- Jun 9, 2017
Peer review is of limited utility; it just means consensus.
Most religious scholars are themselves religious believers.
Even Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, was a religious believer when he started his career.
Are they?! How do you know?
I realise that there are some objections to evaluating scholarly works by peer review, but currently it's the best method we have for filtering out junk science and junk history from valid/credible analyses.
Carriers book on the historicity of Jesus: why we have reason for doubt Contains peer reviewed material.
Carrier is an Atheist. But Miguel Connor, the host of Aeon Byte, most certainly isn't.
I haven't read Carrier's book. There is of course the possibility that his methodology, analysis and conclusions are correct, but based on what I've read (which I admit is far from exhaustive), that possibility is so small as to render it insignificant.