 This is because the “problem of evil” counts as evidence against God’s existence. To exclude putative revelations from consideration before God’s existence has been established would be to refuse to “listen to the voice of the accused”. What if a putative revelation contains an acceptable explanation of evil, that blocks or weakens the atheistic arguments? Not to take this possibility into account would, arguably, be to handicap the evidentialist project by forcing it to proceed without a “full database” (Kwan 2011: 472). Hence, the “holistic” approach of Menssen and Sullivan might be seen as an improvement in relation to the more traditional, “layered” approach of Swinburne. (However, Swinburne’s distinction between “bare” and “ramified” natural theology point in a holistic direction, see 2004b: 533–535.)