Theism and Explanation - Appeared-to-Blogly

Inference to the Best Explanation 103
claims that positing the existence of God offers us a successful explanation
of various facts about the world. Some of these facts are very general—
such as the very existence of a universe, operating in regular and predictable
ways—while others are more particular. The particular facts to which
Swinburne appeals have to do with the existence and nature of human
beings, as well as reports of events in human history, some of which he
sees as miracles. Once again, I shall not be examining the soundness of
Swinburne’s arguments. If my argument to this point is correct, that would
require a careful case-by-case study. I am happy to leave that task to others.
All I want to do is to examine the structure of his arguments, to see if that
sheds any light on the questions I am addressing.
6.1.1 Inductive Reasoning
Swinburne consistently claims to be offering inductive arguments for the
existence of God. In particular, he claims to be offering sound C-inductive
arguments, which he describes as arguments that make the theistic hypothesis
more probable than it would be otherwise. 5 His example of a C-inductive
argument is the following.
(1) All of 100 ravens observed in different parts of the world are black.
(2) [Therefore] all ravens are black. 6
This is certainly an inductive argument, indeed one made famous by Carl
Hempel’s discussion of inductive reasoning (7.1.2). 7 But do Swinburne’s
arguments take this particular form?
They do not. It is true that Swinburne’s arguments are not deductive
arguments; they do not take the form of a syllogism such as the following:
(1) No material body travels faster than light.
(2) My car is a material body.
(3) [Therefore] my car does not travel faster than light. 8
If you defi ne an “inductive argument” as any argument that is not deductive
and can support only a probable conclusion, then Swinburne’s arguments
can be described as inductive. But they are not inductive in the sense
in which such arguments were understood by John Stuart Mill and his
successors. 9 In discussions of scientifi c reasoning, an inductive argument
is one that proceeds from the observation of particulars to the formation
of a general hypothesis. 10 The principle underlying such reasoning may be
summarised as follows.
If a large number of As have been observed under a wide variety of conditions,
and if all those observed As without exception have possessed
the property b, then all As possess the property b. 11