Richard Swinburne

1. Richard Swinburne • The Validity of Religious Experience REX Text

2. RICHARD SWINBURNE • Swinburne was until 2002 one of the Oxford university professors of theology. His book The Existence of God is widely regarded as one of the best of the standard discussions of the topic. Chapter 13 is the one pertinent to our concerns. • Swinburne concludes: “On our total evidence, theism is more probable than not.” Swinburne’s approach is cumulative - it is all of the lines of evidence and arguments put together that he finds convincing.

3. RICHARD SWINBURNE - 2 • Swinburne’s definition of Religious Experience is: “... an experience which seems to the subject to be an experience of God (either of his just being there, or doing or bringing about something) or of some other supernatural thing.” [The Existence of God, 1991] • Notice the emphasis on the subject’s point of view. This leads on to Swinburne’s famous pair of principles: • The Principle of Credulity and • The Principle of Testimony.

4. Five types of experience • Everyday experiences seen as work of God eg beautiful sunset. Public. • Extraordinary occurrences eg someone rising from the dead. Public. • Unusual personal experiences imbued with religious significance eg a mystical dream or vision which can be expressed in words. Private. • As above, but inexpressible, cannot be put into words. Private. • A more general sense of a “presence” or “guiding hand”. Private.

5. The principle of credulity • Credulity = willingness to believe. Swinburne claims that the way things seem to us (in our experience) is a good guide to how thins actually are (in the world). • Logical form of the argument: • 1. I have had an experience I’m certain is of God. 2. I have no reason to doubt this experience. 3. Therefore God exists.

6. RICHARD SWINBURNE - 3 • The Principle of Credulity is summarised by RS as, “If it seems to a subject that X is present, then probably X is present; what one perceives is probably so.” This flies in the face of scepticism. This is effectively saying, “This is what I experienced and you must believe me unless you can prove otherwise.” • RS accepts that this is not a charter for the gullible. There are criticisms of naive credulity. It is widely held that there are four major critical lines here which provide ‘limitations’ of the Principle of Credulity. • The Principle of Testimony.

7. RICHARD SWINBURNE - 4 • Four challenges to the Principle of Credulity: • Circumstances leading to unreliable reports eg. use of drugs, or an unreliable subject eg. a liar. • The recipient of the experience did not have the ability to correctly interpret the experience eg. a very young child. • If it is possible to show that whatever was supposedly experienced was not there. • If it is possible to show that what was supposedly experienced was there, but did not cause the experience.

8. Principle of testimony • Swinburne claims that we should generally believe what others say, unless we have good reasons not to. Like P of C, this is an a posteriori argument (from our experience). • Logical form: 1. I have heard sincere reports of people’s experience of God. 2. I have no reason to doubt their truth. 3. Therefore God exists.

9. RICHARD SWINBURNE - 2 • The Principle of Testimony: the assumption here is that people usually tell the truth. In RS’s words, “We usually believe to have occurred what other people tell us that they perceived occurring.” • He concedes that there may be circumstance in which you do not accept the testimony at face value of course. • On page 84 of the OCR text there is a kind of decision tree attempting to summarise all of this. It is a good exercise to create your own!

10. But is the experience of God just the same as the experience of anything else? • “There is no difference between a man who eats nothing and sees God and a man who drinks too much and sees snakes” Bertrand Russell, ‘Mysticism’.

11. P of T says I should accept your statement unless I can show how it is mistaken There are valid challenge(s) from [a] or [b] Accept experience as genuine. It could be used to argue for existence of God Experience is inauthentic. Not a basis for showing God exists No valid challenge from [a] or [b] No valid challenges P of C says accept your perception unless [a] one of 4 key challenges applies or [b] positive grounds show it to be mistaken Valid challenges

12. CHALLENGES TO SWINBURNE’S ARGUMENT • NB: RS is fully aware of these challenges and accepts that his position is not showing any irrefutable proof of God’s existence, merely that there is a cumulative case to be made. • Description: If the subject’s description is suspect it is no basis as evidence. • Subject: If the subject is not reliable the testimony is weakened. • Object: Doubts about the nature or reality of God may make it harder to agree with the interpretation of the REX that is offered. Some also note that RS’s definition of REX is limited.

13. SUBJECTIVE relates to what the subject thinks. What his point of view or opinion is, rather than some externally constrained factual basis. OBJECTIVE relates to the nature of the object being considered. An objective view is constrained by what is, in fact, the case.

14. THE OBJECTIVE / SUBJECTIVE DISTINCTION • Is it the case that no objective criteria can be applied to REX to ascertain their merit, authenticity or anything else? Are critics of REX out to debunk their genuineness as encounters with God? • Subjective entails interpretation and is not scientific, intellectual or empirical. • Just because you perceive the experience to be religious doesn’t make it so. Psychopathology and mistaken judgement must be considered. • Other causes than divine intervention, such as psychological ones can explain even positive changes in a person claiming a REX. “If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him” - Voltaire. Conversion is “a reaction to a hostile world” - Freud.

15. sun THE OBJECTIVE / SUBJECTIVE DISTINCTION • NB: The example given in the OCR book, p86, is not the best: Kierkegaard was a philosopher [objective] Kierkegaard was a great philosopher [subjective] • There are criteria to distinguish between mere philosophers and ‘great’ philosophers which arguably makes greatness more than a subjective issue. • Think in terms of a possible spectrum: FEEL KNOW subjective objective VALUES private view FACTS public testable ?FAITH? ?REASON?

16. AN EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD FROM RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE • We need to recognise the range of ‘theories of truth’ involved in all of the above, in particular: • Correspondence - presupposes an external reality to which our theories must correspond. For some the postulate that God is real is problematic. • Coherence - truth is about relating ideas to other well established truths within a system of thought. But there are a number of internally consistent, coherent theories. The key question, contra coherence alone, is whether they fit the way the ‘world’ is. • Pragmatism - focuses on the consequences of accepting the experience. Truth is about what works. See William James. • Should we require all three theories for a satisfactory account?

17. CONCLUSION • REX arguments for God relate to people and their experience of the world, unlike the abstract classical arguments. This makes them more accessible and perhaps understandable. • A key disadvantage is the less than empirical nature of them, at least in terms of scientific testing criteria. • Swinburne argues for the cumulative worth of all of the lines or argument. Flew famously dismissed this, “If one leaky bucket will not hold water, that is no reason to think that ten can.” Caroline Franks Davis retorted by suggesting you can stack the buckets so the holes don’t overlap. Weaknesses may thus arguably be overcome.