Richard Swinburne

The object of this paper is to examine what evidence we can have for or against the truth of determinism, a doctrine often set forward by the proposition ‘every event has a cause’. I understand in this context by the cause of an event a set of prior conditions jointly sufficient for the occurrence of the event. Since the determinist is concerned with all physical states and not merely with changes of states, which are most naturally termed events, we may phrase this claim more precisely as follows: There is for every physical state at some earlier instant a set of conditions jointly sufficient for its occurrence.

To many atheists the existence of evil seems to provide a conclusive argument against the existence of God. God is by definition omnipotent and perfectly good; a perfectly good being will remove evil in so far as he can, an omnipotent being can remove any evil he chooses, so if there is a God there will be no evil, but there is evil, hence there is no God. Theists normally challenge this argument by challenging the premiss that a perfectly good being will remove evil in so far as he can. The theistic defence is usually put as the defence that many evils are logically necessary conditions of greater goods, and hence a perfectly good being may allow them to occur in order to bring about the greater good; so a perfectly good being may well allow some evils to occur.

Rene Descartes's argument begins from one obviously true premise that (at the time when he was considering this argument) Descartes is thinking. It then proceeds by means of two principles about what is “conceivable” to the conclusion that Descartes is essentially “a thinking substance distinct from his body, which he calls his 'soul'”. This chapter looks in more detail at Descartes's argument. It explains some of the terminology which Descartes uses. Descartes consists of two parts ‐ an essential part (his soul) and an inessential part (his body). And, Descartes would add, what applies to Descartes, applies to all other humans. Hence substance dualism ‐ humans consist of two substances, a soul (the essential part) and a body (the inessential part). The chapter illustrates how there can be Descartes's propositions whose metaphysical modality differs from their logical modality.

I'm not going to discuss whether or not there is a God, but simply whether if there is a God, that makes any difference to morality. I shall argue first that the existence and actions of God would make no difference to the fact that there are moral truths—and on this you may already agree with me. But I shall go on to argue that the existence and actions of God would make a great difference to the content of morality, to the seriousness of morality, and our knowledge of morality—and on all that I may need to convince you. I assume a standard Western account of the nature of God, as essentially eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, creator and sustainer of the universe and all that it contains, the kind of God affirmed by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as well as some other religions.

La théologie naturelle faisait partie de la tradition philosophique occidentale jusqu’à ce que Hume et Kant affirment qu’il y a des limites fondamentales à l’intelligibilité, ou au moins au savoir possible, de ce qui dépasse l’expérience ; et donc qu’il ne peut exister d’arguments solides partant du monde naturel et concluant à l’existence de Dieu. Je défends que, bien que nos concepts doivent en effet être dérivés de notre expérience, ils peuvent avoir une application bien au-delà de notre expérience ; et que la science moderne nous a montré comment des théories à propos de choses au-delà de notre expérience pouvaient être rendues probables par les données de l’expérience. Un point important dans les arguments de Hume et de Kant est que le concept de ‘cause’ n’a d’application que pour les successions régulières d’événements observables. J’argumente contre eux en montrant que, puisque nous dérivons originairement ce concept de notre propre expérience quand nous sommes cause d’événements, son application n’est en aucun cas limitée aux successions régulières d’événements observables. J’en conclus que les arguments de Hume et Kant n’ont pas du tout de force pour montrer l’impossibilité d’une théologie naturelle solide.

Bayes's theorem is a tool for assessing how probable evidence makes some hypothesis. The papers in this volume consider the worth and applicability of the theorem. Richard Swinburne sets out the philosophical issues. Elliott Sober argues that there are other criteria for assessing hypotheses. Colin Howson, Philip Dawid and John Earman consider how the theorem can be used in statistical science, in weighing evidence in criminal trials, and in assessing evidence for the occurrence of miracles. David Miller argues for the worth of the probability calculus as a tool for measuring propensities in nature rather than the strength of evidence. The volume ends with the original paper containing the theorem, presented to the Royal Society in 1763.

Part I of Language and Time is a defence of the tensed theory of time, the view that assertions about events happening now or being past or future are irreducible to tenseless assertions about the dates at which events happen or about their occurrence before or after other events. It claims that tensed sentences are not translatable by tenseless sentences, nor do they have the same truth conditions as tenseless sentences. They are reducible in neither of these senses either to tenseless date sentences—e.g. “it is raining today” does not have the same truth conditions as “it is raining on 22 February 1994”; nor to token reflexive sentences—e.g. “it is raining now” does not have the same truth conditions as “it is raining simultaneously with this utterance”. Hence, Smith argues, since evidently some tensed sentences are true, they must express propositions of a different kind from tenseless propositions—viz. tensed propositions.

Arguments move from premises to conclusions. The premises state things taken temporally for granted; if the argument works, the premises provide grounds for affirming the conclusion. A valid deductive argument is one in which the premises necessitate, that is, entail, the conclusion. What I shall call a ‘correct’ inductive argument is one in which the premises in some degree probabilify the conclusion, but do not necessitate it. More precisely, in what I shall call a correct P-inductive argument the premises make the conclusion probable ; in what I shall call a correct C-inductive argument, the premises add to the probability of the conclusion. Arguments only show their conclusions to be true if they start from true premises; arguments of the above types which work and do start from such premises I will call sound arguments. Arguments are only of use to show to an individual that the conclusion is true if he already knows the premises to be true. Most of what I shall have to say today concerns arguments with respect to which there is no doubt that the premises are true.

Cavin and Colombetti correctly affirm that in judging the probability of a hypothesis we should take into account “the total available evidence.” However, they neglect their own affirmation when they claim that I make an unwarranted assumption that God would not massively deceive the human race, when they claim that I do not take into account any evidence favoring hypotheses incompatible with the traditional account of what happened to the body of Jesus, and when they claim that I do not take into account the evidence that humans have a strong propensity to private sinning.

Jeremy Gwiazda has criticized my claim that God, understood as an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly free person is a person ‘of the simplest possible kind’ on the grounds that omnipotence etc. as spelled out by me are omnipotence etc. of restricted kinds, and so less simple forms of these properties than maximal forms would be. However the account which I gave of these properties in The Christian God shows that, when they are defined in certain ways, they all follow from one property of ‘pure, limitless, intentional power’. I argue here that a person who has these properties so defined is a person ‘of the simplest possible kind’