Abstract

Richard Granville Swinburne, the Nolloth Professor of the Christian Religion at Oriel College, Oxford, is considered by some philosophers of religion to be a leading defender of the rationality of Christian theism. While attempting to use a rational evidential method to show the logical justification of religious beliefs, Swinburne has attempted to construct a systematic philosophical defense of not only God's existence but also some specific Christian doctrines. This dissertation seeks to analyze and critique one of the most recent defenses that Swinburne has produced, his defense of the doctrine of propositional revelation as presented primarily in his Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy . ;Swinburne's defense of revelation builds upon and presupposes conclusions that he has reached since 1968 in his published arguments for miracles, classical theism, and the doctrine of atonement. This dissertation seeks in part to examine the relationship between Swinburne's defense of revelation and some of Swinburne's previously published arguments. An examination of how Swinburne defends revelation in light of his previous arguments has not been possible until recently because his defense of revelation was not available. This study also analyzes some of the published criticisms that have been directed at Swinburne's apologetic programme by other scholars and raises potential problems from the philosophical perspectives of other thinkers. ;A consistent theme in Swinburne's philosophical theology is the demonstration of the logical justification of beliefs. In his defense of propositional revelation Swinburne seeks to show how language can convey meaningful information about God, what one can expect in a propositional revelation from God, and how evidence could lead one to expect a Christian revelation. This study shows that Swinburne's conclusions about the Christian revelation are restricted to a significant degree by his previously reached evaluations. His conclusions about the need for a revelation, the nature of the Christian revelation, and the implications that one can draw from the evidence in favor of a revelation are problematic and indicate that Swinburne's intuitions predispose him against some classical Christian views regarding revelation. It is suggested, however, that one aspect of his argument can be used to defend successfully a classical Christian concept of revelation