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.
No comments:
Post a Comment