"Is There a God?": Notes on the Book by Richard Swinburne (V/VIII)

For more about what's going on here, see this post.

For those of you who'd like to follow along, this is the book I am reading:
          Swinburne, Richard. Is There a God? Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
Chapter V: How the Existence of God Explains the Existence of Humans
Summary
     Swinburne essentially states that god is a limitless superhuman soul unlimited by a human body. He describes the difference between physical events (things anyone can observe just as well as anyone else) and mental events (things that can only be observed by the person actually experiencing them), and then argues that the life of mental events each person experiences is our soul, and that "me" is greater than the sum of "my" parts. Christian Response
     It is difficult for me to respond to this section in a distinctly Christian way, because they bible is not a good reference when it comes to modern science--the bible says nothing about sub-atomic particles to my knowledge, and as far as I know it says nothing about brain surgery and the Frankenstein-ing process.
     However, I suppose that part of what I am  supposed to be learning in this class is not just the factual content of the bible, but Christianity and Christian ethics as practiced by real Christians, and real Christians tend to look to custom, intuition, and reason as well as to the bible's scripture. Reason gives us no means to argue with Swinburne on the value of "me" versus "my physical parts," and intuition certainly does not, for where does our intuition come from but from the "me" that is greater than its parts? I don't know how much experience can teach us about this, although I suppose comatose patients are a good example of a functioning body (sum of parts) without a functioning soul ("me"), even though recovery sometimes occurs. If recovery from a comatose state occurs, it is rarely full recovery, and often the "me" is very changed. A logical Christian would have no choice but to agree with Swinburne on this matter. Personal Response

     ...and, for that matter, a logical person. I'm not sure philosophy books are my thing, though. It's a little (read: incredibly) annoying having someone write out thoughts over pages and pages that my brain can process in a few milliseconds.

"Is There a God?": Notes on the Book by Richard Swinburne (IV/VIII)

For more about what's going on here, see this post.

For those of you who'd like to follow along, this is the book I am reading:
          Swinburne, Richard. Is There a God? Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
Chapter IV: How the Existence of God Explains the World and its Order
Summary
     Swinburne explains his personal viewpoint that the simplicity of god as a solution makes it the best possible answer for anyone asking "but why?" past the level of the materialistic existence of sub-atomic particles and their properties. He agrees completely with science on evolution and scientific theories of creation (the Big Bang), but denies chance as a possibility for why it all happened because the improbability of things happening the way they did is so high that it simply makes more sense for everything to have been caused by a limitless person with intent, viz., god. Christian Response
     I think the average Christian does not arrive at this conclusion because of repeatedly asking "why?" until there is not more scientific "why." Faith is a big part of Christianity, and I think, at this point, that actually trying to prove the existence of god goes against that faith, that it is a way of saying "the bible is not enough, I need to KNOW." I have never been a Christian, and I am well aware that there are many different kinds of Christians, but I think there is a point where Christian faith says "stop asking." Personal Response

     I was relieved that Swinburne not only addressed but agreed with science. I find his argument unconvincing because he relies on the idea that god is good--I have faith that god is good, but I have no real reason to suppose so. I personally have been very lucky. Others have not been so. Is it my business to know if god is good? Is he? I don't know. In any case, it bothers me that much of his argument relies on certain things being good, and whereas he tells us we need to ask for an ultimate explanation of things, he offers us no ultimate explanation for said things (people, beauty, god) being good other than that it is his personal opinion. You know there's something wrong with his argument when I agree with him and I still don't think he's convincing--clearly not biased.

"Is There a God?": Notes on the Book by Richard Swinburne (III/VIII)

For more about what's going on here, see this post.

For those of you who'd like to follow along, this is the book I am reading:
          Swinburne, Richard. Is There a God? Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
Chapter III: The Simplicity of God
Summary
      Swinburne talks about the search for an ultimate explanation. If you've ever been, been related to, conversed with, or met an annoying child, you'll know what I mean:
-"Where are we going?"
-"To the grocery."
-"Why?"
-"Because I need to buy groceries for dinner."
-"Why?"
-"Because we don't have everything we need to cook."
-"Why?"
-"Because we finished off the chicken last night."
-"Why?"
-"Because there was a limited supply of chicken in our house."
-"Why?"
-"Because it goes bad if you buy too much at once."
-"Why?"
-"Because bacteria break down the proteins."
-"Why?"
...and so on until you get to a "why" you can't answer. Swinburne says that there will always be a why to which no human can reliably provide a concrete answer, and with this he goes on to provide that "god" is that answer; that the reason for the basest laws of the universe is simply that god made it so because god is good, and so it goes. He does this after providing three solutions: materialism (that everything has an inanimate explanation), humanism (that personal action cannot be explained in inanimate terms, and inanimate action cannot be explained in personal terms), and theism (essentially).
     Theism is perhaps the simplest answer we have yet come up with, as it is literally a single simple answer to all of the most basic questions, leaving nothing unanswered if "Because god made it so" is a satisfactory answer for the querent.
Christian Response
      So far as I can see, the Christian should agree perfectly with the beginning of Swinburne's proof of theism. Christians believe in a god that is good, all-knowing, all-powerful, and ever-present, and this is absolutely an explanation for the basest laws of the universe, and can often be an explanation for events far above that basest level. If one is a Christian, it is in part because one has found completely inanimate explanations unsatisfactory.
Personal Response
     I honestly cannot tell whether Swinburne is biased or not in his description of materialism and humanism, because I agree with him, at least thus far. I, too, find materialistic explanations dissatisfying after a certain point, and I thought his explanation of humanism was too short to be clear in addition to sounding like a form of evasion of the questions asked--it provided not just an unsatisfactory answer, but really no answer at all. I cannot tell if this is simply because I do not understand it and Swinburne did not take the time to explain it, or if it is because I truly would find the answer unsatisfactory.
     It is so like me to complain every time Swinburne explains something I understand and then complain again when he doesn't explain the first thing I know nothing about.
     Also, I am interested to see how Swinburne goes about "proving" that his god figure is perfectly good. The only way for god to exist is for him/her/it to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, but all-good is not inherent in godliness. I do personally believe that the force within all things (which I guess I can refer to as "god") is all good, but I personally believe (along with Aristotle, Locke, and a good number of others) that people are, too, and that, as far as I am aware, is not the Christian doctrine.
     Lastly, I believe there is a rule that disallows one from proving a solution with reliance on that solution, similar to the rule which prevents one from defining a word using the word being defined. However, this seems to be exactly what Swinburne is doing. He tries to prove the existence of god with the nature of god. I'm not sure how fair or accurate this is. I almost wish I were an adamant atheist reading this so that I could perhaps more easily spot biases.

"Is There a God?": Notes on the Book by Richard Swinburne (II/VIII)

For more about what's going on here, see this post.

For those of you who'd like to follow along, this is the book I am reading:
          Swinburne, Richard. Is There a God? Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
Chapter II: How We Explain Things
Summary
     In which Swinburne spends 6 full pages trying to teach inductive reasoning without ever using the phrase "inductive reasoning." Swinburne then proceeds in a rather Holmesian manner, outlining the process of justifying a claim with 4 criteria: data; simplicity; background knowledge; and a criterion which, try I might, I cannot simplify into a short catchphrase ("However well some proposed law satisfies Criteria 1-3, if there is an incompatible law which satisfies those criteria even better, since they cannot both be laws, the former must be rejected." 26). He makes at least one good point that I have not seen better worded elsewhere, and that is this: "[Criterion 1] is satisfied to the extent to which a law or theory leads us to expect many events. The more it can explain, the better. The more varied events it can explain, the better." (29) Now at least I can see how this chapter will apply to the rest of the book--it would appear that Swinburne plans to show that the theory of god (theism) explains more and more varied events than any other claim possibly could.
Christian Response
     As I began to touch on at the end of my summary of chapter 2, Christians should very much approve of this chapter, as it prologues a "proof" of god, if there can be such a thing (it would perhaps be more accurate to use the phrase "argument in favor of," or the word "claim," as Swinburne does). This chapter does not, however, actually cover an ethical issue or in fact anything interesting at all, so I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with it.
Personal Response
     If I have to read another chapter of nothing but definitions I am going to vomit. If I wanted a step-by-step proof I would have read a geometry textbook. Perhaps that's where I went wrong in selecting the title "Is There A God?"