Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:40:58.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Religious experience and the probability of theism: comments on Swinburne

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2017

CHRISTOPH JÄGER
CHRISTOPH JÄGER*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Theological Faculty, University of Innsbruck, Karl-Rahner-Platz 1, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I discuss the role of religious experience in Richard Swinburne's probabilistic case for theism. Swinburne draws on his principle of credulity to argue that, if in addition to other evidence we consider that many people have theistic religious experiences, theism comes out as more probable than not. However, on many plausible probability assignments for the relevant non-experiential evidence, the conditional probability of theism already converges towards 1. Moreover, an argument analogous to a general Bayesian argument against phenomenal conservatism suggests that, after we take account of evidence from religious experience, the probability of theism cannot be greater than the prior probability that the best rival hypothesis is false. I conclude that these observations are compatible with what Swinburne would call ‘weak rational belief’ in theism and that such weak belief can be strong enough for rational faith.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 53 , Special Issue 3: In Honour of Richard Swinburne , September 2017 , pp. 353 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brogard, B. (2013) ‘Phenomenal seemings and sensible dogmatism’, in Tucker (2013a), 270–289.Google Scholar
Chudnoff, E. (2014) Review of Tucker (2013a), Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2014.05.04.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (2005) ‘Why Basic Knowledge is Easy Knowledge’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70, 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crupi, V. (2015) ‘Confirmation’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/confirmation/>..>Google Scholar
Forgie, J. W. (1986) ‘The evidential value of religious experience’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 19, 145–159.Google Scholar
Gale, R. (1994) ‘Swinburne's Argument from Religious Experience’, in Padgett, A. (ed.) Reason and the Christian Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 39–63.Google Scholar
Gutenson, C. E. (1997) ‘What Swinburne should have concluded’, Religious Studies, 33, 243–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2004) Knowledge and Lotteries (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Huemer, M. (2001) Skepticism and the Veil of Perception (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield).Google Scholar
Kung, P. (2010) ‘On having no reason: dogmatism and Bayesian confirmation’, Synthese, 177, 1–17.Google Scholar
Löffler, W. (1999) ‘An overlooked consequence of Swinburne's probabilistic theology’, Disputatio Philosophica, 1, 90–100.Google Scholar
Löffler, W. (2007) ‘Gott als beste Erklärung der Welt: Richard Swinburnes probabilistischer Gottesbeweis’, in Langthaler, R. & Treitler, W. (eds) Die Gottesfrage in der europäischen Philosophie und Literatur des 20. Jahrhunderts (Vienna: Böhlau), 99–117.Google Scholar
Maitzen, S. (1991) ‘Swinburne on credal belief’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 29, 143–157.Google Scholar
Martin, M. (1986) ‘The principle of credulity and religious experience’, Religious Studies, 22, 79–93.Google Scholar
Michon, C. (2017) ‘Believing God – an account of faith as personal trust’, Religious Studies, this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, B. T. (2016) ‘How to be a Bayesian dogmatist’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 94, 766–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moretti, L. (2015a) ‘In defence of dogmatism’, Philosophical Studies, 172, 261–282.Google Scholar
Moretti, L. (2015b) ‘Phenomenal conservatism’, Analysis, 75, 296–309.Google Scholar
Neta, R. (2010) ‘Liberalism and conservatism in the epistemology of perceptual belief’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88, 685–705.Google Scholar
Pryor, J. (2000) ‘The sceptic and the dogmatist’, Nous, 34, 517–549.Google Scholar
Pryor, J. (2013) ‘Problems for credulism’, in Tucker (2013a), 89–131.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. (2004) ‘Scepticism and the vagaries of justified belief’, Philosophical Studies, 119, 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silins, N. (2007) ‘Basic justification and the Moorean response to the skeptic’, in Szabo Gendler, T. & Hawthorne, J. (eds) Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 108–142.Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (1973) An Introduction to Confirmation Theory (London: Methuen & Co Ltd).Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (1979 = EG1) The Existence of God, 1st edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (1999) Epistemic Justification (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2004 = EG2) The Existence of God, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2005) Faith and Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1st edn 1981).Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (typescript) ‘Phenomenal conservatism and religious experience’, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Tucker, C. (ed.) (2013a) Seemings and Justification: New Essays on Dogmatism and Phenomenal Conservatism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Tucker, C. (2013b) ‘Seemings and justification: an introduction’, in Tucker (2013a), 1–29.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. (2007) ‘The Bayesian and the dogmatist’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 107, part 2, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. (2006) ‘Problems for dogmatism’, Philosophical Studies, 131, 525–557.Google Scholar