Response to my commentators

Response to My Commentators Author(s): Richard Swinburne Source: Religious Studies, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 301-315 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20008422 . Accessed: 22/10/2013 06:38 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Religious Studies. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ? Religious Studies 38, 301-315 DOI: 10.1017/S0034412502006108 2002 Cambridge University Press Printed in the United Kingdom tomy commentators Response SWINBURNE RICHARD Oriel College, University of Oxford, OX1 4EW Abstract: This ismy response to the critical commentaries by Hasker, McNaughton and Schellenberg on my tetralogy on Christian doctrine. I dispute the moral principles invoked by McNaughton and Schellenberg in criticism of my theodicy and theory of atonement. I claim, contrary to Hasker, that I have taken proper account of the 'existential dimension' of Christianity. I agree that whether it is rational to pursue the Christian way depends not only on how probable it is that the Christian creed is true and so that the way leads to the Christian goals, but (in part) on how strongly one wants those goals. Hasker is correct to say that I need to give arguments in favour of the historical claims of Christianity, and I outline how I hope to do that. I am most they have given grateful to my commentators to my writings, for the detailed their very generous attention which and their very compliments and to the Editor for giving so much space to this discussion. The are of two kinds - detailed criticisms of moral views which I invoke in fair criticisms; criticisms my theodicy and inmy (McNaughton) account of the Atonement (Schellenberg); and general criticisms ofmy 'apologetic programme' (Haskerand Schellenberg). Theodicy (McNaughton) focuses God's I begin my response on chapter 12 of Providence by considering and right to cause or permit harm to David McNaughton for bringing first is this. I consider 'three models to make competent one relevant provide standing decisions' to God's for us what duties for the benefit for the duties in our best as the quite of others. different of carers 275) and (McNaughton, theodicy. of Evil (1998), concerned to light two confusions as carer of humans is objectively this criterion to some on my McNaughton the Problem He with I am grateful in that chapter. The in charge of those not I conclude that the only is their 'best interest'. God should interest. criterion I then slide over into under of God's having a duty to 'benefit overall'. McNaughton then generously suggests an argument deriving 301 This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 302 RICHARD SWINBURNE in my writing from elsewhere interest' interest - that because as sufficient could do for a dependant, God I should in the case of God, why, that He can do for them is to promote 'best is no limit to the good which there promote He cannot interpret their best and so all interest, good. And, he should their sufficient add to clinch the argument, that any interpretation of 'sufficient good' except that of 'benefit overall' would be arbitrary and unmotivated. I fully endorse this way of removing the apparent inwhat inconsistency (1998, 230) l imply that this iswhy Imake Iwrote. the slide, but Indeed, in the middle of my I should have made this clear, and clear at an early stage of the argument. there is also, the promote as McNaughton 'best humans and indeed of all creatures. logically incompatible does not promote another acknowledges, of every human; interest' my best Promoting your best with promoting interest my best reason why by infringing cannot be interest will frequently interest your God is the carer of all that is, He and And (even given that the carer rights). The other confusion concerns what Imeant bymy 'ratherobscure' (McNaugh ton, 277) claim on God in which by saying by the duty was covered to moment conditions Imeant rights'. range of areas moment the duty to care, the greater that 'the greater the consequent we of time. This second These matters in certain and third interpretations far God's being that each of us is a net beneficiary. ensure 232) that 'there are limits to the extent on Earth even if there is eventual be wrong couldn't reasonably stage in a dependent's of life worse stretch injections greater good, in the world than no life. For that would harm would God be justified in allowing the harm and that it is subsequently at any giving painful such injections issue is, then, with is a (logically) 'while to it', we him have an initial even though The that (loosely) But to come'. rule out a doctor conscious, to (1998, that no carer ought principle issue only by His duty giving much life subsequently. long, given to to allow us to be harmed God ought him a net loser, i.e. tomake it first becomes length equivalent I acknowledged of course, it to have a happy to God, how much how life tomake on I turn to the central is limited from the child before it to be a moral suppose to a foetus when enable would Now, towhich is roughly up, harm compensation to take too much itwould on others depends of this. cleared right to impose the and in which and only for a certain respects from we have, on others I 'really meant' of what of interpretation us of how between we depend that the are dependent for the powers on God. Our dependence to dependence understanding McNaughton's Since we greater. live, and for whether (if the duty if fulfilled) to care was greater, for our very existence, respects, we are totally dependent God, and is limited that a duty anyone respect to suffer for condition necessary of in the life of the suffering compensated individual. Now moral have I do not choice think that McNaughton facing God, to face. God a scale of moral is concerned, takes seriously choice which not with what enough the scale of the we humans benefits or harms This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions simply do not to confer on to commentators Response already existing but with what creatures, to receive certain benefits. to a fairly narrow for a finite range of possible is also concerned life, or the capacity to give creatures the capacity for an infinite life; and so with respect choice, He is concerned He makes the second wellbeing. Evils which to seem quite what those harms concerns on the eternal so awful scale that no-one, else, our disagreement with God's concerns initial choice, the issue sense of 'harm'. For since there are no humans there is no intelligible them as He joins them to bodies, before God creates for their eternal scale. that there are harms we are concerned are.When only to those on the secular 'horrendous' them on anyone to impose in the normative harms seem so horrendous I agree with McNaughton So while not even God, ought and it isGod who has so limited choices, with whether forwhom are not going and it on the kind of scale that God does. They are (that is, everlasting) creatures and in what now have this prob thinks that geneticists (If someone lem, Ipoint out that they don't have them.) And God to create to put them, so that they are then liable to certain harms sort of environment limited sort of creatures 303 sense towhat 'they'were before orwhat 'they'would 'otherwise' be like, ifGod had not so joined to harm them. The only sense someone is to make that the unborn I cut a swathe supposes impose quite a few philosophical through but he does make have the right 'not to be physically 273). But one general to the issue of what sort of creatures I do you terrible damage blind sighted, benefactor. rational if I cause I am not wronging one creates package creatures I cause paper the unstated same way. Parents food, warmth, comfort care and so on'. But the unstated implication rational or the malevolence greatly part of the they are subject.) of duties suffers beings less. (For when really e nihilo, of parents to be providing a decent a lives. of others, I am merely him; to which to 'see that the child and affection, of a race of I am merely worthwhile turn out to be much examples that God ought have duties shelter, for sight, them in an environment is littered with implication the existence of that race by creating is the kind of risk in that environment McNaughton's with and puts and psycho If Iblind you who of a race of largely sighted a risk that the benefit may him with benefiting to create. the capacity lose their sight by accident a member of physical of and so have no application (1972).) For I am creating Adams the existence a few of them may is that the notions (alias, a harm); but if (when there are in the world) beings without (See, of course, Analagously, where it is right for God races of similar creatures fish or even also in serious ways' damaged this statement has been deprived; are already no other since McNaughton not even God ought to statement - that all humans imply a standard 'damage' someone of which logical wellbeing by the life they are given, articles, and psychologically the trouble with and psychological physical to be. (In supposing gives no list of harms which this.) McNaughton (McNaughton, sense: is the normative off than they ought and so also benefited, can be harmed, on anyone; in this context applicable them worse to children for children is provided with education, in the adequate good medical from a similar This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions (though not 304 RICHARD SWINBURNE identical) problem to that ofmy blindness example. Parentswho fail to fulfil these duties are failing to provide existing humans with important good thingswhich are available and not too difficult theywould to the goods that parents for us, itmay provide not provide important for children, can provide reasonably goods too difficult not the goods unlike to provide. not have if they do it does not follow where in environments things. That these that God can children But from that that a creator has a duty not to create creatures there is a risk that they may a maximum there being that parents wrong be claimed off than are), rather than worse actually case). And are (as in the blindness off than they actually them worse and thus making to provide, be (and than similar humans otherwise is, of course, as obvious regards 'adecent education'. If Idon't provide education formy children capable then Iwill be harming I can do so easily, itwhen of assimilating there are no other races of rational beings of rational unable beings to teach each other us by not them? Or is God harming future generation of the other a race e nihilo am I harming to read and write, all the things which not. But in this and other things them. But if (when I produce us now teaching Of course discover? might to some applies in the world) the same kind lists which some of point McNaughton provides of goods which parents ought to provide for children. Take 'goodmedical If Idon't care'. to the doctor when take my children I fail as a parent. But do Iwrong test. Faced with can be seen by the Rawls life; and so causing is that God can choose individual's life clearly makes be on imposed when are a necessary the bad things good. Suppose greater capacities that we of present-day discipline be would of any than others with length required to facilitate for an eternal wellbeing, suffering than would seem that suffering length and intensity (and/or it is permissible the unprevented is (loosely) a necessary are born with subsequent imposition possibility the chil or wellbeing, are concerned to impose in Providence condition that receiving care or education we where required elsewhere may things of present-day the capacities suffering I argue of length of an bad of that individual of temporary Evil those painful medical it is now. Analogously, justified. Now life. The at a later stage, and especially period temporary is benefiting. in the situation all live for only a year, some being adults, temporal far less condition the right to impose etc. In that case, dren, stage when for that individual good than no to the length of bad things which at an earlier that individual by a greater compensated to give us an infinite a difference the former for a life worse has no analogy which choice of God's good in a world to exist of whether all of us would make in such a situation to be a person someone aspect choice parental (life with many this and similar points care does not make of medical the absence choice. Hence, The other a choice care, or not to exist at all, almost medical ill, then indeed them to exist in aworld without I give them a benefit a risk of losing some of them after awhile. And things) with without if I cause creatures think so - for again, I don't medicine? they are badly with of a longer if this life is all, and the Problem of suffering) of a person This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions of of some becoming a to commentators Response certain we kind of person are serious as a result of their own about a certain having of time. To develop and to develop And requires suffering He would for eternity, in order suffering the suffering that earthly to make the right them to form parents have if it is subsequently benefit of the sufferer, relevance on whose compensated? Clearly to our issue McNaughton is a good fering for your benefit for me. - much a lot of more on already than existing suffering will be for your is God in imposing, justified as with here, I emphasize is a limit. But there of my of others to quite liable the right to impose Some seem to form a character the right character for the benefit suffering them of it. itwould But can choose who people of our love, or the real danger these arguments. for the sake of earthly wellbeing.1 children even have to help benefit. How much in bad need character does not challenge is making is because ifwe do the actions which only people if God This to do, and ifwe do them over a period requires a courageous that choice. a loving character so on. McNaughton to follow character they are difficult reflect that character when serious 305 a strand of my nowhere comments I am privileged ifmy for the suffering argument - that my suf for your life is used benefit. So how much purposes, all the good purpose above including there is never going years? Of course, to 'show deserves thirteen only is probable us to make a serious of enabling exhanced on cases in others not be too large and a certain be too large. So also analogously doctors and educators too long a period and not one not have certainly such talk about God's between love their children. in the most parents The who in certain circumstances in the short term. And his wish admit some of the world's But in the end I always conclude suffering us. But endless In comparison that it different with those for many minutes and think they are right to do so, eighty of suffering to gain the eternity we seriously I rule out plenty - God would unchosen suffering also be too long, whatever rights? Ought yield frustrated not be very short. Imust here. not God to a child's latter will have a primary important ways can lead us to conclude impose and we foisted upon the right to impose trillion years would then watch a crime But reflection and dissimilar to have, difference 275). Similarly, that such-and-such amount would years does not seem But why argument respects cases where certainly deductive (MacNaughton, to show in jail rather than fourteen. years even years for the sake of greater goods, choose rights' a year, or eighty that a certain amount would being for many to be a straightforward to be such arguments going in certain similar of God's the extent there are never several the right to impose of the sort of people we are to be for eternity? Ten minutes, choice many a good God have suffering would on anyone; the resulting to love us? Yet there is a every whim, concern and parents for the children's in the long term, and the child's whim for signs of parental and good. approval) may who well (including have to be if the long term is very long, the short term may that whenever Iwrite sentences horrors on TV, I ask myself, like the above and 'Do I really mean that I do. In any parent who has for good This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions this?' reason 306 RICHARD SWINBURNE to cause suffering to a child, emotional for the child's concern well short-term being rightly pulls against rational concern for their long-term wellbeing. So analogically, long be with God itmust is going term, and He but we'd very demanding, The Atonement also. God a lot of pressure to put us under that - would expect for us in the very the very best seeks it. He to get is we not? (Schelienberg) John Schellenberg focuses his detailed criticisms also on my moral views, in his case those in my involved exposition in Responsibility and defence and Atonement (1989)of the doctrine of theAtonement. He singles out for criticism four views in different involved the ones which McNaughton including other moral one hopes which principles agreement serious I share enough over moral critic will one's in any period issues or share, and then extrapo shorter I begin to doubt to come to than a few years of the time it takes to read of life, let alone within and experience article. All that I can do is to point a philosophical moral other matters about views, can do to make all that anyone about other particular judgments issues the disputed argument all moral view at stake. As I read Schellenberg, late from these to the moral he and As with argument. criticized, to judgements is to appeal them plausible when stages of my out that his judgements are wildly disconsonant, not merely with typicalChristian judgements, but with the of most judgements good This in almost people all cultures. is most point takes an example guilt. And thought was have then concludes, 'there is nothing wrong with me'. What 'I'm sorry'? But this 'sorry' is not what has happened, wife regret what sorry' And which one would has happened the reason why that makes of harm'. Schellenberg we can help the clause. something it' (Schellenberg, This and clearly no such is obvious to qualify this principle 292). But I suggest implicit is no explicit qualification qualification either. his car, and 'regret', and his wife to he and his to say, - he has caused with 'I'm the tragedy. I gave - 'in interacting them certain kinds the clause, that the principle I undertake a promise 'insofar as stands without explicitly of Schellenberg's Imake - only she as quick is the one can be seen by the fact that when there 'remorse', for not causing in advance to his does he say to his wife? by himself is not he this point as unfavourable to find. For presumably - so why all the difference responsibility wants of reaction expect equally to him as he is to her? The answer with others, we accept to express intended and so it fails to bring out the asymmetry to illustrate about he of me, when runs over his child with find. He unintentionally as one could position I should which first criticism in Schellenberg's obvious that there is no such thing as objective claims that, he will have If he recognizes to think again. reason kind, to do there is or borrow money and then - through no fault of my own - can't fulfil or repay. What do I say to my I've been short of creditors? - 'I regret the situation in which you find yourselves. This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions to commentators Response in my money with me, same, time too '?Of course if it is not my even even if the undertaking shared by two writers not. I've failed and there is something fault that I've failed. But is only Tom Nagel (1976, 123-124 and 140-141). Williams driver who 'through no fault of his' Williams suggests, will that if the driver had been will blame himself' by far the larger part of the Christian is of a qualitatively serious treatment, different 'Has some divine (Schellenberg, 293). But answer 'No', to the extent of people who and they have 'humans not have though of God's 'game plan' to succeed, I certainly conse reparation to God. he asks rhetorically as to expect that He hard though someone, has happened. itwould temptation thinks strongly it probable or wounded' response that any fail, it is our - though, of doing good certainly so even no part to Him - He wanted us for us. The fact (if it is a fact) that God happens, we owe them reparation, whether (The same And fail in our obligations by what we enough itwas good He expects I could have done to you, when the and each other, ifwe had failed when have been have been to make sought to Him abused. Maybe owe you reparation. that we should 'literally upset wronged makes against for us. If I fail to repay a debt itwas difficult, is not fought our guilt is less than itwould easier 'no harmful will do so. But that does not alter the fact that when fault that we was in the sense lives'; far more requires is so phrased gift of life has been guilt secular view. to make thwarted?', fulfil their obligations failed. His generous is right. Of course, that subjective is 'Yes'. God answer Christian to live imperfect given human course, the normal been the question although people, a child's suffers it is inappropriate in the universe project arose' where the general is that as God criticism from our wrongdoing, quences' to blame and guilt, echoes 'he have that the driver's attitude from objective Nagel of negligence, 'he would itself if no situation and that too, I believe, second Schellenberg's of a lorry 'spectator-regret'. degree tradition has emphasized kind are and to illustrate his contention of the child, whereas too suggests lifewas at stake; and Nagel on this matter an example considers guilty of a minor for the negligence only slightly is the - Bernard Williams from mere differs comments himself wrong situation the lorry driver will have to his action - and, rightly have), for the death tradition runs over a child, (the attitude which that 'agent-regret' intuitions implicit. My very far from the Christian the moral 307 is appropriate is irrelevant. If we have or not they are upset bywhat to a point which Schellenberg in his third criticism.) When I come to Schellenberg's third and fourth criticisms ofmy moral views, I seem to find in them one implicit misunderstanding that it is impossible impossible for anyone It's just very difficult, almost unavoidable' avoid'; and Iwrote proper atonement of those views. I do not hold for a human to fulfil her obligations to God, nor that it is always - if she has wronged God - to provide adequate atonement. and people (my this-paper don't. Iwrote (1989, 146) that italics) and that 'subjective (1989, 148) of the 'difficulty' which to God. Given all that, yes, we man could 'objective will have intend sin is sin is very hard to in making that reparation This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 308 RICHARD SWINBURNE to a fellow human made could serve as reparation so long as the reparation was 296) berg, 'make large. And, yes, humans sufficiently reparation to God to God for hurting for past wrongs - that human could (Schellen their lives' with by filling otherwise supererogatory good lives.The problem is simply thatwe don't. Hence the need to help us. for God In his third criticism, Schellenberg claims ifwe have a real 'personal his creatures that we can only hurt God by hurting relationship with God', and that we don't since he is 'hidden and inaccessible to us much of the time' (Schellenberg, 295). But, as even Schellenberg seems prepared to acknowledge (Schellenberg, 291),we can wrong someone of course for many even objectively of us, ifwe don't the existence know of God that we are doing is more obvious so. And than it is for Schellenberg. Schellenberg's fourth criticism seems to amount to a gut feeling that if I'm not willing to make reparation else could do it for me. anyone so did Kant most of two millennia to take the kind of secular examples reparation aged, even to make some if they don't need the reparation, that the wrongdoer that I normally not 'jar with when this sensibility' stage, God is not willing to do the perfect tomake My 'apologetic Bill Hasker of which Schellenberg's to reaching writes it certainly does in abundance help thing. Of course, this is only us perfect Love looks for the best, but it surely reparation. has (Hasker programme' the general criticized on Christian the tetralogy criticisms concern a conclusion 'about of the personal, the general the Christian theological by examining whether theory dimension existential this is a fair criticism. My main concern system Schellenberg) theological (Hasker, 254) is the only possible that my whole approach of life and the universe' is unsatisfactory of Christianity'. in my 'comparative I do not think that just how probable that be investigated (really makes system? pro 'apologetic is a part, and some of John claims character is to investigate supports of the approach doctrine is true; and how could our evidence to us to do so) the Christian and this also. Hasker (Hasker, 257) by way of confirmation tone' too. But the aim is to make hope; it is good Schellenberg it does not find it. helps when seems has no means that means, 297) to provide and the good parent that Yes I do, and as Iwrote beings'. - God does (Schellenberg, It does matter and lives are dam if the wrongdoer to provide that and offer it back to his victim. beings who no longer need gramme' And 'for quite a lot from human a child or creature a temporary neglect property else offers that days, and I can only urge Schellenberg seriously. this reparation. to suppose in his pre-Christian I deploy I think that - like every good parent earlier, it's a cop-out to those whose which and someone accept look sins, later. In response, a wrongdoer makes for my St Paul felt the same The one, for anyone who it probable, 'relentlessly is not a global This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions it is that except not just objective sceptic. to commentators Response For it does account what rather look as if a theological cause of the ultimate is going to happen tific and historical to its human theories it does, of more criteria which my own account and from scien therefore, Just what theories. one gives an the way explanations by the objective and I have defended matter deeper or historical scientific judging is a contested It differs, inhabitants. assessed itworks why only by providing they do, and so is appropriately operate when such as the Christian system of the Universe, 309 than clearly these criteria are (which Hasker sum marizes on 254-255) at various places including in The Existence of God (1991), and most in a book fully Justification ing the probability published And here Hasker alludes (Hasker, 257) towhat thing - that 'most probability conception that there are no correct is to be a global of anything of probability'. What makes for assess criteria sceptic. I can only regard as a very strange have now abandoned theorists - Epistemic to the tetralogy subsequently to suppose (200la). But this strange [my] logical, a priori is that while most theorists have abandoned this conception when they are theorizing about probability, when they are writing osophy of science, about anything else, including they affirm as an objective else anything matter that certain in the phil theories and predictions are probable and others not. If subjective-probability theorists are to be consistent, going of probability since they should hold that (objectively to any thing or any prediction they don't (and won't!) hold speaking) is just as rational any ascription as any other. But, turn their attention this, they should to forma lizing the criteria of objective support rather than denying their existence. I think that I have made of my present a good case for my commentators I am more account of what these criteria are, and none to challenge has sought than ready to allow as Hasker that account. suggests to me (Hasker, 258) that bad motives andmisdirected affections can distort our evaluation of probabilities and that itmay be necessary logical assessments to rectify this before we are able properly of probability. We want some to conduct things and not other our things to be true, and so we misassess the force of the evidence. (Ifwe saw that theism was or that might give us reason for doing things that we would probably true false! rather not do.) And, the cultivation of right emotions will not merely have the negative function of preventing interference 'withone's fulfilment of one's episte mic duty' arguments, (Hasker, 258), but may in helping be essential us to see the moral I can see that it has a value which might values otherwise for seeing the force of theistic of things. When I love something, escape my notice, and may lead me (via reflective equilibrium) to see a crucial objective moral principle. So, too, hating something may enable me leads to a crucial objective and against the existence good being can be expected moral to see something principle. of the traditional wrong And we cannot with assess it which God unless we know what to do and we cannot know that without in turn arguments for a perfectly having morally correct views. I do not think that I have ever denied any of the above, but I acknowledge This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions that 310 RICHARD SWINBURNE Ibelieve, to the role of emotions given prominence to do so here. Yet I have, and I am pleased it proper prominence I have not given journey in the Christian in two other respects. The first concerns their importance at the end of the journey.We the right desires that only those with concerns their relevance and Reason Christian one thinks one ought vision. to friendship with I admit; 258), is enough there perhaps to a much albeit pursuing, existential personal, it remains there is a God of which to have a vision, of other worthwhileness probability on evidence probability of Christian of Christian theism offer goals similar that I do not make berg comments 'only the most is no avoiding But 'the if pursuing it is that there is the the assessment of the and - if that is less than half - the acquaintance of other religious systems offers.2 And here Schellen Christianity this comparison, superficial not neglected is only a goal worth to the probability to the goal which is a God. there life, in view of the lesser but genuine theism; relative goals 251). and the less probable So there goals. I have (Hasker, of God it will be to lead the Christian less rational berg, 288) that the vision the case (see worth are obviously or not that of Christianity' calls men that kind of that there are other whether degree, to satisfy Hasker here that aman standards poetic literature) which of great smaller dimension of these emo 'Only a man with I put on it the qualification and ... one that there given 'it is good to Kierkegaard's up quite of pain, and creation (e.g. absence which Not is a great man.' ambition And (1981, 141) that, a to pursue of God, whereas ... in what 'a change all the difference. that call is answered'. himself, vision 'above all, that if there is a God who and seek to ensure seek great goals', as on for God will be rational style Iwrote In my pedestrian tions to have. as well as on how much there will be right amounts and bad emotions, of in the offers - e.g. the beatific the beatific and so that theme of of living depends, (as well the system a longing (Hasker, 258) can make emotions one wants of achieving such a longing will not; seeks and avoids' are good to the rationality that that rationality to seek) the goals which only a low probability those without Hasker, I argued was second of the probability judgements system) The to seek. The main it is rational on how much that those with So, it follows way with But And of the system, in heaven. be happy of one's (or any rival religious it commends. the probability goals the relevance was theism way which to which would of the A theme and Atonement (1981) and of Responsibility of Faith and Reason later chapters - the right emotions having for the right reasons. the right things and loving people wanting Faith kind, and that involves of a certain seek to be people and indeed with show the beliefs (Schellen and practices of other religious traditions'. Touche. However, I do not need tomake a detailed of those religions even claim for themselves of a true religion and claimed that Christianity argue does have that there are reasons investigation characteristics by Christianity, these characteristics. adequate to show if I can show to be expected and that there is enough that none a priori evidence For then Iwill be in a position that the Christian religion This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ismore to to commentators Response likely to be true than they are. To be more Iwill be in this position precise, 311 if I can show the following things: A That is a significant there to reveal suffering, that He would incarnate become to us and to make things that He had done show is no evidence in connection Jesus to be expected, even with moderate with in that prophet incarnate to identify with our for us, and atonement this by a super-miracle; there become and that is a God, that there probability is a God, He would if there other any prophet if God had probability, and had signed and than their life with a super-miracle; and B That is evidence there with moderate become of the kind of life Jesus probability in Jesus incarnate led to be expected if God had less than half) (maybe for those purposes, but with much less probability otherwise; and C is evidence There moderate to be expected probability if the Resurrection took place with less than half) but with much (maybe less probability otherwise. If I can show these I do not need things, to consider For no other religion has a founder prophet whom God Incarnate for those kind of serious for which character super-miraculous historical evidence there is for the Resurrection can produce religion the kind described to show the historical which its face value. It is obvious have claimed or not one thinks these things, to have been of purportedly that there is the it very strong) itwould for a claim about to expect follow is true, nearly in at least one of the two respects their adherents say about that the evidence of any or all of the foundation that Mohammad of Judaism, of as religions on which the other for the occurrence events that that no an incarnation if that religion that Islam does not claim it is obvious of Egypt and the crossing event religions. It does not need a lot of detailed work on other I simply accept what Incarnate. And evidence there is reason that they are deficient character (whether of other the religion claims a foundation its advocates of Jesus. Given strong as can Christianity. commented. and has purposes, the details I have religions at was God and miraculous such as the plagues of the Red Sea, is not up to the level of the testimony of writers a few decades after the reported events to the testimony of more-or-less contemporary witnesses As John Schellenberg crucial importance to the empty I emphasized notes, of background in human history, so. Let me repeat the analogy which in assessing tomb and the appearances evidence any detailed in Revelation (1992, 2 and 112) the that there is a God historical evidence of Jesus. likely to intervene that He had done I gave there, but put it in away that shows why This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 312 RICHARD SWINBURNE establishing A, B, and C above will make Incarnate who made a theory of physics atonement it fairly probable that Jesus was for us and rose from the dead. Suppose T, supported by a wide range of background God you have evidence k, that in the course of the history of some galaxy certain circumstances will occur only once and that then one in the galaxy will supernova explode. Suppose that you have further evidence el to be expected with moderate probability (less than half) if these circumstances have further moderate were evidence realized on some occasion. e2 (about that occasion) if a supernova probability that a supernova the hypothesis that it is very improbable had exploded too, that you also to be expected (e.g. debris on the occasion exploded that you would Suppose also have both with similar in the sky). Let h be in question. el and e2 unless Suppose a supernova had exploded under the specified circumstances, that is unless h is true.And suppose that k includes evidence that, despite data about the galaxy, supernova in the galaxy has exploded the supernova hadn't, that even still the most the overall balance theology goals k,which less probable of what may to a theism, predicts such an incarnation 1,a supernova But if T is quite occur if it is explosion on improbable on that evidence improbable that that they would that they would than happened. and so an explosion. be against supported a certain in A), evidenced specified provided account it probable it is not too probable then h too will be quite of evidence T is analogous relevant less probable still make it is so improbable if T is somewhat evidence, if T ismarginally even although had exploded, probable background of many too, that if T is false, itwould (el and e2) together evidence, - because exploded if a supernova so far. Suppose, for h to be true. Then (given k) be impossible than not-T on background occur the availability there are no data nearly as strong as (e, and e2) that any other by background sort of incarnation by a super-miracle; and that his life was evidence (one designed of natural to satisfy the h is the hypothesis culminated that Jesus by a super-miracle; el is the evidence of the kind of life Jesus led, and e2 is the evidence of witnesses, If (el and e2) together are very improbable unless etc. relevant to the Resurrection. if h is true (as B and C claim), and since it is h is true, but only fairly improbable impossible for h to be true unless that there are no rival candidates like the modest Even strength if it is somewhat true, the great make also be very conjunction to Jesus for whom (e, and e2) unless of the conjunction that h. But if T is very improbable improbable there is evidence on if h is false, may that evidence. not be enough on background And to make then It is because going into precise many New Testament h is true will evidence, the improbability h probable A as well. Of course, everything turns on the range of probability ' moderately probable', etc.; but it is easy 'very improbable', point without evidence of anything that h is true. of el and e2, then (el and e2)make it probable I than on the background evidence that T is less probable improbability it probable T is true; then if T is true and k includes overall. values still h will of the So I need covered by to see the general details. scholars assume, in effect, for the purposes This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions to commentators Response of their study 'powerful on to ask length meal I do not 'why for the existence I have way. given in The Christian God and Atonement), these reasons needs and have now which may Justification be regarded Incarnate of religious How experience), seek in the new book of A, and don't have enough about history (as Epistemic I argue in than that considered evidence the evidence of the than not probable to say that I am 'required in the direction B and C, as well that evidence and the improbability in connection to be expected expect God when concern with only of all we know one prophet probability 'we take into account in human that he led the sort to lead, and that his life was there is not evidence systematic 261) that (Hasker, we I he suggests. of rival explanations with moderate Incarnate to sally forth once which as to give a more to go on'. We do, I shall be arguing, when a super-miracle; shown it more to allay Hasker's thereby Jesus - the coincidence of evidence was to establish of life we would prophet of God Incarnate the background so as to include make other it myself, doing appendix). position scholar as some to the tetralogy together with is religion historical work (as well epistemological 289), though not quite (Schellenberg, background to in A, B, and C are of to say (Hasker, 257) that I 'still [have] a lot of work right Bill Hasker was presentation argued is true. to do' and John Schellenberg more' in The Resurrection for a stronger that the (el and e2) -type evidence, of natural theology (broadly construed, pervasiveness of So I have been appendix as a general above: Christianity the relevance that the Christian of probability a book entitled of for being for B are contained that the requisite do this work. as a historical of God human kind; and I haven't referred probable philosophy can possibly finished writing The Resurrection our suffering in a number Ihave shown And is true. Iassumed with claimed (1994, 2). Inow realize that no New Testament in recent be regarded may by miracle. incarnate (in Responsibility in a certain incarnate that it ismore was a task for 'other writers' areas of philosophy) identification I have that the probabilities argued totally at home and but they are of the sketchiest true than that any other religion not to become atonement and at argued of A in a piece elements but very briefly. My arguments to show strength of Evil); I have But a good God and to provide (in Revelation) authentication investigation; for C at all, let alone sufficient for expecting that God became 7 of Revelation, chapter reasons the (Hasker, 260). He goes head-on'. of God; the Problem that any claim notes and also for the other alone evidence that they exhibit history, Hasker [this bias] (1994, 216-223) and A to historical address revelation (in Providence places bias' which anti-supernaturalistic on background in human likely to intervene is a God that there is a very low probability that there 313 culminated of either kind in respect by of any other in human history. But my critics are, of course, right to say that Ihave not this so far, nor - to be fair - have Ipurported to do so, merely pointing out the need for a moderate amount of detailed evidence claims. But if Inow admit - at any rate for the purposes in support of the historical others - that of convincing This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 314 RICHARD SWINBURNE evil counts against the existence of God unless we take into account specifically Christian claims to show about what God has done, that it ismore probable the argument than not that there of The Existence is a God of God on the evidence of natural theology alone (broadly conceived), will not suffice. For that argument claimed that we do not need evil does not count 255). So I need to make to invoke historical probable draws specifically than not attention Christian claims to show points out of God - as Hasker the existence an additional itmore Hasker against argument in favour of Christian that (Hasker, doctrines that there is a God. to what he sees as a difficulty in applying the prob ability calculus to any 'fairlycomplex hypothesis' (Hasker,256), such as Christian theism as expounded simple in the Nicene of a complex the probability probabilities'; conjunct theism is affected to any relatively The difficulty by a 'principle of a conjunction on the evidence the evidence given presumably is a God'). ('there hypothesis that the probability of the first conjunct as opposed Creed, such as bare hypothesis, is a product of the probability by the probability multiplied and the first conjunct, is that of dwindling of the second and so on for all the conjuncts. And multiplication of several fairlyhigh probabilities can quickly yield a low-total probability for the conjunction. is surely so, but all depends That are. But, as Hasker the fairly high probabilities points on just how high out (Hasker, 257) any com plexwide-ranging hypothesis faces the same problem. And so too do the sentences on a single page of any history to its evidence For consider and found of P(h9ol Ie) x P(h9o2 if P(h least o.999999) at random chosen h that all 1,ooo As are B Ie) is perhaps P(h at all this problem. o.8. But P(h Ie) is 1e & hgol) x P(h9o3 1e & h9o2) ... and so on for that the nth A is B. The terms of this series indeed Ie) is to be o.8. And to find some pretty high values another to exhibit have been (e) the hypothesis some very high values to have surprised of any hypothesis as to seem hn is the hypothesis 1oo terms; where will have this evidence to have a pretty high probability. the product the relation Indeed, in such a way of 1,ooo As, goo of which a population to be B. On seem might book. can be expressed and conjunct the evidence, (some of them of the order of at that we that suggests for the probability when the conjuncts should not be of one conjunct taken on form a together well-integrated hypothesis. feature of this situation And another at the start, adding ability; if you add another is that while to an initial hypothesis conjuncts conjunct conjunct to the hypothesis, the overall probability ant issue is not truth of this principle what happens when we add to the hypothesis further Christian both theology, torical evidence. the feeling merely the formal hypotheses I shall be arguing that it is an inadequate can only diminish at the same to the evidence may well response of theism on the evidence of my but of natural and related his then increases. But previous to run a trailer for the next one. This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions a The import probabilities, and New Testament to criticisms the prob time as adding increase. of dwindling that the probability in if you put all the evidence I have books to commentators Response 315 References ADAMS, ROBERT (1972) 'Must God create PLANTINGA,ALVIN (2000) Warranted the best?', Christian SWINBURNE, RICHARD (1981) Faith and Reason Philosophical Belief Review, (Oxford: Clarendon and Atonement (Oxford: Clarendon Press). (1991) The Existence of God, rev. edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press). From Metaphor (1994) The Christian God (1998) Providence and (2001a) Epistemic Justification (200lb) 'Plantinga toAnalogy (Oxford: Clarendon (Oxford: Clarendon the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Clarendon Religious Press). Press). (Oxford: Clarendon on warrant', Press). Press). (1989) Responsibility (1992) Revelation: 81, 317-332. (Oxford: Oxford University Studies, Press). Press). 37, 203-214. WILLIAMs, B. A. 0. and NAGEL, T. (1976) 'Moral luck', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary volume 50, 15-51. Notes 1.And, I have argued elsewhere, alone would be worth which 2. On a minor is not always former, point (see Hasker, to believe the converse have probability than not-p; only a person with having p more 258), I have now yielded probable than not-p. does not hold where beliefs but he may about a holy character would forever. See my Faith and Reason a person p, he can believe not have probability to criticism I now hold beliefs the life of heaven in acknowledging that while has no probability that p if and only enjoy (1981), ch. 5. beliefs about if he believes about p. See my (200la), that to believe the latter belief p entails the p. If a person does p to be more 34-37. This content downloaded from 174.251.240.33 on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:38:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions probable