesting in a historical sense, but the last 20 or so minutes where he talks about the push-back from the entrenched status quo and its chilling effect on honest scholarship and the pursuit of truth really gives perspective and a sense of outside objectivity that is exceedingly rare in society at large or at all in popular culture.
I was also pleased to see him mention how fiction has been taking the place of faithfully (naively) believed religious dogmatic scripture. The messages and the *quality* and *honesty* of Hollywood movies and popular books is extremely important.
And then he goes even further to expound upon how our mode of thinking is based on religious dogmas that have taken the place of attempts at evidence-based classical philosophical structures.
I have a pretty low opinion of pure philosophy, but when used in the sense of empirically-informed philosophy of science, it's a vital part of humans comprehending the world and making informed rather than arbitrary dogmatic moralistic decisions.
There is some accessible philosophy, try A. C. Grayling.
What is he saying, that everyone should learn to think morally like Jean-Luc Picard...?
Carrier admits plenty of uncertainty about the origins of Christianity and the Gospels.
Christians, however, admit no uncertainty about these things (although they often disagree among themselves about them).
Even the Gospels have plenty of uncertainty about the origin of Christianity, assuming that Christianity begins with the birth of Jesus. According to _Matthew_ 2:14, after the birth of Jesus, Joseph "took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt." I.e., to escape the wrath of Herod (who died 4 BCE), Joseph & family left Bethlehem to the *southwest,* to Egypt.
But according to _Luke_ 2:22, after the birth and circumcision of Jesus, the family left Bethlehem to the *northeast,* to go to Jerusalem. In Jerusalem they walked right past the king's palace, to get to the Temple and make the required blood sacrifice for a first-born male child.
So, which is correct? Exit Bethlehem to the southwest or northeast? Those are exactly opposite directions. Flee the king of Judaea or walk right past his fortress?
Clearly the 'inspiration' of an all-powerful god is not all it's cracked up to be. Or, as Carrier proposes, the Gospels are just stories; historical fiction created decades after the purported events by fallible human authors, working with nothing but their own imaginations and the knowledge of other Ancient Greek stories.
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.” - Bertrand Russell
@@broddr:
I'll concede your point about leaving Bethlehem in two different directions, but you like so many atheists are confused when it comes to the direction of the Gospels influence.
Matthew may not have written an accurate history of the life of Jesus, if that was really his intention, but his influence wasn't Greek but Hebrew.
His declarations about the deity and christology of Jesus is rooted in the Exodus, and the Law and the Prophets.
Luke's influence is rooted in 1st and 2nd Samuel and the book of Daniel.
Drop the Greek influences idea. It doesn't work, not even with the mythology.
@Allington Marakan -Doesn't your dumb ass realize Tim W is replying to a comment and not to the actual video by Carrier?
@Allington Marakan hahaha people who believe Carrier are gullible. 99.9% of all real scholars condemn his theories.
How can we get this guy on the Sam Harris Podcast?
We will try! We just interviewed Sam a couple of weeks ago. shepherdexpress.com/arts-and-entertainment/books/a-human-conversation-with-author-sam-harris/
I love listening to both of them, but I doubt they would have an interesting discussion because they do not have much to disagree about.
Hi@@dbz1978Howard, I have read about 90% of what Carrier has published and maybe 80% of Sam. And nearly every time Sam's trajectory moves towards the Historical and Biblical I cringe. Sam would do so much better in discussions if he could load Carrier's Bayesian Jesus info. It's like a biologist debating a creationist but the biologist doesn't know about DNA. Here is an example, imagine Josephus come up, wouldn't it be nice if Sam knew the entire Testimonium of Josephus is a near perfect noun and verb paraphrase from Luke 24:19-21.
@@dbz1978 wow...wrong...totally WRONG... Dr. Carrier and Dr. Harris are complete opposites in regards to political leanings... Harris is a non-liberal, non-SJW Atheist and Carrier is a 100% Liberal, 100% SJW, 100% Feminist Anita Sarkeesian worshiping atheist...
@@sailure1 Sam Harris cares strongly about democracy, climate change, scientific thinking. He diverges from many of today's liberals in his criticism of Islam, and especially of Islamists - those Muslims who would impose their religion on others. Harris is critical of Christianity too. His small book 'Letter to a Christian Nation' leaves no doubt of that.
Your explaining of the Hellenistic culture and mystery religions, the basic shell, eventually taken up by the Jews who called it their own was extremely helpful to me in understanding the picture.
Each religion internalized their practises as self-discovered, leading to professing as the only authentic religion, stigmatizing other religions. This is why they have totally rejected the Mormons, Muslims, etc.
I’ve always wondered why the Christians to strongly rejected the Muslim faith as false, but the Christians have followed the same path of developing and collating unauthenticated stories from a variety of sources to compile their own unique”Bible”.
Your lecture has been enormously enlightening to me!
Watching TH-cam can be depressing, especially the "ancient technologies" and "pyramids are power conductors" malarkey.
But then I watch this. There is hope.
SurfK9
this was "top dog". There is hope but not enough time to fond the cream
of the internet.
What do you want the pyramids to be?
I really resonate with his final remark, the current discussion is to much on an academic level. As I have been tought in school by my teacher is , don’t believe anything I say but go out and find out for yourself
If we could put Richard Carrier together with Ken Burns, the documentary filmmaker. Create a film with these ideas and air it on PBS TV.
You would discover Carrier is a fraud.
@@henochparks Carrier is a fraud? Really? How so?
Ken Burns has alluded to being a Christian. I think he'd do a documentary on Christianity before dealing with Dr. Carrier
@@Brammy007a Carrier is a beast!
@@henochparksSomeone asked you to back up your assertion - two years ago. Still nothing? 😢
Brilliant! Mark's gospel is West Side Story! Love it
Wow great scholarship and relevant advice at the end.
This is just so amazing, best one of Richards.
LOVE your work incredible brilliant mind shaking. ......
Great talk. The ending observations are specially relevant.
Very insightful!
I agree. People must find their path inwardly. The Gnostics understood. Use experience as your guide. The error lies in trusting the outward. The guidance is inward.
I agree, at least to the extent that I am not going to believe any theology just because of peer pressure or because of what some ancient book says. I figure that if there is anything that God wants me to know, then he can tell me himself.
@@george5120 God, within you, is always speaking. The individual is often not attuned, not able to hear. In silence, inward silence, you will hear.
God is like a television set within you, if I may use so crude an example. Although it is turned off, the broadcasting of insights and wisdom is always available when you turn it on ----- that is, when you are connected to the source through the consistent practice of inner silence.
@@mikeq5807 Oh, shut up. You said that just to harass me.
@@mikeq5807That's poetic, but there's really no god necessary. However, feel free to call it whatever you like! 😊
Idk why i watch this so much. There's maybe ten or twenty videos that i usually listen to or watch while I'm relaxing and getting ready for bed. This happens to be one of those videos
We appreciate the return visit! Lot's to absorb.
There is Carrier, then there is everyone else. I wish he was around when I was in second year theological college, it took 5 years to realise the bs I was taught. He would have convinced me in an hour.
@@ΚωνσταντινοςΠαναγοπουλος-υ7τ what are you on about?
@@ΚωνσταντινοςΠαναγοπουλος-υ7τ Are they ever
Richard Carrier is an excellent scholar! Amazing.
Wow. I am amazed at some of the conclusions Carrier makes in the last few minutes:
“The Bible doesn’t speak to people so well any more. In fact, Jesus is kind of a dick”
“Fiction has replaced the Bible for many people - Star Trek, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones - for creating a moral worldview”
“In ancient times, Philosophy replaced Religion as a rational alternative to the (superstitious) worldview. However today Philosophy is seen as abstract and not relevant to everyday problems. It would be great if Philosophy were to be reinvigorated as an active cultural discussion about a moral worldview”
“Political belief for many has replaced religion” (He doesn’t mention the Trump Cult, but that’s the biggie obv)
I could listen to Richard Carrier talk forever.
can he even sit in full lotus padmasana?
34:29 "Mark's seven authentic epistles..." Did he mean 'Paul'?
Yes, I'm sure that he mis-spoked.
Great information!
Very good interview. He is right that people need to use the scientific approach to find out what their world picture should be.
Dr. Richard Carrier: making sense of _why_ there's so much nonsense *^_^*
@Stacy Caruso
Entirely
@Jeffrey Janzer isn't that's what you're doing? Notice how Carrier shows no primary sources to back up his claims, just a bunch of hypothesis. The Bible on the other hand has historians, archaeologists and scholars who agree that the Bible is legit. Notice he's the only one making these arguments with no proof whatsoever. The only people who want to jump on the Carrier bandwagon are those who made up their minds from start to reject Jesus Christ. That's cognitive bais.
@@danamurphy5241 Dr. Randel Helms, professor at Arizona State University: "The Gospels are, indeed-and to a much greater degree than those who read them with pious inattention even begin to realize-imaginative literature, fiction, and critics have been using such terms about them for a long time." Gospel Fictions, pg 11, www.amazon.com/Gospel-Fictions-Randel-Helms/dp/0879755725
@@danamurphy5241 Dr. Alvar Ellegård, Professor at the University of Gothenburg, "the Jesus of the Gospels is essentially a myth. The Gospels are largely fiction." Theologians as historians, journals.lub.lu.se/index.php/scandia/article/download/1078/863
@@danamurphy5241 Dr. Thomas L. Thompson, professor at the University of Copenhagen: "the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the Gospels never existed." www.amazon.com/Messiah-Myth-Eastern-Roots-Jesus/dp/022406200X
How do I hit that 'Like' button one hundred times?
Share it with 100 people who you think will Like it! LOL Thank you!
Thanks for sharing.
This should be taught in school
It would be good to include his perspective in some Historical Jesus Course curriculum. Carrier explains why institutions are reluctant to have the conversation in this video. A non historical fictitious person is not going to garner financial support/funding or an institutional position. Imagine how even the consideration of this idea would impact the religious coffers.
Carrier believes that philosophy would be able to replace religious dogma. We partially disagree. Some people may be more driven by experiences, feeling or sense of communal belonging. This may be as important as an individual rationalized guiding principle. I find it interesting in my brief experience that most atheist or non theist conferences/discussions are predominantly attended by men.
It is taught in schools. Only in China , Iraq, Communist countries. Just not in our country. United States.
This makes more sense than historicity.
How ironic that I got an ad for „The Chosen: Jesus TV Show“ while watching Richard Carrier.
Great video. Who arranged and conducted this interview?
Cmon uploader, you liked this comment but didn't answer the question?
Good question. Did you ever get an answer?
Excellent Richard! This is very informative and brilliantly expressed on such a maze of tampered and obscured information. And your summary of philosophy as the best way for people, I hope eventually does replace religion, but we have a very long way to go with all the various motives to keep some or all of religion alive. The very complexity caused by centuries of loss and medleing from so many involved in various changes make this topic avoided by those who don't even want to try and understand it, but there are still MANY who want to know, and you are in my mind the new front runner of truth on this subject.
Richard is a mangina, your very close to existential penetration.
Aristotle's argument is this: In a substantial change, such as the generation or corruption of an organism, there is a movement between contraries, say from being alive to being dead. Logically, the initial form, the actuality of being alive, cannot explain dying, nor can the final form, a corrupt body, because it is not yet present. Only _hyle_ is left to explain the change. Thus, _hyle_ actively tends to generate or corrupt forms.
_Hyle,_ with its intrinsic, _active_ tendencies toward form, is not Plato's _chora,_ waiting passively for a form to be impressed into it, as a seal into wax. Still, Hugh R. King argues that Simplicius and other Neoplationists conflated Aristotle's _hyle_ with Plato's Nurse of All Becoming.47
Scholastic Version. Scholastic hylomorphism48 was received via these Neoplatonists. Consequently, it grafted Aristotle's theory of change onto Platonic rootstock. In it, _substantial forms_ are the _sole_ source of activity and intelligibility in bodies. Forms embody Neoplatonic divine exemplars rather than Plato's subsisting Ideas, but otherwise theory is straight out of the _Timaeus._ Substantial forms are instantiated in prime matter,49 which, like _chora,_ is a _purely passive potency bearing no intelligibility._
Still, Scholastic hylomorphism has one great advantage over the Cartesian dualism that replaced it. It solves the mind-body problem, or rather the mind-body problem never arises. If we put the Scholastic idea of form into modern terms, the form or soul is the law of the body.50 It specifies, as do modern laws of motion, the operations of the body. Just as electrons are inseparable from the laws of quantum electrodynamics, so the body is inseparable from the soul, as its law of operation. When we think of the souls as laws of operation instead of incorporeal substances (res cogitans), the mind-body problem never arises.
Nevertheless, Scholastic hylomorphism is problematic. First, the idea of Divine exemplars is untenable because God has no need in simplifying abstractions. Second, the unintelligibility of prime matter raises difficulties: (1) How can we know prime matter if it has no intelligibility? (2) How can something unintelligible function as a principle of _explanation?_ N. Lobkowski asks:
How can a purely potential substratum which has no determination whatsoever, no existence of its own, account for continuity of change? If potency has its existence from form, whenever form disappears, whatever accounts for the existence of potency will disappear too.51
These problems make Scholastic hylomorphism logically incoherent, but they seem to have passed unnoticed until recently.
These weaknesses of Scholastic hylomorphism are not in Aristotle's version. It has neither substantial Ideas nor Divine exemplars. His _hyle_ is not radically unintelligible, but has determinate tendencies observable in their fruition. In living things, these tendencies are normally subordinated to the organism's integrity, form or actuality. Still, _hyle_ has an independent agenda that may lead to the organism's death. For example, in mammals hydraulic laws controlling the circulation of blood are subordinated to the good of the organism. Yet, they also have an agenda that can cause the organism to bleed to death.
The relevance here is that _Aristotle's theory is open to universal laws of nature,_ while the Scholastic theory is not. In the Scholastic version, human's intelligibility is confined to our form or soul, while for Aristotle it is distributed between _psyche_ and _hyle._ In living beings, _hyle's_ tendencies are subordinated to the ends of the organism, but they are continuous from before an organism's generation to after its death. While Aristotle had no inkling of _universal_ laws, _hyle's_ continuing tendencies can be assimilated to universal laws. Scholastic _prima materia_ has no active tendencies explicable by universal laws.
36 _Physis_ derives from the Indo-European FU, whence _fudi,_ to pour out. Aristotle says _physis_ is defined as though pronouncing the upsilon long (Metaphysics iv, 4, 1014b16), uttering _phyo,_ to bring forth. Heidegger (1959), _An Introduction to Metaphysics,_ emphasizes _physis'_ dynamism as a "self-blossoming emergence (e.g. the blossoming of a rose), opening up, unfolding that which manifests itself in such unfolding and perseveres and endures in it....", pp. 11f
37 _Physics_ iv, 3, 209b33 (less specifically I, 9, 191b35); _De Generatione et Corruptione ii, 1, 329a13-23; (also ii,5, 332a34f); _Metaphysics_ xiv, 4,1092a1-2.
38 _De Generatione et Corruptione ii, 1, 329a24f.
39 Driscoll (1979), "The Platonic Ancestry of Primary Substance."
40 Ibid. p. 258
41 Normally called the formal, material, efficient and final causes.
42 _Posterior Analytics_ ii, 11, 94a22, (C. R. G. Mure's Oxford translation.)
43 _Physics_ ii, 3, 195a15ff.
44 E.g., _Metaphysics_ vii, 12, 1038a5.
45 _Physics_ ii, 9, 200a30f: "The necessary in nature, then, is clearly what we call by the name of matter, and the changes in it." _De Partibus Animalium_ i, 1, 639b27-640a8.
46 _Physics_ i,9, 192a14ff (Hope translation).
47 King (1956), "Aristotle without _Prima Materia."_
48 E.g., Aquinas, _De Principiis Naturae._
49 William Charlton notes that the "first genuine appearance" of prime matter was among the Stoics. Charlton (1970). _Aristotle's Physics I, II,_ pp. 129-145.
50 This idea is already in Aristotle, _De Anima_ ii, 4, 415b21-3.
51 Comment in McMullin (1963), The Concept of Matter, pp. 100f.
God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D.
Richard's attempts to do whatever it is he's trying to do, don't ever correspond to anything in reality. The only thing we can know for sure about Richard is that he exists, coif and queefing mangina. You seem triggered by the word "Religion" but it makes him oodles of money. If you understood Richard's religion like my friend and I do, The Physicist's work shown here, then you'd know why he's not triggered by it, he deceives people like you claiming "I don't have any religion, I don't have any beliefs, I"m a non-believer." Sure.
Not even close. It is amazing that people who claim they want to learn the Bible will learn it from people who admit they don't believe it. At one point most people on earth didn't believe it could ever rain. Fortunately 8 people believed it could rain, or we wouldn't be here today.
One of my two favorite authors about Christianity. Too bad Ehrman (my other favorite) won't have a debate or at least a discussion with Carrier. That would be really cool.
I have to say Ehrmann is much more condescending, I just saw a discussion with Robert Price and Ehrmann , Give me Carrier's books.
Both are outspoken but only Carrier has enough humility (or courage) to debate. Ehrman is blinded by his reflection.
@@RaineStudio Bart Ehrman has participated in several debates. No incentive for him to debate again.
An excellent presentation about how people can be misled by myths and propaganda for centuries. It makes one ask the question where is humanity headed if facts and truths are kept from the masses?
Thank you. I think critical perspectives on these types of narratives have been around for a while and sometimes in plain site. Greek (rational) philosophers were critical of the belief in gods. Many of the founding fathers of the United States were Deists, not Christians. Thomas Jefferson had his own redacted gospel minus the supernatural activities.
it's not that truth is hid from the masses, its that no matter what you tell them, it become warped into myths. People are crazy
Someone should write that: "Philosophy for the common man".
However, it might not spread far in book form. The common man doesn't read books, much less books on philosophy. Most religious people learned about their religion aurally through authority figures: clergy speeches, parents, school, etc.
Instead, make the new message a TV or film series with various tie-ins: posters, web and social media, etc.
I can't wait to read it!
Actually, Richard identified that we are already doing this through things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings, etc. These really are the modern-day popular philosophies of our time (and, IMO, hold up far stronger than Christianity ever did!).
I like Dr Carrier, he has a good knowledge of history, it all seems very obvious how he explains it. Although brought up to be an obedient christian, I never really believed all the unlikely tales. Regarding taking beliefs and morals from fiction, I had a good friend in London, and he quoted Mr Spock constantly, always made me giggle. Dr Carrier recommends think it out for yourself, straight from Life of Brian. 🙂
Back to philosophy - LOVE IT!
A mob of christians murdered Hypatia because of her deep philosophical thinking that ran circles around them
TH-cam is the best thing in the whole world
I got to where I am politically by examining the things I claim to value and seeing how well they hold up to intense scrutiny. My favorite example is a category of what I consider to be human rights: The things you need to live. I was taught, "He who shall not work, shall not eat." Initially it was phrased to condemn people who couldn't work as well, but a reexamination of it revealed the word "Shall." Okay, so it only refers to people who refuse to work, right? So, the people who don't work because they are disabled, or don't because there isn't any work to be had, should still be fed, right? After all, the expression came from a time long before we ever solved the issue of food availability.
Just like that, I was no longer angry about people using welfare. Sure, I could be mad at people abusing the system, but I was able to relax about them and treat them as just part of the cost of making sure people who don't deserve to starve, don't starve. Things carried on for a few years until I was brought to mind of the prison system and how poorly they are run. But at least we feed them, right? We have to. Not feeding them would be cruel. We accidentally acknowledge that even prisoners, those who are under confinement for breaking our laws, shall not be cruelly treated by starvation. If the lowest of the low, those who broke society's rules, still deserve to eat...then doesn't that mean everyone deserves to eat? They deserve to eat because, in the prisoners' case, if you don't feed them they will die, and any sentence becomes a death sentence. But that still means we acknowledge that our lowest humans have the right to that which they need for survival.
Suddenly that opened a new sphere, and it's one of a few I dwell in now, and am still exploring, that everything you need to live is a human right. Clean air, water, and food. Shelter. Healthcare. *I say all of this to provide an example of what I think Richard Carrier is talking about when he says that we need the skills to question our worldviews and build our own based on what holds up and what doesn't.* I had help finding my legs here, sort of, in that I did have some exposure to formal logic and debate in high school and college. I had further help from people who didn't realize what they were doing. They thought they were just making conversation to help a slow watch pass faster, by first taking things people said, then taking an almost absurd extreme of them, to see where the break points were. While they weren't talking much about politics, it was still a practice which I carried with me out of the Navy and into civilian life.
Yep. I arrived at a leftist worldview in part due to the accidental practice I got of examining worldviews while I and my crewmates were bored on our ship in the Navy, and from the necessity of admitting I was wrong if I was holding to a wrong position, a principle taught and reinforced in logic classes. I graduated a pro-life abstinence-only Christian Reaganite Republican. I am now a godless socialist. Like, an actual socialist, not the farce of state capitalism that is China, nor the lie of authoritarian bureaucracy that was (and still is) Russia. Bernie was my guy in 2016 and 2020, but in truth I want someone to the left of him as well.
Anyway, good luck out there. I know I'm two years late to the discussion.
I would give you a fractal of thank yous. I resonate with you in my arrival to become a leftist. Enjoyed your creativity with words, from a linguist and non-religious person, but love me some Buddhism. Good luck out there.
This is why I find it so laughable that “fervent” US Christians are partial to Trump - a man who best approximates Satan from the Gospel - while vilifying Liberals, who are uniformly in favor of the ethical teachings of Jesus. Their “religion” has made them blind rather than elevating them.
My father, a hateful racist, remains a fervent Catholic. He is not Christian in any way, except for showing up at Mass on Sundays.
Thanks!
I learned most of this in seminary but I'm thinking it would have been a lot easier (and cheaper!) to just watch this video lol.
They teach this in seminary? Tell me you're joking...
Such clarity.
I think a good tool of trying to figure out Christianity’s “origins” would be to look at the groups/sects that came out of Christianity centuries later: Protestantism, Seventh Day Adventists etc....in what I have learned from my own continuing journey through knowledge and self enlightenment, it seems that mass faith movements lose incredible steam after their initial “runs,” not being able to answer key existential questions and falling into mythological stories to maintain power over large human populations. They just reach a point where they are not enough. Fundamentalist movements try to purge and return beliefs - basically “repackaging the old” - in a vain attempt at re-selling the antiquated while relying on new “modern zeal” and “consumer marketing.” Our “god” Now is either a CEO, a Military Autocrat, or a Pit Boss in a casino crossed with a new car salesman or tele-marketer.
Great description of Donald Trump at the end there
I'm only familiar with the basics about Christianity, so a lot of this detail goes over my head. I would need a schematic diagram to follow your explanation. But I do know that in a world where people would sit around a fire at night, any stories would have to be simple and entertaining to engage the audience. Most people couldn't read and write so they would require someone to spread the stories by word. For those religious academics who could read and write, I would imagine writing stories was in itself a new and exciting technique. There must have been a lot of experimentation on how you write a story with both language and plot. It would also suggest paper and ink had become available in affordable quantities. The Romans had industrialised the production of paper. Manuscripts would no doubt be traded and some become more popular than others. They would have been in competition with each other. There is also a tint of early socialism embedded within the gospels I've heard of. But fundamentally, it all based upon the ancient ceremony of human sacrifice to appease the gods.
Thank you for the insightful comments! Carrier argues that Christianity, like most religions, was shaped by a highly educated elite. The Gospels and letters are composites influenced by Homer, Greek and Roman hero motifs, Stoicism, Hellenism, Dionysus, Jewish mysticism, and Platonism, among others, making it a syncretic tradition. In its first few centuries, Christianity was notably diverse and inclusive, contributing to its widespread appeal. This spread was further influenced by factors such as the Jewish wars, the displacement of rebels and authorities, the roles of women and slaves, and the invention of the codex (bound pages). I differ slightly from Carrier in that I believe Christianity did not originate from a specific individual but rather emerged as a broader movement that spread throughout Greece and the Jewish diaspora.
May the "Holy Hermaphrodite" have mercy on our non--existent soul.......
The Gospel according to Price, according to Carrier. Love the theme here :D
It would be good to have the full questions he's responding to.
Good idea! We will implement a Q & A + timeline in the video description. Thank you.
Done in the description. Thanks again!
Excellent inrto, content and conclusion.
Damn, this guy is smart!
only to stupid people . . .
Being this specialized in a subject takes years and years of devoted scholarship in a narrow field. Reading helps but can't necessarily provide the natural recollection and synthesis of info that Carrier has
He is an idiot.
@@davidjackson6152 - So says an idiot. How many times have you read the Bible? Have you studied it? Do you have a PhD in early history? Do you have a degree at all? But he is the idiot?! Right.
Average intelligence, lots of experience and research. Other people could be in his shoes. I love his work, but he’s not exceptionally smart, just learned.
This was excellent. Got more out of this interview than from Ehrman's "How Jezus became god" (still, probably worth reading though). Thank you dr Carrier.
YOU ARE SUCH AN IMMMENSE RELEIEF in this world of resurging religious NONSENSE !!
I haven’t read all the comments here so others may have already asked these questions. My apologies if these questions are a repeat. Anyway. Who might have written Mark? One guy or several writers editing each other? Did he or they believe in what they were selling or was it all for literary artistry. In others words, how was he or they benefiting personally coming up with work?
That was a very thoughtful inquiry. There is no author or authors subscribed to the Gospels as the moniker happened at a much later date. Carrier and other scholars believe the narrative was written by one person. This could have been a gospel of the Essenes. This could have been a gospel narrative that is expressing or commenting about the war at the time. This could have been influenced by Roman occupation to write a gospel that would pacify the Jewish rebellion. The gospel of Mark was written in the language of Homer....like a play. I believe the gospels which were written in the heat of the battle between the Romans and the Jews was a commentary about the war. A mixture of teaching and a bit of censoring. It would have benefited those who did not agree with the Jewish rebellion.
@@11thstory Interesting. Thank you. So if the rebellion had succeeded perhaps none of these gospel would have been written at all. Thoughts?
@@davidlanzillotti4441 I would say the loss of the war, the fall of the Temple and persecution of Jewish practices in the 1st century had major influence on the synoptic gospels and the expansion of early Christianity. However John’s gospel and Paul’s letters alone could have offered a different theological fate. My inclination and research has led me to posit that proto-Christianity was well established before the synoptic gospels. When the war ended those writers imposed more meaning and narrative on why the rebellion failed and offered another interpretation.
@@11thstory Can you speculate at all what alternative theological fates the gospels or Paul’s letter might have been formulated if the Jews had won the war?Would a dying and rising savior figure have still been the main focus?
@@davidlanzillotti4441 In the case of Paul, it would be the continuation of Jewish Hellenism and the unification of Jews and Greeks as one body of believers and a return to the Garden experience and understanding. I think what tied both Pauls’ writings, the gospels as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls was this idea or experience of returning back to the Garden. The Essenes had a take on it. I think the NT was a strong commentary and take on what that means. The book of Revelation does a good job on this synopsis and interpretation. Much to unpack here that should be done by a series of videos. In some ways the gospels were an anti-Messianic message and response to the suffering.
Richard Carrier - Easter Edition!
Long before you were born, people like you had been written by Paul.
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
They should teach rationality but they won't because it will destroy religions, look at Europe we do teach rationality in school and we've abandoned Christianity.
So, what does it all mean? What is the message of the myth?
Imo, a movement among certain followers of Judaism, emerged during a period of upheaval when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE. This event left many Jewish believers searching for answers. During this time, Jewish "zealots" or "nationalists" engaged in a prolonged conflict with the Romans, waging a war across Palestine from 66 CE to 130 CE.
The conflict ultimately resulted in the expulsion of Jews from Judea by the Romans. According to the Roman historian Josephus, Jews were subjected to torture for adhering to their practices. Ironically, Christianity, which emerged in this context, also distanced itself from Jewish customs.
The narratives in the Gospels primarily depict a figure sent to the Jews to warn them of impending destruction, admonishing them for their failure to understand their own scriptures, which led to their downfall. Jesus is portrayed as being friendly toward the Romans and untroubled by violating Sabbath traditions. Much of the Gospels center around confrontations between Jesus and the Pharisees or Sadducees, as well as his corrections of his followers' misunderstandings.
Jesus embodies both mythic and historical elements drawn from Greek, Roman, and Jewish traditions. He represents a synthesis of ideas and characters that would have resonated with people during the 1st century Roman-Jewish war.
@@11thstory Thank you!
This was gold. Now all I need is a debate between this awesome dude and some other pro-historicity atheist and I'll be settled on the matter.
About the question of philosophy as a substitute to religion, that would only get rid of the tradition crap while keeping an unnecessary spiritual drive. As a scientist it feels to me like we should also get rid of that spirituality/mysticism. Why can't we all be humans that accept the truth of our mortality and stop the futile searches for a meaning of life? And as for the religious morality and whose philosophical equivalent is ethics, science tells us there isn't an absolute one. But that's ok too, we don't need absolute ethics either, we can just decide as humans, independent from religious or scholars, what we think is good or not. That's what democracy is supposed to be after all. We could all realize for instance that if we're all being selfish dicks, life is going to be hell, so we make laws and social ethic codes that ban those behaviours and we're set.
We don't need religions nor philosophy, we need science aka the truth, because the truth, yes it hurts, but it's amazing... I wouldn't give up my knowledge of anything even for the greatest of spiritual comforts.
You might like the Science of Consciousness, which seems to be where the religious/spiritual debate is heading. You might find interesting.... www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is?
As much as I do enjoy listening to Dr Carrier discuss the subjects he's an expert in, MY GOD MAN! The word "Ancient" does not have a "G" in it! It drives me up the walls!
He does have some rather distinctive pronunciations!
And yet, even after watching many hours of Carrier presentations, I didn’t notice whatever you are objecting to, not even once!
oh god the truth
@Stacy Caruso Based on the evidence, which is the only way to truth, yes.
@Stacy Caruso The truth: Jesus is a character in a book of debunked ancient fairy tales who tricked gullible believers into killing themselves: "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). What happens when fools think fairy tales are real? "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" www.nytimes.com/1973/04/10/archives/2-drink-strychnine-at-service-and-die-in-display-of-faith.html
But you or Carrier do not believe in God. Yet you thank someone that you don't believe in for the truth. That is insane.
Carrier is a genius in my opinion. Maybe that's why he is Dr. Richard Carrier.
You're missing the key question after your final point, Dr. Carrier. I agree that philosophy is what replaces religion, but the key question then becomes: "Why is religion so attractive to people, and philosophy isn't?" It's because religion gives something philosophy doesn't, something essential that everyone desperately wants but very few actually have.
Intimacy. Closeness. Love. However you want to call it, the belief in an omnipresent God has an amazing advantage of a perfect lover for anyone, something philosophy doesn't offer to the average person. You can get that kind of intimacy from philosophy if you go deep enough and realize how you're connected to everything through actions and consequences, but it's not the same as just telling someone that the greatest Being in the Universe knows everything about them and loves them deeply despite everything (and might help you avoid death). A whole lot of people can't even get love from their own families, and while it may be a delusion, you know a belief in the love of a God has comforted an uncountable number of people through some horrible times.
This is why religion, specifically the Abrahamic religion, is so strong, and will probably not go away until the entire species undergoes a collective maturation, whatever form that takes.
We are thinking, feeling and sensing beings. Religion just doesn't provide ideas, but ritual and community which may give comfort in difficult times. However, we might be entering a new age of science which may offer a greater experience. I recommend the book "Stealing Fire" for anyone interested in moving beyond religion and philosophy. stealingfirebook.com/
I look forward to a day when humanity can get all of those emotional needs met WITHOUT dogmatic servitude and obedience to unverified claims.
I don't need a god to tell me a puppy is cute.
Religion promises an eternal life (although provides no evidence of it) and people really don't want to die. So it has won out over philosophy for some, as philosophy only discusses this life.
For some , maybe mostly older generation, they need a belief in a higher power to get past the pain, to recover from grief. Faith and meaning to help them overcome. But maybe movies in the future will show how characters learn to grieve from and recover from watching or listening to someone's philosophy ?
Very informative thanks good work lean a lot
So nice of you
Dang man, SLOW DOWN!
I like this man. I love that Christianity is or was a mystery cult.
its not lol
Speaking of Star Trek, a great anchor of morality is Captain Picard.
Use him as a model for living.
Oh wow... That's epic \o/
Make it so...
@William Burns Jesus Christ this is accurate. I love when a writer writes "good, mentoring Janeway" lik in "The Omega Particle", but she really is reckless as hell and an egoist.
I often wonder if Richard Carrier knows Francesca Stavrakapoulu and what her opinion is on him? I've just got his book
He has to go on Joe Rogan
We discussed this with Dr. Carrier a longtime ago. We can find out if JRE has a contact.
@@11thstory in my opinion it is absolutely crucial, as the historical records research is in a class of its own. Richard Carrier needs to be heard by a vast audience.
@@KasraK We’ve reached out to Rogan again. Awaiting a reply.
Interesting. Thx
The idea that people still believe a real life Jesus existed is really odd - - it's a bedtime story, folks!!
Then why do other history books refer to him?
You've bought into crankery, Nurse Grace. No serious historian doubts the existence of a real-life Jesus - it's the best explanation of the evidence (like Paul writing in the 50s about meeting Jesus' brother James). You really have to twist like crazy and go way against Occam's razor to fall for the notion that Jesus never existed.
33:58 The Paul part is strong
I once heard a carrier debate where he says “speculation in, speculation out”...
And this sounds like nothing but speculation...
Wish everyone would see this
Please share! Thank you