There will be an online special event next week: the night of the 23rd of December (a “pre” Christmas Eve!), I will debate Jabari Osaze on whether Christianity was stolen from Egyptian religion. This is an exclusive webinar event. Tickets are $30. This is the same person I critiqued before in Some Problems with Modern Kemetic Mythology. So now we’re back to debate it.
Spread the word, mark your calendars, and get your tickets now!
Richard Carrier is the author of many books and numerous articles online and in print. His avid readers span the world from Hong Kong to Poland. With a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, he specializes in the modern philosophy of naturalism and humanism, and the origins of Christianity and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, with particular expertise in ancient philosophy, science and technology. He is also a noted defender of scientific and moral realism, Bayesian reasoning, and historical methods.
I always feel odd about such aggressive debate topics. Because I immediately suspect that only one side has a strong (probably dogmatic) belief on the topic, and the other is just going to say “it’s a lot more complicated than yes or no.” Did Christianity steal it’s religion from Egypt? Well no, certainly not in it’s entirety. Were there some bits “stolen” (which in itself is a weird word for it), probably. But even alluding to your previous article, influences from 1st century Egypt may not actually be Egyptian at their core.
I share your sentiment.
Those are the debates that draw audience. Alas. Debates on micro-policy, where each side is in a reasonable position and are just trying to work out which direction to ratchet slightly, gain no audience and thus never get sponsored. For example, my debate with Alonzo Fyfe on whether the correct ontology of moral discourse should be framed in the form of Desire Utilitarianism or Goal Theory (the latter is just a version of the former) is a rare example of such a debate. It was great. One of my favorite debates and IMO most productive. But it’s just not what people who want debates want to fund or attend. So it doesn’t happen, but rarely.
Yes–/their is not one original thought, concept, or version of imaginary God, Jesus or any of the characters or myths in the bible that are original. The entire bible is a plagirization of previous religions. Please read something other than the biased opinions of fake Christian scholars.
Notice how, even if that’s true, Osaze is still wrong. It’s not just Egypt/
But, as a writer, I’d like to point out that your take here so thoroughly misunderstands creativity that it feels like motivated reasoning.
Was Superman unoriginal because he was a synthesis of Hercules, circus strongmen, Nietzsche, The Scarlet Pimpernel, and Moses? Obviously not.
We as human beings synthesize ideas that we hear from others or perceive in our environment. Sometimes we recognize the influence, sometimes we don’t. But that doesn’t make it unoriginal.
And that’s what the study of syncresis always confirms. People don’t just steal. Sometimes you’ll encounter someone like an L. Ron who really is a cynical plagiarist (though his swath of content shows that he didn’t just plagiarize). But most of the time, even pretty cynical cult leaders are still making their own ideas. Ideas get combined based on present needs. It’s not just ripping off, it’s very sincere creativity.
Which brings up the “under the carpet” question (usually evaded in these debates because it requires admitting to biased motives): what does one mean by “original” and why does that definition you have chosen matter at all?
Always when dealing with a crank or wildly contrafactual belief, the most fruitful question to ask is, “Why do you care?” The reason they need their belief (whatever it actually is) to be true is actually more important than whether it is.
But for precisely this reason, defenders of crank or wildly contrafactual beliefs don’t want to engage on that point because it exposes them. They will thus cry foul, claim genetic fallacies, yadayada, even though, really, this is the actual heart of the matter.
For myself, however, because I know people will dodge this line of inquiry by every device, I am more interested in communicating reliable facts and reliable methods to the audience. I want to show how there are certain ways to come to conclusions that are fraudulent or otherwise assured of failing to get to the truth, and certain other ways that actually armor you against falling for false beliefs. The debated topic is just an “example” case for me, to illustrate general principles people should be applying in every other domain of their lives. Plus I am well-positioned to simply quash disinformation in my field, so if it becomes a part of my job, that’s what I’ll do.
You will not convert your debate opponent, but many in the audience are amenable to fact and reason. It frustrated me that so many people posted attacks on Graham Hancock instead of inviting him to interview. They could expose his audience to history and archaeology as they are done. His audience is curious and eager for legitimate knowledge, and Hancock attracts them with brilliant photos of his topic sites. He’s often been embarrassingly right-ish despite being reliably wrong in detail for what are often enlightening reasons.
Yeah, it is frustrating. But a good debater can find a way of formulating their positive or negative position to still educate. So, for example, “Christians did not ‘steal’ from anyone. Like all syncretic religions, they most always adapted based on a sincere belief that they were seeing new revelation or that they were seeing the truth beyond diabolic mimicry. Nor did their inspirations end at Egypt. Many ideas that they used would indeed have some Egyptian vintage, but that’s because Egyptian culture had intermingled all over the Hellenistic world. Claiming an especially central position of Egypt in their influences is to show a base misunderstanding of the culture of the Mediterranean”.
Correct. It all depends on what exact argument they make. For example, they might drop the “stealing” metaphor (which was always a bad metaphor for cultural diffusion), requiring a reformulation of focus in any rebuttal.
I have already purchased my tickets to the debate. Two of my favorite Contempo debaters are going into the arena. I’m excited! Although, according to my limited research, I have a viewpoint, as an autodidact, I remain open minded and willing to peruse the evidence, whichever way it should lead us. Dr. Carrier, I just started reading your book on the History of Jesus, last night. Look forward to my enlightenment.