Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:59:00.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is theism a simple hypothesis? The simplicity of omni-properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2015

CALUM MILLER
CALUM MILLER*
Affiliation:
St Hugh's College, University of Oxford, OX2 6LE, UK e-mail: c.miller@oxon.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One reason for thinking that theism is a relatively simple theory – and that it is thereby more likely to be true than other theories, ceteris paribus – is to insist that infinite degrees of properties are simpler than extremely large, finite degrees of properties. This defence of theism has been championed by Richard Swinburne in recent years. I outline the objections to this line of argument present in the literature, and suggest some novel resources open to Swinburne in defence. I then argue that scientists' preference for universal nomological propositions constitutes a very strong reason for supposing that theism is simpler than parodical alternatives in virtue of its positing omni-properties rather than parallel ‘mega-properties’.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 45 - 61
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bradley, M. C. (2002) ‘The fine-tuning argument: the Bayesian version’, Religious Studies, 38, 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. C. (2007) ‘Hume's chief objection to natural theology’, Religious Studies, 43, 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahn, S. M. (1977) ‘Cacodaemony’, Analysis, 37, 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilley, F. B. (2000) ‘A finite god reconsidered’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 47, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawkes, D. & Smythe, T. (1996) ‘Simplicity and theology’, Religious Studies, 32, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gellman, J. (2000) ‘Prospects for a sound stage 3 of cosmological arguments’, Religious Studies, 36, 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (2000) ‘A new critique of theological interpretations of physical cosmology’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwiazda, J. (2009a) ‘Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, and Principle P’, Sophia, 48, 393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwiazda, J. (2009b) ‘Richard Swinburne's argument to the simplicity of God via the infinite’, Religious Studies, 45, 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. (1779) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, S. (2010) ‘The evil-god challenge’, Religious Studies, 46, 353–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, E. H. & Hare, P. H. (1968) Evil and the Concept of God (Springfield IL: C. Thomas).Google Scholar
McGrew, T. (2014) ‘The argument from silence’, Acta Analytica, 29, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New, C. (1993) ‘Antitheism: a reflection’, Ratio, 6, 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. (2006) Arguing about Gods (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philipse, H. (2012) God in the Age of Science: A Critique of Religious Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruss, A. R. (2009) ‘The Leibnizian cosmological argument’, in Craig, W. L. & Moreland, J. P. (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Oxford: Blackwell), 24–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Q. (1998) ‘Review article: Swinburne's explanation of the universe’, Religious Studies, 34, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, E. (1990) ‘God, the demon, and the status of theodicies’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 27, 163–167.Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2001) Epistemic Justification (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2004) The Existence of God, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2010) ‘God as the simplest explanation of the universe’, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weizsäcker, C. F. von (1964) The Relevance of Science (New York: Harper & Row).Google Scholar
Wynn, M. (1993) ‘Some reflections on Richard Swinburne's argument from design’, Religious Studies, 29, 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar