What do you think?
Rate this book
The Coherence of Theism (Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy) Revised edition by Swinburne, Richard (1993) Paperback
This book investigates what it means, and whether it is coherent, to say that there is a God. The author concludes that, despite philosophical objections, the claims which religious believers make about God are generally coherent; and that although some important claims are coherent only if the words by which they are expressed are being used in stretched or analogical senses, this is in fact the way in which theologians have usually claimed they are being used. This revised edition includes various minor corrections and clarifications.
Paperback
First published December 29, 1977
19 people are currently reading
601 people want to read
About the author
Richard Swinburne
46 books146 followersRichard G. Swinburne is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford. Over the last 50 years Swinburne has been a very influential proponent of natural theology, that is, philosophical arguments for the existence of God. His philosophical contributions are primarily in philosophy of religion and philosophy of science. He aroused much discussion with his early work in the philosophy of religion, a trilogy of books consisting of The Coherence of Theism, The Existence of God, and Faith and Reason.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
January 23, 2008
This is THE quintessential work in the philosophy of religion. I think this is where all philosophy, metaphysics and theology should begin.
June 2, 2017
Very mixed feelings about this one. I've heard about Swinburne for years as one of the premier philosophers of religion. As a result, I guess I should've had more realistic expectations when approaching this book: namely, that it would be more dry and difficult (but not dull) to get through than I first anticipated. After all, this is not written as a popular, layperson's text so much as a contribution to the body of philosophical work read primarily by other people who've devoted their lives to this field of study.
There are a lot of valid points here and I appreciate him taking a more modest goal for his project. Proving theism is a coherent system is way less of a tall order than mounting a defense of any given religion's specific claims itself. I liked his introductory work about why such a project is viable more so than the defense of theism itself; it started to feel pretty "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" after he started dealing with more blatantly theological matters. But his initial points about logical positivism and naturalism's self-defeating logic were prescient and warranted this kind of theological thinking later on. And I definitely think there's a place for this kind of philosophical, Aquinas-approved, unconcerned-with-pragmatism speculation. But I can't pretend that sort of thing is more a sedative than anything else.
Even in my most doubtful days, I've always thought the idea of theism is, bare minimum, coherent, and I think Swinburne did a good job showing why here. As another reviewer mentioned, it's not that the book was bad, it's just that it wasn't the book I expected to read. Basically, it's an uphill, dreary walk the whole time, but not a waste of time.
There are a lot of valid points here and I appreciate him taking a more modest goal for his project. Proving theism is a coherent system is way less of a tall order than mounting a defense of any given religion's specific claims itself. I liked his introductory work about why such a project is viable more so than the defense of theism itself; it started to feel pretty "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" after he started dealing with more blatantly theological matters. But his initial points about logical positivism and naturalism's self-defeating logic were prescient and warranted this kind of theological thinking later on. And I definitely think there's a place for this kind of philosophical, Aquinas-approved, unconcerned-with-pragmatism speculation. But I can't pretend that sort of thing is more a sedative than anything else.
Even in my most doubtful days, I've always thought the idea of theism is, bare minimum, coherent, and I think Swinburne did a good job showing why here. As another reviewer mentioned, it's not that the book was bad, it's just that it wasn't the book I expected to read. Basically, it's an uphill, dreary walk the whole time, but not a waste of time.
May 1, 2024
Swinburne argues convincingly that theism is coherent, that there can coherently be said to be an all powerful, good, and knowing spirit.
August 18, 2013
Excellently written if not a bit difficult to digest. Definitely one to read more than once in order to understand it fully you aren't extremely experienced in philosophy.
This is Swinburne's first book in a trilogy on theism and it lays out various reasons why it is coherent to say that God exists and why it is coherent to make statements about God.
This is Swinburne's first book in a trilogy on theism and it lays out various reasons why it is coherent to say that God exists and why it is coherent to make statements about God.
August 2, 2010
Seems solid. A lot of it was hard to digest. Some was interesting. Some points were about things I'd never thought about, but were obviously real philosophic issues because he brought up the primary sources of whoever proposed the opposite view.
July 20, 2022
While interesting, this book was a much more difficult read than I had anticipated. That being said, I would only recommend this work for those who are very interested in philosophy and/or logic and who can read at a high reading level. If this is not you, you may either lose interest in the work very quickly or may not even be able to understand much of it. I myself am very much into philosophy and I read at a pretty high level but even I found myself unable to understand some sections or getting lost in what Swinburne was trying to say. I appreciate Swinburne's efforts in this work to argue for the coherence of theistic claims though his modifications to some of the more traditional conceptions of God such as his omniscience put me on edge a bit. Overall, I'd say the book was worth getting but I'd only recommend it to a specific type of reader and not the general public.
March 28, 2019
The book was extremely technical, almost excruciatingly so. Overall the book is very well thought out, though I was disappointed that Swinburne landed on the side of open theism.
January 10, 2025
Simply an amazing book.
Not only does Swinburne here provide proof for the rationality of theism, but his view on metaphysics and philosophy regarding God is just outstanding.
Richard clearly states here what many laymen “God-believing people” not only deny but also don’t comprehend, and unfortunately leading them into major heresy without even knowing.
"God’s omnipotence does not imply that He can do what is logically impossible. For omnipotence is the power to do anything that is logically possible, and logically impossible things, such as creating a square circle or a married bachelor, are not things that can be done by anyone, even by God….
"If God is omnipotent, He has the power to do all things that are possible according to the nature of things. However, omnipotence does not extend to the power to do things which are self-contradictory or logically incoherent, such as performing actions that would violate His own nature."
(Chapter 7, "Omnipotence")
"God’s nature is perfectly simple and unchanging. This means that He cannot act in ways that contradict His essential attributes. For instance, He cannot cease to be omnipotent, or become evil, or do anything that is logically incoherent."
"A being whose nature is to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, is by definition incapable of acting in contradiction to those attributes. The nature of God rules out actions that would be contrary to these characteristics."
(Chapter 8, "God's Nature")
God’s omnipotence does not entail the ability to do logically impossible things, and God's nature is such that he cannot act contrary to His own being.
Not only does Swinburne here provide proof for the rationality of theism, but his view on metaphysics and philosophy regarding God is just outstanding.
Richard clearly states here what many laymen “God-believing people” not only deny but also don’t comprehend, and unfortunately leading them into major heresy without even knowing.
"God’s omnipotence does not imply that He can do what is logically impossible. For omnipotence is the power to do anything that is logically possible, and logically impossible things, such as creating a square circle or a married bachelor, are not things that can be done by anyone, even by God….
"If God is omnipotent, He has the power to do all things that are possible according to the nature of things. However, omnipotence does not extend to the power to do things which are self-contradictory or logically incoherent, such as performing actions that would violate His own nature."
(Chapter 7, "Omnipotence")
"God’s nature is perfectly simple and unchanging. This means that He cannot act in ways that contradict His essential attributes. For instance, He cannot cease to be omnipotent, or become evil, or do anything that is logically incoherent."
"A being whose nature is to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, is by definition incapable of acting in contradiction to those attributes. The nature of God rules out actions that would be contrary to these characteristics."
(Chapter 8, "God's Nature")
God’s omnipotence does not entail the ability to do logically impossible things, and God's nature is such that he cannot act contrary to His own being.
August 19, 2016
Christian theism is, at least in part, a set of statements or propositions believers take to be true. The study of the coherence of Christian theism is the consideration of the coherence of that set of statements. It is not a study of whether or not those statements are true but whether or not if there is any explicit or implicit contradiction within or implied by that set of propositions. Swinburne argues that there is a set of propositions that are internally consistent and lays out what they might be. If successful, then Christian theism is coherent. Whether or not it is true leads one to read his other book, The Existence of God.
In order to achieve his goal Swinburne makes two modifications to traditional Christian belief. God cannot be outside time and he cannot know propositions about future free actions of human beings. The first adjustment is not so controversial but the latter, I think, abandons an important feature of Christian belief - God's comprehensive foreknowledge of all events including the actions of human beings. Swinburne's main concern is to retain a version of human free will that is "libertarian." This he does, but at the cost of a traditional understanding of divine foreknowledge.
Swinburne's starting point is not the attributes of God, but the nature of religious language. How is it that sentences in natural languages can latch onto a divine being. Swinburne's version of analogical language borrows from the philosophy of science and theoretical terms. Language used to describe unobservable entities borrows from language used to denote observable entities and we are able to understand the meaning of the former by appeal to the analogy they have with the latter. The first few chapters are worth the price of the book.
The reason for a lack of five stars is that Swinburne is often incredibly difficult to read. There are some sections that, despite several attempts, I could not understand. I am sure the content is coherent but Swinburne's writing style inhibited my comprehension. For example, his love for parenthetical explanations means that for many sections the only way to follow his thought is to skip multiple clauses and attempt to get a general sense and then return to figure out the details. Try reading the top half of page 166 for a good example. There are also quite a few typos in the book.
Overall, this is a thorough treatment that assumes a fairly advanced background in theological studies and philosophy.
In order to achieve his goal Swinburne makes two modifications to traditional Christian belief. God cannot be outside time and he cannot know propositions about future free actions of human beings. The first adjustment is not so controversial but the latter, I think, abandons an important feature of Christian belief - God's comprehensive foreknowledge of all events including the actions of human beings. Swinburne's main concern is to retain a version of human free will that is "libertarian." This he does, but at the cost of a traditional understanding of divine foreknowledge.
Swinburne's starting point is not the attributes of God, but the nature of religious language. How is it that sentences in natural languages can latch onto a divine being. Swinburne's version of analogical language borrows from the philosophy of science and theoretical terms. Language used to describe unobservable entities borrows from language used to denote observable entities and we are able to understand the meaning of the former by appeal to the analogy they have with the latter. The first few chapters are worth the price of the book.
The reason for a lack of five stars is that Swinburne is often incredibly difficult to read. There are some sections that, despite several attempts, I could not understand. I am sure the content is coherent but Swinburne's writing style inhibited my comprehension. For example, his love for parenthetical explanations means that for many sections the only way to follow his thought is to skip multiple clauses and attempt to get a general sense and then return to figure out the details. Try reading the top half of page 166 for a good example. There are also quite a few typos in the book.
Overall, this is a thorough treatment that assumes a fairly advanced background in theological studies and philosophy.
October 5, 2016
I must admit that I didn't finish this- when buying it I had rather misanticipated what it is about; it is a thorough study of the coherence (in the technical philosophical sense of the term) of the language of Theism. As such it is as thorough, rigorous and lucid as you would expect from Swinburne, but it isn't the book I wanted to read....
July 20, 2016
Advanced: the first of three work collection. Swinburne discusses the concept of God and its logical coherence. While I never quite agree with everything he says, I absolutely love his method and thinking.
September 25, 2014
One of the most painful things I have endured. Swinburne's analytic philosophy leaves me absolutely cold and caring not a whit about his argument but praying fervently for God to be revealed.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews