Is There a God?

In this work Swinburne presents a condensed account of his much longer argument for the existence of God, as contained elsewhere. His argument, as well as his style of presentation, are to be commended.

Whilst I do not necessarily agree with the views of Swinburne, the book is fabulous, well written, accessible and has served well for supplementing and further explaining the course I was studying. In addition it was also useful to quote within the exams, as much of the material is relevant to both the theology and philosophy AQA courses.

Although I found his philosophical arguments unconvincing, Swinburne writes eloquently a good exposition of the freewill defence. His logic deserves an attempt to understand it. He thankfully does not attempt to impose his views on others, but only to explain his philosophical position, unlike other writers (both theist and atheist) on this topic; this can only be a good thing. As he says himself, this is merely an introduction to his thinking, so I would recommend reading his other books for better justification for his conlucions.

My approach to this book is a little different to most, and hopefully I'm not going to get instantly voted unhelpful like most of the reviews of this book.Basically I should start off by admitting that I find the conclusions of this book implausible. From a philosophical perspective Swinburne begins by shooting himself in the foot 'My topic is the claim that there is a God, understood in the way that Western religion (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) has generally understood that claim', the problem that raises for the religious philosopher is that the gods of the Abrahamic religions come with lots of other tie in clauses. He would perhaps have been better off disassociating his argument from particular religions. It's clear he's got an agenda, indeed he ends the book with a basic appeal to the reader to get on with worshipping.However, the reason I started reading this book was that its larger brother was on my metaphysics reading list (i'm an undergrad philosophy student), but unavailable in the library. And when I put aside considerations of his bias it turns out that his core arguments are actually quite stimulating. I particularly like his conception of god as a single substance, it adds a nice new interpretation to the argument of first cause. Sure it doesn't in any logical way lead to a belief in a present, theistic conception of God, but present theistic gods aren't really what philosophy of religion is about. Philosophy is about constructing and deconstructing rational argument, Swinburne does construct a good rational argument and therefore gives me all the enjoyment of deconstructing it. I would basically therefore recommend it to those who want a good example of modern philosophical thought on the existence of god. It has actually given me something that's worth getting interested in and debating about.So if you dislike the insistence of philosophers in treating all arguments, no matter how strange they may seem, with a certain credulity you're not going to like this book. But if you're prepared to accept that in philosophy some questions just don't have an answer, and you're prepared to read between the lines of Swinburnes blind faith for his actual logic you can probably get quite a bit out of it.(as always if you don't find this review helpful please leave a comment and tell me why!)

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]