Ian’s Review of Carrier’s Proving History and Carrier’s Reply

An atheist named Ian with a deep background in math and science has written a critical review of Carrier’s Proving History.

A Mathematical Review of “Proving History” by Richard Carrier

Among other things, Ian complains that Carrier uses a version of Bayes’s Theorem (BT) that is “unduly complex” and “highly idiosyncratic.” I disagree. I think one’s assumptions can play a huge role in historical Jesus studies, so it valuable to use a version of BT which explicitly includes background knowledge (B).

Other critical posts on Ian’s site:

 Carrier’s reply may be found here.

"Swinburne notes though that his derivations come from his particular definitions."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"In note 9 of Swinburne's 2012 paper you referenced, he argued that Aquinas did not ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"What about the number three? Isn't the existence of the number three logically necessary? Would ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"Of course, given that every being we've known to exist is a logically contingent being, ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment