Swinburne - The Existence of God

Principle of Credulity

1. it seems to some, perceptually that P - principle of credulity 

2. There are no complicating condition

3. Probably P

Principle of testimony + principle of credulity

Both principles - innocent until proven guilty

• Principle of Credulity:
  Justifies your own religious experience.

• Principle of Testimony:
  Justifies believing other people’s religious experiences.

• justifies religious experience as public evidence not private feelings/experiences

Principle of testimony

We should believe what others tell us about their experiences unless we have good reason not to.

Coherentists - all your beliefs glorify each other in a circle 

3 reasons in favor of swinburne’s Principle of testimony

1. We need to know more about the world than we can possibly learn by ourselves

• need to even learn language from other people 

• from parents - we learn what is safe to eat

• civilization advancing

2. If you set yourself against that you would start trying to validate testifiers yourself

• wouldn't get very far with that - trying to follow everyone around 

3. testifiers/recievers - diff combinations

• Honest + trusting  

• Honest + Skeptical

• Deceptive + trusting 

• Deceptive + Skeptical 

evolutionary advantage to be honest and trusting

honesty/deceptiveness 

• Matters of intent 

  • Not like what ones people are saying because its what they saw 

Unconscious bias 

Can effect  

• Eyewitness testimony in court 

• Religious testimony 

• People dishonest, memory bad 
  
  

But need to treat testimony - innocent until proven guilty 

Religious experience

- can have degrees of religious experiences

- seems to someone to have been a religious experience 

can be clear or different levels

Types of testifiers/recievers

testifierer/reciever

1. Honest + trusting  

          - truth transmitted readily to receivers 

- people in general - trusting = more likely to cooperate 

- have evolutionary advantage - maybe evolved to be ideal combination - get basic information laid down 

2. Honest + Skeptical 

• not so much truth transmitted

• Even if truth is told they wont believe them

• less inclined to cooperate & work together
  
  

3. Deceptive + trusting 

- receivers - wind up with a lot of false beliefs

• Still good at cooperating with people - not as well off as group 1 

• false beliefs but - still cooperating
  
  

4. Deceptive + Skeptical 

- Worst of both worlds

• least truth communicated

• false beliefs-not even cooperating or work together

Perceiving God

 Ex: seeing an angel or God - as if seeing an angel

3rd thing - Swinburne - Can God even be perceived at all? 

• God not in space, time, universe

• 1 thing - perception - object you are perceiving has to cause experience 

  • Causation - part of perception

Perception requires causation

Some ppl think: God not in space or time → can't cause anything → we can't perceive Him

Big Bang theory - singularity Might be cause of universe but you can’t perceive the big bang  1st point of space time boundary of space time No one infers that this didn't cause something to exist

2 responses  What about singularity?  Why ppl beliere only things in space & time could be causes

Induction → tells how things are probably/ likely to be -not how they are going to be in next case 

• doesn’t show that something's impossible

• Between things in space and time 

• Any case of induction can only make things probable - not definitely certain 

Good definition of causation - can use an axiom

If you conclude God can cause experiences - Swinburne - how would it work

• if there is a God - he sustains all causal processes

• basically if you seem to see God than it must be true/ you did see God

Swinburne - experiences are

• both right + from God

• - God did cause everything 

  - If you think you saw God it must be true

  
  - some people say God told them to kill the postman

  - Swinburne - God somehow caused this perception of this 

  - even if person lied - Swinburne - still thinks its true

Swinburne conclusions too raw =

3 things needed - amend it

If you have a genuine experience with God - God appeared, made action to appear, or did appear to you in some way

God’s intention God acting on intention You did have experience

Swinburne - ordinary sense experiences argument

•  it appears perceptually, to me that P

• if it appears perceptually, to me that, P - (Entails that God exists) & no complicating conditions - Then probably p - principle of credulity

  • Ex:(God is speaking to me/loving me) 

• probably p

Cartesian doubt - doubt all senses, or trust all

• if we doubt all of them, then we won’t get anywhere, so it's better to trust them.
  
  

Swinburne - conditions God would appear in

• We don’t know the conditions God would appear in if He existed.

• so -

• not evidence - failure to experience God

• evidence - apparent experiences of God

5 types of religious experiences

1. Ordinary Experience of ordinary public objects

• “seeing as”

2. Experience of non-ordinary public objects

• burning bush in bible - see miracle as miracle

3. Non public objects via ordinary sensations

• Nonpublic -(only certain people can see it) 2 ppl standing in the same place. One person says they had religious experience - other doesn't. 

• seeing angel

4. Non public objects via non ordinary sensations

• mystics - smelled and tasted God

5. Non public Objects via no sensations

• writings of mystics - cloud of unknowing

Limits on principle of credulity + disprovements of them

1. The subject or circumstances are unreliable

   • Drugs, hallucinations, mental illness, delusion

   • only applies in some cases

2. Similar circumstances have often produced false beliefs

• Contexts where appearances are known to mislead

• no proof that religious experiences as a class - unreliable

3. There is strong independent evidence the event did not occur

   • The counter‑evidence must be very strong

   • not been shown

4. The experience can be explained without the supposed cause

   • An alternative explanation defeats the inference

   • compatible with God causing experience through natural process

Counter argument for Swinburne’s use of principle of credulity

Counter argument - You only recognize someone if you seen them before or have heard about them before

• Martin - recognition is not just perception but identification

• if you never perceived God before you have no direct experiential baseline for recognizing him

Swinburne - perception

awareness apart from oneself

Argument - Swinburne vs Martin

Swinburne - religious experience is a kind of perception of God.

• + people can recognize God as:

  • omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good

Martin:

• Humans have never perceived God before.

• Humans have no direct experiential baseline for recognizing infinite attributes.

• Therefore:

  • Religious experience cannot justify the claim “this is God” rather than:

    • a powerful but finite being

    • a hallucination

    • a psychological state

2 Arguments for - Whether we can percieve God - God not in space & time

1 - induction

• Under what conditions can God allow religious experiences

  • Whatever exists, God is causing it to exist. Thus, if you seems to see God, you must have the experience

2 - definition

• If a religious experience is real, then what is the link between God and the experience

  • 3 things

    1. God’s intention

    2. God acting on the intention

    3. You were caused to have that experience

So many religious experiences - similar to sense perception

 shall believe it like you believe other’s sense perceptions 

•  If you get enough testimony from credible people you might believe

(insert religious experience) is real but you haven't seen it

• logic of Religious experiences - there is so much of it this some of it at least must be true

Prima fascia justification

• Prima fascia - something thats true unless overridden by contrary belief 

• Justification - seeming to see him is a good reason to believe he’s here

Prima fascia justification - believe on first glance unless proven otherwise

if you go through checklist, have prima fascia justification - you have good reason to believe whatever experience you’re having 

Prima fascia justification ex:

Ex: You perceive prof is here 

• Seem to see him 

• Claim some philosophers make - seeing him is enough to give prima facia justification to belief he’s here 

Ways you could find reason to think you see him 

• Dream 

• LSD 

Prima fascia - remember about dream/LSD - which overrides the justification 

Justification - seem to see him 

Premise -

enough testimony + credible 

• Just having perceptual experiences is enough to take you almost to justification

•  just assure there are no complicating conditions (something overrides justification) → Justified belief something overrides justification 

Premise of Swinburne (Zangwill & Martin try to discredit/reject it) 

1. Say that you can’t 

2. Martin - tries to prove it the other way - God doesn’t exist - ends in stalemate 

3. Gale - objection on step 3 - that there are no complicating conditions 

Complicating Conditions

Religious experience - General mode of experience

• Are there complicating conditions that apply to mystical/religious experiences 

  • needs to be strong enough analogy between religious experiences + sense experiences 

  • More complicating cond

More complicating conditions you can find

•  more religious experiences relate to sense experiences 

• → more likely religious experiences likely to fail
  
  

More the complicated conditions → More religious experiences like sense experiences → more religous experiences would fail 

Weighing testimony/religious experiences 

More testimony there is to religious experiences -  the more it outweighs the other side against God 

• might outweigh previous evaluation of arguments

• What you think about how strong religious argument are depend on how strong you think are arguments beforehand are

More religious experiences + more credible religious testimony = more you let it outweigh other side 

Practices to be in contact with God

 Prophetic things recorded in Dreams - valid Prophecy in the Bible

1st facet - what do you think about dreams?

2nd facet-  standard mystical Practice - meeting with Divine fast - keep yourself awake - fasting + lack of sleep can produce hallucinations

•  internal conditions produce might not favor accuracy - yet you're being told to follow them

Complicating Conditions

1. Independent experiences with God

• do you believe in God - would outside epxeriences influence you not to

2. External conditions

• things in environment tend to produce innacurate experiences

• seeing red shirt vs white shirt that looks red

3. Internal conditions

• ex: did you smoke or take drugs

4. Place

• are you in place expect to see God - lochness monster ex

• on campus vs shore of lochness

5. Agreement

• did other people also see same thing at same time

6. Fit with world view/picture

• does it fit with internal conditions - how world is

• secular world - seeing an angel

7. Does experience continue in way it were if accurate?

8. Was experience caused the right way

• taking LSD/drugs/lack of sleep

9. Track record