thesis

observability of one half of the correlations means that there is a certain doubt about the
data.” (167). Why he does not see it reasonable to apply his principle of credulity used later for
developing his argument from religious experience (254–260) is left unanswered. But in any
event, if such correlations could be established across many different subjects and subjects
were able to see for themselves the predictive use of the discoveries, there would be little rea-
son to doubt that Swinburne’s first condition had been fulfilled.
Producing a Causal Account
The second stage, according to Swinburne, is to show “what causes what” (167):
To show that the brain-events are the ultimate determinant of what goes on, the materialist
will need to show that the occurrence of all mental events is predictable from knowledge of
brain-events alone… whereas the occurrence of all brain-events is not predictable from knowl-
edge of mental events alone.
Swinburne assumes that the naturalist will believe that causation between brain events
and mental events flows only in one direction. While true of someone who insists that the
domain of physical events is causally closed, two other possibilities are available to the
broad-minded scientist: (a) a dualist-interactionism where mental events also lie within the
scope of purely scientific (i.e. non-personal) explanation and (b) a dualist-interactionism
which includes some raw notion of agency. While the latter option would entail an admis-
sion of personal causation into the explanatory picture (and thus take a step in Swinburne’s
direction), it has no necessary connection with theism.
For this stage, Swinburne cites two difficulties. The first is “man’s experience of choice”
(168) which, according to his principle of credulity, he believes should not be doubted with-
out good reason. But as I have already argued, there is no reason why the scientist cannot
also invoke agency as part of her picture of the mind. In any case, as Swinburne admits,
“freedom of choice may be an illusion” (167).
The second is that, under quantum theory, (168)
18