Final Word on Richard Carrier

Abstract In what follows, I’ll consider Carrier’s claims about the mathematical foundations of probability theory. What Carrier says about probability is at odds with every probability textbook (or lecture notes) I can find. He rejects the foundations of probability laid by frequentists (e.g. Kolmogorov’s axioms) and Bayesians (e.g. Cox’s theorem). He is neither, because we’re […]

Read Full Post »

Richard Carrier: One Liners, Part 3

Continuing my response to Carrier (here’s Part 1 and Part 2). Part Four: The Real Heart of the Matter Note that this is actually not “my” conclusion. It is the conclusion of three mathematicians (including one astrophysicist) in two different studies converging on the same result independently of each other. Wow! Two “studies”! (In academia, […]

Read Full Post »

Richard Carrier: One Liners, Part 2

Continuing my response to Carrier. Part Three Barnes claims to have hundreds of science papers that refute what I say about the possibility space of universe construction, and Lowder thinks this is devastating, but Barnes does not cite a single paper that answers my point. My comment was in response to the claim that the […]

Read Full Post »

Richard Carrier: One Liners, Part 1

In January 2014, I finished a series of four posts (one, two, three, four) critiquing some articles on fine-tuning by Richard Carrier, including one titled “Neither Life nor the Universe Appear Intelligently Designed” in The End of Christianity (following Carrier, I’ll refer to it as TEC). In May 2014, Jeffery Jay Lowder of The Secular Outpost reviewed these […]

Read Full Post »

Questions for Richard Carrier

Following my three critiques (one, two, three) of Richard Carrier’s view on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, we had a back-and-forth in the comments section of his blog. Just as things were getting interesting, Carrier took his ball and went home, saying that any further conversation would be “a waste of anyone’s […]

Read Full Post »

Christmas Tripe – A Fine-Tuned Critique of Richard Carrier (Part 3)

I thought I was done with Richard Carrier’s views on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life (Part 1, Part 2). And then someone pointed me to this. It comes in response to an article by William Lane Craig. I’ve critiqued Craig’s views on fine-tuning here and here. The quotes below are from Carrier […]

Read Full Post »

What Chance Looks Like – A Fine-Tuned Critique of Richard Carrier (Part 2)

Last time, we looked at historian Richard Carrier’s article, “Neither Life nor the Universe Appear Intelligently Designed”. We found someone who preaches Bayes’ theorem but thinks that probabilities are frequencies, says that likelihoods are irrelevant to posteriors, and jettisons his probability principles at his leisure. In this post, we’ll look at his comments on the […]

Read Full Post »

Probably Not – A Fine-Tuned Critique of Richard Carrier (Part 1)

After a brief back and forth in a comments section, I was encouraged by Dr Carrier to read his essay “Neither Life nor the Universe Appear Intelligently Designed”. I am assured that the title of this essay will be proven “with such logical certainty” that all opposing views should be wiped off the face of […]

Read Full Post »

Luke’s Posts

Here are a few of Luke’s favourite blog posts. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life Comment on “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God” What to Read: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent life Fine-Tuning and the Myth of “One variable at a time” Not So Sharp: A Fine-Tuned Critique of Robert […]

Read Full Post »

Interesting discussion in progress at The Secular Outpost

Thanks to GGDFan777 for the tip-off: Jeffery Jay Lowder has weighed in on my posts (one, two, three, four) about Richard Carrier. It’s in the comments of this post over at The Secular Outpost. Keith Parsons even drops in with a few comments. [Edit:] More details here: The Carrier-Barnes Exchange on Fine-Tuning.

Read Full Post »