Re: Carrier on Spirituality
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:13 pm
This may be true, and Carrier is zealous in his attacks against Christianity. But that doesn't mean his position on fine-tuning is wrong. Have you read the dozens of other critiques posted by Barnes? Or other scientists who support the same position as Carrier, that Barnes recommends?Flann wrote:I showed also previously how his scientific reasoning on fine tuning was abysmal, in cosmologist Luke Barnes critique.
http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/20 ... ig-part-1/
http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
There isn't enough information to sway me either way. The fact is, neither side has enough to confirm their position. There are apparent influences on Christianity from earlier sources, but that doesn't mean they are actual influences. On the opposite side, just because you can show ways in which a potentially influential source differs doesn't mean the source wasn't used but also recombined in a new way.ant wrote:Based from experience here on BT, i THINK neither Geo nor Interbane are strong on the entire mythicist issue, whereas Dexter has refrained from commenting on the issue at all.