Book Review
-Review by: Pabitra M. Bhandari
"Is there a God?" offers a powerful
response to modern doubts about the existence of God. The world is publicized
by scientists that there is no proof of god's existence. They reasoned after
their investigation of the human, nature and universe. But Swinburne made his
argument like this: using the criteria (data) of historian, scientist and
detective, we find the view that there is a God explains everything we observe,
not just some narrow range of data in which all the above mentioned discipline
concentrate. For Swinburne , "the very criteria,
which scientists use to reach their own theories, lead us to move beyond those
theories to a creator God who sustains everything in existence."
He opens his arguments, by clarifying the
very concept of "God" according to the claim of theism. He not only
gives various attributes of God but he explain what the very concept mean. For
example: he introduces God as a person but he further more logically explains
that as a person God has individual power, purposes and beliefs. In a same way,
he makes clear that there is a God who is essentially eternally omnipotent,
omniscient, and perfectly free. Than he raises a question why should we believe
them? From this point onward Swinburne is using the criteria
which scientists, historians and others use when they put forward their
theories about the causes of what they observe. He leaves the very concept of
God at this moment and goes after the way of explanation.
The world is consists of objects, called
substances which have properties to cause events. And such events are explained
in human terms. Events are explained basically in two ways, i.e. the inanimate causation,
and there is intentional causation. The first explanation is in terms of powers
and liabilities, is inanimate explanation, the second is in terms of beliefs
and purposes, is intentional and also called personal explanation. Physics and Chemistry
provide inanimate explanations and so much history, psychology, sociology
provide personal explanations. Swinburne is not
satisfied with mere various explanations but he is seeking the justification of
the explanation the criteria to determine the explanation (theory) is true or
not. He presented four criteria to judge the explanation (theory) of an
observed event. The first one "it leads us to expect many and varied
events which we observe;" i.e. the explanation should explain the event in
various occurrences. "What is proposed is simple" "it fits in
the background knowledge" i.e. it means the theory should work in neighboring
area; the last one is that "we would not otherwise expect to find these
events; i.e. it should be relevant to the whole system. If all these four
criteria are satisfied with a explanation only then it can be considered as a
true sentence. After giving the mere criteria to explain events author jumped
to explain God, how simple is it to explain.
He continues to argue and present his opinion
on the explanation. Not everything has an explanation, to explain something one
needs to depend on others we will have to acknowledge something as ultimate and
there seems to have three possibility of ultimate explanations: materialism,
humanism and theism. His position is that materialism just give inanimate
explanation which fails to achieve the personal matter, and it can be explained
by humanism, but it fails to give the explanation concerning existence and
operation. From there Swinburne points to theism
which tends to explain the very existence of the matter and operation of it. Therefore,
he is arguing that theism is the ultimate explanation. Following this, author
is moreover trying to exemplify the evidence how does it works rather than how
it is proved. He is not longing to find out that how world shows God exist but
how it explains the world and its order.
The failure of science, history, humanism,
psychology to explain the very nature and reason of the existence of world,
animal, human beings, evil etc. are explained by very concept that "God
Exists." Author started with the nature of Universe, there are very
particles which composed to form the universe, naturally there should not be anything,
but there is something. The varieties of things are composed of certain amount
of these small particles (neutron, proton, and electron) and form to have
certain regular behavior. There are certain kinds of regular behaviors in
things and in the world produced by the composition of certain amount of
particles. And those regularities can be observed and science makes some rules
and laws. Because there are regularities science can predict that there will be
rain, the day will be sunny, plant grow, etc. but science is never able to
explain that why there is regularities in the universe. This thing is explained
by theism. Because Omnipotent God exists; he is able to make everything
regular. The regularities are not in the universe and physical world itself but
in human and animal bodies. He also point out the fact that the chance would
never throw up such beautiful organization. There are order and regularities in
human and bodies and the animal world so that they can survive themselves. In
this chapter Swinburne is not arguing that because
there is order in the universe therefore God exists; his argument is also not
that the universe exists therefore God exists, but his argument is that only
"God exists" can explain the orderliness and existence of the universe.
The next chapter he jumped unto the human
being itself. Human is more than just a body, he is conscious of many things
which never be produced by electrons, protons, and neutrons. It is different
than body and is also called soul. This is never be explained by evolutionary
theory of Darwin Swinburne pointed out theism
explanation about this. God being omnipotent, is able to join soul and body and
he has good reason to join it. Human is different from other animals and living
things, Human has immaterial part soul which only can be explained by theism
that "God exists".
The issue of miracles which is seen specially
the violation of the natural laws is also to be explained. There is historical evidence
for the occurrence of violations of natural laws of a kind which is indirect
evidence for the existence of God. By all these explanation of the events in
the point of view of theism, Swinburne is able to
present the probability of existence of God.
Overall the entire book is able to present
good argument for the explanation of the theism is the best among others, but
it is very weak to answer the question raised in the title of the book "Is
there a God?" the whole book centered on that "God exists" is
better than "God doesn't exists." The arguments he used to show the
usefulness of "God's existence" are similar to the classic arguments
of God's existence, i.e. Teleological argument. Thomas Aquinas Swinburne is arguing that
"God exists" explains the orderly universe better than science. The
explanation of the human being, and human soul is also of same theme in another
title. His argument against the issue is similar with other theodicy; i.e. his
argument against the moral evil he connects with the free will of human as
Augustine' theodicy; and against natural theodicy is moreover like Iranean
theodicy; that God may utilize the evil for his Good purpose. Since author
seems to be very neutral in his religious position (specially in this book), he
is struggling to convince the problem of evil. Historicity of violations of
natural laws is taken as the proof of God's existence, which clearly seem illogical.
Finally, the book seems to be very useful to
speak against the attack of scientism. But in this postmodern time more people
argue that there are several ways to reach God, i.e. pluralism is the main
opponent. And author did not touch any issues concerning knowing God. Author
seem to be protecting himself from the attack of theist and pluralist. The God author
talking about seems to be very abstract rather than personal. He seems to be
presenting argument for the "existence of God" the concept of God as
in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam but this book is not enough to explain the
match point of their belief i.e. Monotheism. To create an orderly universe like
he explained in this book, there is no necessity of only one God, i.e. there
can be many gods working for this universe. The book also lacks to explain
personal/relational experience with God. The book seem to pointing to
agnosticism, "the possibility of God's existence". The book can be
used to argue against the atheism. But after reading his book, one has to agree
at his argument that theism can explain everything in the universe.