Swinburne’s principles of credulity and testimony

Swinburne suggests that, as two basic principles of rationality, we ought to believe that things are as they seem unless and until we have evidence that they are mistaken (principle of credulity), and that those who do not have an experience of a certain type ought to believe others who say that they do in the absence of evidence of deceit or delusion (principle of testimony) and thus, although if you have a strong reason to disbelieve in the existence of God you will discount these experiences, in other cases such evidence should count towards the existence of God.

1. Is the person making the claim known as an honest person?

2. Is it likely to be true, or is it impossible?

3. How does one prove that God was present in the experience? Was it God present in the experience, or was it just some other experience?

4. Can the claim be accounted for in other ways? Was it an authentic expereince or was it a natural phenomenon, or drug induced?

Refutations of each point:

1. Just because they've lied in the past, it does not have to mean they're lying now.

2. Not all claims are false, just because one is false does not make them all false.

3. Christianity claims God is everywhere, so of course he was in the experience.

4. God can create an experience through a variety of different ways.

• In the absence of the principles of credulity, the experiences of others are (probably) true.
• We should generally believe people, so someone who has had an experience of God has good reason to beleive that there is a God.
• So many people have had religious experiences, how could they all be lies?
• If we consider all the arguments for the existence of God plus religious experiences, the chances are more likely that God exists.