The argument from religious experience is the argument from experiences of God to the existence of God. In its stronger form, this argument asserts that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and so that the ‘God’ therefore must be a God; case closed. In its weaker form (logically) the argument asserts only that religious experiences constitute evidence for God’s existence. Richard Swinburne has defended this form of argument with an appeal to the principle of credulity.

The principle of credulity claims that rationally we should believe a person’s claim about what they have experienced. Generally, says Swinburne ‘it is reasonable to believe that the world is probably as we experience it to be. Unless we have an obvious objection to question a religious experience, therefore we should accept it as prima facie evidence from the existence of God at least.

Although, the atheist Michael Martin criticised Swinburne’s use of the principle of credulity, If as Swinburne suggests that experiences are generally to be treated as veridical, an Atheist could logically argue that as he experiences the absence of God using the principle of credulity, that the world is then as this experience represents it as being Godless. Arguments therefore for the existence of God through credulity can be met with arguments from atheist experiences (fire with fire) which brings the two equal. Swinburne in defence argues that you can’t have a negative principle of credulity.

Furthermore, Swinburne’s principle of testimony explains that we should believe a person unless we have a good reason not to. So unless you have a valid reason not to accept their testimony you should believe what he/she says. As, why would one have an obligation to lie?

Both of these two principles are valid and also important to the sceptic but it also important to keep in consideration that the