Though I disagree entirely with his arguments, I find that Swinburne is a much more careful, logical, and sophisticated philosopher than Plantinga. Though Plantinga is very amicable and extremely nice, Swinburne comes off as a bit arrogant.
Nontheists of all types should recognize and address his arguments. Swinburne is an evidentalist and bears the onus of proof very courageously. His arguments, if fallacious, are more often than not powerful, consistent, very intuitive (if you grant him his principles) and ignored at our peril.
I think many people underestimate his theodicy, though I admit I do not think that it is a fully sufficient theodicy. This is why I think it is best to combine a theodicy with a modest form of skeptical theism.
Also, his case for the simplicity of theism is great.
4 comments:
Who is Richard Swinburne?
Thanks in advance.
Richard is a Christian philosopher/apologist of note. Google his name.
Though I disagree entirely with his arguments, I find that Swinburne is a much more careful, logical, and sophisticated philosopher than Plantinga. Though Plantinga is very amicable and extremely nice, Swinburne comes off as a bit arrogant.
Nontheists of all types should recognize and address his arguments. Swinburne is an evidentalist and bears the onus of proof very courageously. His arguments, if fallacious, are more often than not powerful, consistent, very intuitive (if you grant him his principles) and ignored at our peril.
Richard Swinburne is my hero.
I think many people underestimate his theodicy, though I admit I do not think that it is a fully sufficient theodicy. This is why I think it is best to combine a theodicy with a modest form of skeptical theism.
Also, his case for the simplicity of theism is great.
Post a Comment