Here is a useful overview of the book, it's chapters and sections.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=4725#memes

Thanks.
I really want to finish my current read before I dedicate myself to this book.
Almost at the finish line. Then this one.

What are you reading? Out of curiosity?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Yalom-Reader- ... ords=yalom

Also, I am on lecture 19 of this;

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/ ... sance.html

Yalom I've read before.
I knew nothing about da vinci till now. Outstanding course.

I'm almost finished with the book, and don't think that it is enough to persuade someone who has not also investigated all the contentious parts. It's a summary of a worldview.

With that said, if there's anything you find less than convincing, mention it specifically. I'll do what I can to unpack it. I say this because I see the only responses being general(rather than specific) disagreement, driven by emotion rather than reason. Be specific if you can.

Who is reading the book and what section are you at?

I am at Carrier's "Seven Reasons to be an Atheist"

I want to continue on to the end before I respond to some of the posts.

Carrier is good at a kind of political doublespeak to advance his worldview.

When it comes to his beliefs that are supposedly backed by "strong" science, he softens meanings of certain definitions and overlooks (or does not care to mention in the slightest) "ad hoc presumptions" that he is so fond of pointing out when speaking of the idea of a God, specifically the God of Christianity, which again and not surprisingly is the target of an atheist.


I am enjoying the book. It has good summaries of certain concepts, mixed in with a little philosophy here and there.

The resident atheists here are perhaps finding everything in their wildest confirmation bias dreams could ever conjure up.
This is a great Bible for them. It is a manifesto for an atheist to flip open whenever his beliefs are asked to be articulated.

Also, it is amusing how in one section Carrier will lay out excellent criteria to follow when considering something (ie "historical analysis") but then state something elsewhere that clearly demonstrates he has not followed his own, uh, advice.
This is what happens when you are selectively critical of your own beliefs in order to keep them as stable as possible.

specifically the God of Christianity, which again and not surprisingly is the target of an atheist.

This often confuses me as well. Why would an atheist in America choose to target the Christian god rather than say, Thor or Zeus or Krishna? It simply makes no sense. It's not like Christianity is the dominant theistic worldview here.

ant wrote:The resident atheists here are perhaps finding everything in their wildest confirmation bias dreams could ever conjure up.

There is some truth to this. Carrier argues the same ideas I've been arguing. Although it's funny that you mention confirmation bias. The whole point about outsourcing the production and assimilation of knowledge to method is that method serves to minimize bias.

Proper method is the answer to bias, where "proper" is justification through consistent long term trial and error. The entire purpose of using method is because we're biased, and that idea is core to metaphysical naturalism. Unless we minimize our bias through use of proper method, we have no trustworthy way to tell if our beliefs are true or false.

Still, there's some truth in your words. Minimizing bias does not mean eliminating it. Although I'd challenge you to compare what you believe, and we can see who has more bias.

ant wrote:Also, it is amusing how in one section Carrier will lay out excellent criteria to follow when considering something (ie "historical analysis") but then state something elsewhere that clearly demonstrates he has not followed his own, uh, advice.

As I said earlier in this overview thread, be specific. You haven't shown him to go against his own advice/criteria yet. You've mistakenly believed that was the case in a few posts. Resurrect those posts if I didn't explain the position thoroughly enough.