Talk:Richard Swinburne

Untitled

I believe that writing "While he makes some arguments to advance the belief that God exists, he argues primarily that God is a being whose existence is contingent (see modal logic), and thus that belief (and by unsaid extension, disbelief) is rational and coherent." is a misrepresantation of Swinburne's philosophy. In "The Coherence of God" he argues that the concept of God is not incoherent, which means that the existence of God is not impossible. In "The Existence of God" he argues that the probability of the existence of God exceeds 0.5, which means that the belief in God is rational, whereas disbelief is not. --HS 23:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is he Greek Orthodox? Is he of Greek descent himself? "Swinburne" is not a Greek-sounding name at all. If he's a convert, I'd be curious to know what attracted him specifically to Greek Orthodoxy. Rhesusman 17:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

He's a convert. There's an interview out there where he says that he converted because the Church of England--in choosing not to discipline deviant theologians--no longer upholds traditional Christian doctrines like the Virgin Birth. He found the truth and rock-steady reliability he was looking for in Orthodoxy and came to believe it is the one Church which Christ founded. Rumour has it that his next book will be about the concept of the infallibility of the Church. CRCulver 17:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a quotation to that effect to the article — goethean ॐ 18:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

First, this is wp:synth. Second, the claim that disbelief in a claim with a probability > 0.5 is irrational is absurd and wrong. -- Jibal (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this sentence could use clarifying: His long and productive career represents a method that appeals to some, but is problematic to others. I don't understand who his method appeals to (although I can sort of deduct this from the article), but I especially don't see who his method is problematic to. In what ways is it problematic? --Micahsergey 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Um.. because it's utter rubbish? Wabawden (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

God Delusion paragraph

When the article says "Swinburne was making a philosophical point regarding the problem of theodicy", it's unclear precisely what point he's making (I'm speaking from my own perspective, with only a passing familiarity with theodicy). I'd assume he was trying to say that, within theodicy, interpretation of events is key, as well as the idea that God has a reason for events such as the Holocaust even if it's beyond our understanding, but that's really just a guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.64.134 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Disproof of substance dualism

Some of his claims on substance dualism are debunked in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZTCK8ZluEc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Position of Swinburne on the metaphysical and/or logical necessity of God in error?

In this video: Richard Swinburne: What Kind of Necessary Being Could God Be? Swinburn seems to argue that God's existence isn't metaphysical necessary, while maintaining that God's existence is logical necessary. The text however claims the exact opposite, that Swinburn would hold the position that God is not logically necessary but would be metaphysically necessary. Is the text in error, or did Swinburn change his mind and does this change of position need mentioning? Robheus (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"important role" is POV, synth, editor's opinion, etc.

He has played an important role in recent debate over the mind–body problem

Says who? Substance dualism and theism aren't taken seriously by philosophers of mind in either the physicalist or dualist camps. -- Jibal (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)