Customer Reviews

Is There a God?

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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.

Swinburne takes the moldy old "primal mover" argument for the existence of God and brilliantly revitalizes it to such an extent that it is nearly unrecognizable. I am an atheist-an open-minded one. If the arguments for God's existence ever become compelling again, I will change camps. This book was so fresh and original that it deserves a second read-which I am doing. I cannot say that I am convinced but I am very intrigued by Swinburne's argument. It is difficult to summarize his long and subtle argument here. Any attempt to do so would do it injustice so keep that in mind. He suggests that God-a simple non-material being-is the best explanation for the totality of the information that we have about the universe and that no other theory explains the universe as simply or completely as the existence of God does. In other words, using the old principle of "Occam's Razor" (the principle that "the simplest (not more complex) solution is often the correct one") God, rather than seeming a holdover from dark, superstitious times, is a very efficient and elegant solution to the reason why the universe exists at all. You will have to read the book to appreciate this in all its interesting details. And it is interesting and very thought provoking. At the very least, it is a very clever and subtle restating of a very old argument. That alone is enough reason to buy this book if you are interested in these issues. At the most, he may be onto something. A second reading is necessary. One complaint: Swinburne tries to simplify his larger volume for this edition. He writes like a typical academic-which means that his prose is often leaden and dry. It appears that he has shortened his work without necessarily making it more elegant in its presentation. I thought of many examples and illustrations he offered which were not as helpful as he must have thought they might be. If you can dig your way through his flat writing style and have some background in this area, this is a must read book.

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.

Swiburne writes clearly and his arguments for God's existence are interesting and suggestive. In the end, though, they come down to the notion that God is the "simplest" explanation for things we observe in the natural world. It was never clear how postulating the existence of something unlike anything else in experience could be a "simple" explanation of the world. Maybe it's "simpler" just to take the existence of the world as an unexplained fact, a mystery. The discussion of why God allows pain and suffering is the weakest part of the book and is almost a parody of traditional theodicy. At one point in his discussion of animal suffering, Swinburne argues that forest fires aren't necessarily bad for animals because they give them an opportunity to escape danger, which he regards as a "significant intentional act." Since "significant intentional acts" are goods things, it follows that forest fires could be good for animals. This sounds like a joke but Swinburne was serious. The reader wondering why God allows suffering would be better advised to read the book of Job.

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

Swinburne did not let me down with this book - a great little volume providing his arguments for the existence of God. For those who would complain about his use of the masculine for God, or the assumption of one God, I simply point them to the first few pages of this work. Swinburne is always a breath of fresh air because I get from him what I rarely get from other philosophers - straightforward argumentation. His main argument is set forward on the second page of the Introduction. The rest of the book is essentially elaboration on this point. It is, admittedly, a simple argument. Also, reading with a watchful eye, I have found this work to be a short introduction to philosophy in general by means of divine metaphysics. If you want simple, this is the book to read. If you want something a bit more thorough and comprehensive (and decidedly more difficult to read), I point you towards his book that inspired this one - "The Existence of God". Swinburne himself says this early in the book. A wonderful read, especially for beginners.

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.

Richard Swinburne, the emeritus Nolloth professor of the philosophy of religion at Oxford and one of the foremost philosphers of our time, is my Elvis. His monographs on theism and specifically the Christian religion are extremely rigourous 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 his definition of God as everlasting but not timeless.

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).

The purpose of "Is There a God?" (hereafter ITG) is to summarize and outline Richard Swinburne's entire corpus of work in a condensed form. Does it work? Fabulously. Swinburne, in the space of 125 pages, manages to sum up many of his books in easy to comprehend, interesting, and thoughtful bits of knowledge.

ITG starts off with a chapter aptly titled "God." In this chapter (modeled after his longer work, The Coherence of Theism), Swinburne outlines the properties and concept of God. It should be noted that Swinburne's view of God differs from classical theism in two major ways. First, Swinburne's conception of God does not involve knowledge of the future. His reasoning is that it is logically impossible to know that which does not yet exist (the future), so God is omniscient, but does not know the future. Going into great detail for an argument against that notion would take me too far away from this review, but suffice to say that I find the argument wrong for at least two reasons: 1) There are many coherent ways to envision the future as possible knowledge; 2) A timeless view of God would definitely entail foreknowledge, because all time would be equally present to such a deity.

Second, Swinburne's view of God differs in that he believes God's existence is contingent, not necessary (he does believe that God is necessary in the sense that his existence does not cease and cannot-the necessity/contingence is the difference between modern and Aristotelian contingency-thanks to Timothy McGrew and Chris Reese for pointing this out). Again, I disagree, but I find Swinburne's view coherent.

Swinburne then turns in chapter two to the nature of explanation and argues that we often take personal explanations as valid even within scientific inquiry. Further, he puts much weight upon the simplicity of a theory, which leads into his third chapter, which argues for the simplicity of theism as an explanation for much of our known data. These chapters sum up his work in The Existence of God.

Swinburne then turns to other arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. In chapter 6, he provides a theodicy-an explanation of evil on theism. While I've read some pretty harsh critiques of Swinburne's view on the problem of evil in the past, I found his argument here very compelling, personal, and interesting. His argument is largely a "greater good" type of argument-evils allow for things like heroism-but it is the most compelling version of such a theodicy I have read. I'm still not sure about whether I would incorporate this argument into my own apologetic, but I find Swinburne's account compelling. (More on this topic can be found in his Providence and the Problem of Evil.)

The last chapter of ITG deals with Swinburne's discussion of miracles and the argument from religious experience. Swinburne has been hugely influential in the field of arguing for the existence of God from religious experience, and this chapter sums up his argument. He argues that "we ought to believe that things are as they seem to be (in the epistemic sense) unless and until we have evidence that we are mistaken" (115). He then goes on to apply this to theistic experiences and concludes that "the overwhelming testimony of so many millions of people to occasional experiences of God must... be taken as tipping the balance of evidence decisively in favor of the existence of God" (120). (Swinburne's arguments here are developed in his book, The Existence of God.)

I find two downsides to ITG. First, the concise nature of the work means that those interested in his arguments will need to go beyond the book to fully explore the issues. However, this is barely a downside because that is exactly what the book is meant to be: an introduction.

The second is that Swinburne doesn't offer a very comprehensive "Guide to Further Reading" in his chapter of the same title. For example, about the question for the existence of God, Swinburne only offers two books arguing against God's existence for further reading. Furthermore, the two books he suggests are heavy philosophical texts not at all comparable to ITG. I would have liked to see Swinburne offer some suggestions for equally philosophical explorations on the positive side of the theistic question. (I recommend the "Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland and "God and Necessity" by Stephen Parrish as two "heavier" books on the side of theism.)

Richard Swinburne's "Is There a God?" is a fantastic introduction to his huge body of work. His tone is constantly amiable. Reading the work, one may feel as though they are in a conversation with Swinburne himself, which means it feels like one is in the presence of one of the most important Christian theologian/philosophers of our era. I cannot recommend it highly enough either for an introduction or a review of Swinburne's corpus.

"Is There A God?" is a good introduction to the natural theology of Richard Swinburne, one of the most prolific and important philosophers of religion in the world today. The book has capsule summaries of many of Swinburne's favorite themes and arguments: that the existence of God is the "best explanation" of various features of the world; that Christian revelation is "sealed" by the Resurrection of Christ; that humans are composites of material and mental substances; and so forth. Anyone coming to Swinburne for the first time should start here.

The book is profound yet clearly written and short. It can be read over a weekend or on a long plane flight. I've now read it three times, and my reaction is different every time. The chapter on theodicy no longer strikes me as crazy. Basically, Swinburne argues that God gave mankind free will AND made us vulnerable to injury and misfortune in order for human actions to be morally significant, and to give people real opportunities for character development. Obviously Swinburne doesn't know exactly how God would weigh the good of freedom against the risk that some people might freely choose to become Nazis and put babies in gas chambers. And I wasn't impressed by Swinburne's argument that death could be a positive device used by God to cut short individual suffering. (Should we thank God for creating death?) However, Swinburne does outline an arresting picture of the human condition.

On the other hand, the argument for the existence of God now strikes me as inadequate. Swinburne believes that certain features of the world -- the existence of the cosmos, the regularities in nature, the existence of human souls -- cannot be explained by science but could be explained by God if we make certain assumptions about God's nature and intentions. Swinburne is breezily confident that God, if He existed, would create a beautiful, ordered universe inhabited by agents with free will. Since the world we'd expect to see if God existed is arguably the world we do live in, the God hypothesis gives us a tidier account of our total experience, making it rational to believe in God. Unfortunately, this argument rests on assumptions about the comprehensibility of God and His intentions that can't be defended in such a short book. To me, positing the existence of an utterly mysterious being such as God to explain utterly mysterious features of the world doesn't reduce the total amount of mystery in our experience -- it simply shifts the location of the mystery from the world to God. Either way, we're clueless.

But the book is still great. Everyone interested in natural theology should read it. I took off one star because Swinburne's faith occasionally gets in the way of his philosophy. When comparing Christianity to Judaism and Islam, for example, he argues that the truth of Christianity was "sealed" by the resurrection of Jesus, which he treats as a real historical event. In contrast, he says that Judaism's miracle stories aren't credible, and that poor Islam wasn't "sealed" by any miracles at all! This struck me as laughable special pleading, if not an argument FOR Islam, rather than against it. But readers should read this excellent book and decide for themselves.