Why not? Do you have a counter-example? In your post you gave one counter-example:
I don't quite understand where you mean to go with this. Which principle are you aiming at here? I assume you are speaking to the Principle of Credulity, but I asked you about the Principle of Testimony...? It may be interesting to talk about the Principle of Credulity, but it isn't clear that it is related to this thread. So do you have any counter-arguments against the Principle of Testimony? Let me rephrase it, since it isn't restricted to religion:
In your first response to me, you mentioned both Principles. In your second response, you mentioned just the one, but I included them both for expedience in case you would ask me about both.
Yes my example was one that was speaking to the Principle of Credulity primarily. I'll didn't give an example speaking to the Principle of Testimony mostly because, as I said, I found it's qualifiers a bit lacking and in need of clarification. I'll explain more in a moment.
- Principle of Testimony – with the absence of any reason to disbelieve them, one should accept that persons are telling the truth when they testify about a belief they hold to be objectively true.
You might see it as a major qualifier, but it is really just highlighting the
ceteris paribus nature in which all principles ought to be taken. "Should believe" or "should accept" indicates a kind of rational justification. So we could say that they are rationally justified in believing and irrational in disbelieving.
Yes I see it as a major qualifier ("the absence of any reason to disbelieve them") because it's placing a unique context on the situation, without providing a situation to actually examine. It's not the same as saying "All things being equal" rather it's unique in how it limits the context.
An example I could think of which may fit the bill, is if I'm actually observing directly what is being testified about. For example, if a person tells me, "Here is a box," and they are showing me a box, that may essentially be an example where there is absence of any reason to disbelieve them. For me to be looking right at the box, and yet deny it's there, would perhaps speak to an aspect of my ability to reason and perceive reality in that moment.
Yet ... plenty of people do this all the time ... they experience something and then in that moment, often claim, "I don't believe it," because of the nature of what is happening. Consider an incredible coincidence, or finding a boot full of millions of dollars on the road, etc. Somethings are beyond a person's common frame of reference, and even when they have no reason to disbelieve ... they do anyways, at least in those moments. It takes them time to actually accept what is happening.
However back to the topic ... I find it hard to conceptualize where someone is giving me testimony only, with no evidence for example ... and there is complete absence of any reason to believe them. If I'm not directly observing what they are testifying about, or I'm not looking at evidence ... then it's hard for me to imagine a situation where there is complete absence of ANY reason to disbelieve them. So perhaps you can provide an example. As it stands, being loosely clarified by lack of context, it does very much look like an attempt to make an argument from ignorance unquestioned or some such and I could see how this "Principle" is headed in that direction.