Lundahl (2022r) Tries to Misdirect Our Debate By Citing Irrelevant Critiques of Richard Carrier and John Loftus
Kevin R. Henke
October 1, 2022
In Henke (2022ar), I argued that Lewis (1960) failed to demonstrate the reality of miracles and I referenced Carrier (2014), which contains extensive discussions and well-referenced arguments that demonstrate that the Gospels are works of fiction disguised as “history.” I also cited Loftus (2010; 2011) and Price (2007), which contain additional arguments that the Gospels are unreliable.
In response to my recommendations, Lundahl (2022r) cites a series of largely irrelevant critiques that he has done on other works from Richard Carrier and John Loftus et al.:
“In counter-references to a book he has nearly obviously not read, since he doesn't see how it deals with historical claims for miracles in the Gospels, except on his own words, he has read it, he gives :
Carrier, R. 2014. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 696pp.
Loftus, J.W. (ed.). 2010. The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 422pp.
Loftus, J.W. (ed.). 2011. The End of Christianity, Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 435pp.
Price, R.M. 2007. Jesus is Dead, American Atheist Press: Cranford, NJ, USA, 279pp.
I have actually dealt with two of these three.”
Actually, as seen below, Mr. Lundahl has not specifically dealt with Carrier (2014) and the Gospel-related critiques in Loftus (2010; 2011). He has criticized some of their other works. In an attempt to show off, Lundahl (2022r) has simply dumped a bunch of his webessays often with dead YouTube links that have nothing to do with Carrier (2014) and the views of the Gospels in Loftus (2010 and 2011). How would Mr. Lundahl have liked it if I responded to his citations of C.S. Lewis’ Miracles by writing 20 critiques of Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain, but totally ignoring Miracles? How would that have been appropriate? Yet, this is exactly what Mr. Lundahl is doing when he ignores Carrier (2014) and the chapters that critical of the Gospels in Loftus (2010; 2011). (By the way, Mr. Lundahl should recognize from my bibliography that Loftus was the editor of these two books. The relevant chapters on the Gospels were often written by other individuals.) Mr. Lundahl simply needs to stop making lame excuses, get copies of these books and read them. Then, we can discuss them like we did with Lewis (1960), except that Carrier (2014) and Loftus (2010; 2011) are effective, well-written, well-referenced and reasonably up-to-date.
Lundahl (2022r) continues:
“Lets start with Carrier:
1) somewhere else : History vs Hume
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2013/01/history-vs-hume.html
2) Creation vs. Evolution : More on the Hume Rehash by Richard Carrier
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/01/more-on-hume-rehash-by-richard-carrier.html
These are 2013 reviews of YouTube videos that are no longer available. Videos made in 2013 and earlier may be taken down after awhile, but if Mr. Lundahl had actually reviewed one of Carrier’s books, this problem would not have occurred.
3) somewhere else : Richard Carrier Claimed Critical Thinking was Rare Back Then ...
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2013/01/richard-carrier-clamed-critical.html
In the #3 critique, Mr. Lundahl does not even bother to clearly identify Carrier’s source. Perhaps, it’s one of the missing YouTube videos.
4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Did St Irenaeus Know Who Saint John was and What he Wrote?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/01/did-st-irenaeus-know-who-saint-john-was.html
This is a review of yet another unavailable YouTube video. Mr. Lundahl’s critiques are not useful if people can no longer see what he’s criticizing!
Or:
Creation vs. Evolution : Richard Carrier Refutes Certain Evolutionists · somewhere else : Carrier on Tacitus
Where’s Carrier’s source for his comments at Richard Carrier Refutes Certain Evolutionists ? For “Carrier on Tacitus“, Mr. Lundahl provides Richard Carrier’s source as “Fishers of Evidence Gets Confused about Math” In this discussion on Tacitus, both Mr. Lundahl and Dr. Carrier mention some things about the Gospels, but still this is not a good enough substitution for Carrier (2014). Carrier (2014) contains hundreds of pages of arguments and references that Mr. Lundahl should be studying and concisely summarizing in a critique. Now, I don’t expect Mr. Lundahl to write an extensive commentary on Carrier (2014). However, if he could point out a few examples of Carrier’s blunders and provide some 21st century archeology or other relevant 21st century evidence to back up his criticisms of Carrier (2014) that would be very helpful.
Lundahl (2022r) then lists more critiques of Richard Carrier and some apparent email discussions with him. They also periodically discuss the Gospels. Yet, again, these discussions are not suitable substitutes for Carrier (2014) or his references. Most emails simply cannot provide the level of detail that can be found in a well-referenced and well-organized article or book.
Or (more on theistic philosophy) here:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Richard Carrier · Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ... · somewhere else : Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God? · Various Responses to Carrier · A Fault in Carrier's Logic Perception
These critiques from Mr. Lundahl are also not suitable substitutions for actually critiquing Carrier (2014) anymore than a critique of Mere Christianity would substitute for a critique of C.S. Lewis’ Miracles.
Lundahl (2022r) continues:
And now Loftus, also on theistic philosophy : 1) Kalam, Loftus & Lindsay · 2) Two rebuttals of Kalaam rebutted
How are Loftus et al.’s views on the Kalam argument relevant to what his books say about the Gospels? Also, how are these critiques relevant to the criticisms of the Gospels by other authors in the 2010 and 2011 books that Loftus edited? Mr. Lundahl is trying to make up excuses to avoid reading my recommended books by citing his webarticles that often rely on dead links to YouTube videos, cover irrelevant topics, and/or do not provide the appropriate level of detail about the Gospels that are presented in my recommended literature.
References:
Carrier, R. 2014. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 696pp.
Lewis, C.S. 1952. Mere Christianity, 2nd ed., printed 2015: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 227pp.
Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.
Loftus, J.W. (ed.). 2010. The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 422pp.
Loftus, J.W. (ed.). 2011. The End of Christianity, Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 435pp.
Price, R.M. 2007. Jesus is Dead, American Atheist Press: Cranford, NJ, USA, 279pp.