Richard Carrier: a credible historian regarding rejecting Hitler’s anti-Christian views being evidenced in Hitler’s Table Talk?
This is a continuation of this thread. What happened is I commented on a staff report on whether Hitler was a Christian. While the staff report didn’t say Hitler was a Christian, I noted how the report didn’t mention important evidence suggesting Hitler was not one: namely, that presented in Hitler’s Table Talk–a record of various statements by Hitler. Among them:
“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light, and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.” p. 75
“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.” p. 7
“Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.” p. 145
“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.” p. 59
“It’s not desirable that the whole world of humanity should be stultified—and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little. A movement like ours mustn’t let itself be drawn into metaphysical digressions. It must stick to the spirit of exact science.” p. 61
“When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.” pp. 59-69
I thus said it seems highly probable then that Hitler was not a Christian. So far the only historian mentioned in that thread to reject the legitimacy of these quotes was the atheist Richard Carrier, a man who (obviously) believes Christianity is false but has also devoted considerable effort in arguing against it. While atheists can certainly be good historians, Carrier has a history of promoting crackpot historical theories against Christianity; namely, (1) Jesus never existed; (2) the writers of the Gospels were not writing what they believed to be true but rather symbolic fiction. These are extreme fringe positions. I therefore questioned his historical judgment when he has an anti-Christian axe to grind, particularly if he is the only historian anyone can source who rejects Hitler’s anti-Christian views being evidenced in Hitler’s Table Talk.
That said, is Richard Carrier a credible source when it comes to this issue? (It was suggested by a moderator to take up the issue in a different thread, so here I am.) In the ancestor thread there seemed to be some debate over whether “Jesus never existed” really is a crackpot theory. Nearly all historians, Christian or not, accept that Jesus existed (source: Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii). Historian Michael Grant noted, “if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.” Bart Ehrman, himself a man opposed to the Christian faith (in a debate he argued against a prominent Christian philosopher over the resurrection of Jesus), said, “I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn’t exist. But I don’t know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.”