My review will focus on my two favorite sections of the book. Though I will briefly mention, that I believe this book is the best starting point for young/starting apologists. For this main reason, first, Swinburne is one of the greatest philosophers of religion of all time, thus he actually understands the philosophical methodology, such as background data, simplicity, and explanatory power. This point alone is refreshing and helpful. It seems as if a good sum of unqualified Christian apologists is writing apologetic books these days, therefore spreading bad epistemology among other things. I will mention, that a perceived weakness may be Swinburne's brevity in his explanations on some points. Though I will counter that, by saying that this book is NOT written for professional philosophers but for laymen. If you want detailed expositions from Swinburne, read "The Existence of God", "The Coherence of Theism", "Providence and The Problem of Evil", among many other voluminous volumes from him. Now that I got that out the way, I will focus the following sections in Swinburne's book, first, the fine-tuning of the universe, second, the problem of evil.
I believe the fine-tuning argument for a life-permitting universe is a great argument for God's existence and remains among one of my favorites, so it was really awesome to read Swinburne's exposition on this argument. He highlighted what one would expect when presenting the argument, the big bang, cosmological constants, and etc. Though my favorite point in the book on fine-tuning was the correction of the evolution vs creation debate. Swinburne argues while the Darwinian explanation is a correct explanation but not an ultimate explanation. What does he mean? An ultimate explanation is one reaching the highest level for why those laws rather than any other ones operated. As Swinburne states,
The laws of evolution are no doubt the consequences of the laws of chemistry governing the
organic matter of which animals are made. And the laws of chemistry hold because of the
fundamental laws of physics hold. But just those fundamental laws of physcis rather than any
others?
Swinburne is highlighting what both theists and atheists often miss, material objects have the same powers and liabilties as every other material object, so why just these laws? The materialist will often there is no explanation, while the theist claims God has reason to bring these laws about because they have the consequence that animals will eventually evolve into humans. This is a point that I believe atheists, such as, Richard Dawkins miss and theists, such as, Stephan Meyer miss.
The second highlight of the book, I thought was on the problem of evil. I will avoid a detailed explanation because I believe everyone is familiar with the problem of evil. Put simply, it asserts that an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God would most likely not want to allow certain unnecessary sufferings, such as cancer, hurricanes, and etc. There two distinct categories of suffering, there is moral evil and natural evil. Natural evil is suffering (or evil) not illiberally caused by humans or produced by human beings to occur as a result of their negligence. For example, this would be both physical and mental suffering, such as disease, natural disasters, and accidents unpredictable by humans bring in their train. Moral evil is caused deliberately by humans or failing what they ought and ought not to do. This could be starvation allowed to be in Africa for example.
Since I believe Swinburne has contributed the most novel approach to natural sufferings, it is most appropriate to stay on that topic. His theodicy put simply, by God allowing natural evils and suffering the world, it gives us a chance to respond good or bad. If a friend just lost a loved one to cancer, it gives to a chance to show a greater good, e.g. compassion, or respond badly without empathy or love in any kind. He argues without any suffering or evil, we would little to no opportunity to be heroic in a time that demands it, showing compassion to a friend when he/she needs it. God has the right to allow natural evils, to a limit, to occur because it gives opportunities to improve our character as a person, thus making it essential for growth.
In conclusion, I think this book is essential to the budding apologist because of its understanding of philosophical methodology. For that reason alone, the book is worth the buy. As well as the brilliant insights that are difficult to find on the lay-level. As well as, I believe to be, the best theodicy to combat the problem of evil against the existence of the orthodox God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Richard Swinburne, the emeritus Nolloth professor of the philosophy of religion at Oxford and one of the foremost philosophers of our time, is my Elvis. His monographs on theism and specifically the Christian religion are extremely rigorous defences which even the atheists among his colleagues find formidable edifices to attack. IS THERE A GOD? is meant to be a distillation of his thought for layman readers without especial training in the philosophy of religion. Unfortunately, it is an often disappointing endeavour, perhaps because of the limitations of the genre.

Swinburne starts things off by explaining exactly what the theist means when he speaks of "God". He makes clear that his arguments are yet to come, he merely wants to set some terminology first. Unfortunately, he's just opening himself up to attacks from inattentive readers along the lines of "Why is he already talking about God when no case has been made for his existence?" Swinburne's definitions about God are fairly traditional--omnipotence, omniscience, and all-goodness. However, the Christian is bound to raise an eyebrow at Swinburne's view of goodness and logic as independent matters that God is bound by, not concepts He himself defines, and Swinburne's definition of God as everlasting but not timeless. (I couldn't help wondering, however, if this seeming incompatibility with Christian teaching could be resolved by holding God's energies to be so, not His essence, as in late Byzantine theology.)

Swinburne's arguments for general theism are mainly based on the simplicity that the existence of God provides. He notes that Occam's razor is a basic principle of the sciences and claims that is applicable in the philosophy of religion just as much. For matters relating to the human beings, his explanation of why a just God can allow evil is a fairly standard one. However, his arguments for the existence of a soul are novel in that they really don't assume the existence of God at all. Even those readers who ultimately disagree with his arguments for theism should certainly come back to his exposition of dualism and see if they at least can accept that much.

I've read Swinburne's monographs intended for the trained reader, and I find them very well written indeed. However, this book intended for the general public is not anywhere close as successful as his academic writing. In simplifying his discussion for the ordinary reader, Swinburne also simplifies his arguments to varying degrees, which occasionally make them weak enough that any reader would protest at seeming assumptions that this or that is true. Also, Swinburne entirely leaves out the ontological argument. While it is the only traditional argument that is a bit hard to explain simply, it has enjoyed a return to popularity in recent years, and even if Swinburne himself doesn't think it useful, he should at least generally define it for his readers.

Certainly IS THERE A GOD is valuable as a summary of Swinburne's thought for the neophyte who is not yet ready to tackle the philosopher's entire oeuvre. However, it does not suffice as a general introduction to the philosophy of religion, or even to theism specifically. I'd recommend using it as a supplement to the excellent anthology READINGS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION ed. Baruch Brody (Prentice Hall, 1996).

Although I do not fully agree with Swinburne's final outcome, I cannot deny his sound methodology and reasoning in getting to his position. He speaks with simplicity yet profoundness that most can read and understand.

Spoiler: No.

I can't remember the last time I read a book quite this bad.

This is my first book by Richard Swinburne. As he finishes in the epilogue, he was disappointed and so am I.

Why? I didn't learn anything new in this topic.

Is there a God?

Swinburne says, yes because he postulates God as the most simple explanation. Note that, he doesn't say, you can't explain therefore God, that is simply not what he is claiming. He says there are three explanations.

a) Materialism
b) Humanism
c) Theism

Under these three, he builds his case using four criteria for justification. Ergo, he takes Theism to be necessary for Science at all. I was surprised to find Swinburne's different theological views. He agrees with darwinian evolution, (the view that life evolved through natural selection). He says it could be possible that God had used it, but when it comes to consciousness. There's where, materialists are hitting a brick wall. Interesting, isn't it?


--Deus Vult--
Gottfried

I wasn’t that satisfied with the personal justification for the existence of a conscious deity, as I could see atheists easily being able to dismiss it as evolutionarily advantageous neurobiochemical phenomena (see Pascal’s Wager).