people who’ve had religious experiences speak very convincingly of their certainty of the things they heard n saw = accounts can be persuasive

swinburne’s principle of testimony: we should be prepared to believe someone’s report of a private religious experience in the same way as we might a recent report of a holiday

if there were doubts, we could try to evaluate the authenticity of a religious experience based on its long-term effects eg greater kindness n selflessness (like a medicine that works = good medicine) e.g. st paul

swinburne’s view could also apply corporately as it would be unlikely that a group of people would be lying about their personal experiences

selby argued that he has never seen an instance of collective hallucination, therefore even a group of personal testimonies would be valid

It could be argued that Persinger's experiment demonstrated that individuals had genuine experiences even if they were not ultimately religious in nature-they were giving a genuine account of their experience hence their personal testimony was valid

the experiences can’t be tested by others = unsuitable for scientific study/evidence

the experience cannot be replicated/is not repeatable

sincerity ≠ truth eg may be mistaken in interpretations

bertrand russell: “the fact that a belief has a good moral effect upon a man is no evidence whatsoever in favour of its truth.” eg a fictional myth could profoundly move someone

Persinger’s experiment yielded very subjective results as some said they experienced something while others like Dawkins had not; therefore, it could be said to be unreliable.

In today's scenario, it is very easy to lie through the use of social media, so people could make up anything including religious experiences to fool their audiences as they could face little consequences, due to the fact that their identity could be masked online.

Some would criticise James’ ideas about having a standard to judge genuineness of a religious experience as they are so subjective.​

could be more veridical (authentic) than solitary experience

Swinburne's view could also apply corporately as it would be unlikely that a group of people would be lying about their personal experiences.​

Selby argued that he has never seen an instance of collective hallucination, therefore even a group.​

The event at Pentecost could be an example as many received the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues with a resulting outcome of about 3000 becoming Christians that day-it is too vast a number to be regarded as unreliable

could be group pressure, unintentional n intentional

Swinburne's Pof C and Pof T, would propose that they are both equally valid​

Freud would argue that people's super ego is a determinant of their experiences and are therefore not real; therefore, corporate religious experiences would not be reliable as the super ego in common to humans as a whole.

God could appear at times when one is vulnerable and in need of reassurance eg whilst intoxicated

It could be seen as God interacting with his creation, through revelation.​

Swinburne's P of C says we can trust our experiences, therefore it can provide a basis for belief

religious exp’s only authoritative for those who have them

they are unique n individual

It is subjective so therefore it does not enough basis for belief