In contemporary philosophy of religion, many philosophers, e.g., William Alston, argue that we should treat religious experiences as prima facie reliable unless we have reasons to doubt them. John Hick argues that this approach is incompatible with a particularist solution to the problem of religious diversity. He also offers other arguments against particularism: that it is arbitrary and unjustified, that it is culturally conditioned, and so on. I respond to Hick's critique of religious particularism, and argue that the particularist approach to religious experience has not been shown inferior to the pluralist approach.