Swinburne vs. Dawkins on the Mystery of Existence Part Two
Sep 18, 2023
auto_awesome
Debate continues on whether a scientifically minded person would believe in God as the ultimate cause. They discuss the misconception about simplicity as the sole criterion for evaluating theory. Swinburne argues that objects with partial understanding in science can be an analogy for the existence of God. The debate explores whether God's simplicity is compatible with His ability to read billions of people's thoughts at the same time.
Simplicity is not the most important criterion in scientific explanation, rather explanatory power and other virtues like explanatory scope and plausibility hold more significance.
God can be considered a remarkably simple entity as an unembodied mind with no parts, and an entity can still be simple despite having complex effects, just like subatomic particles.
Deep dives
The Importance of Explanatory Power
Dawkins wrongly assumes that simplicity is the most important criterion in scientific explanation. Explanatory power is more significant, as scientists consider other virtues like explanatory scope, plausibility, and ad hocness. Swinburne focuses on explanatory power and provides examples of subatomic particles as simple entities with complex effects.
God as a Simple Explanation
Swinburne argues that God as an explanation for the existence of the universe is remarkably simple. By Dawkins' own definition of simplicity, God, as an unembodied mind with no parts, qualifies as a simple entity. Dawkins is mistaken in thinking that an entity can't be simple if it has complex effects, as illustrated by a subatomic particle's ability to have manifold effects despite its simplicity.
Causality and Personal Explanation
Swinburne explains the difference between scientific explanation and personal explanation. He argues that personal explanations, involving agents and volitions, are appropriate when scientific explanations reach a terminus. He highlights the limits of scientific explanation and emphasizes the legitimacy of appealing to personal explanations, such as a transcendent creator and designer for the universe.