Credulity and Experience of God

Philo 10 (2):114-124 (2007)
Abstract
In this paper I argue that Richard Swinburne fails to adequately support his Principle of Credulity in favor of the validity of alleged experiences of God. I then formulate an alternative, analogical argument for the validity of alleged experiences of God from the validity of sense-perceptual experiences, and defend it against objections of Gale and Fales. But then I argue against trying to establish the validity of alleged experiences of God by analogy
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,360
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    Jonathan L. Kvanvig (1984). Credulism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16 (2):101 - 109.
    Evan Fales (2004). Do Mystics See God? In Michael L. Peterson & Raymond J. VanArragon (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell Pub.. 145--148.
    Clement Dore (1986). A Reply to Professor Rowe. Faith and Philosophy 3 (3):314-318.
    Evan Fales (1999). Can Science Explain Mysticism? Religious Studies 35 (2):213-227.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2011-01-09

    Total downloads

    5 ( #178,779 of 1,088,810 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,666 of 1,088,810 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.