Richard Swinburne - Can Many Religions All Be True?

Conflicting religions fill the world. Doctrines about God contradict one another.

[mordec]

Sad to see so many ignorant and arrogant comments here. Swinburne is a brilliant philosopher, his arguments for theism are well crafted and continue to be discussed in academia. It's just scary to see how so many people are completely oblivious and seem to think people like Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and Leibniz (to name a few) were complete "fools" who made "obviously unsound arguments". It's extremely naïve -- to say the very least -- to think that a tradition as long as that of Natural Theology has got nothing going for it, or nothing substantial.

So many ignorant atheists can't even understand stuff like the PSR and contingency cosmological arguments, let alone Swinburne's inductive arguments. Yet they feel like they can badmouth world-renowned philosophers (without ever engaging with the arguments, of course). It's just sad.

[Mathswart]

This is very good. Very interesting. Thanks.

[aisaketakau]

Christianity has never made any "only true claim " .it is the WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE .

[guywholivesforart]

Wow, these are polarizing comments. I can't help but think that most of them would be retracted if those who voiced them did just a little bit of research regarding the rest of Swinburne's work.

[rainaveedsultan]

I respect all religions but believe in Sahada meaning "there is only one God-Allah". Christianity and Judaism are also true religions until they believe in oneness of Almighty.

[ShahirNaga]

A textbook example of the incoherence of the philosophers. Swinburn uses philosophy to deduce things about God but then argues the resurrection makes Christianity unique. In other words, the death of God.
God doesn't die in the first place. God is independent.
Jesus is always dependent on the Father... ironically he was supposedly brought back to life because of the father

[tufail]

Much of what Dr. Swinburne said here has been the default position of so many theistic religions for so long. It is coherent. But unfortunately, most vocal voices seem to be either ignorant or dishonest.

[godonlyone]

The ones that God revealed are all true. The man-made ones, such as atheist Dogma, are false.

[matthewb]

He has had many discussions on religion. Religious?

[godonlyone]

Hindu is an ethnicity, not a religion.

[waywed]

But Christianity isn't alone in claiming an event ouside the laws of nature (ie Jesus resurrection). Doesn't the Quran claim Mohammed took an overnight trip to heaven on a winged horse (Buraq)? Both are supernatural anecdotes - neither of which are provable. Not a very convincing argument for a God Professor Swinburne!

[ast]

it's just a coincidence that I believe the one true religion is the one I was born and raised in. Just a pure coincidence.

[godonlyone]

God states clearly that he is perfectly unary in all of his revealed scriptures.

The Bible does not state that God is a trinity -- not in any book, not in any chapter, not in any verse.

[fiazmultani]

O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, [180] and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfillment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. [181] Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. - 4:171 (Asad)

[ast]

The so-called "evidence" for the resurrection is truly laughable. Mark doesn't even talk about it. The most important "event" in the religion, and Mark doesn't even talk about it. A fact so embarrassing, that later editors forged new endings into Mark. The other accounts of the "resurrection" conflict with one another, are entirely nonsensical, and conveniently written decades after the "event" -- long after anyone could check on it.

But even if the gospels were roughly consistent with one another on the details of the "resurrection, " and even if there were some point to the resurrection -- you know, like Jesus came back to actually do something, other than star himself in his own magic act: "Tada I'm alive again. Okay bye." -- even if all that were true, there still wouldn't be a shred of evidence for it other than "it says so in an old book" -- which is no evidence at all.

Maybe think about that before investing a lot of time in this garbage. Think about the fact that there is zero evidence for this belief, other than "it says so in an old book." Anyone can say anything in an old book.

[luvdomus]

Of course many religions can be simultaneously true. Ever read the poem, "The Blind Men and the Elephant?"

[endoalley]

Very odd proof for the existence of god. Good thing he made short work of it and moved on briskly before any questions regarding the proof were asked.

[krisc]

Jesus wasn’t a catholic. Mohammed wasn’t a Muslim, Jahwe wasn’t a Jew… Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, and many many others were here to present us the truth. They were not here to start a religion. Religion has been initiated and constitutionalized afterwards by people, upon this message, but over the years the original message got very much distorted and poisoned by all kinds of silly dogma’s that caused diversification.. And THAT’s the problem with religion. You don’t need to be good on Earth to gain access to heaven. You don’t need to do good for your Karma in the afterlife. You don’t need to kill atheists in a ‘holy war’ to get offered 72 virgins in the hereafter. Whatever you do here is to help you grow, to learn lessons. Earth is a school, you can learn every lesson you want, you are allowed to make mistakes. And you can come back as many times as you need. What we are in essence, transcends every religion.

[JontoDickens]

One long series of erroneous premises leads to one extremely shaky conclusion that wouldn't get the time of day if spoken by someone outside of academia. It's disheartening that some people are given a platform to air such rubbish based solely on reputation instead of the credibility of his argument.

[riadhvet]

The most fallacious argument from a world class philosopher !