Skip to content

The potential bias of Richard Carrier

March 12, 2015

The well known atheist and Jesus myth proponent Richard Carrier recently admitted to being polyamorous. This means that he has openly admitted to having sexual relationships with multiple people at the same time.

This admission and Carrier’s lifestyle have implications for his historical Jesus scholarship. This admission now gives Carrier a reason to find Jesus as a myth. He has revealed himself no longer a “neutral” observer just ‘examining the evidence’ (if that is even ever possible).

The Christian perspective on marriage fairly clearly states that a polyamorous lifestyle is wrong. Jesus made it pretty clear that marriage was for one man and one woman, e.g. Matthew 19:4-6,

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

It could be that Carrier has made his assessment of the evidence and concluded that Jesus is a myth and therefore lives a life contrary to Jesus’ teachings. But crucially Carrier’s admission has now given him powerful reasons to not find Jesus historical. Carrier has clear motivation for bias.

Would you immediately believe an argument raised against abortion from a pro-life advocate? You’d be immediately suspicious. Now, their ‘bias’ doesn’t invalidate their argument, but we do need to investigate their arguments with greater scrutiny (I acknowledge that I haven’t done any analysis of Carrier’s specific arguments in this post. I did want to say that I am aware of some of his work and my reaction was that it was full of non sequitur arguments. Yet a review of Carrier’s work is beyond the scope of this post. If readers would like me to do that, I’m happy to do that, yet I feel that other eminent scholars like Bart Erhman have already done reviews of Carrier’s work and found it unconvincing.)

Unlike most areas of academic research investigation into Jesus does have moral implications. This is because the figure of Jesus makes moral demands on our lives. For example, Jesus claims to be the light, which is more than an illuminating sense, ‘the light’ also contains a moral dimension in the sense of exposing ‘evil’ (see John 3:19-20). Here Jesus predicts that people will reject him because of their moral inclinations.

So unlike other areas of research, say for example, scientific research, the outcome of the research rarely has moral implications for the researcher. Yet researching Jesus does have moral implications for the researcher, because if Jesus was who he claimed to be (as recorded in the Scriptures) then it means I would have to change something about my life. My investigation of Jesus may actually say something about me i.e. I might have to repent of certain moral actions. I’ve shared a couple more stories about that here. Therefore when so much is at stake, I think it’s extremely difficult to be completely ‘neutral’ and detached when investigating Jesus.

There is a very real sense in which our perceptions and interpretations of ‘evidence’ is impacted by our moral judgements and our life experiences. The connection is often clouded and unclear, we may not even know our own motivations. Pascal once said, ‘The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.’ For example I know one person who has faced personal moral trauma and has begun simultaneously doubting their Christian faith. He had the honesty to admit that he would be naive to say that the two weren’t linked in some way. How precisely they were linked was unclear, but his intellectual judgements on the person of Jesus have been impacted by his personal experiences. So the impact of our ‘biases’ may be difficult to discern, they may not be obvious or overtly intentional, but I’d suggest we’d be naive to say that they cannot in some way impact our assumptions and judgements over ‘evidence’. We are complex and our personal experiences affect our opinion of the person of Jesus in some way.

Woody Allen justified his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, a woman over 35 years his junior by saying, ‘The heart wants what the heart wants.’ Thomas Cramner famously stated, ‘what the heart loves, the will chooses, and the mind justifies.’ He continued by showing how the mind is ultimately captive to the heart, ‘The mind doesn’t direct the will. The mind is actually captive to what the will wants, and the will itself, in turn, is captive to what the heart wants.’  There is a very real sense that our moral inclinations impact our perception of truth.

Richard Carrier does make some interesting and thoughtful suggestions on how to understand the historical Jesus. But now when assessing them, it is important to remember that he does have reasons other than his scholarship to conclude the way he does.

NB This post has been updated from the original

Advertisements

From → Comment, Jesus

15 Comments
  1. Richard Carrier was biased before he admitted to polyamory. He’s human. But that’s kind of irrelevant. Not all Christians believe that multiple marriages are wrong, and they use the Bible to support this claim. After all, many characters in the Bible had many wives and God didn’t seem to care.

  2. Sorry Rob, but this is a text book case of the ad hominem fallacy. Whether or not Carrier has a motive to believe that Jesus is a myth has no bearing on whether he is correct in his mythicist claims. Those claims must be assessed solely on their own merits. Any reference to his supposed motivation is 100% irrelevant.

    • Kar permalink

      I agree that he has lost credibility. I was reading and watching anything of his I could find before I became aware of his coming out as poly, and now I cannot conjure up any interest at all — whether it’s fair or not. And I’ve tried. I was really enjoying his arguments.

      • Kar permalink

        Whoops, it looks like I posted this (above) in the wrong place, sorry. It should have been a general comment and not a reply to fjanusz2.

      • If your not interested in his writings, Kar, that is a very good reason not to read them.
        I can’t agree that his private life affects his credibility on this issue.

      • Motivation would be a more accurate word than interest.

        And his private life is now public, by his own choice.

        I realize now that I have simply lost respect for RC and this is why I can’t get myself to watch or listen to him.

        I would have respected him more if he’d said “I got married and intended to be monogamous, but then I started getting notoriety, many women wanted to sleep with me, and now I just want to be a playboy because I CAN. Of course, I would respect him the most if he’d kept his mouth shut and kept his private life private.

        So, it may not be fair, but it’s reality. I’m not telling anyone else to feel this way and I’m not saying that you, fjanusz2, should look at it the same way. I’m saying that he is no longer credible to me. And I doubt if I’m alone.

        I am still interested in the topics related to his arguments, but will look for a different source.

  3. I take it you’ve never heard of religious polyamorists? They are possibly more common than Atheist polyamorists.

  4. …This admission and Carrier’s lifestyle have implications for his historical Jesus scholarship. This admission now gives Carrier a reason to find Jesus as a myth. He has revealed himself no longer an unbiased observer just ‘examining the evidence’….

    Wow, this is one of the most fallacious conclusions I’ve ever seen you post here Rob. So much so, that I think once you’ve had a chance to reflect on the whole thing, you’ll actually consider withdrawing the entire post.

    To paraphrase your position, you seem to be saying that because Carrier’s lifestyle is so non- (or indeed, anti-) biblical, he has some kind of scholarly preference or leaning for finding evidence against the historicity of Jesus (or challenging other evidence in favour of it).

    The thinking behind this type of conclusion not only defies logic, it defies common sense. It also demonstrates a frank failure to understand the nature of academic discourse. Carrier’s arguments will always stand on their own merits, and will be supported or challenged on this basis only.

    I dare you to stand up during the Q&A session at one of his seminars, and say, “Hey, Richard, surely your polyamorous lifestyle must affect your objectivity in your research about Jesus…!”

    I can see now the more neutral scholars in the audience suppressing their laughter or even shaking their heads.
    I can see the Christian scholars in that same audience wincing with embarrassment.

    • I agree. Yet, while I know I should evaluate Richard Carrier’s arguments on their own merit, the thing that has put me off trying so far is his irrational and abusive interactions on forums, especially in relation to promoting the bizarrely totalitarian Atheism+ cult. It’s a similar position to not feeling any need to read books by Ken Ham, having already read a few of his blog posts. This to me is far more significant than the non-issue of his sex life.

  5. Matt Dillahunty permalink

    Wow. Such an obvious fallacy…and sad that it’s used instead of addressing the merits of the case.

    This is just bizarre and scream of desperation.

  6. Kar permalink

    ‘This admission now gives Carrier a reason to find Jesus as a myth. He has revealed himself no longer a “neutral” observer just ‘examining the evidence’ (if that is even ever possible).’

    I agree. IMO, he now has a “bone to pick” with Christianity, so to speak. He appears to have a bias. He no longer appears to be just a seeker of truth, going where the evidence points him.

    I also cannot personally respect him as a philosopher, because he is calling the normal human desire to have sex with a variety of people an “orientation”, and using that to justify his divorce. Seems like faulty reasoning to me.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Accusing Richard Carrier of bias is a shallow fallacy | Atheist Forum
  2. Authority, concensus, bias and ad homs | counterapologistblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: