"Best Schools" Interview

BY R ICH AR D CAR R IER / ON JAN UAR Y 3, 2012 / 14 COMMENTS

A new interview of mine just went online. But you’ve got to hear the long boring story first. (Unless you don’t
give a shit, then just go on to read the interview: The BestSchools Richard Carrier Interview).

Recently a new “top fifty atheists in the world” list hit the web (similar to a previous list of the “top 25
most influential atheists” from a similar, online-education-marketing website). I was on both lists. The
earlier one I disregarded outright as I had never heard of the website promoting it and I had no idea what
worth it had. The second one I wasn’t much more keen on, for much the same reason, except that whoever
composed it clearly was better informed about the atheist movement. They included more women and
minorities and foreigners (though many have complained still too few), but more importantly, some well-
known figures to us whom outsiders tend to ignore (like Greydon Square or Greta Christina). The list doesn’t
always make consistent sense, and there are people on it I’m sure who should not be, but it was interesting
to me for apparently having been compiled by someone who has been paying attention.

Curiosity was apparently more widely aroused this time and several atheist inquirers (who commented on
Jerry Coyne’s blog on this) concluded some things that I think were a bit hasty:

1. That the new list, posted at TheBestSchools.org (a marketing website steering prospective students to
online colleges), was generated by “James Barham, wacky ID advocate.” I don’t know about wacky, but
he is not a Christian, nor an ID-advocate per se; he acknowledged to me that the website he is writing for
leans that way (likewise, the Institute for the Study of Nature he is a fellow of claims to be theism-leaning
but not exclusively), but he is on sworn record as affirming he lost his faith in Christianity long ago and is
now a naturalist; he is presently a doctoral student in philosophy at Notre Dame (or possibly has his
Ph.D. by now, as claimed on TheBestSchools “about” page last I checked), with an M.A. from
Harvard, so he’s no crank, and his writings seem to be advocating for the adoption of emergent teleology
within naturalism, and not ID as such. He only voices some common cause with the ID movement (he
favors teaching the controversy on natural selection as cause, but not on evolution as fact). I suppose he
could be trojan horsing, but I’m not a telepath. More likely he’s an interesting outlier in the debate, and thus
not someone you can peg as easily as Dembski or Ham. At any rate, as I see it, he’s just wrong, not wacky.
2. That “according to WHOIS, The Best Schools is owned by a young philosophy professor at the
Univ of Kentucky named Wayne Downs.” That’s in essence true (at least as of today); I also verified his
identity at the U. Kentucky website, but it currently lists him as a graduate student teaching assistant
and his own cv confirms he is a doctoral student, not a professor. He has a B.A. in pastoral ministries and
an M.Div. from Baylor, so definitely a conservative religious foundation, but he also has an M.A. in
philosophy from Texas A&M and is getting a Ph.D. at U. Kentucky (or already has one, if the UK website
and his cv are out of date), so he is not a crank either. He did co-author a book on the Christian history of
creationism with Dembski, but it’s just an anthology of patristics. He is currently (according to his own cv)
“Research Assistant to Dr. William A. Dembski” at the “Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,” but it’s
hard to draw concrete conclusions from that (I myself could easily employ a Christian research assistant if
he was good enough). Downs might be an Evangelical or a conservative, but TheBestSchools seems like
it’s just built to earn him some advertising money (which I don’t frown on, since we do that here at FtB).

3. That “The article was only written for ‘Link Baiting’ purposes, meaning that the owner of the
website just wants to get a higher google ranking by getting more links to his site.” Isn’t that what
everyone does? It’s called marketing. Calling it “link baiting” is just pointlessly derogatory. Clearly Downs
wants to draw people to his website so he can earn ad revenue through his college marketing tools, and he
does this by employing bloggers to develop posts that people want to read, so they will go there, and then
possibly explore his promotional links and click through the ads that he has his website set up to deliver.
Um, that’s basically a description of FtB. Yes, we exist primarily to deliver content, and take ad revenue as a
bonus. But I doubt Downs takes his site’s content any less seriously–which is why so much of it is slanted
toward his interests. In fact most major blog sites exist to make money “and” deliver content. Like, say, The
Huffington Post. Or The New York Times, which arguably only really exists to make money through ad
placement. Even its print version exists solely for that purpose. It thus puts articles in it that people want to
read in order to get those people to look at the ads folded in with them. That’s not “link baiting.” It’s
enterprise. So I don’t hold it against anyone who wants to create content of interest to atheists to market
products to atheists. Even if they are Christians. As long as its honest, professional, and interesting. In other
words, the same standards I’d expect of The Huffington Post or The New York Times. Or FtB for that
matter.

4. That “it’s a scam site. It scams rational thinkers into assuming the site is legitimate for its
seriousness, and then plonks in other articles, hoping that those articles will be treated with the
same sense of seriousness.” That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Why would anyone think “rational
thinkers” would be fooled? Are we seriously imagining that Downs is trying to convert atheists to Christianity
by luring them in with interesting blogs about atheism, hoping atheists will then wander around and read
interviews and news items about religious conservatives and suddenly experience an epiphany of Jesus?
I’ve met some idiots for Christ who might think that would work, but none of them have graduate degrees
from major universities…or really even legitimate college degrees at all. In fact Barham told me they were
keen on creating more diversity at the site so it wouldn’t be all one-sided. Some atheists see that as a dirty
trick. I see it as inclusive marketing. It’s kind of funny to see someone attacked for aiming to generate more
diversity at their site, and then attacked for being all one-sided and not allowing more diversity at their site.
Honestly, what would you rather? A site that was all aimed at conservative evangelical Christians, or a site
that represented multiple views? Trying to draw in a broader demographic is not a “scam.” It’s just good
business. In fact, it’s rather American.

5. That “almost all of [the bios] have some snide remark at the end” with “cynicism and mockery.” I
don’t quite see that. I see a conservative POV. Otherwise I didn’t notice anything that was dishonest or
untrue. Granted, I didn’t fact check it all, but the list fairly links to all our actual PR sites and books and works
and thus is not trying to misrepresent us. Indeed, if anything they are promoting us. If I were to run the
differential math on this, as a result of their being this open about plugging people into our world, odds are
this site is now going to deconvert more Christians than it will convert atheists to Christianity. For example,
the only “odd” thing about the bio Barham gave me (I am assuming he was the sole author) is that it
mentions my advocacy for the theory that Jesus never really existed–but that’s hardly a secret. Yes, perhaps
a (possibly) conservative Barham included that item because he thought it was wacky. But he didn’t mock
me for it nor was he snide about it. He just stated the fact of it. Likewise, for Greta Christina he tacks on at
the end that “she also publishes pornographic fiction.” Well, yes. She does. That’s not cynicism or mockery.
It’s just the way conservatives honestly see us. Indeed, this author could have been snide or mocking about
these details. What I find remarkable is that he wasn’t. This looks like honest, indeed respectful reporting to
me. Conservative-minded, sure. But so what?

6. That the site advocates “for the benefits of an online education (you know, where students need
not actually learn stuff)” and “their Degree Finder widget doesn’t include biology, physics, chemistry etc.
No point in needlessly troubling those creationist minds.” Though both facts are true (the site does advocate
for various kinds of online education, and its widget doesn’t have biology, physics, or chemistry in it), the
inference being made from these facts is not logical. ID advocate Michael Behe is a biochemist. And I
can’t fathom why creationists would be afraid of physics or chemistry. The widget also lacks other majors
that can’t possibly have anything to do with imagined creationist phobias (are they morbidly afraid of
anthropology, oceanography and astronomy?). Rather, when you look at what the widget does include, it’s
obviously slanted toward career-ready degrees. Hence, no physics, but “engineering” and “engineering
management,” degrees that can hardly be pursued without studying physics. Likewise, no biology, but tons
of health science degrees, from “gerontology” to “radiology” and “nursing,” none of which can be pursued
without studying biology. This also fits the site’s focus on online degree granting institutions, like the
University of Phoenix, which specialize in career-ready degrees and not general sciences. The site is clearly
geared toward people who need an affordable way to get a better job (“career success” as the site itself
says). An ambiguous degree in biology is not going to appeal.

However, there are valid criticisms to make of the site.

It’s certainly a little conservative and Christian slanted (although perhaps not so much as critics have made it
seem, but it definitely is coming from that corner of the ring; just peruse some of the articles to get an idea).
But it’s not like conservatives don’t get to have their own websites. And if you think about it, “top” lists of
atheists generated by conservatives should be more telling, as such lists catalog the people they regard as
their greatest threat. More of an issue perhaps is the fact that TheBestSchools.org isn’t really promoting “the
best schools” per se but the best cheap schools (or, shall we say, “affordable” schools) and is primarily
promoting schools who would appear to be paid advertisers, and that these are predominately D-list
schools, usually online schools. It looks like you will never be directed to apply to any mainstream state
university through the site’s widget, although such schools do get promoted in some of the site’s articles
(e.g. its article on the “top ten most affordable law schools” has some good recommendations and does
not appear biased towards the site’s advertisers). So they aren’t engaging in dishonest reporting. This is
therefore not a “scam” site. Its widget is a bit dodgy, but no more so than GoogleAds would be. It’s clearly
just promoting for-profit online education.

For example, using its “Degree Finder” widget you’ll get recommended such places as DeVry University
(a for-profit company which has numerous physical campuses and an online education program, but does
have a reputation for being something like the McDonald’s of college education) or Liberty University (a
full on, totally bonkers, “yes, they teach young earth creationism in biology class” Evangelical school) or
University of Phoenix (a primarily online for-profit college that’s kind of like the Denny’s of college
education…you know, a step up from McDonald’s). UOP has gotten into trouble lately over its somewhat
shady slant towards profits over quality (see the NYT article and a Harvard Extension blog thereon, and
UOP’s official reply, and the analysis of what is passed off as an independent blogger…writing for an e-
school site in Poland for some reason…but what one might suspect is a hired PR puppet of UOP). What
about Liberty U? I don’t think the occasional presence of LU here is a pro-Christian plant. More likely it’s just
one of those for-profit schools that’s also advertising through the same widget. Because LU is pushing a big
online program now.

So, that’s all the back story. After posting their “top fifty atheists” blog to draw traffic (again, no evil in that)
Barham asked me personally if I’d do an interview for the site. I could say anything I wanted (within common
decency). Nothing would be edited out. He also approached many others on the list. As for myself, I said
sure, since by then I knew it was a Christian site, but I’d done questionnaires for Christian sites before
(including one inspired by the “top 25 atheists” list generated similarly to this one, at a site using exactly
the same widget–the WHOIS for that site seems locked up by denial-of-service attacks so I can’t discover
who owns it). I have no problem with that, as long as they are honest about how they represent what I say,
and don’t ask stupid questions. Barham’s questionnaire was well-written and his questions thoughtful and
interesting. And true to his word, he published my full reply, even improving its punctuation and correcting
typos. The end result is something definitely of interest to Christians, atheists, and prospective college
students alike. Now you can read for yourself The BestSchools Richard Carrier Interview. It talks about
my background and life story, why I am skeptical of a historical Jesus, why I’m a naturalist and how I deal
with certain questions about that, my debate with W.L. Craig, the future of atheism as a movement, and what
advice I’d give to prospective college students.

I see this as a mutually beneficial arrangement. He gets traffic and diversifies his target demographic for his
product marketing, and I get to promote my work, and my views on philosophy and education, and on
atheism as a movement in general. Just try to imagine this happening in an Islamic country and you’ll think
twice about being overly cynical about such a transaction.

Share
this:

   

COM M ENTS CRA ZY! SIC SEM PER REGULA TIONES

14 comments
B O B C R A N E • JAN UAR Y 3, 201 2, 3:26 P M

Can you please go back to yr old blog? The constant pop-up ads here are so annoying. And the
site is slow. Thanks
R E P LY

R IC H AR D C AR R IER • JAN UAR Y 3, 201 2, 3:38 P M

Bob Crane: Just FYI to you and everyone, comments like this are more suited to
my Inaugural Post. Please make them there. And in this case, I posted there my
reply to your comment here: see on popups and speed issues.

R E P LY

BEN • JAN UAR Y 3, 201 2, 1 0:04 P M

Oh, so there are some more outlier ID naturalists out there who don’t believe in aliens. Interesting. I
thought we may have found the only one in my Responsible Public Debate forum a few months
back: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL208C793E41D70E58&feature=plcp

R E P LY

B R A D • JAN UAR Y 4, 201 2, 7:1 9 AM

I enjoyed the interview! Good overview and discussion of your life and work.

It was good to see links to some of your past writing as well, as someone who is reading you for
the first time since your move to FreethoughtBlogs.

Perhaps on slow-news days you can post a “From the Archives” post with a summary and a link to
prior key posts/articles from your old blog or other sources?

R E P LY

R IC H AR D C AR R IER • JAN UAR Y 4, 201 2, 3:34 P M

Brad, thanks. I included a “best of” list of links from my old blog’s archives in my
Inaugural Post here. You might want to check that out. Those typically link to yet
others, and so on. Good way to start exploring, starting with what I hope is the
best.

R E P LY

T O N Y • JAN UAR Y 5, 201 2, 5:28 P M

Richard, I haven’t been able to read the entire interview yet, but I just stopped at the point where
your philosophical views on the world begins. Perhaps you agree with Mr Barham’s definition of
atheist, but that really stood out to me:

“
An atheist is not merely someone who has doubts about the existence of God, or who
doesn’t know what to think about the subject. Rather, an atheist positively asserts that
God does not exist.

-Do you agree with this definitin of atheist? Perhaps I’m unclear on the definition (and certainly
many people define it differently, which I find silly, IMO). I thought atheism was “a lack of belief in a
higher power(s)”. I didn’t think atheism included anything with regard to knowing or not knowing,
doubts about god’s existence, or uncertain thoughts.

Other than that, I enjoyed much of what I read prior to that section and will finish reading the rest
later tonight.

R E P LY

R IC H AR D C AR R IER • JAN UAR Y 6 , 201 2, 8 :22 AM

Tony: [an atheist positively asserts that God does not exist] I thought atheism
was “a lack of belief in a higher power(s)”.

Those two statements are semantically identical.

For every proposition P that you know about, you have assigned some probability
of it being true (you can’t not; your brain does it automatically, even if you don’t
attend to doing it consciously). If you do not believe P is true, then you are
assigning it a probability below 50%. In fact, usually when you say “I lack belief in
P” you don’t mean, e.g. “I believe there is a 40% chance P is true” or even 20%;
you typically mean less than 10% (1 in 10 chance P is true). That’s simply exactly
the same thing as denying P is true. Because when you say “I know P is false” you
are basically again saying “there is less than a 10% chance P is true.” The one
sentence literally translates into the other sentence. They are the same. Thus “lack
of belief” and “denial” are identical and it is a semantic fallacy to distinguish them.

The grey area arrives when you assign P a probability between 10% and 50%.
Let’s say you think there is a 40% probability some god exists. Are you denying
god exists? Sort of. You’re still saying probably he doesn’t (60% chance in fact),
and that’s technically still a denial. But that’s not usually what we mean by denial,
because of the following: does a 40% chance mean, rather, that you merely lack
belief or certainty that some god exists? That might be a better way of putting it.
After all, a 40% chance is still pretty good; good enough to operate on the
 assumption it’s true, even if you aren’t sure. After all, if there was a 40% chance it
was going to rain, you’d carry an umbrella, right? But now this isn’t what an atheist
is. Atheists aren’t carrying umbrellas (e.g. praying generically; picking a religion
and sticking to its principles “just in case”; etc.). Thus atheists are never in the
grey area. They aren’t hedging bets. If they were, they wouldn’t be atheists. They’d
be something else. Thus an atheist is always someone who is certain the
probability that any god exists is less than 10%. Which is definitely the definition
of denial. Thus all atheists deny a god exists. QED.

(On where agnostics who insist they aren’t atheists would fall in this spectrum, that
depends on whether they are “carrying the umbrella” or not, and if not, they’re
atheists [probably because they’re agnostics]: see my old blog on this issue:
Atheist or Agnostic?)

R E P LY

JU LI EN R O U SSEA U • JAN UAR Y 6 , 201 2, 2:03 P M

Richard, while I agree with your view on Atheist/Agnostic I think what Tony is referring to is that
many theists define agnosticism as neutral (don’t know if there is a god) and atheism as equivalent
to 0% chance that there is a god so they would see a 10% chance as reason to think someone is
an agnostic rather than an atheist.

They generally do that (in my experience) so that they can straw man our position by saying that it
takes as much faith to be an atheist (= believing in a 0% probability for god) as to be a theist.

An example is William Lane Craig in his debate with Christopher Hitchens as evidenced by this
video taking the salient portions of their debate (the uploader subscribes to the Craig definition of
atheism):

R E P LY
 R IC H AR D C AR R IER • JAN UAR Y 6 , 201 2, 2:56 P M

Julien Rousseau: I don’t think that’s what Tony was referring to; but yes, the
“atheism requires absolute denial” straw man attack is one I’ve seen before
(although I’m shocked to hear Craig would resort to it).

Epistemologically “absolute certainty” is an impossibility, even for God (as even

Plantinga has admitted in one of his rare moments of lucidity), and therefore it’s
just silly to require it of anyone, atheist or theist. There is always some nonzero
probability, however small, that you are wrong about anything (with the sole
exception of raw uninterpreted immediate experience). Thus anyone who thinks
that that eliminates all knowledge or belief can’t even be a theist, much less an
atheist. Either way, it’s just an absurd standard of certainty in assigning belief,
which in practice no one lives by, nor should they.

R E P LY

T O N Y • JAN UAR Y 6 , 201 2, 3:02 P M

Richard:

“
Thus an atheist is always someone who is certain the probability that any god exists is
less than 10%. Which is definitely the definition of denial. Thus all atheists deny a god
exists. QED.

-The first sentence definitely applies to me. I like the scale Richard Dawkins came up with, and I
tend to think I’m at 6/6.5 out of 7. I don’t believe God exists, and I’m about 99.5% certain he does
not exist.
I guess I can’t quite wrap my head around non-belief = certain knowledge.

R E P LY

T O N Y • JAN UAR Y 6 , 201 2, 3:05 P M

Julien:

“
 “
Richard, while I agree with your view on Atheist/Agnostic I think what Tony is referring to
is that many theists define agnosticism as neutral (don’t know if there is a god) and
atheism as equivalent to 0% chance that there is a god so they would see a 10%
chance as reason to think someone is an agnostic rather than an atheist.

-More or less, yes.

R E P LY

J U L I E N R O U S S E A U • J A N U A R Y 7, 2 0 1 2 , 2 : 4 3 P M

“
Epistemologically “absolute certainty” is an impossibility, even for God (as even
Plantinga has admitted in one of his rare moments of lucidity)

I agree and I am actually surprised that a theist acknowledges that.

This is why if somebody claims that the god they believe in is omniscient then I can say that I am
100% certain that that god does not exist given that just like we could be a brain in a vat who are
being fed stimuli simulating the world so could god be a god in a vat being fed stimuli that
simulates him being a god and even if their god existed and was indeed the ultimate reality he still
couldn’t know that it was so as he could still be a god in the vat and not know it.

This means that no god can be omniscient and thus if somebody claims they believe in an
omniscient god I can positively disbelieve in it (isn’t that what WLC call a knock-down argument? ;-
)).

Of course, this means that I think there is a higher probability of the greek pantheon being true than
the probability of the christian god as conceived by most christian* being true.

* I say “as conceived by most christians” in case there are any christians that do not believe god to
be omniscient.

R E P LY

A N O N Y MO U S • JAN UAR Y 1 4, 201 2, 2:27 P M

 Just a heads up. There’s a Dembski interview at the website.

R E P LY

R IC H AR D C AR R IER • JAN UAR Y 1 6 , 201 2, 1 0:1 9 AM

Just a heads up. There’s a Dembski interview at the website.

So?

R E P LY

Add a Comment (For Patrons & Select Persons Only)

Enter your comment here...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search This Blog

Search here...

Get Carrier’s Latest!

 Follow Richard Carrier’s Work & Announcements

 

Categories

Select Category

Archives

Select Month

About The Author

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.

Support Dr. Carrier

Subscribe To This Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,459 other subscribers

Email Address

Subscribe

Subscribe

Books By Dr. Carrier

Explore C.H.R.E.S.T.U.S.
 Get Your E-Books Signed!

Take Online Courses With Dr. Carrier

As An Amazon Associate I Earn From Qualifying Purchases Following Links On My Website.

Buying From Here Helps Fund My Work.

Recommendations

Proudly powered by WordPress | Copyright 2016 Danza