In The Concept of Miracle, Richard Swinburne (RS) examines Humean arguments against miracles[i] and finds them wanting. His modest goal in this book is not to argue for the truth of miracles, but rather to defend the possibility of justified belief in the miraculous. He approaches this goal by rebutting anti-miraculous Humean arguments and discussing criteria which, if met, would ground justified belief in the occurrence of a miracle.

As with any work of Swinburne’s, even a short book like this one (a mere 71 pages) has plenty of ‘meat’ to be slowly digested, and plenty of links between earlier and later material. This presents a reviewer with a decision—to follow RS closely, or to restructure to make what seem to be the central points clearer. I’ve chosen the latter approach.

In Epistemic Justification (henceforth EJ) Richard Swinburne wants to answer two basic questions: first, what is justification, and second, what types of justification are worth having. While easy to state, the questions are very difficult to answer. This difficulty stems from several factors, including the history of epistemology, the failure to make distinctions, and the connections between justification, warrant, and knowledge.

The History of Epistemology

In Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy, Richard Swinburne makes the case for the veracity of the Christian revelation. He does this by proposing four criteria that any purported revelation must pass, and then mounts a case for the Christian revelation successfully meeting those criteria—and doing so better than rival theistic revelations.

Assumptions and a priori probabilities. As with all of his books, Swinburne presupposes conclusions arrived at in earlier works. Here he is not concerned so much with merely assessing the Christian religion in a worldview vacuum, but rather assumes that there is at least some significant prior probability that the God of classical theism exists.[i] Given that God exists and that he is perfectly good, it is likely that he would give us a revelation. This expectation means that the evidence required for us to justifiably believe in a revelation is less than it would otherwise be (that is, if we did not already have some evidence that there is a God who would be likely to give such a revelation).

Introduction. In The Coherence of Theism (henceforth CoT), Richard Swinburne is concerned with examining whether the central doctrines of classical theism[1] are coherent (that is, free from contradiction). It is important to understand what this limited goal means for the theist/atheist debate. If the atheist can convincingly claim that theism is incoherent, then the game is over: theism cannot be true. For the theist to show that theism is coherent is only a partial victory. Then theism is in some sense possibly true. Further grounds would have to be given to show that it is in fact true. [2]

Part I: Religious Language. In Part I, Swinburne sketches various criteria for coherence. The basic means for testing whether or not some proposition is (in)coherent is to ‘unpack’[3] the concept and see what results. This is necessary because while some contradictions are explicit (The author of Hamlet did not write Hamlet) many others are implicit. Swinburne closes out this section by tackling a handful of topics, including ways in which theology involves ‘mundane’ uses of words (i.e., theological terms are defined using words that are close to their more pedestrian, ‘every day’ usages) and more ‘analogical’ or ‘stretched’ uses of words. Even when theology is using words in more mundane ways, the properties involved (e.g., power, goodness) may involve those properties occurring in unfamiliar combinations[4]. Swinburne helpfully notes that this occurs not only in theology, but also in science.[5] Using non-religious examples, Swinburne illustrates how mundane language implies only similarities, not absolute sameness. Although myself and my desk are alike in some ways (we both are composed of matter, have weight, occupy space) we are very different in other ways (I am made of flesh and bone, can lose weight through diet and exercise, and breathe—none of which apply to my desk).

Theologians and scientists seem blissfully unaware that that the soul is alive and well in contemporary philosophy of religion. JP Moreland, Dean Zimmerman, William Hasker, Charles Taliaferro, Stuart Goetz, Robin Collins and Alvin Plantinga have all produced novel and rigorous arguments in defence of dualism – that you are an immaterial self and not identical to your body. This must be gratifying for Richard Swinburne, who swam against the tides of philosophical fashion in 1986 with The Evolution of the Soul. Mind, Brain and Free Will updates his arguments for dualism. The book is refreshingly clear, rigorously argued and a joy to read.

Swinburne argues that physical events and conscious events – beliefs, desires, thoughts, purposes and sensations – are not identical. To put that another way, the terms we use to pick out physical events, and the terms we use to pick out mental events, never refer to the same thing. We need to think a little about words and concepts here – after all, we cannot say much about the world without them! Anyone who knows what terms like “red” or “pain” mean knows how to use them. They know exactly what it is to have a sensation of red or a pain. They know how when and how to apply the terms, and can make simple inferences using the terms. (For example we can infer “it is a sensation” and “it is unpleasant” from “it is a pain.”)

In The Christian God, Richard Swinburne examines basic metaphysical categories[1]. Only when that task is done does he turn to an analysis of divine properties, the divine nature, and the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation.

I have found it necessary to develop at length views on straight philosophical questions, which could then be applied subsequently to the philosophy of religion….Since religious issues are more contested even than general secular philosophical issues, we are more likely to reach clear and justified conclusions about the former if we start with a firm base in the latter. My strategy in The Christian God is the same. Part I is concerned with general metaphysical issues….Part II then expounds the account of the divine nature given by Western religion, with the aid of these concepts, and shows how it can naturally be extended to embrace the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. (Location 54, Kindle edition)

The Christian God is a very dense work of metaphysics, and not all of the metaphysical distinctions Swinburne makes in Part I are central to the goings-on in Part II. Of those that are central, even fewer are justified by arguments that can be easily fit into a succinct review. So in outlining Part I, I will mention only those distinctions which are central to Part II. Further, in discussing those distinctions, I will simply state the conclusion of Swinburne’s argument(s) supporting those distinctions.

Overview. In Part I of Responsibility and Atonement, Richard Swinburne examines various moral concepts that apply to dealings among humans. In Part II, he uses the conclusions of Part I to determine what versions of central Christian doctrines (e.g., morality, sin, redemption, sanctification and corruption, heaven and hell) are most plausible.

Part I: Responsibility. In Chapter 1, Swinburne examines various kinds of moral goodness. He is primarily concerned with how we determine that an act is good, not so much with which specific acts are good. He examines various proposed definitions of moral goodness, and finds them all to be more or less on the right path but in various ways incomplete. He then proposes his own definition of moral goodness.[1] Swinburne endorses the traditional categorization of good acts as either obligatory (constituting duties) or supererogatory (good acts which go above and beyond duty). We are praiseworthy for doing supererogatory acts but not obligatory acts. Conversely, we are blameworthy when we fail to do obligatory acts but not blameworthy when we fail to do supererogatory acts. There are different kinds of supererogatory acts—favors which benefit groups or creative acts which may only (directly) benefit the agent doing the action. For example, my donating food to a family in need is a favor which directly benefits the family and (perhaps, given pure motives on my part-see more on this below) myself as well. A creative act would be me learning to become a great painter. This would be a supererogatory act which benefits only me directly (although, as we will see, it arguably indirectly benefits my community).

In Was Jesus God? Richard Swinburne presents a unique cumulative case for Jesus as God incarnate. The case can be seen as linking together the answers to the following questions: (1) Why think there is a God? (2) What might we expect God to do in response to evil and suffering? (3) Do we have evidence that God has made a response?

Why think there is a God? Swinburne presents the barest outline of his arguments for God’s existence and refers the reader to other books[1] for arguments leading to the conclusion that a divine person exists. He notes however that his arguments from natural theology yield only the conclusion that God the Father exists. Christianity, of course, posits that the Godhead is triune. Swinburne then presents an ingenious argument suggesting that because God the Father is a perfectly good being, there would be two other divine persons.[2] He notes that if his argument is correct, then the existence of two further divine persons is a necessary consequence of God’s essentially good nature. Therefore, Christian theism cannot be accused of violating Ockham’s Razor. In any case, the doctrine of the Trinity has been consistently and almost universally expounded by the Apostolic Church, which (as he will later argue) serves to further underwrite its plausibility.

Today's interview is with Christian philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne. He is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford. Over the last 50 years Swinburne has been a proponent of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. He talks about his background, the changes in Christian philosophy in the past decades, the goal for the Christian philosopher, defending and advocating Christianity, his approach to arguing for the existence of God, challenges to Christianity, answering the problem of evil & suffering, his advice to Christian defenders, and more.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (48 min)

Books by Richard Swinburne include:
• The Coherence of Theism
Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

“In order rationally to believe that there is a God, despite [evil], we need either strong positive evidence for the existence of God, or a record of discovering with respect to many apparent bad states that a theodicy works with respect to them, or a theodicy for each kind of bad state which seems to count against the existence of God.”1

The problem of evil is considered by many to be the greatest challenge to theism.2 Richard Swinburne offers a defense against this problem in his work Providence and the Problem of Evil.3

Closer to Truth is a series of videos on the topics of the cosmos, consciousness, and God. Robert Lawrence Kuhn hosts this series of interviews with world class cosmologists, physicists, scientists, philosophers, and theologians (see list here) on the biggest questions in life. There are numerous videos, but here are a few of note from the webisodes on God:

Alvin Plantinga Videos
Arguments About God?
Arguing God from Natural Theology?
Does Evil Disprove God? (1 of 2)
Does Evil Disprove God? (2 of 2)
If God Knows the Future, What is Free Will?
Arguing God's Existence?

William Lane Craig Videos
Is God All Knowing? (1 of 2)
Is God All Knowing? (2 of 2)
Is God Outside of Time (1 of 2)
Is God Outside of Time (2 of 2)
Considering God's Existence?
Did God Create Time?
Did God Create Multiple Universes?
How Free is God?
Can God Change?

William Dembski Videos
How is God the Creator?
Did God Create Evil?
How Could God Interact with the World?
How Should We Think About God's Existence?
Arguing God's Existence?
Arguing God from Design?
Arguing God from Teleology?
Arguing God from Natural Theology?

Alister McGrath Videos
Arguing God from Natural Theology?

Richard Swinburne Videos
Arguing God from Design?
Is God Necessary?
Arguments About God?

J.P. Moreland Videos
Arguing God from Moral Law?

John Polkinghorne Videos
Arguing God from Natural Theology?
Does God Make Sense?

There are many more videos here. [HT: Apologet]

The Existence of God (2nd Edition) by Richard Swinburne is an impressive and significant philosophical work on the existence of God. Swinburne’s premise is to weigh the evidence for and against theism and determine which way the balance falls. This review will only summarize his approach and some of the ideas developed in the book.

Swinburne introduces his approach. He is not trying to come to an indubitable conclusion; his goal is a probabilistic one based upon confirmation theory. So, of the fourteen chapters, the first four describe inductive arguments, the nature of explanation, justification of explanation, and complete explanation. The author first aims to show the need to take the arguments for God’s existence together: