「可信性」（plausibility），「讓人覺得合理和覺得可信的程度」，可以被拿來解釋為何某個宗教信仰會被人所接受。在西方社會，與主流信仰有差異的新興教派，既與傳統不同，也過度宣揚信仰在生活上的效果，被認為「可信性」特別脆弱。但是學者Snow & Machalek發現，就一般大眾的信仰態度而言，新興教派信仰體系的「可信性」和一般信仰體系其實是類似的，都有能自圓其說的邏輯系統和能避免受到經驗性挑戰的解釋方式。站在Snow & Machalek的研究基礎上，本文嘗試對台灣當代五個新興宗教團體的「可信性」提出比較性的考察。根據Borhek & Curtis的「四象限分類」，清海與妙天教團落於「象限三」（邏輯性高，但論述與經驗界相關性較低），宋七力教團落於「象限一」（邏輯性高，但需面臨經驗性檢證），佛乘宗介於「象限一與三」（邏輯性與經驗性之間互為佐證）之間，真佛宗則在「象限二與三」之間有雙重性的位置（或者有經驗的可驗證性，或者類似於清海教團等），整體而言，台灣新興宗教團體的教義系統，比起傳統民間信仰有更強的對抗否定證據的能力。然而，本文指出，Snow & Machalek所指出的信仰體系的可信性只是一種「內在可信性」，我們還需要考慮外在社會環境所帶給各新興宗教團體的「外在可信性」的基礎，譬如說，台灣1990年代所出現的新興教團中，即使其信仰體系中確實已有著「內在可信性」提高的轉變，但這不但沒有擴大其「外在可信性」，反而還引發了社會各界的疑慮。甚至於在接下來「宗教掃黑」之國家壓制與媒體圍攻中，教團原來所吸引到的大量以舊的信仰模式（民間信仰）來親近教團的「假性信眾」，也因教團社會正當性的減弱，而大量地離開教團。在還沒有深刻進入「私人化」過程的台灣社會，「外在可信性」和「內在可信性」都還是重要的決定當代台灣新興教團發展的因素。

There is an assumption that unconventional religious beliefs are highly vulnerable to everyday experience and therefore inherently fragile. Snow & Machalek challenges the view that unconventional belief systems are necessarily fragile. Based upon Snow and Machalek's discussion on plausibility, and Borhek & Curtis classification of belief systems, we try to discuss the plausibility of the belief systems for new religions in contemporary Taiwan. Five groups are discussed. Each corresponds a specific location in Borhek & Curtis four quadrant model, thus with a different degree of plasticity in facing the disconfirming information. In general, all of these five groups have higher plasticity than folk religion in their persistence in facing disconfirming evidence. However, this kind of ”internal plausibility” can only partially account for these groups' viability within the ”Anti-cult Movement” in 1996. There is another ”external plausibility” factor involving that may explain the development of these groups, and why there are large amount of pseudo-believers' withdrawal during this time. In general, ”external plausibility” seems to account for more the viability and development of new religions in contemporary Taiwan than the factor of ”internal plausibility.”