Hello!

Yes. Please check your spam folder. You should have received an email from Google with the invite link to the course.

And email me if not, so I can troubleshoot that. Also mention in email if you want to start in April, which would be fine. But you’re the only student in the March class, so you could start any day in March and go to the same day in April. Just let me know!

I only sent payment on 2/28, maybe that was too late for March? If so would love to bump to April if that’s ok. Thanks!!

That’s a good question.

Sorry, my answer was delayed by the holidays!

But:

If you are at beginner or novice level, then I’d recommend taking Naturalism first, then Moral, then Will. Because that builds groundwork from broad to narrow.

If you are at a more advanced level (you are pretty well grounded in philosophy already), then I’d recommend the other way around: Will, then Moral, then Naturalism. Because that builds depth from ever narrower topics.

If someone were interested in taking the following three courses from you:

Science & Philosophy of Free Will

Moral Reasoning from Theory to Practice

and

Developing & Defending Naturalism as a Worldview,

would you suggest taking them in the order above as you list on your blogsite, or a different order, and why?

I am struggling to develop a sense of meaning and understanding of truth outside of a life of believer’s faith. Faith is the only thing that has made sense to me due to having been brought up in evangelical teaching and thought. However, I am deeply questioning that fundamental framework, and now seeking answers outside of that worldview, which is scary and difficult. I don’t have any kind of background in philosophy.

Thank you for your time, help, and understanding! I hope others in similar positions will appreciate this question and your answer.

Yes indeed!

Everything in the post above is still a go.

Thanks.

If you mean CHRESTUS, it is linked with an ad in the right margin somewhere.

G’day Richard, you were talking about an app. Is that nonetheless searchable on this site?

I do not believe Eisenmann is sane. But regardless of how that may turn out, his work is as atrociously illogical and delusional as we might find from any any intelligent but whackadoo conspiracy theorist. And completely useless in result. It’s in the same class as Joseph Atwill (they use many of the same bogus methods), the only difference being Eisenmann actually knows the ancient languages, so he can spin even wilder webs of nonsense than Atwill can.

Hi Dr. Carrier, what do you think of the quite hefty work of Dr. Robert Eisenman and the historicity of James, the brother of Jesus, (the Christ)?