A Review of William Rowe's Viewpoint on Justification of Religious Experience

Argument from religious experience is one of the most important arguments for the existence of God. Contemporary philosopher and theologian, Richard Swinburne, and some of his followers, believe that justification of religious experience is based on two principles, the principle of testimony and the principle of credulity, one of which, the principle of credulity, is criticized by some epistemologists as William L. Rowe. Rowe believes that since in perception, we can distinguish true beliefs from illusory ones by checking procedures, we can use the principle of credulity for perceptual beliefs, whereas in religious experience, since there are no such procedures, we cannot use the principle of credulity. The impossibility of using this principle in religious experience, as Rowe thinks, means that the argument from religious experience is not documented. This article, after formulating the principle of credulity, argument from religious experience, and Rowe’s criticism, tries to defend the principle of credulity against Rowe’s criticism.