Is There a God?

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing defense of theism
Review: I enjoy reading both sides of the theism premise (Does God exist?) and seeing that Swinburne is often mentioned in these debates, I gave this book a try. I was disappointed for several reasons. First, although his approach is certainly superior to the rantings of C. S. Lewis, his tone is not very different. It is very clear that he wishes to reach the conclusion that God does indeed exist and from the very start skews his arguments in that direction. For example, he dismisses the requirement that a scientific theory should not only explain observations made to date but also point the way to new experiments that will yield different KINDS of observations, such as Maxwell's equations leading to the prediction of radio waves. He says it doesn't matter if you make some of the observations after you develop the theory or if you make all the observations first. This misses the point of the prediction requirement of theories and also evades the issue that a theory of God predicts nothing (at least Swinburne has not put forth any examples of predicted observations). Swinburne hinges his case on the simplicity of postulating God. Yet he states, "...God's own existence is the only thing whose's existence God's action does not explain. For that there is no explanation." So much for simplicity. He also uses circular reasoning that essentially boils down to God must be all knowing and all powerful or else how could we postulate a being that can create and maintain the universe and everything in it. Why do we need to postulate a personal explanation for the universe? Because its simple, says Swinburne. After reading the first three chapters, I skipped to the chapter on Why God allows evil. This contained the usual discussion of free will, proposing that evil is required to make our moral decisions meaningful. The discussion on suffering in animals was embarrasingly bad. Swinburne also believes that moral laws, like logic, precede God. God is just following the rules, but follows them exceedingly well. I saw nothing in this short book to warrant going deeper into Swinburne's philosophy covered in his longer books.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing defense of theism
Review: I enjoy reading both sides of the theism premise (Does God exist?) and seeing that Swinburne is often mentioned in these debates, I gave this book a try. I was disappointed for several reasons. First, although his approach is certainly superior to the rantings of C. S. Lewis, his tone is not very different. It is very clear that he wishes to reach the conclusion that God does indeed exist and from the very start skews his arguments in that direction. For example, he dismisses the requirement that a scientific theory should not only explain observations made to date but also point the way to new experiments that will yield different KINDS of observations, such as Maxwell's equations leading to the prediction of radio waves. He says it doesn't matter if you make some of the observations after you develop the theory or if you make all the observations first. This misses the point of the prediction requirement of theories and also evades the issue that a theory of God predicts nothing (at least Swinburne has not put forth any examples of predicted observations). Swinburne hinges his case on the simplicity of postulating God. Yet he states, "...God's own existence is the only thing whose's existence God's action does not explain. For that there is no explanation." So much for simplicity. He also uses circular reasoning that essentially boils down to God must be all knowing and all powerful or else how could we postulate a being that can create and maintain the universe and everything in it. Why do we need to postulate a personal explanation for the universe? Because its simple, says Swinburne. After reading the first three chapters, I skipped to the chapter on Why God allows evil. This contained the usual discussion of free will, proposing that evil is required to make our moral decisions meaningful. The discussion on suffering in animals was embarrasingly bad. Swinburne also believes that moral laws, like logic, precede God. God is just following the rules, but follows them exceedingly well. I saw nothing in this short book to warrant going deeper into Swinburne's philosophy covered in his longer books.

Rating:
Summary: Not a memorable experience....
Review: I read this book for an undergraduate course on the idea of God paired with Richard Mackie's 'the Miracle of Theism'. In hindsight, that is a better book-- but it is also arguing an easier point... that God and miracles, etc. doesn't exist is an easier debating point than the one left for Swinburne.

Is this a coherent book? Yes. Definately. He argues his point much as a Cambridge man should. Is the point taken, well....

Perhaps this is a better book to buy than my two stars indicates. Buy it and the Mackie. Compare. Then fall into the faith-based existentialist arguments of Kierkagard if you still want logic to prove a God....

Rating:
Summary: Good intro to Swinburne
Review: I understand why Swinburne closes this volume with some "dissatisfaction," because it is a very brief distillation and summary of his much more detailed work elsewhere and it does, as he readily admits, invite any number of critical replies he does not have room to address. Nevertheless this volume is a good introduction to his thought.

Be warned: the God of Swinburne's "natural theology" does not quite have all the attributes one expects in the God of traditional theism. His God is not, for example, "eternal" (in the sense "outside of time altogether," though he is "everlasting"), nor (therefore) does He have full foreknowledge of what His creatures will do, nor is He sovereign over moral law.

Swinburne's basic idea is that although no particular argument clinches the case for God, several arguments together render His existence altogether more likely than not. And, according to Swinburne, He provides an explanation for scientific law in the sense that His existence explains why there are such laws at all.

In this work, written as a popular reply to Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, Swinburne boils down his arguments to the bare minimum and aims to present them readably to a popular audience. He does it well, though the interested reader is referred to his other work for details.

He is probably at his least convincing in dealing with theodicy and the problem of evil. But other reviewers have already commented on that, so I'll say no more about it here.

All in all, if you are looking for an introduction to Swinburne's thought, this book is an excellent choice.

Rating:
Summary: A fresh and original contribution to the debate
Review: I understand why Swinburne closes this volume with some "dissatisfaction," because it is a very brief distillation and summary of his much more detailed work elsewhere and it does, as he readily admits, invite any number of critical replies he does not have room to address. Nevertheless this volume is a good introduction to his thought.

Be warned: the God of Swinburne's "natural theology" does not quite have all the attributes one expects in the God of traditional theism. His God is not, for example, "eternal" (in the sense "outside of time altogether," though he is "everlasting"), nor (therefore) does He have full foreknowledge of what His creatures will do, nor is He sovereign over moral law.

Swinburne's basic idea is that although no particular argument clinches the case for God, several arguments together render His existence altogether more likely than not. And, according to Swinburne, He provides an explanation for scientific law in the sense that His existence explains why there are such laws at all.

In this work, written as a popular reply to Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, Swinburne boils down his arguments to the bare minimum and aims to present them readably to a popular audience. He does it well, though the interested reader is referred to his other work for details.

He is probably at his least convincing in dealing with theodicy and the problem of evil. But other reviewers have already commented on that, so I'll say no more about it here.

All in all, if you are looking for an introduction to Swinburne's thought, this book is an excellent choice.

Rating:
Summary: A brief case for theism
Review: In "Is There a God?" Swinburne seeks to provide a less sophisticated version of the case for theism which appears in his classic "The Existence of God" (1979). While accomplishing his task with great brevity, I concur with the previous reviewer that this book may not be accessible to the lay audience. Swinburne's arguments are characteristically erudite and will require considerable attention on the part of readers.

Although this book may not acheive its intended success in the mass market, I consider it an excellent introduction to Swinburne's work. From that standpoint, "Is There a God?" may be used as a primer to his more substantial scholarly writings.

In this present title, Swinburne's first ("God"), third ("The Simplicity of God") and sixth ("Why God Allows Evil") chapters are particularly noteworthy. His two-page epilogue summarizes with great clarity one's responsibilities should theism be true.

--David A. Frenz

Rating:
Summary: A Bogus Application of Ockham's Razor
Review: In the first chapter, Swinburne provides a mostly traditional defination of God: omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, etc., but "neither male nor female." Having defined his god, he proceeds in chapters two through five to argue that theism, being the simplest ultimate explanation of everything observed, is more likely to be true than materialism. In making this claim, however, he runs into three problems. First, he must construct a jury-rigged definition of what a good theory is. He makes a great deal of simplicity as being the most important virtue of any theory. He must do this because his theistic theory, while being "simple," predicts nothing testable. However, scientists value theories for not only simplicity but also yielding accurate, testable predictions.

Second, Swinburn's theistic theory, although simple in that it postulates only one ultimate cause, cannot replace the materialistic explanations of science and, thus, posits an additional entity. His theism, then, is not an application of Ockham's razor that "entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity." He tries to get around this problem by claiming that materialistic explanations are not "where any rational enquirer will stop" because, "The apparently coincidental cries out for explanation." But his contention is not supported by the evidence, for even the most common occurrences bubble up from and float upon the universal ocean of improbability. For example, the chances of any particular sperm fertilizing any particular egg are almost nil. Nevertheless, sexual reproduction, via millions of sperms and eggs, produces far more individuals than can survive.

This suffering driven by overpopulation brings up the third difficulty in Swinburne's theism--"Why God Allows Evil." He claims that the "theory of ultimate explanation" most likely to be true "is the simplest theory which predicts the observable phenomena," and he adds that "theism provides by far the simplest explanation of all phenomena." Swinburne is certainly wrong here. A theism that postulates an omnipotent, benevolent god neither predicts nor explains evil. Theodicies attempting to justify such a god allowing evil end up asserting that evil is good. Swinburne's attempt does not escape doing the same. He says that "according to the free-will defense, it is the natural possibility of moral evil which is the necessary condition of the great good, not the actual evil itself." But his other statements suggest worse. "I need to want to...see you hurt, if I am to have [a] choice between good and evil. This depravity is itself an evil which is the necessary condition of the greater good." "Being allowed to suffer to make possible a great good is a privilege, even if the privilege is forced upon you." "I am fortunate if the natural possibility of my suffering if you choose to hurt me is the vehicle which makes your choice really matter." There you have it; evil is good in that it make goodness better.

In the last chapter, Swinburne discusses "How the Existence of God Explains Miracles and Religious Experiences." The whole notions, however, of positing God as an ultimate explanation for everything from the universe to consciousness and religious experiences, if it may not be called a "God of the gaps," certainly is open to the charge of being a "God of the limits." In short, Swinburne is a champion of ad hoc hypotheses in defense of theism.

Rating:
Summary: ...Yes!
Review: It is entirely possible that I am hopelessly bound to enjoy Swinburne's book. After all, he arrives scientifically at "theistic" conclusions that I already believe in by way of faith alone. At any rate, I tried to distance myself from religious presuppositions and read the book in as "unbiased" a fashion as I could. Swinburne's conclusions seemed to be very REASONABLE. I liked this excerpt, from chapter 4: "It is extraordinary that there should exist anything at all. Surely the most natural state of affairs is simply nothing: no universe, no God, nothing. But there is something. And so many things. Maybe chance could have thrown up the odd electron. But so many particles! Not everything will have an explanation. But the whole progress of science and all other intellectual enquiry demands that we postulate the smallest number of brute facts. If we can explain the many bits of the universe by one simple being which keeps them in existence, we should do so - even if inevitably we cannot explain the existence of that simple being."

In a limited way, Swinburne's work responds to many ideas postulated in books such as Richard Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" (1986) and Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" (1988)... books which carry the suggestion that there is no God who is in any way involved in the sustaining of the universe. Swinburne's special field of expertise is in Philosophy of Religion, and as such, he is able to show us that "it is not a rational conclusion to suppose that explanation stops where science does". He presents a convincing argument that theism is the best explanation for the conformity of nature to formula, and the vast, all pervasive temporal order that characterizes the known universe. 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? Reading this book will help you to consider that perhaps the best answers to these questions can be offered by someone who allows for the existence of God.

Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece! . . . of a priori reasoning
Review: It's amusing, if not amazing, to witness the narrow view Christian theologians can still present in defense of indefensible stands. This book is misconceived, misdirected, and mostly mistaken. Although he posits a question about "a" god in his title, Swinburne immediately asserts there is but one - "the" god. "The" god, ignoring all the others still revered by non-christians, is the basis of all things, according to Swinburne. Polytheism is complex. Monotheism is simple, providing simple answers to complex issues. Nature is wonderful, mysterious, enigmatic. Only a single deity behind the scenes provides sufficient explanation for its existence and mechanics, he asserts. From governing atomic particles to providing cures for cancer, this deity reaches across 15 billion years for the [sole?] purpose of influencing our lives. He defines his god as "person-like", although without gender, claiming there is no better appellation. The English language still uses "it" to classify things lacking gender identity. Why does Swinburne fail to use it?

One reason is that he wants to retain a "persona" for his god. While not subject to human frailties - Swinburne conveniently ignores the "wrath of god" - it must work within a logical framework. Hence, the rules underlying the universe, he states, must have a logic to give them meaning and to leave a place for humans to exist and investigate how these rules are manifested. Swinburne is keen on logic and order. Like other Christian intellectuals, he must accept the reality of evolution. Accepting the idea of evolution, he argues that it is part of a divine plan. He inveighs against the "chance" of selection - life is not the result of "random" events. Like other Christian intellectuals, he leaves out Darwin's most important phrase - "by natural selection". A full understanding of Darwin's idea refutes "randomness" entirely. While rejecting anything "random" in nature, later in the book with a sublime arabesque of logic, he asserts the validity of the most random of all events - miracles.

Swinburne's arguments are old, weary and lack foundation. It's not surprising he admires Paley's 1806 attempt to show the divine order of nature. Swinburne simply uses the same logic with modern information. This may be comforting to the Christian reader perplexed by the real-world challenges to theism, to whom Swinburne likely directed this book. Others, seeking some rational explanation for the purpose of this book will be disappointed. He makes the blithe statement that "the evidence gives a significant degree of probability to the claim that [g]od exists". Except for universal laws and the human ability to make such an assertion, he offers no evidence in defense of this claim. Perhaps Daniel Dennett is correct in suggesting adherents of such ideas and tactics are best relegated to museums and zoos. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Rating:
Summary: A condensed version of "The Existence of God"
Review: Swinburne is widely acclaimed as one of the most distinguished philosophers of religion nowadays (others along the same ranking include Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, etc). Anyone who is seriously discussing about theistic arguments may disagree with him but he/she cannot ignore Swinburne, whose contribution in the area is significant. His arguments are somewhat original. His analytical style of writing might seem dry to some readers, but bear in mind, he has been writing for professional analytical philosophers for the past 25 years or so. In this book, he tried to present his arguments to the general public in a more readable manner.

In his earlier work, "The Existence of God", he spent one-third of the book discussing about his methodology (about inductive arguments, what does it mean when we say we explain something, the probability approach, etc). But in this condensed version, he focused more on the arguments - but only a selection of them (brief discussion with only the susbtance presented). And of course, due to limited space, he could not give detailed reply to every single rebuttal against his arguments. It would therefore appear (wrongly) to some that his arguments did not conclusively "prove" the existence of God (in the normal/scientific sense of the word). It is for this reason that Swinburne expressed some dissatisfaction after completing the book. However, in my opinion, one could have a glance of Swinburne's contribution in the whole discussion of Theistic arguments by reading this book. It presents his general approach and some important substance of his arguments. For those who need a bit more detailed arguments, they must refer to the more complicated version, "The Existence of God" published in 1979.

Contrary to some reviews above, it would be fairer to compare Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism" with "The Existence of God" rather than "Is there a God", simply because "Is there a God" is not on the same level of discussion.

To me, this is surely Swinburne's most approachable book. Anyone who is interested in some first-class theistic arguments should begin by reading "Is there a God". I started reading "The Existence of God" first and was greatly troubled by the technical stuff. Now I can appreciate more of it after reading "Is there a God". Buy this book first and then read "The Existence of God" later (when you come to have a good grasp of the materials presented in this book). I am sure you won't be disappointed. Highly recommended.