You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Richard Granville Swinburne (born 1934) is a British philosopher of religion and Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford, and one of the most influential defenders of theism in contemporary philosophy. Over more than half a century he has built a comprehensive, systematic case for God drawing on probability theory, the philosophy of science and a close analysis of religious experience. His major work, The Existence of God (first edition 1979; second 2004), is a landmark. For AQA A-Level Religious Studies (specification 7062), Swinburne matters on three fronts: the cumulative, inductive, probabilistic case for God; the evidential value of religious experience (the principles of credulity and testimony); and a free-will / higher-goods theodicy in response to evil. His distinctive claim is modest in form and bold in substance — he does not pretend to prove God, but argues that, on the total evidence, the existence of God is more probable than not.
This lesson sets out Swinburne's inductive method and his use of Bayes' theorem; the simplicity of theism; the cosmological and design (temporal-order) arguments recast as probability-raisers; the arguments from consciousness and fine-tuning; the argument from religious experience; the theodicy; and the major criticisms, before weighing whether the cumulative case succeeds. A recurring theme is worth flagging at the outset: Swinburne consciously models the philosophy of religion on the methods of natural science. He treats "God exists" as an explanatory hypothesis to be assessed exactly as a scientist assesses a theory — by its prior plausibility, its explanatory power, and its fit with the total evidence — and he applies the same canons of simplicity and probability that govern physics. This is both his great originality and the source of most objections to him: critics ask whether the apparatus of scientific confirmation can really be carried over to a being who is, by definition, not an object within the world it explains.
Swinburne's first move is to classify the arguments correctly. A deductive argument (like the ontological argument) aims to make its conclusion certain: if the premises are true, the conclusion must follow. Swinburne thinks no such argument for God works. Instead he offers inductive arguments, which aim to make their conclusion probable. Among these he distinguishes a good P-inductive argument (whose premises make the conclusion more probable than not) from a good C-inductive argument (whose premises add to the probability of the conclusion without, on their own, taking it past one-half). His strategy is that many individual phenomena are each good C-inductive arguments — they each raise the probability of theism — and that together they amount to a good P-inductive argument, making God's existence more probable than not.
This is what "cumulative case" means. No single thread carries the whole weight; the strands are braided. The existence of a universe, its being governed by simple natural laws, its fine-tuning for conscious life, the existence of consciousness itself, human moral awareness, the occurrence of religious experience, and (Swinburne adds) the historical evidence concerning Jesus — each is more to be expected if there is a God than if there is not, and the accumulation tips the balance.
Swinburne is careful about how the strands interact. He proceeds in an order: first the more general phenomena (a universe, its order, consciousness, moral awareness), which together establish that the existence of some God is more probable than not; then the more specific evidence — religious experience and, in a separate later project (The Resurrection of God Incarnate, 2003), the historical evidence about Jesus — which, given that background probability, can raise the likelihood of the Christian God in particular. He even offers a (much-contested) Bayesian estimate that, on the total evidence, the resurrection is highly probable. For AQA purposes the key point is structural: the argument is layered and evidential, building from the bare existence of a creator towards a fuller theism, with each later strand resting on the probability the earlier ones have already secured. This is why a single objection to one strand rarely sinks the whole: the case is designed to be robust under the loss of any one plank.
It is also why Swinburne insists religion is, at its core, a matter of reasonable belief on evidence rather than a leap in the Kierkegaardian sense. Where Kierkegaard prized objective uncertainty as essential to faith's passion, Swinburne holds that believing in God is, or should be, like believing any well-supported scientific hypothesis — proportioned to the evidence and defensible in the open court of reason. The two thinkers thus mark opposite poles on the relationship of faith to reason, a contrast AQA examiners reward candidates for drawing.
Key term: personal explanation. Swinburne distinguishes scientific explanation (events explained by prior states plus natural laws) from personal explanation (events explained by the intentions and powers of a rational agent). His central contention is that the most fundamental features of the universe — that there are any laws at all — cannot receive a scientific explanation (which would presuppose laws) but can receive a personal one: they are the intended act of God.
It is worth pausing on why personal explanation is irreducible for Swinburne, because critics often assume science will eventually explain everything. His point is conceptual, not a bet about future physics. A scientific explanation always has the form "given these prior conditions and these laws, the event follows." But that form presupposes both conditions and laws; it can never explain why there are those laws, or any laws, or any universe for them to govern, without simply citing yet more conditions and laws — which only pushes the question back. Personal explanation has a different form entirely: an agent brings something about because they intend it, for reasons. When I raise my arm, the full explanation is not exhausted by neural firings; it includes my intention. Swinburne argues that the existence and orderliness of the whole physical order is, in the end, explicable only in the second way — as the intentional act of a rational agent — or not at all. The choice, he says, is between a personal explanation and treating the universe as an inexplicable brute fact.
Swinburne frames the cumulative case using Bayes' theorem, the formal rule for how evidence revises the probability of a hypothesis. Without the algebra, three quantities matter:
The load-bearing claim is the simplicity of theism. Swinburne argues that "there is a God" is an exceptionally simple hypothesis, because it postulates one personal being with properties that are not arbitrary finite quantities but infinite — infinite power, infinite knowledge, perfect freedom and goodness. Infinite degrees, he argues, are simpler than particular large finite ones (an infinitely powerful being is a tidier posit than one with, say, the precise power to lift 10^40 kilograms). By the canons of scientific reasoning — and Ockham's razor — simpler hypotheses have higher prior probability. So theism starts with a respectable prior, which the empirical evidence then raises. Swinburne's overall verdict: on the total evidence, the probability of God exceeds one-half.
Swinburne recasts the traditional arguments not as proofs but as C-inductive probability-raisers.
The cosmological argument becomes: is the existence of a complex physical universe more to be expected if God exists than if not? If there is no God, the universe is simply a brute fact — vast, complex, and utterly unexplained. The prior probability of just such a universe existing for no reason is, Swinburne argues, very low. If there is a God, a universe containing embodied conscious agents able to grow morally and intellectually is the sort of thing a perfectly good creator has reason to make. So the universe's existence raises the probability of theism.
The design argument Swinburne handles with care, dividing it in two:
The hinge of both is the personal/scientific distinction: science can explain events within the law-governed universe, but it cannot explain why there are universal laws at all; that ultimate regularity calls for a personal explanation in terms of the intentions of God.
Two further strands deserve attention, both characteristic of Swinburne.
The argument from consciousness turns on the existence of conscious mental life itself. Even granting a complete physical account of the brain, Swinburne argues, the existence of conscious experiences — the felt redness of red, the taste of coffee, the having of beliefs and desires — is not entailed by, and is not predictable from, the physical facts alone. Why should the firing of neurons be accompanied by anything it is like to undergo it? Science can correlate brain-states with mental states but cannot explain why there are mental states at all rather than mere mechanism in the dark. Such psycho-physical correlations are exactly what a God who wished to create embodied souls capable of knowledge and choice would bring about. So the existence of consciousness is more probable on theism than on naturalism — another C-inductive strand. This connects to Swinburne's defence of substance dualism in The Evolution of the Soul (1986): he holds that a human being is a soul plus a body, the soul being the essential part that makes me me, and that the soul's existence is best explained as a divine creation rather than a by-product of matter.
The fine-tuning strand observes that the fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe appear exquisitely calibrated for the eventual emergence of life: had the strength of gravity, or the cosmological constant, or the ratios of the fundamental forces been minutely different, no stars, no chemistry and no observers would have formed. On naturalism, this precise calibration is an extraordinary stroke of luck; on theism, it is just what a creator intending conscious life would arrange. Critics invoke the multiverse (perhaps there are vastly many universes, and we necessarily find ourselves in a life-permitting one) or the anthropic principle (we could not observe a universe incompatible with our existence, so no surprise we observe a fine-tuned one). Swinburne replies that the multiverse is itself a less simple posit than a single God, and that the anthropic point explains why we observe fine-tuning but not why it obtains. Each move and counter-move, again, is a contribution to the cumulative balance rather than a stand-alone proof.
Swinburne offers one of the most influential defences of the evidential value of religious experience (The Existence of God, ch. 13; Is There a God?, 1996). It rests on two principles he takes to govern all rational belief, not just religion.
Across cultures and centuries, vast numbers of people have reported experiences they take to be of a powerful, loving, transcendent presence. Given credulity and testimony, this enormous body of testimony is, Swinburne argues, significant cumulative evidence for God — one more strand that raises the probability of theism.
A cumulative case for a good God must confront the evidence that tells the other way — suffering. Swinburne addresses this in The Existence of God (ch. 11) and at length in Providence and the Problem of Evil (1998). His theodicy combines the free will defence with a wider appeal to the higher-order goods that evil makes possible.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.