Swinburne: On the 'New Atheists'

Visiting Scholar Richard Swinburne discusses "New Atheists" with CCT Associate Director Steve Porter.

[pennytopfield]

We hold scientists in high esteem. This has gone to the heads of some of them. Their hubris in thinking their scientific knowledge can stretch over to non-scientific matters. I personally would trust their taste in home decorating sooner than trust their opinion on the validity of religions.

[jerrydecaire]

I don't really believe in God, I just have a lack of non-belief.

[shawnchoi]

I wish Professor Swinburne would have pointed out at least one thing that any of the "New Atheists" said and gave us his perspective on the matter. On the contrary, he merely made sweeping statements that the "same arguments have been around since there were thinkers of god" (which clearly is not true, because evolutionary thought has only been around for 150-200 years) and failed to give anyone on either side any form of intellectual or moral satisfaction. He talked, but he didn't say anything.

[Uccisore]

Cool, you're a perfect example of what Swinburne says in this video - you're presenting a traditional argument that has been around for a zillion years, with no indication that you've considered the traditional responses.

[doctornov]

You believe the universe is infinite? Why do you think that? There are better reasons to think that the universe is not infinite.
The teleological argument is inductive and deductive depending on the version.
The ontological is a basic argument which even the layman can understand. The argument is based on actual reasoning. You have not refuted any of them.

[doctornov]

1) The cosmological argument from contingency
2) The kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe.
3)The moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties
4) The teleological argument from fine-tuning
5) The ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality
Feel free to try to dispute all of them, nobody has as of yet.

[adamryanisneato]

These have all been addressed in the academic literature. If you have access to JSTOR, you should look into some peer review journals in philosophy of religion.

Briefly:

1. God is not a contingent object. Contingent objects can fail to exist, necessary objects cannot. God is a necessary object. Nothingness requires that there be no necessary objects.
2. God's morals come from his omnibenevolent nature.
3. Intelligence is a great-making property, and God is defined as a maximally great being.

[DrHowbeit]

I agree with the previous comment; It would have been useful if Swinburne had given at least one example. After all, studies keep showing a negative relation between intelligence and religiosity. Also studies have shown that atheists know The Bible better than Christians. References posted if requested.

[DrHowbeit]

Check out Zuckerman, Silberman and Hall from the University of Rochester and Northeastern University. They made a meta-analysis of 63 studies conducted between 1928 and 2012 regarding intelligence and religiosity.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a survey on religious knowledge in 2010. It deals with knowledge of The Bible but also the religion as a whole. The study was focused on the US.

[richardclarke]

'not very high class'....lol I guess with that accent no one is of as high a class a him!

[katrinaa]

The cosmological argument states that nothing comes from nothing, yet this doesn't take into account infinite regression, in which case there is no certainty that there was a first cause, so you cannot prove God exists from this stance.
The teleological argument is an inductive proof and therefore only leads to a probable conclusion.
The ontological argument cannot simple define something into existence, claiming existence as a predicate does not make it so...there are 3 disputed

[Uccisore]

No. I'm asserting that God MAY have morally sufficient reasons, and since that possibility exists, Epicurus' formulation of the Problem of Evil doesn't button anything up. There is an inductive version of the argument that works much better. You should probably learn it. Or do you want me to teach you your own side of the arguments as well as mine?

[zachuram]

New Atheists - same old fallacious arguments!

[시드니최서방]

He doesnt say much. But i can hear him a lot!!!

[Uccisore]

Well, you obviously have internet access, I would suggest you google the inductive Problem of Evil if you want to learn it. It's not as strong of a position as a deductive argument like Epicurus' would be, but at least it hasn't been completely defeated.

[Uccisore]

My response? You should be more interested in the responses of the philosophical community, and apologizing for apparently never having heard of them. Anyway, THE response is that there are enough higher goods (charity, mercy, self-sacrifice) that require evil, and enough evil that is a product of human free-will, and is an unavoidable possibility if humans have free will, such that Epicurus' argument doesn't present a true dichotomy- God can be omni-good and powerful and still allow evil.

[Drweavil]

"More sophisticated answers", which ones are they then?

[lfzadra]

[This nature has simply been in existence forever]
This is an unsupported assertion, not an argument.
[if the universe did come from nothing] No current theory of cosmological origins says the universe came from nothing. If you can show that the universe came from nothing, congratulations. Not only you will win the next nobel prize of Physics, but will prove that things CAN come from nothing, and we can dismiss your God once for all.

[Uccisore]

Like I keep telling you, I'm not making anything up. I'm informing you of developments that people (even atheists) who actually study philosophy of religion have known since the 80's. You think we're having an argument. I'm trying to inform you of some basic things, and you're clinging to your ignorance because you like it. Meanwhile, I'm pointing out to the theists that may be reading that you're behaving exactly like the "New Atheists" complained about in the video above.

[doctornov]

I have 6 good arguments for God's existence.
1) The cosmological argument from the origin of the universe.
2) The teleological argument from the fine tuning of the universe for life.
3) The moral argument from the basis of objective moral values and duties.
4) The ontological argument from possibility of God’s existence to his actuality.
5) The argument from the resurrection of Jesus ans the facts surrounding it.
6) The argument from personal experience and the Holy Spirit within us all.