My Interview with Richard Swinburne
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- This is the full interview with Richard Swinburne. I was also able to take his portraits, see them here: capturingchristianity.com/my-i...
If you enjoyed this interview, consider supporting our ministry on Patreon: / capturingchristianity
Wow! At that age, the Richard Swinburne is still kicking some philosophical ass.
Thanks for this wonderful interview.
I am a simple person. I see Richard Swinburne, I subscribe
This interview shows why Richard Swinburne is one of the intellectual giants that revived Christian philosophy and is now experiencing a vibrancy like never before. The Christian intellectual community will forever be grateful to him. Thanks Cam for showing us a piece of Richard's mind.
Why I love Richard even more is the fact that he's an Orthodox Christian.
why that matters
@@Kenji17171 I suposse op is a orthodox too or at least thinks orthodox is the best/most likely to be true.
I've only watched this in its entirety just now and I must say, this was quite excellent. I commend you on a thorough and informative interview. I'm growing fonder and fonder of Richard Swinburne and I plan to read just about all of his books. His intellectual prowess is incredible.
Brandon Hensley Thanks! I’ll be interviewing William Lane Craig in a couple weeks :)
Capturing Christianity I will definitely watch that too! Keep up the great work.
Loved his answer to your last question! Classic Swinburne.
Maybe it'll be as famous as Russell's one day ;)
Thanks for this!! I'm quite the swinburne fan
Swinburne seems like a cool chap. Cameron too ;)
People like Swinburne and plantinga make me proud to be a Christian
They are two of the most important philosophers ever, so it is something to be very proud of, indeed.
Loved this interview!! Nice work!!
Super interesting interview. It really gets me thinking.
Love this man. 😎👍🏻
Never heard of this man. His work is remarkable.
No me imagino sentarme frente a Richard Swinburne.
Love your channel, Would be Absolute cool if you make educative videos about this theist arguments
Can someone explain his arguments for dualism please? I didn't understand them.
Man Richard sure can talk😂 Cam couldn’t get his second question in until after 15 straight minutes, and he had to interrupt to do it😂
Wait what’s going on here? Where are all the atheist trolls?
I know right? It seems like they always bombard at some point with a bunch of unsubstantial comments thinking they are loaded with intelligence but I personally don't think they are.
Gone because they hate a brilliant Christian
Came here to watch Richard Swinburn again, and then our boy Matt Fradd hits me with an ad. Come on man, Aquinas is great and all but I'm not looking for that right now. 😅
Seems like a very nice man.
Where the atheist trolls at
My thought exactly
Gone with the wind
All I can hear in this interview is Jo Schmidt's impression of Swinburne.
Only Richard can equal Al Plantinga IMO. Bill Craig aint't at their level, but close enough.
I'd love to see how Swinburne argues for this "Principle of Credulity." Because it is diametrically opposed to Matt Dillahunty's skeptical principle.
Swinburne argues that it is rational to believe a proposition is true in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Dillahunty argues the opposite: namely, that it is rational to disbelieve a proposition is true until evidence in support of it is demonstrated.
I think Dillahunty's principle is sounder. For example, what evidence to the contrary do we have for the proposition that "Allah is God and Muhammad is His messenger?" None, on Swinburne's view. Swinburne would have to concede that it is rational for a person raised in an Islamic family and culture to believe Islam is true, until he is presented with evidence to the contrary. Perhaps that is true, but that certainly makes "rationality" quite evidence-independent.
On the other hand, Dillahunty would argue that it is irrational for said person to believe Islam is true - regardless of upbringing or acculturation - until he is presented with evidence confirming it.
Would love to see a debate between those two!
Just a random stranger responding a month later, but I think they would differ on what it means to be rational.
On the former type of view, rationality is not tied to whether our beliefs are true or not- it is only a measure of whether or not our thinking is following proper reasoning and presently available evidence and experience. In other words, it is very possible to rationally (though mistakenly) hold a false belief.
On the latter view, it seems that our views only count as rational if they are confirmed true. At least for me, something strikes me as mistaken about that.
I don't think that's his position. He's talking about perception, not any kind of belief.
If I have the impression that my view is reliable, I have to believe it until proven otherwise. If I don't, I inevitably fall into radical skepticism, if I wait for evidence to confirm it. And there is none.
For example, you must believe that this message is not an illusion of your mind until you have proof to the contrary. This derives, I think, from Ockham's razor.
This is the position that Alvin Plantinga defends very well in Warranted Christian Belief.
The statement "believe nothing without proof" is self-refuting. It leads either to an infinite regression in search of a first proof, or to circular reasoning.
Your example of Islam doesn't really work. Indeed, I could prove its veracity by more elementary perceptions. Islam is at best the result of a perception, not a perception in itself. The opposite is true of religious experience. As the name suggests, it is a perception.
You might say that, in that case, all religions have followers who have experiences. I don't think this objection is valid. If God is infinitely good, it seems logical to expect him to offer help to those who need it, especially if they have not been informed of the "right belief".
It's also interesting to note that, although the number of followers is roughly equal, and the social mix is increasing in the main religions, testimonies of Marian apparitions or Jesus are far more numerous than apparitions of Mohammed or Shiva...
I also don't think Swinburne's substance dualism thought experiment works. A laptop running Windows and one running iOS do the same sorts of things and have the same sorts of properties. But they are distinct because of the configurations of software running the respective operating systems, not because there is any "third substance" like an immaterial soul within them.
So, when Swinburne argues that the physicalist position gives us no way to distinguish between persons, that just isn't true. DNA is one way. But even though they perform the same operations - thinking, emoting, willing, etc. - no two brains are hard-wired the same. One need not posit an immaterial soul to account for unique identity.