Richard Swinburne

Jeremy Gwiazda made two criticisms of my formulation in terms of Bayes’s theorem of my probabilistic argument for the existence of God. The first criticism depends on his assumption that I claim that the intrinsic probabilities of all propositions depend almost entirely on their simplicity; however, my claim is that that holds only insofar as those propositions are explanatory hypotheses. The second criticism depends on a claim that the intrinsic probabilities of exclusive and exhaustive explanatory hypotheses of a phenomenon must sum to 1; however it is only those probabilities plus the intrinsic probability of the non-occurrence of the phenomenon which must sum to 1

O artigo sustenta que, a fim de dar uma descrição completa do mundo, precisamos listar não apenas os eventos cerebrais que ocorrem, mas também os eventos mentais e analisálos como estados de uma substância imaterial, a alma. Com base nesse dualismo de substância, defende-se que a ciência física não tem como explicar a existência de vida consciente. O artigo conclui que, levando-se em conta a estrutura de argumentação formalizada no Teorema de Bayes, podemos dizer que o fenômeno da vida consciente constitui um incremento na probabilidade da existência de Deus.The article argues that in order to give a full description of the world, we need to list not merely the brain events which occur, but also the mental events, and to analyse them as states of an immaterial substance, the soul. On the basis of this substance dualism it is argued that science could not ever explain the existence of consciousness. The article concludes that, bearing in mind the reasoning framework provided by Bayes’s Theorem, we can say that the phenomenon of conscious life increases the probability of the existence of God.

THE FREEWILL DEFENCE IS DESIGNED TO SHOW THAT THE EXISTENCE OF MORAL EVIL (I.E., EVIL PRODUCED BY MEN) IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. TO DO THIS IT MUST CLAIM THAT IT IS GOOD THAT MEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING ABOUT EITHER GOOD OR EVIL. TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY, THEY MUST KNOW HOW TO BRING ABOUT EVIL. GOD COULD TELL THEM, BUT THAT WOULD MAKE HIS PRESENCE SO MANIFEST AS TO IMPAIR THEIR FREEDOM. THE ONLY OTHER WAY IN WHICH THEY COULD ACQUIRE THAT KNOWLEDGE IS BY SEEING THAT CERTAIN NATURAL PROCESSES BRING ABOUT EVIL EFFECTS. BUT THAT MEANS THAT THERE MUST BE NATURAL EVIL IF MEN ARE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING ABOUT MORAL EVIL.

O artigo discute a forma de um argumento em favor da ressurreição de Jesus do modo como o Cristianismo acredita que esta ocorreu, o qual, se bem-sucedido, seria um forte indício histórico da existência de Deus. O artigo sustenta que Deus teve boas razões para se encarnar por certos propósitos e que, se assim ele o fez, ele viveria um certo tipo de vida como um ser humano, que seria culminada por um supermilagre como sua ressurreição. Se encontrarmos um e apenas um ser humano em toda a história sobre o qual haja uma quantidade modesta de indícios do tipo que se esperaria se ele viveu aquele tipo de vida e uma modesta quantidade de indícios do tipo a ser esperado se aquela vida fosse culminada por um supermilagre como a ressurreição, isso é um indício bem forte de que aquele ser humano era Deus encarnado. Assim, aqueles indícios aumentariam significativamente a probabilidade de que Deus existe.This article discusses the form of an argument for the Resurrection of Jesusas Christianity believes it occurred, which, if successful, would be strong historical evidence for the existence of God. The article argues that God had good reason to become incarnate for certain purposes, and that if he did he would live a certain kind of life as a human, which would be culminated by a super-miracle such as his resurrection. If we find one and only one human in all history about whom there is a modest amount of evidence of a kind to be expected if he lived that kind of life and a modest amount of evidence of a kind to be expected if that life was culminated by a super-miracle such as the resurrection, that is very strong evidence that that human was God incarnate. Hence that evidence would greatly increase the probability that there is a God.

If there is a God who wants us to become saints worthy of the beatific vision, he will provide us with information how to do so -- that is, with a propositional revelation. The revelation will not be too evident -- in order that we may choose whether or not to search it out and tell others about it -- and its interpretation for new centuries and cultures will require a church. The tests of a genuine revelation are its consonance with our knowledge of God obtained by other routes, and some sort of miraculous foundation.

In purporting to explain the occurrence of some event or process we cite the causal factors which, we assert, brought it about or keeps it in being. The explanation is a true one if those factors did indeed bring it about or keep it in being. In discussing explanation I shall henceforward concern myself only with true explanations. I believe that there are two distinct kinds of way in which causal factors operate in the world, two distinct kinds of causality, and so two distinct kinds of explanation. For historical reasons, I shall call these kinds of causality and explanations ‘scientific’ and ‘personal’; but I do not imply that there is anything unscientific in a wide sense in invoking personal explanation.

In his ’Logic and Theism’ Sobel claims that the allocation of prior probabilities to theories is a purely subjective matter. I claim that there are objective criteria for determining prior probabilities of theories (dependent on their simplicity and scope); and if there were not, science would be a totally irrational activity. I reject Sobel’s main criticism of my own cumulative argument for the existence of God that I argue illegitimately from each datum raising the probability of theism to the conjunction of all data raising that probability, since I explicitly adopted a procedure which does not commit that fallacy.

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’ (although not in ’The Coherence of Theism’) 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’

Richard Swinburne presents a substantially rewritten and updated edition of his most celebrated book. No other work has made a more powerful case for the probability of the existence of God. Swinburne gives a rigorous and penetrating analysis of the most important arguments for theism: the cosmological argument; arguments from the existence of laws of nature and the 'fine-tuning' of the universe; from the occurrence of consciousness and moral awareness; and from miracles and religious experience. He claims that while none of these arguments are deductively valid, they do give inductive support to theism and that, even when the argument from evil is weighed against them, taken together they offer good grounds to support the probability that there is a God. The overall structure of the discussion and its conclusion have been retained for this new edition, but much has been changed in order to strengthen the argumentation and to take account of Swinburne's subsequent work on the nature of consciousness and the problem of evil, and of the latest philosophical and scientific writing, especially in respect of the laws of nature and the argument from fine-tuning. This is now the definitive version of a classic in the philosophy of religion.