Is There a God?

by Richard Swinburne

Is There a God? offers a powerful response to modern doubts about the existence of God. It may seem today that the answers to all fundamental questions lie in the province of science, and that the scientific advances of the twentieth century leave little room for God. Cosmologists have rolled
back their theories to the moment of the Big Bang; the discovery of DNA reveals the key to life; the theory of evolution explains the development of life--and with each new discovery or development, it seems that we are closer to a complete understanding of how things are. For many people, this
gives strength to the belief that God is not needed to explain the universe; that religious belief is not based on reason; and that the existence of God is, intellectually, a lost cause.
Richard Swinburne, one of the most distinguished philosophers of religion today, argues that on the contrary, science provides good grounds for belief in God. Why is there a universe at all ? Why is there any life on Earth? How is it that discoverable scientific laws operate in the universe?
Swinburne uses these methods of scientific reasoning to argue that the best answers to these questions are given by the existence of God. The picture of the universe that science gives us is completed by God. Powerful, modern, and accessible, Is There a God? is must reading for anyone interested in
an intelligent and approachable defence of the existence of God.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Theology, Nonfiction, Christian, God, Christianity

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Richard 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.

Reviews

[Manny · Rating 2 out of 5]

Right now, there should be a fascinating dialogue going on between the science and faith communities... but there isn't. It's so frustrating! You'd think it would be impossible to stop it; as you can see in recent books like Rees's Just Six Numbers, Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape and Hawking's The Grand Design, many scientists are happy to agree that the universe looks as though it has been designed to make life possible. Susskind's book is subtitled "String theory and the illusion of Intelligent Design"; Hawking's has a chapter called "The Apparent Miracle". Needless to say, a large part of the faith-based community has been telling us the same thing for a long time. So there's an obvious question that needs to be answered: is the universe designed, or isn't it? You'd expect a bit more discussion.

I am disappointed to say that no such thing is happening. The scientists have all decided that the one explanation which makes sense is a combination of the Multiverse and the Anthropic Principle. There are a zillion possible universes, of almost any kind you can imagine; a very small number support life, and since we're alive we're in one of them. We look around and think we see design, but it's pure chance. They won't even discuss the possibility that it actually is design. On the other side, you have the faith-based people, like Francis Collins (The Language of God), and this guy. They look at the Multiverse argument for about two pages and dismiss it. It looks like design, they tell us, so, duh, it probably is.

Swinburne wants to establish the probable existence of God and, really, he doesn't have much more going for him than the Argument from Design. He spends a chapter talking about souls (very unconvincingly, IMHO), and he spends another arguing that God could be good and still allow evil, because it's an inevitable consequence of free will (I thought this part was quite well done). He waffles for twenty pages about miracles without ever really saying very much. But if the design part of the argument holds, it's enough. The rest is just due diligence.

So how credible is the Design argument? Having finished the book, I know about as much as I did when I started. The most infuriating thing is that both sides invariably quote Ockham's Razor and claim it supports their case. Guys, I know you are all super-smart and have published books on the subject and get invited to prestigious conferences, but may I be so bold as to offer you a tiny piece of advice? Ockham's Razor probably isn't going to help a lot here. Leave it alone and develop some other lines of attack.

[Amora · Rating 4 out of 5]

Think of this book as the simplified version of Swinburne’s book The Existence of God. If you enjoyed that book, you’ll also enjoy this book. His argument here is a bit different from the argument he makes in the other book, however. I’m not complaining, though!

[Trevor · Rating 2 out of 5]

The stated aim of this book is to prove to its reader that not only does God exist, but that the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim God exists. The proofs are a little limp, the major one being that it is more reasonable and more rational to believe in God than to not believe in him. The evidence presented will not be certain knowledge, that would be asking too much – but like the evidence in all great mystery stories it will be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

I must say that if I was convinced in the existence of God and that I could prove his existence logically as being necessary, then I would probably handle this in much the same way that Swinburne has here. At least in the early chapters – the latter ones are a bit embarrassing. Richard Swinburne was the Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford when he wrote this book. To be honest, I would have expected more from such a person holding such a position.

He starts off by talking about what characteristics God is supposed to have – and these come down to about four, Omniscience (He knows everything), Omnipotence (He is all powerful), He has perfect free will (He can will the universe into being) and He is loving.

Swinburne then asks what are the necessary conditions to state that a theory of the world is true? There are again four conditions for this too: that the theory leads us to expect the things we observe, it is simple, it fits with our background knowledge and no other theory is as good at presenting these first three conditions in a logical and comprehensive way as the proposed theory.

Really, the main consideration that Swinburne relies on is a statement of what is generally called Ockham’s Razor. His statement of this principle is that a theory should be simple, but this is a very narrow definition of this principle.

William of Ockham did put forward the idea that one should look for the simplest explanation. But his razor goes somewhat further than this – it does not just refer to an idea that is the easiest to state, but is simple in the sense of not being complex. It is a theory that has the least number of explanatory elements that should be preferred over an explanation that requires more elements to explain it. Let’s take an example to make this plain.

Say you are drinking in the pub and the guy beside you tells you he has been abducted by aliens. Many people say things like, “Well, one should always keep an open mind”. Yeah, right. Actually, this ‘open mindedness’ isn’t the ‘scientific’ response at all. Ockham said that before you accept his aliens you need to ask – before I add elements (like aliens) to the universe to understand this story I should make sure that there is no other possibility that I can use to explain this story without them. For example, is it possible that the guy telling me this story could have imagined being abducted by aliens? And is the fact that he is on his sixth drink when I’m still finishing my first a bit of a give-away?

The point being that there are already lots of elements in the universe, can I explain the universe just with them, or do I need to invent something like aliens or (oh, I don’t know) a god or something, to help explain the universe.

Swinburne says that we can’t get by without a God.

There is something that is very interesting about this argument – not just is it the opposite of what I was expecting (I would have thought that someone who was going to be proposing a rational basis for the existence of god would be keeping way from Ockham as much as would be humanly possible). The fact he then says that the simplest solution to the problem of the universe is proposing a god who sustains the universe seems to be flying in the face of Ockham, but we’ll get there.

Swinburne has lots of talk about the laws of physics and how these explain a lot, but not enough. They don’t explain why the universe is as it is. Swinburne proposes that there could have been lots of different universes if the fundamental constants governing the life of the universe had been different. Many of these universes would not have sustained life. A universe with life is a better universe than one without life (apparently, though why this should be necessarily true sums up what still remains my major objection to this book). The only reason that explains why the fundamental forces of physics are as they are is the postulate of a god who knows and watches over us. Swinburne makes a point of stating that this is not just ‘the god of the gaps’ – but he protests too much. What else can it be? If we eventually find reasons why the universal constants could not be other than they are, such a finding will make his god again be an unnecessary hypothesis.

Saying that the hypothesis of a god makes the universe easier to understand was the high point of the book – I don’t agree, but at least it didn’t seem like special pleading as the rest of the book does. Elsewhere he says things that made my hair curl. For instance, in the chapter on miracles (and again on ‘religious experiences’) his argument is basically, lots of people say they have witnessed miracles. Not all of them could be wrong. Therefore miracles must exist and if that is the case then God must exist. That must be close to the sloppiest syllogism I’ve heard – and I’ve only simplified it slightly from what he said over pages and pages.

Actually, the hypothesis that there is a god is so exceptionally beyond the bounds of reason that to establish it one really needs to go beyond the bounds of ‘balance of probabilities’ to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. At no stage does Swinburne’s arguments go even close.

The writing is, at times, very poor. He spends far too much time building logical arguments and then only to make some outlandish statement at the end that seems confounded by the logical argument he has just built up. The stuff about why evil exists in the world would be funny if it wasn’t so serious a question. To say that God allows evil in the natural world as a way to show us what is possible – and thereby to give us an option to either be evil ourselves or to choose to be good, is, frankly, bizarre. Naturally, his argument for the existence of evil is ‘free will’ – but how this ‘free will’ explains children that die in utero is a bit beyond me. There is also the argument that God uses some of us as examples for others – and this guy is supposed to be moral.

The fundamental question that lies under this book is what sort of world would it be if there was no god sustaining and occasionally intervening in the workings of the world? This is a very interesting question – but my answer is still that the universe is better off without such a god to sustain it.

A number of times during the book he says that a religion that endorses killing for fun or raping and pillaging for fun can’t be a true religion. But the Old Testament comes as close to this when Moses criticises the Israelites for not killing everyone in the tribes they conquer that one would suspect he is making an unconscious criticism of the religions he is supposed to be supporting.

I found this book remarkably disappointing – if these are the best arguments available for belief in god, then I would say one would be better off just saying, “I believe.” And being done with it.

[Warren Fournier · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though I don't think Richard Swinburn successfully answered the titular question, he did manage to make some compelling arguments about evidence and faith. Much is made over "faith" when it comes to religious matters, but frankly all of human knowledge requires faith. The members of the general public cannot test to see if claims of quantum mechanics are true, or even that the map of the boundaries of their state are accurate. And for all the informed consent, a patient cannot be an expert on the biological processes of the disease they have or how the medication prescribed by their doctor actually may help. We rely a great deal on testimony to function in our everyday lives, and then we see how well that testimony fits in with our experiences. We may not know how a computer works, but if it performs the way we are told it will, we are satisfied.

Hence, Swinburn deconstructs the bias that a lot of his fellow philosophers and the general agnostic or atheist reader may have against a belief in a God. This bias goes against logic and reason based on the evidence already at our disposal, from which his conclusion is that there is a higher probability than not that there is a God.

Now, what he means by "God" is not any one particular religion's version of God, though for various reasons he touches on, he believes that if God exists then likely God will be closer to Jewish/Christian/Islamic ideas of God. He derives this conclusion from common natural laws of physics that, from what we can tell, seem to hold true throughout the universe. He even concludes that any living creature with any kind of mental life is connected to a soul based on Darwinian evolutionary theory.

At times, the book felt more like a wartime radio lecture from C.S. Lewis or an apology from H. Belloc than a work of philosophy. For example, he tries to explain the Christian basis of the suffering and death of Jesus somehow cleansing the human world of previous sin. He does this on the basis that folks need to walk-the-walk in order to pass on knowledge and behaviors to others. A military leader must fight alongside their regiment. A parent must also behave as they expect their child to behave. If we are to believe that suffering for the good of our fellow humans is a natural law, then God must also suffer for this common benefit.

Some of his arguments are more sound than others, but overall the book seems to contain giant leaps in logic based on his own bias as an Orthodox Christian. However, this may also be because he wrote this book for the lay public, not professional metaphysicians. He purposefully had to restrain himself from using technical language, and when he does, he makes sure he explains what he means. He had to hold back on getting into the weeds of certain logical proofs that would fly right over the heads of most of his intended audience. In addition, he had to keep the book short and sweet, so there was no room for him to engage in detailed analysis, and therefore nor is there room for a critic to engage in a such an analysis of this book. Swinburn had no intention of writing his own version of the Summa Theologica with updated info from modern scientific empiricism, though I think that would be an interesting prospect.

So essentially what we are left with is a summary of Swinburn's conclusions from decades of work, as well as his own justification for his moral and religious choices. It is easy to read and thought-provoking, but does not have the impact of Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine. He tried to make an intellectual work on the philosophy of religion while avoiding the pitfalls of theology, and then tried to simplify it down to an easily digested monograph of pop-philosophy. That was a tall order, and I think what he ended up creating wasn't quite any of these things.

I'd be curious to read a more detailed documentation of his work and then see what I think of these conclusions. But for now, this book will likely not convince any atheists, will reinforce what the religious already believe, and give some tenuous comfort to those struggling to find purpose in their lives.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard Swinburne doesn’t so much argue for the existence of God. Rather, he posits God as the only viable cause for the universe. The intellectual rigor in this book is top-notch. (There is a reason the New Atheists do not go after Swinburne). I will disagree with some of his conclusions at the end, but this is a useful text that is worth your time.

God

Swinburne outlines the doctrine of God in its classical terms, though he will balk on issues like eternalism and foreknowledge. If we say that God is a person/personal being/One God in Three Persons, then we need to have some idea of what a person is. A person is “an individual with basic powers (to act intentionally), purposes, and beliefs” (Swinburne 4).

Swinburne begins well by noting that God is an omnipotent, omniscient, and free person (6). Further, God can’t do the impossible. So far so good. Unfortunately, Swinburne says it is impossible to know what a free creature will do tomorrow (7). Omniscience for Swinburne simply means that God knows everything which is logically possible to know. We’ll come back to this claim.

He also rejects divine eternalism. God, for Swinburne, is everlasting but not timeless. He does not simultaneously cause the events of 587 B.C. and 1995 A.D., since that would interfere with the future free actions of his creatures. Rather, God exists in each moment of time. There is an obvious problem: Is God limited by time? Does God exist outside of time in any way?

The rest of the chapter on God is fairly good, especially his defense of divine essentialism (i.e., God has all of his essential properties necessarily).

How We explain things

Swinburne argues that the best explanation for an event is:

(1) It leads us to expect many and varied events which we observe.

(2) What is proposed is simple.

(3) It fits well with background knowledge (but only when background knowledge is available).

(4) We would not otherwise expect to find these events.

With these criteria, Swinburne argues that only God understood in the classical sense can make sense of the universe. Materialism cannot, since it can’t explain abstract objects, mental states, etc. A finite god cannot, since it would need to be explained by something else (hence violating (2) above).

The World and its Order

While he gives an unfortunate defense of Darwin, Swinburne does raise some problems for Hawking and Dawkins. If time is really cyclical, and if, ex hypothesi, we could leave 1995 and eventually come back to 1994, then the following bizarre results entail:

* My acting can be the cause of my not acting (64ff).

How the Existence of God Explains the Existence of Humans

Good defense of substance dualism. Substances have properties and particular relations to other substances. A mental event, as opposed to a material object, is that which the subject has privileged access (72).

Analysis

His argument for limited omnipotence comes at a high cost. One response to it is that even on Arminian grounds, models like Middle Knowledge at least attempt to preserve God’s knowledge of future free actions. I do not hold to MK, but there is a respectable amount of top-level literature making the case. Swinburne makes no such attempt.

But there is an even easier response. The Bible makes numerous predictions about the future free decisions of moral agents. Did Mary and Joseph have human freedom? Yes. Did Mary freely choose to remain a virgin before Jesus was born? Yes. Could it have been otherwise? It’s hard to imagine that it could have been. And that’s only one of many.

I think we can end on one more interesting angle. Can God have false beliefs? Obviously not. Can God have false beliefs about the future? I think every theist has to answer no. However, God appears throughout Scripture to make a number of statements concerning the future, and it is safe to say He at least thinks He has knowledge about them

[Rayden Mikey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing and at times boorish, but not a waste of time.

Swinburne's arguments for miracles are laughable, it basically comes down to, "These people say that X happened, so therefore X happened."

His arguments for evil are insensitive in a way? He uses the free will defense, which is a common argument I've heard before and is generally accepted by most Christians. Not my problem. My problem is that Swinburne over complicates the argument and then makes an outrageous claim about it, such as, "We should be thankful for our suffering and vulnerability because it shows that God gave us the freedom to be good or evil." (summary). His argument for natural evil is extremely weak, Timothy McGrew's argument is more convincing (but equally as messed up).

He says that there is evidence for Christianity, and then doesn't supply an ounce of evidence (if my memory serves me right).

I didn't read the earlier chapters of the book, only the last few so I cannot comment on them.

All in all, I expected better from one of the top rated Christian philosophers.

[Carter Solomon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Have had a lot of questions about religion recently. Which religion is correct? Why are there so many different religions? When did we become religious as a species ? I felt, first I need to decide if I believe in a God (and this was a short book). I am becoming more convinced that there is an omnipotent, good intending, all knowing God. Which religion is “correct” or is that something I can even question? I’m not sure. We will maybe find out soonish

[Josiah Watson · Rating 5 out of 5]

My review will focus on my two favorite sections of the book. Though I will briefly mention, that I believe this book is the best starting point for young/starting apologists. For this main reason, first, Swinburne is one of the greatest philosophers of religion of all time, thus he actually understands the philosophical methodology, such as background data, simplicity, and explanatory power. This point alone is refreshing and helpful. It seems as if a good sum of unqualified Christian apologists is writing apologetic books these days, therefore spreading bad epistemology among other things. I will mention, that a perceived weakness may be Swinburne's brevity in his explanations on some points. Though I will counter that, by saying that this book is NOT written for professional philosophers but for laymen. If you want detailed expositions from Swinburne, read "The Existence of God", "The Coherence of Theism", "Providence and The Problem of Evil", among many other voluminous volumes from him. Now that I got that out the way, I will focus the following sections in Swinburne's book, first, the fine-tuning of the universe, second, the problem of evil.
I believe the fine-tuning argument for a life-permitting universe is a great argument for God's existence and remains among one of my favorites, so it was really awesome to read Swinburne's exposition on this argument. He highlighted what one would expect when presenting the argument, the big bang, cosmological constants, and etc. Though my favorite point in the book on fine-tuning was the correction of the evolution vs creation debate. Swinburne argues while the Darwinian explanation is a correct explanation but not an ultimate explanation. What does he mean? An ultimate explanation is one reaching the highest level for why those laws rather than any other ones operated. As Swinburne states,
The laws of evolution are no doubt the consequences of the laws of chemistry governing the
organic matter of which animals are made. And the laws of chemistry hold because of the
fundamental laws of physics hold. But just those fundamental laws of physcis rather than any
others?
Swinburne is highlighting what both theists and atheists often miss, material objects have the same powers and liabilties as every other material object, so why just these laws? The materialist will often there is no explanation, while the theist claims God has reason to bring these laws about because they have the consequence that animals will eventually evolve into humans. This is a point that I believe atheists, such as, Richard Dawkins miss and theists, such as, Stephan Meyer miss.
The second highlight of the book, I thought was on the problem of evil. I will avoid a detailed explanation because I believe everyone is familiar with the problem of evil. Put simply, it asserts that an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God would most likely not want to allow certain unnecessary sufferings, such as cancer, hurricanes, and etc. There two distinct categories of suffering, there is moral evil and natural evil. Natural evil is suffering (or evil) not illiberally caused by humans or produced by human beings to occur as a result of their negligence. For example, this would be both physical and mental suffering, such as disease, natural disasters, and accidents unpredictable by humans bring in their train. Moral evil is caused deliberately by humans or failing what they ought and ought not to do. This could be starvation allowed to be in Africa for example.
Since I believe Swinburne has contributed the most novel approach to natural sufferings, it is most appropriate to stay on that topic. His theodicy put simply, by God allowing natural evils and suffering the world, it gives us a chance to respond good or bad. If a friend just lost a loved one to cancer, it gives to a chance to show a greater good, e.g. compassion, or respond badly without empathy or love in any kind. He argues without any suffering or evil, we would little to no opportunity to be heroic in a time that demands it, showing compassion to a friend when he/she needs it. God has the right to allow natural evils, to a limit, to occur because it gives opportunities to improve our character as a person, thus making it essential for growth.
In conclusion, I think this book is essential to the budding apologist because of its understanding of philosophical methodology. For that reason alone, the book is worth the buy. As well as the brilliant insights that are difficult to find on the lay-level. As well as, I believe to be, the best theodicy to combat the problem of evil against the existence of the orthodox God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

[Lydia Lee]

I heard Professor Swinburne speak in a debate about the existence of immaterial souls back in Oxford, and I’ve finally gotten around to reading some of his work. I’d recommend this book to anyone — religious or nonreligious — who wonders (like I do) if there is a rational basis for the existence of God.

[Rick Sam · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is my first book by Richard Swinburne. As he finishes in the epilogue, he was disappointed and so am I.

Why? I didn't learn anything new in this topic.

Is there a God?

Swinburne says, yes because he postulates God as the most simple explanation. Note that, he doesn't say, you can't explain therefore God, that is simply not what he is claiming. He says there are three explanations.

a) Materialism
b) Humanism
c) Theism

Under these three, he builds his case using four criteria for justification. Ergo, he takes Theism to be necessary for Science at all. I was surprised to find Swinburne's different theological views. He agrees with darwinian evolution, (the view that life evolved through natural selection). He says it could be possible that God had used it, but when it comes to consciousness. There's where, materialists are hitting a brick wall. Interesting, isn't it?


--Deus Vult--
Gottfried

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's hard to expect too much from a short book, but it is a dry read, which wasn't totally a surprise. Swinburne offers some fascinating insights and arguments in a short space and it is worth reading.

[Laurent Dv · Rating 4 out of 5]

Il s'agit de la version abrégée du gros livre de Swinburne "The existence of God" (en français La probabilité du théisme) qu'il a allégé en enlevant tout formalisme (variables, notations mathématiques, formule probabiliste de Bayes, etc.). Ce qui donne un livre beaucoup plus accessible, simple et concis (certains passages sont identiques) mais quand même rigoureux (chaque terme est défini, chaque proposition est clarifiée, etc.).

Swinburne adopte une méthode quelque peu originale : il essaye de démontrer l'existence de Dieu en s'inspirant de la méthode scientifique. C'est-à-dire qu'il détermine quels critères nous permettent de dire qu'une théorie est une bonne théorie scientifique (par exemple la théorie de la gravitation de Newton, les lois de Kepler, etc.) puis les retient pour évaluer l'explication de tous les faits du monde réel. L'existence de l'univers (pourquoi quelque chose plutôt que rien), le réglage fin des constantes de l'univers, l'existence de la conscience, les miracles, les expériences religieuses, etc.

Puis il montre que l'hypothèse de Dieu satisfait beaucoup plus ces critères que celle du naturalisme selon lequel il n'y a pas de Dieu (qu'il définit au début comme une personne toute-puissante, parfaitement libre et omnisciente). Autrement dit, que l'existence de Dieu explique beaucoup mieux notre monde que son inexistence. Donc il est plus probable qu'il existe, et donc nous devons croire qu'il existe.

Ci-dessous un résumé des différents chapitres (qui sera embelli plus tard...) :

Chapitre 1 : Dieu

Une personne est un individu doté d’actions élémentaires (en particulier des actions intentionnelles), qui poursuit un but et possède des pensées.

Action intentionnelle : une action faite volontairement (exemple : aller boire un café, faire un voyage à Londres)

Action élémentaire : une action intentionnelle “indécomposable”

Dieu se définit comme une personne qui possède trois attributs clés desquels découlent tous les autres :

La toute-puissance (accomplir tout acte logiquement possible)

L’omniscience (connaître tout ce qui est logiquement possible)

La parfaite liberté (agir sans dépendre en rien de causes extérieures à lui mais par des raisons choisies librement).

Comment cette définition de Dieu est compatible avec la Trinité qui pose trois personnes au lieu d’une seule ? Selon Swinburne qui a une position différente de la traditionnelle, le théisme vise à démontrer l’existence de la personne du Père, puis on peut démontrer celle du Fils et de l’Esprit.

On peut ensuite en déduire d’autres attributs : la bonté (ou omnibénévolence), la sagesse, etc.

Tous ces attributs sont des attributs essentiels (ceux sans lesquels une chose ne peut pas exister) et non pas des attributs accidentels (ceux sans lesquels peut exister).

Chapitre 2 : La nature des explications

Il existe deux types d’explications :

L’explication par la cause inanimée en termes de propriétés et dispositions (conditions pour qu’une substance puisse exercer ses propriétés)

L’explication par la personne en termes de volonté, de pensées, de choix

Voici quelques définitions :

Explication suffisante : explique comment une cause implique nécessairement un effet

Explication partielle : explique comment une cause implique nécessairement un effet

Explication complète : explication qui fait intervenir des causes fondamentales

Une bonne explication doit remplir quatre critères (pour les explications par l’inanimé, une loi est une loi de la nature si) :

Le pouvoir prédictif : réussir à prédire des observations concrètes et ne pas rencontrer d’observations qui la contredisent

La simplicité : être simple, postuler le moins possible d’entités

La cohérence avec le contexte (connaissances des champs voisins)

La qualité : elle doit être la meilleure loi, dit autrement il ne doit pas exister de loi concurrente qui satisfasse les critères 1-3 et explique bien ou mieux les données, sans celle loi on ne devrait pas s’attendre à toutes ces prédictions

Swinburne donne l’exemples de la première loi de Kepler pour expliquer par exemple le mouvement de la planète Mars.

Le premier critère ne suffit pas car il existe un nombre infini de théories compatibles avec des observations même si plus le nombre d’observations est grand plus il élimine le champ des théories possibles.

Le second est le plus important car c’est lui qui permet de départager les nombreuses théories qui remplissent le critère 1. Il ne s’agit pas simplement d’un outil pratique mais d’un principe fondamental sur lequel nous nous appuyons constamment dans la vie pratique pour différencier une explication vraie d’une fausse (exemples : enquêtes, etc.).

Le troisième se réduit en fait au critère précédent de simplicité car il est plus simple de postuler une seule et unique règle qui s’applique à toute entité de plusieurs types plutôt que plusieurs règles différentes pour différents types respectivement. Par exemple une théorie qui postule une unique règle pour l’eau et l’huile et tous les liquides est meilleure qu’une autre qui

Chapitre 3 : Comment Dieu explique le monde

L’hypothèse de l’existence de Dieu est beaucoup plus simple que celle de l’univers sans lui pour expliquer l’ordre, le réglage fin des constantes de l’univers et .

L’hypothèse des mujltivers est bien plus complexe. Même si les multivers expliquent pourquoi un univers où la vie est possible est apparu, il faut expliquer comment il se fait que des multivers rendant la vie possible sont apparus. Dit autrement, la thèse des multivers ne fait que repousser plus loin le problème du réglage fin.

Chapitre 4 : Comment l’existence de Dieu explique l’existence de l’homme

L’hypothèse de l’existence de Dieu est beaucoup plus simple que celle de l’univers sans lui pour expliquer l’existence de l’âme (ou la conscience). En particulier les enchaînements entre événements cérébraux et événements mentaux (pourquoi tel événement mental cause tel événement cérébral et pas un autre). Les événements cérébraux faisant partie des événements extérieurs qui sont publics : il n’existe pas de point de vue privilégié pour les observer. Les événements mentaux quant à eux sont ceux par rapport auxquels il existe un point de vue d’un observateur privilégié pour les observer de façon exclusive (“privée”).

En effet, étant que les événements mentaux diffèrent les uns des autres non pas en quantité mais en qualité (différence de nature et non pas de degré), contrairement aux événements cérébraux (et physiques plus généralement), il s’ensuit qu’ils échappent à toute explication par l’inanimé qui par définition exclut le mental et ne retient que ce qui est mathématique ou quantifiable.

Plus précisément, la théorie de l’évolution ne parvient pas à expliquer l’existence et l’apparition de l’âme car elle ne fait que déjà la supposer. La théorie néodarwinienne explique plutôt comment une fois supposé que des êtres dotés d’une âme existent, ces êtres ont plus prospéré que les autres êtres dépourvus d’âmes. Ou encore comment les êtres vivants dotés d’une âme supérieure aux âmes d’autres espèces ont mieux survécu.

Chapitre 5 : Comment l’existence de Dieu explique le mal

Il y a une distinction à faire entre mal morale et mal naturel :

Mal moral : mal dû à l’action d’êtres libres rationnels (tous les actions mauvaises et crimes comme les meurtres, les vols, les agressions, les viols, les mensonges, etc.)

Mal naturel : mal non lié à l’action d’êtres libres rationnels (catastrophes naturelles comme les séismes, les tsunamis, les ouragans, les incendies, etc.)

Une fois de plus, Swinburne soumet l’hypothèse du théisme à cette donnée (le mal sous ses deux volets) : si Dieu existe, s’attendrait-on réellement au mal (moral et naturel) ?

Il répond une fois de plus par l’affirmative en abordant les raisons que Dieu a de permettre le mal moral puis celles pour le mal naturel.

Mal moral : Dieu permet le mal moral car il nous donne à nous les humains l’occasion d’agir en tant qu’agents responsables soit pour faire le bien soit pour faire le mal. Même quand on est victime d’un mal, on permet à l’offenseur d’avoir pu exercé son libre-arbitre non comme des robots mais des agents responsables.

On pourrait se demander si Dieu a le droit de permettre le mal pour donner ces privilèges aux hommes sans leur demander leur permission ? Par exemple comme des médecins qui demandent la permission à des gens qui acceptent de participer à une expérience.

Premièrement, la différence est que les médecins traitent des gens qui existent déjà alors que Dieu fait son choix avant de créer les hommes.

Deuxièmement, Dieu n’est pas comparable à un médecin : de même que des parents ont des droits sur leur enfant car ils lui donné la vie, Dieu a des droits à plus forte raison sur nous vu qu’il nous a créé et soutient notre existence.

Cependant, il faut tempérer ces propos car pour rester juste, Dieu doit limiter la quantité de souffrance qu’il permet pour qu’elle soit appropriée et non pas excessive.

Mal naturel :

Dieu permet le mal naturel car

Il nous donne l’occasion d’augmenter notre maîtrise du monde et capacités à y produire des changements (par exemple en observant des gens mourir d’une maladie et d’autres guérir si on leur donne tel médicament, on peut apprendre à guérir des gens).

Il augmente le nombre de nos choix possibles : il nous donne plus d’occasions pour faire du bien. Suite à séisme, on peut participer pour secourir les victimes. Lorsqu’un proche est malade, on a l’opportunité de prendre soin de lui, aussi lourde soit sa maladie, etc.

La même question se pose aussi pour les animaux, à laquelle on peut donner les deux mêmes réponses précédentes.

Du côté humain, si cette piste ne nous convient pas, il nous en reste une de repli basée sur la vie après la mort. Celle-ci pourrait largement faire pencher la balance du côté des bénéfices : une vie pour l’éternité avec Dieu éclipserait toute souffrance vécue dans la vie passée.

Chapitre 7 : Comment l’existence de Dieu explique les miracles

Les miracles sont une violation ou une suspension par Dieu des lois de la nature. L’interprétation des événements naturels que certains prétendent être des miracles va entièrement dépendre des hypothèses de l’interprète. Soit il les réduira à des phénomènes naturels habituels (s’il est athée), soit il les verra comme les actes d’une personne immatérielle (s’il est théiste). Il est difficile de départager un prétendu miracle. Mais il en existe qui sont assez clairs comme la résurrection de Jésus-Christ.

La révélation : Si Dieu existe (hypothèse théiste), on peut tout à fait s’attendre à ce qu’il veuille se révéler à nous par des personnes (des prophètes) et/ou par des livres sacrés. Cependant, le livre présent n’a pas pour but de dire qui est trois principaux monothéismes a raison entre christianisme, judaïsme et islam.

La révélation chrétienne : L’auteur étant orthodoxe, il pense que la résurrection du Christ permet de conclure de manière probante à la vérité du christianisme. En effet, aucune autre religion (monothéiste ou non) n’a de miracle semblable à proposer : les religions orientales n’en n’ont pas qu’on peut évaluer, le judaïsme relate des miracles mais les indices ne sont pas très nombreux ou forts, et enfin l’Islam n’a que l’écriture surnaturelle du Coran qui est invérifiable et qui peut aussi s’expliquer de façon naturelle (aussi beau soit-il).

L’expérience spirituelle :

Swinburne s’appuie sur deux principes :

Le principe de crédulité : nous devons faire confiance à ce que nous vivons comme expérience (perceptions, sens) à moins de et jusqu’à avoir la preuve du contraire

Le principe du témoignage : nous devons faire confiance à ce que les autres prétendent avoir vécu comme expérience (perceptions, sens) à moins de et jusqu’à avoir la preuve du contraire

Ici, la preuve du contraire supposerait de montrer que DIeu n’existe pas pour montrer que ce qui est vécu comme du surnaturel n’est qu’une hallucination (ce que le reste du livre avant a réfuté). Comme énormément de personnes font l’expérience de Dieu (des milliards depuis le début de l’humanité), on peut considérer que l’expérience religieuse conforte l’existence d’un Dieu qui se révèle à nous.

[John Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book by Swinburne is definitely easy reading, I do kind of wonder the attempt to summarize and make things really simple resulted in a certain parts striking the readership as a bit contrived, questionable and unbelievable. I dunno, I would need to read his more academic works to compare. I did like the book overall and occasionally I was excited to read a distinction or some point made that I never heard anyone else make, or that I myself had some to from personal reflections.

I appreciate that Swinburne recognized the absurdity of maintaining that God is frozen in some static “Timeless” state where everything is an every present NOW. Swinburne acknowledges that God cannot do what is logically impossible and the future which doesn't exist isn't there to know, people who insist that God must know what isn't there to know, are like those who insist that God must be able to make a rock heavy then he can lift and make himself both exist and not exist at the same time. God knowing all there is to know, means all future events that are certainties in His mind, are the things He predetermines to do and all other future events which he doesn't predetermine, He knows them for what they are—possibilities.

On the issue of morality Swinburne wrote “Moral truths are clearly moral truths, whether or not there is a God: It is surely wrong to torture children for fun whether or not there is a God”
I must disagree with him on this. If there is no God and man is merely an evolved animal, then man could have evolved to think it was good in some cases to torture children for fun and there wouldn't be any reason that it was wrong if culture accepted it. We see things happening in the animal kingdom that causes us to gasp with horror, but we wouldn't say these animals that rape, eat their young, kill for entertainment are evil, rather they just behaving how blind and pitiless evolution determined them to behave, so are humans morally superior because they evolved differently? If so by whose standard? So sure, what if human “animals” evolved a sense of “I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine” and this really is the basis for reciprocal altruism, they could have just as well evolved a different sense that would have also had survival benefits. Even if we evolved certain “moral” prejudices, and are therefore, deluded into sticking the oughts and ought nots on our own subjective prejudices, doesn't mean there is any such thing as moral truths. With no God, there simply cannot be any absolute moral Oughts or Ought Nots, the moral sense is an accident of evolution and it is forever in flux and shaped by the ever changing culture. I think it is more reasonable to say the basis of morality is the the very goodness of God, the basis of duty is the commands that flow from the One who is Love.

Swinburne made some interesting points. He mentioned “God cannot create the best of all possible worlds, for there can be no such world—any would can be improved by adding more persons to it, and no doubt in plenty of other ways as well. So what does God's perfect goodness amount to? Not that he does all possible good acts—that is no logically possible. Presumably that he fulfills his obligations, does no bad acts, and preforms very many good acts.”

I liked Swinburne's chapter on the two different kinds of Explanation, which was the reason why I bought and read the book. He writes “When dynamite causes a particular explosion, it does do because it has, among its properties, the power to do so and the liability to exercise that power under certain conditions—when it is ignites at a certain temperature and pressure. It has to cause the explosion under those conditions; it has no option, and there is nothing purposive about it doing so. But the dynamite was ignited because, say, a terrorist causes the ignition, because he had the power to do so, the belief that doing so would cause an explosion. He chose to cause the ignition; he could have done otherwise. Here we have two kinds of explanation. The first, in terms of powers and liabilities, is inanimate explanation. The second, in terms of powers, beliefs, and purposes, is intentions, or—as I shall call it in the future—personal explanation.”

Atheist believing there is no God, must believe that humans late in the history of the universe, due to unexplained natural laws, acting on inanimate matter that popped out of nothingness, though unguided and meaningless, accidentally evolved consciousness, mind, reason and the powers of acting and shaping the natural world (that is if they don't claim freewill and consciousness is an illusion as some do). This means they are forced to think that outside of humanity, there is only inanimate explanation. But if we suppose there is a God, we are then free to acknowledge both inanimate and personal explanations and can make much more sense of the universe, why there is something rather than nothing and the fine tuning of the cosmos, the mathematical and logical aspects of it, the information, complexity, beauty and rationality, etc...
Swinburne is a theistic evolutionist and I am not, but I did like this point he made “Darwin showed that the universe is a machine for making animals and humans. But it is misleading to gloss that correct point in the way that Richard Dawkins does: 'our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but... it is a mystery no longer... Darwin and Wallace solved it' )The Blind Watchmaker, p.xiii). It is misleading because it ignores the interesting question of whether the existence and operation of that machine, the factors which Darwin (and Wallace) cited to explain 'our existence', themselves have a further explanation. I have argued that the principles of rational inquiry suggest that they do. Darwin gave a correct explanation of the existence of animals and humans; but not, I think, an ultimate one. The watch may have been made with the aid of some blind screwdrivers (or even a blind watchmaking machine), but they were guided by a watchmaker with some very clear sight”

On the problem on evil, Swinburne wrote “in order to have a choice between good and evil, agents need already a certain depravity, in the sense of a system of desires for that they correctly believe to be evil... Depravity is itself an evil which is necessary condition of greater good. It makes possible a choice made seriously and deliberately, because made in the face of genuine alternative. I stress that, according to the free-will defense, it is a natural possibility of moral evil which is the necessary condition of the great good, not the actual evil itself.”

I could see how one could form this conclusion from the story of Adam and Eve. God put a tree in the garden and said don't eat from it. He could have made the fruit smell like poop and look like rotting meat with maggots crawling in it. But instead, we see Eve saw the fruit was desirable and she also wanted the wisdom it promised. So not only was there the possibility, but the evil option was compelling, there was an inner desire for it. But does this mean that Adam and Eve are to be considered to already be depraved?

For there to be truly a choice, must evil be as or more attractive than the good? If I offer my kids Brussels spouts or ice-cream, I am giving them a choice, but I know they'll likely go with the ice-cream. Why couldn't God have made the good like ice-cream and the bad like Brussels spouts? How does this truly remove choice?

Some of Swinburne's thoughts on Miracles and Religious Experiences was good. But this review is a bit lengthy, so I'll wrapped up.

[Nathan Ormond · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really good positive case for Theism. My only criticism would be that Swinburne just doesn't seriously engage in comparing his theory against naturalism (perhaps he does in other works, but not here). This means that coming to read the book not already agreeing with its conclusion I have plenty of thoughts about what the 'best' (to my knowledge) theory of naturalism looks like. Many of Swinburne's objections to this naturalism are just hand wavy sentences asserting that naturalism cannot account for our phenomenal lives or religious experience or some other datum. The problem is that according to me naturalism *can* account for these things, so that sort of response just won't do!

My disappointment with the lack of theory comparison also means that at the end of the book I just can't say I'm very confident in Swinburne's explanation. For example Swinburne states that naturalism just posits lots of brutness in its theory of everything to explain why natural laws are the way they are etc., but (so Swinburne claims) theists have a simpler explanation. But, according to Swinburne, the Theistic explanation is that the laws are the way they are as the result of God exercising His libertarian free will -- choosing to make the law this value rather than that etc., -- each case of God's *voluntas* just being a brute contingent fact! I personally really struggle to see how this is a better explanation than the naturalism I currently hold to.

Of course much more can be said about my objections and I will endeavour to do a longer review at some point. I still recommend this book to anyone interested in the question. The methodology that Swinburne uses is certainly the right way to go to convince good-faith non-Theists that God exists and he puts all the bones in place; the argument just needs more meat on the bones!

[Stephanie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointed that this was required reading at my son’s college. It was a lukewarm, speculative piece of noncommittal drivel. There were a few decent points, but ultimately the author decided that if you do believe in God, you should probably do something about it. Wow! Blow my socks off with that inspiring revelation!🙄

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Swinburne makes a fairly strong case for the position of theism, the weakest link being the chapter on souls. I know what he means in that chapter, it's essentially dualism, however it is written in such a way that strictly rational scientific types will cringe.

[Denis Antonio · Rating 4 out of 5]

Swinburne provides a thoughtful introduction to philosophical questions about theistic worldview validity. It wasn't a big deal, but having everything explained logically was helpful.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

Richard Swinburne, the emeritus Nolloth professor of the philosophy of religion at Oxford and one of the foremost philosophers of our time, is my Elvis. His monographs on theism and specifically the Christian religion are extremely rigorous defences which even the atheists among his colleagues find formidable edifices to attack. IS THERE A GOD? is meant to be a distillation of his thought for layman readers without especial training in the philosophy of religion. Unfortunately, it is an often disappointing endeavour, perhaps because of the limitations of the genre.

Swinburne starts things off by explaining exactly what the theist means when he speaks of "God". He makes clear that his arguments are yet to come, he merely wants to set some terminology first. Unfortunately, he's just opening himself up to attacks from inattentive readers along the lines of "Why is he already talking about God when no case has been made for his existence?" Swinburne's definitions about God are fairly traditional--omnipotence, omniscience, and all-goodness. However, the Christian is bound to raise an eyebrow at Swinburne's view of goodness and logic as independent matters that God is bound by, not concepts He himself defines, and Swinburne's definition of God as everlasting but not timeless. (I couldn't help wondering, however, if this seeming incompatibility with Christian teaching could be resolved by holding God's energies to be so, not His essence, as in late Byzantine theology.)

Swinburne's arguments for general theism are mainly based on the simplicity that the existence of God provides. He notes that Occam's razor is a basic principle of the sciences and claims that is applicable in the philosophy of religion just as much. For matters relating to the human beings, his explanation of why a just God can allow evil is a fairly standard one. However, his arguments for the existence of a soul are novel in that they really don't assume the existence of God at all. Even those readers who ultimately disagree with his arguments for theism should certainly come back to his exposition of dualism and see if they at least can accept that much.

I've read Swinburne's monographs intended for the trained reader, and I find them very well written indeed. However, this book intended for the general public is not anywhere close as successful as his academic writing. In simplifying his discussion for the ordinary reader, Swinburne also simplifies his arguments to varying degrees, which occasionally make them weak enough that any reader would protest at seeming assumptions that this or that is true. Also, Swinburne entirely leaves out the ontological argument. While it is the only traditional argument that is a bit hard to explain simply, it has enjoyed a return to popularity in recent years, and even if Swinburne himself doesn't think it useful, he should at least generally define it for his readers.

Certainly IS THERE A GOD is valuable as a summary of Swinburne's thought for the neophyte who is not yet ready to tackle the philosopher's entire oeuvre. However, it does not suffice as a general introduction to the philosophy of religion, or even to theism specifically. I'd recommend using it as a supplement to the excellent anthology READINGS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION ed. Baruch Brody (Prentice Hall, 1996).

[Silas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting arguments, others seemed to be quite a stretch.Definitely an important part of the conversation though and well worth reading.

[Pouya · Rating 3 out of 5]

It would be hard to debate if someone was to claim this book as more theology rather than philosophy, but to be fair, it is still written by a contemporary philosopher, and that makes it full of interesting insights. 
The value of these books, personally I believe, is not in illustrating that God exists (or does not exist?), but they can help us to gain a contemporary and more logical understanding of the concept of God.
With the above in mind, there are flaws to be noted. Even from the face of it, some direct criticism can be raised to his overall structure of arguments: why Theism is only evaluated against a simplistic form of materialism? Why not compare it against modern formulations of Naturalism? And why not consider a possible default case that we human beings might not be able at all to grasp the ultimate explanation for this universe? Or how about Deism, Polytheism, or hypothetical cases like an aesthetic god who doesn't care much about the human condition? I should add too that the chapter on theodicies and response to the problem of evil was not as deep as I was originally expecting it to be.
That all being said, I really admire that he opens his epilogue by admitting that there are potential counterarguments available to all he has stated in the book, and he is well aware of his case limitations. This sort of humble approach to conclusions is exactly why I credit thinkers like Swinburne as a philosopher rather than a dogmatic believer. I usually enjoy the philosophical works on theism/atheism as they tend to touch on many interesting topics from philosophical (eg. Epistemology and metaphysics) to scientific ones (biological evolution, cosmology, etc.). Plus, considering the theistic/religious atmosphere I spent my childhood and teenage years in, I always get excited by questions about on concept of God.

[Reinhard Gobrecht · Rating 3 out of 5]

Die Argumentationsweise in diesem Buch ist nicht immer präzise. Swinburne versucht einfache gegen kompliziertere Hypothesen mit Wahrscheinlichkeiten zu bewerten. Er sagt dann, dass die einfachere Hypothese wahrscheinlicher ist. Das kann in manchen Fällen zutreffen, muss aber nicht in allen Fällen zutreffen. Eine einfachere Hypothese zieht man einer komplizierteren Hypothese vor (Ockhamsches Prinzip), wenn man dadurch nicht notwendige Annahmen eliminieren kann. Bei der Wahrheitsbewertung von Hypothesen jedoch, scheint es mir aber fraglich, dass die einfachere immer wahrscheinlicher sein muss als die kompliziertere.
Swinburne benutzt auch die Allmacht Gottes, um daraus die Existenz eines notwendigen Wesens zu begründen. Es gibt jedoch gute Gründe, warum Gott nicht allmächtig ist. Jeder weiß z. B. was Auschwitz betrifft, das Gott schwieg, d. h., Gott überließ dem Menschen die sittliche Verantwortung, was Auschwitz betrifft.

[Hunter Smithpeters · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are strong points and weak (or rather questionable) points in this book. Strong points are his defense of the teleological, cosmological, and resurrection arguments. His epistemology with regard to religious experience is also quite good and in his own words he argues for similar ideas as that of Plantinga: defeaters for beliefs and how a Christian is rationally justified in belief in God from religious experience, Calvin’s ‘sensitas divinitas’. All good stuff.

Where Swinburne seems weak or questionable is his promotion of open theism, claiming that it is impossible for God to know the future, and his elevation of human free will (or at least his definition of it). Here, he doesn’t give strong arguments for why he thinks these things but instead just merely supposes it. I’m left thinking, “well why?”

[Pavel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very clearly written, meticulously argued, but and ultimately - unpersuasive. The whole structure is based on the premisses of substance dualism and interactionsm, the views that there could be an unembodied mind and that this mind could create and maintain the physical world. We have very little evidence in support of these two views, and massive evidence against them. Still, this is a good and short introduction to the philosophy of (Christian) religion.

[Ashish Jaituni · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good book! Immensely readable, very well written. Better arguments presented and a good case for God. Richard Swinburne is certainly one of the best Christian Philosophers of the 20th century. Except for 2-3 places where I don't agree with Swinburne's argument or find it weak, he does a great job of presenting a case for the existence of God.

[Sarah Hackley · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is full of circular reasoning meant to justify beliefs already held by the author. I'm sure Swinburne is in fact an intelligent and dedicated philosopher. However, I wouldn't say that if I had only this book on which to base such an assertion.

[Curby Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the finest short introductions to the question: Is There a God? This is an excellent resource for either a believer who wants to learn more or a skeptic who is willing to hear from the other side. His chapter on why God would permit evil is particularly well done. Highly recommended!

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

A useful introduction to a series of complex arguments in favor of the existence of God.

[Jose · Rating 2 out of 5]

The answer, according to a logical reading of this book, is NO. To be fair the author never categorically affirms the existence of God , he just propounds that God is more likely to exist than not.
The arguments he gives are extremely weak and he seems to think throughout that the burden of proof is on those who do not believe in God. If someone claims to have seen a six-legged unicorn, it is up to the claimant to provide proof, not the person that hears the story. I don’t need to prove to you that such creatures don’t exist, I have no stake in whether it’s real or not, you do.

So Mr Swinburne sets up to attempt the impossible, to convince us that there is enough evidence to accept there is such a thing as God.

Most of his arguments have a similar structure:
1) Something becomes too complex for the current state of science to explain properly: the origin of the universe, life, consciousness, the existence of evil, etc..
2) Someone, out of thin air, God, made it so. What could be simpler.

Except there is nothing simple about coming up with a fictional being, one which is omnipotent , omniscient and infinitely free, to fix our ignorance or provide meaning to our existence. Nothing simple about that besides the fact that it feels "comfortable" to feel like someone might be there giving a hoot about us. Things get really twisted when on top of it we add that this being is loving and has a purpose for what he does.

Except this is the whole history of God(s) in a nutshell. Primitive men found great comfort in explaining away lightning, volcanos and stars as the handiwork of deities. "Someone" just like them but infinitely more powerful must be in charge. Us, humans create deities that are surprisingly similar to us and have a more perfect sense of justice, love and power. Then we have to come back to earth and explain why, if there is such a God, we see all the famines ,evil and disease. The author goes on about how without these pain, we wouldn't appreciate our lucky-to-be-alive joy. We are learning a lesson here...except the kid that inherits the money and buys the house already knows as much about the value of money as the the kid that has to go out and quit school because he needs to get a job. Yes, for every kid that looses himself because of wealth , there are ten who thrive.

So much fro the ultimate "explanation" .

Darwin and evolution make an appearance. the author, to his credit, does not reject science at all. He just claims that randomness doesn't explain how the complexity we inhabit, our bodies, came to be. Fair enough. Science has made some great strides in this but I don't think we humans appreciate taht this randomness is not just a night at the casino but billions of years, billions, in the making . He almost got me with the idea of vocations, how come some humans have vocations...

But then he decided that there is not only a God but also a soul separate from the body, that this soul is attached to the body at some moment decided by God and that some animals might have also rough versions of a soul. This sounds to me incredibly naive, and dangerous. I know it is a popular idea but it has made tremendous damage to the human race. It basically justified the slaughter of millions to "save their souls", it made our life on Earth a secondary concern for kings, priests and pious people of all kinds. It still does. The separation of soul and body (and the purported residence of the soul in the brain like the author claims) is a theory that runs contrary to any real wisdom. If there is a soul, it is not a separate anything. If you can't explain how when we die the soul survives then you can just refer to God's omnipotence (even though te author claims even God is subject to the laws of logic).

That the religious experience is pervasive and millions of trustworthy people accept it as real is not a real argument either. The more I talk to believers, the more I realize that either they rarely question their beliefs, they are ingrained in them , or that they simply go along with the cultural norm and willfully ignore those very deeply held beliefs when it is convenient.

I was looking at the rave reviews this book has gotten. I think it is a good book to sit and reflect on the nature of religious belief. The final chapter on the supremacy of Christianity makes sense once you have leapt over all the logic holes. Yes, who can beat Resurrection ? Not Mohamed or Vishnu. But then again, did it happen? We have no serious evidence and centuries of searching has produced none.
Doubt is a state opposite to faith. It's an uncomfortable state but a step ahead of atheism. If God is really who the author claims to be, he would have provided a failsafe, a breach of the free will, a sign... a reason to believe in God. And frankly, it seems like a solitary game to me.

[Eduardo Contreras · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is one of the most rigorous works in contemporary philosophy of religion. Using probability theory, Swinburne constructs a detailed and systematic case for the rationality of belief in God. While the book has received various criticisms, many of them stem from misunderstandings or simplifications of its core arguments.

⸻

1. The Fine-Tuning Argument and the Order of the Universe

One of the most debated points in the book is Swinburne’s discussion of fine-tuning. Some critics argue that if there were a deeper physical law governing the constants of the universe, the God hypothesis would be unnecessary. However, this objection fundamentally misunderstands Swinburne’s argument.

Swinburne is not merely saying, “These constants allow life, therefore God exists.” Instead, he is asking a more profound question: Why is there an ordered universe at all? If we were to discover a law that determines the values of these constants, we would then need to ask: Why does that law exist? A universe with structured, life-permitting physical laws is far less probable than a chaotic one. The very existence of such order increases the plausibility of theism rather than reducing it.

⸻

2. The Problem of Evil: A Difficult but Not Insurmountable Issue

The problem of evil is undoubtedly one of the most challenging objections to theism. Swinburne approaches it seriously, arguing that moral evil is justified through free will: the ability to choose between good and evil is a greater good than merely being incapable of doing wrong.

Regarding natural evil, Swinburne suggests that suffering allows for moral growth and that this world serves as a kind of testing ground for the soul. While this is a defensible position, it is also reasonable to acknowledge that some aspects of evil remain mysterious. However, if we assume the Judeo-Christian God exists and has promised an infinitely greater joy in the afterlife, then the suffering of this world could be seen as part of a larger, redemptive plan. In that case, suffering does not disprove God’s existence but rather fits into a broader teleological framework.

⸻

3. The Strength of Swinburne’s Mind-Body Dualism

One of the book’s strongest sections is its defense of dualism. Swinburne argues that consciousness cannot be fully reduced to physical processes and that the existence of individual minds serves as evidence for theism. This argument aligns well with contemporary debates in the philosophy of mind and presents serious challenges to materialist worldviews.

⸻

4. Does Christianity Promote Immorality?

Some critics argue that Swinburne’s claim—that a religion endorsing moral evil or unnatural behaviors cannot be true—is undermined by the violence found in the Old Testament. However, this objection misunderstands Christian theology.

Christianity is not founded on Old Testament law but on the New Covenant established by Christ. As Jesus himself stated, some laws were permitted temporarily due to the hardness of people’s hearts, but they were ultimately fulfilled and transcended by his teachings. The moral framework of the New Testament has remained largely unchallenged in the history of philosophy, further reinforcing Christianity’s moral credibility.

⸻

5. The Argument from Miracles: A Rational Case, Not Mere Wishful Thinking

One of the most frequently dismissed arguments in Swinburne’s book is his defense of miracles. Critics often caricature it as simply stating, “Many people claim to have witnessed miracles, therefore they must be real.” However, this is a misrepresentation.

Swinburne applies probabilistic reasoning: if multiple independent testimonies report extraordinary events, and these events occur in religious contexts where divine intervention would be expected, then the probability that at least some of these events are genuine miracles increases. This argument is logically sound and cannot be dismissed outright without engaging with the underlying Bayesian framework.

⸻

Serious book defending the rationality of theism. While certain aspects, such as the problem of evil, leave room for continued debate, Swinburne’s overall argument is rigorous, well-structured, and logically coherent.

For anyone seeking a deep and intellectual exploration of the case for God, this book is essential reading.

[Sajjad]

این کتاب به پیشنهاد یکنفر خوندم اما متاسفانه دلایل اصلی چنگی به دلم نزد و دقیقا یاد استدلالهای متفکران اسلامی افتادم
بیشتر فرض نویسنده این بود که اگر چیزی قابل مشاهده نباشه دلیلی بر رد اون چیز نیست
مثلا ندین نیروی الکترومغناطیس و ندیدن امواج و ... دلیلی بر نبودن اونها نیست
بعد این پیشفرض تعمیم داده بود به افکار و تصورات ذهن و اینکه فرض کرده بود اگر مغز یکنفر دو قسمت کنیم
و اگر فرض کنیم طرف راست مغز اون جنبه مثبت اون باشه رو در بدن فرد دیگری قرار بدیم و طرف چپ اون فرد جنبه بد اون باشه
پس خود اون فرد کدوم محسوب میشه اون قسمت راست یا چپ مغز که در بدن فرد دیگری کاشته شده

اول اینکه باید گفت مثلا در مورد امواج مغناطیسی و امواج رادیویی و.. درسته که دیده نمیشه در مورد حالات انسانی همینطور غمگین یا خوشحال بودن فرد درسته که مشخص نیست اما میشه فهمید
اما میشه اون از طریق ازمایش اندازه گرفت وبه وجودشون پی برد اما در مورد روح و.. هیچ راهی برای اثبات وجودش نیست
دوما اینکه هرچیزی که قابل دیدن نباشه اما ممکنه وجود داشته باشه استدال درستی نیست نمونه اش قوری راسل یا خدای اسپاگتی یا حتی هری پاتر با این فرض ممکنه وجود داشته باشن درسته که دیده نمیشن اما با این فرض ممکنه وجود داشته باشن
در مورد مغز هم من نمیدون این دانشمند چطور مغز دو چیز مجزا دونسته اینطوری نیست که مغز طرف راست مثلا باعث فرد خوب بودن و صفات خوب باشه
و قسمت چپ باعث صفات بد ! هر چند با وجود فاصله مغز در نیمکره راست و چپ اما صفات ورفتار و حتی خاطرات ما بصورت در هم تنیده در مغز شکل میگیره اینطور نیست که مثلا برای یک کار فقط یک قسمت مغز درگیر بشه
که بفرض با جدا کردن مغز و پیوند اون در ادم دیگه دو فرد مختلف شکل بگیره

و اما اینکه در یکجای کتاب گفته که نظریه داروین در توصیف امیال باورها، اهداف و افکار و احساسات توضیحی نداره
این هم حرف بی اساسی اولا اهداف و افکار ببیشتز انسانها درخدت دو چیزه بقا و تولید مثل فرد که این جز اساسی نظریه تکامل داروینه
در مورد بیشتر امیال ها و باورها ما هم سرچشمه گرفته از محیط ما هست ، اینکه در کجای دنیا و چه کشوری بدنیا بیایم در نحوه نگرش ما در دنیا تاثیر گذاره نمونه اش نویسنده کتاب که سعی در حقانیت دین مسیحی میکنه که اگر در جای دیگه ای بدنیا میومد عقاید متفاوتی داشت
و همینطور افکار هر جامعه و دین برای بقا و متناسب با روحیات افراد رشد و گسترش پیدا کرده که بازم برای بقا افراد جامعه مفید بود
مثلا در شرق میبینیم که اثری از افکار یکتا باوری نیست اما در غرب سه دین یکتا پرستی بوده که خود سرچشمه گرفته از دنیهای قبلی بوده
در کل هر دینی و عقیده ای در فرهنگی تونسته شکل بگیره که بتونه برای اون جامعه مفید بوده باشه و گرنه توسط افکار جدید حذف شده
این هم بنوعی داروینیسم دینی

در فصل اراده ازاد نویسنده و مترجم به دوراهی و چوب دوسر نجس قرار گرفتن
نویسنده استدال کرده با توجه به عدم قطیت در دنیا کوانتوم پس ما هم اراد ازاد داریم و دچار جبر نیستیم
اما مترجم به مشکلی دیگه ای برخورده که اگه عدم قطعیت در دنیای کوانتوم وجود نداره ممکنه قانون علت و معلول زیر سوال بره و جود خدا هم نفی بشه و ممکنه جهان تصادفی بوجود اومده باشه
این مشکل اراده و اختیار و رابطه قانون علت و معلول همیشه برای فلاسفه اسلامی مشکل ساز بوده چون تایید یکی نفی دیگری میشده
همیینه که گفتن نه انسان مختار هست و نه نیست و اینطوری از زیر بار این مشکل فرار کردن

اما در زمینه شر طبیعی نویسنده شروع به استدالهای ابکی کرده اینطوری که شرهای طبیعی مثل کرونا ، زلزله و.. و گفته خدا به انسان عقل داده و بره بفهمه علت اینها چی و اینکه مشکلات برطرف کنه و اینکه از دل مشکلات قهرمانها بوجود میاد و اینکه این حوادث حتما خیری در اونها نهفته اس که ما نمی بینم
من نمفهمیم خدا بیکاره زلزله ایجاد کنه تا عده ای زیاد زن و بچه بمیرن تا قهرمان پیدا بشه و استعداد های انسان شکوفا بشه و انسانها برن کشف کنن علت زلزله و طوفان چی بعد مهارش کنن
و اینکه کرونا باید صد ها هزار نفر الان بکشه تا انسانها برن واکسنش کشف کنن و اینطوری با این کارها خدا میخاد خودش یاد انسان بندازه !
این چه خیری در این کار نهفته اس! و چرا خدا اینطوری خودش میخهواد به یاد انسان بندازه برای من تعجبه
چرا خدا نمیاد مثلا فردا تمام کرونا توی کشورهای کره زمین بطور مروموزی نابود کنه و اینطوری ما پی نبریم که یک نیروی خیر و بالاتری وجود داره
ایا اینطوری سریعتر به وجود خدا پی نمیبریم!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!و