"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?"

"Is There a God?": Notes on the Book by Richard Swinburne (I/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.
Since I did not say so before, I will add now that I chose this book because I had already bought it for another course (Honors Colloquium) before finding out I did not, in fact, need it for that course. In other words, I already had it laying around, and it happened to fit this assignment perfectly.

Chapter I: God
Summary
     In this first chapter, Swinburne provides a definition of God by theist standards. He says that according to theists (Christians, Jews, and Muslims, among others), there is a God who is sexless, genderless, ageless, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, good, and free. 
Christian Response
     Swinburne raises one point in particular which I find interesting, and which I think is in need of questioning, especially from the Christian perspective. Again, I'm placing a disclaimer on my Christian perspective, because I think it's probably unreliable, as I am not a Christian and am only just beginning to try to understand Christianity. Comments and complaints are welcome. 
     The point I'm referring to comes up most noticeably on page 17, near the end of the chapter. Swinburne says, "the obvious goodness of at least one universe [containing some persons of limited powers such as humans] makes it quite likely that he will create one." Earlier, he says on page 16, "however many [human persons God] creates, it would be even better if he created more (perhaps well spaced out in an infinitely large universe). Given that human life is in general a good thing, the more of it the better. God cannot create the best of all possible worlds, for there can be no such world--any world can be improved by adding more persons to it, and no doubt in plenty of other ways as well." I personally was under the impression (and correct me if I am wrong), that according to Christianity, all humans are sinners because of the fall of Eve and Adam in the Garden of Eden, saved only from the fires of hell by the fact that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. In other words, pre-fall, this quote makes perfect sense--but post-fall, is it necessarily true by Christian standards (or by any standards) that where human life is concerned, the more the merrier? Is more better? If God is perfectly good as Swinburne claims, than he can only make good things, and so human life must be good; but if God is omnipotent and responsible for the creation and maintenance of all things and their powers, as Swinburne also claims, then from whence came the serpent and the apple? Swinburne says God has given us limited free will, which is the only explanation provided that Adam and Eve might have fallen, but if God is indeed all-powerful and all-good, then perhaps the only answer to that question is that temptation is not all bad, and that the lessons we learn and experiences we gain from having fallen and from living in a post-fall world are important. Perhaps God created both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge knowing humanity could eat from only one, and gave Adam and Eve free will so that he did not have to decide. Perhaps, because we chose the tree of knowledge (even unknowingly), the pursuit of knowledge will lead us to know why the two fruits are mutually exclusive? Or perhaps that is a question the answer to which it is not our business to know, and we are meant only to pursue goodness and godliness that we may eat from the tree of knowledge on earth and from the tree of life in heaven.
Personal Response (and a defense of my choice of book)
The question of whether or not there is a god may not seem in and of itself to be an ethical issue. However, it does absolutely affect our ethics. I am not sure I can say that I am a good person because I believe in a god, and I certainly cannot say that I believe in god because I am a good person, but I do think that those two qualities are linked for logical believers. I say "logical" believers, because there are many examples of people who I do not think live their lives as good people, but who do believe in god, and who perhaps even act out of service to god, however illogically. This is an extreme example, but I will use Westboro Baptist Church: WBC members absolutely believe in god, absolutely act out of service to him and to carry out his word, and absolutely think they are doing good deeds. There are Bible verses that support what they do, but so far as I can see, the Bible in general is a book of love, and it is illogical to me that a person (or organization) would use hate to spread love, although I think that is what they are trying to do. I respect their right to their beliefs, but I absolutely believe that they are wrong and illogical, and that their acts are not good deeds.
However, my original point is that it is absolutely an ethical issue, whether or not there is a god, because belief in god can and will cause people to act differently. If you feel that there is some sort of karmic system, some system of crime and punishment or of good acts and rewards, and that the overseer of that system is omniscient and omnipotent, you are far more likely to try to do good acts--which is where much of the debate over what is good and what is bad begins. In other words, whether or not there is a god is the very root of all ethical debates.

Before I Begin,

Allow me to introduce myself and this blog.

My name is Erica, and I am an eternal student, and a student of the world. I am also a college student, but that is somewhat irrelevant to the definition. What I mean by "eternal student" is that I intend never to stop learning. I will hopefully graduate college in a little over a year and a half, but that will by no means be the end of my education, whether or not I go on to graduate school or culinary school or what-have-you. My degree will be little more than my excuse to go out and learn more on my own, my own way. Every failure and every success has the chance to be a learning opportunity if you let it teach you. This is also what I mean by "student of the world." I am not merely a student of books, or classes, or teachers, or Wikipedia (although I am a student of all of these as well). I am a student of experiences, travels, sights, sounds, conversations, people, creations, and everything on either end and in between. 

I once went to my father at the end of a day, complaining that the day had been wasted, it was useless, and I wished it hadn't happened. In response, he asked me what I had learned that day, just to name something, any one thing. When I did, he quipped, "See? Your day wasn't wasted. You learned something." Before I could even begin to argue, he added, "If you can learn one thing every day for the rest of your life, you'll be doing pretty well. You'll be doing better than a lot of other people, anyway."


You could say I've taken that conversation up as my standard. After that, I set my phone's greeting message (you know, what it says when you turn it on?) to ask me what I'd learned that day. My dad might ask me what I'd learned when we spoke in the evening or afternoon, and I would always come up with something. On the rare occasion that I couldn't come up with anything, I'd go off and endeavor to learn something. This is the way I live my life, and I wholly believe that I am a better and more well-rounded person because of it.

One of my favorite quotes is one you will probably recognize as something Thomas Edison once said: "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." It's disputed whether he ever actually said it or not, a point which is completely irrelevant to the universal truth of the quote. Anything can be a learning experience if you approach it that way.

Now, a confession: I plan to continue writing this blog, and certainly have plenty of things planned out to say on it besides the reason for which I created it specifically, but I have admittedly created it as a class requirement.

I am in the BIC program in the Honors College of Baylor University. This program requires a class called "Biblical Heritage," BIC3358.02. I am taking the course with Drs. Novokovic and Whitlark. This course requires that I read a book centered on some aspect of ethics and religion. It must either be written from a Christian perspective, or I must read it through a Christian lens. I will be required to respond to it in at least 8 sections over the course of 8 weeks or more.

I have chosen to read "Is There a God?" by Richard Swinburne. From what I can tell before having really read it, Swinburne is a theist but not a Christian. I believe in full disclosure, so I will say that I personally am a pagan, mostly Wiccan with some Asatru influences, and far more spiritual than religious. 

The book is laid out in 7 chapters and an Epilogue, so it has already been very neatly split up for me. I plan to respond to each chapter in three parts:

1. a summary, in which I will briefly recap what Swinburne has said in the chapter and attempt to make sense of it;
2. a response through a Christian lens, or my best attempt at it (I really will give it my most honest attempt, although I have no clue how I'm going to go about this);
3. and a response from my personal point of view, which may or may not have anything to do with my own religion/spirituality, but I'm not making any promises.

If this sounds like a plan to you, then I'm glad we're in agreement. If not, feel free not to stick around for the ride. I'll be here either way, because I'm graded on it. Afterwards, I'll probably still be here either way, because I am the kind of person who has things to say.

Wishing you all the best,

Erica