Here is a link to a story "What is Bayes's theorem, and how can it be used to assign probabilities to questions such as the existence of God?" on the Scientific American which purports to be from today (I say purports because I somewhat suspect it's a web-trick where it just inserts the current date, it's done.).
Some specific complaints:
1. It does not talk about the two main points for which Swinburne argues: i. The explanatory power of theism as revealed in likelihoods (in the British sense, the reverse probability E/H), the intrinsic simplicity of theism: one person with a few properties of a familiar kind held in the simplest way.
2. He leads the reader to believe that Swinburne's Resurrection calculation essentially relies on the principle of indifference, which it does not, and which is easy to see from the preceding sentence. .
3. He accepts without question Dawkins's arguments and doesn't mention that probability is a form of *logic* which governs our beliefs, it doesn't tell us what to start out believing. No one reading has any rational credence in flying spaghetti monsters or fairies, etc. so there is no appreciable decline in the prior of theism even using a form of the principle of indifference.
It's not that I expect much (especially balance) out of SA any more, but it's my area so I wanted to comment.
cool post. the date at the top is today but if you read to the bottom it says "Answer posted on December 04, 2006".