Alvin Plantinga. A Defense of Religious Exclusivism. RELIGIOUS EXCLUSIVISM VERSUS RELIGIOUS PLURALISM. 1. Exclusivism holds that a particular. This is a collection of philosophical papers by Alvin Plantinga. () ” Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism”, The Rationality of. In “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism” Alvin Plantinga defends religious exclusivism from a variety of objections. In this paper I discuss one of those.

Author: Nirn Negore
Country: Norway
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Environment
Published (Last): 23 December 2008
Pages: 79
PDF File Size: 6.14 Mb
ePub File Size: 5.29 Mb
ISBN: 523-5-43351-403-5
Downloads: 1059
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Gardataur

Condition c is very important to this argument. For, I think that there is trouble lurking for the anti-exclusivist in the form of a dilemma. This is an arrogant or elitist attitude and as such is morally reprehensible. Now suppose that Plantinga as I assume he does finds racism to be despicable.

Or, even if not as we saw with the quote from Kelly, abovereading the case this way certainly makes it clearer why Feldman thinks the bigotry relibious fails to meet iii. Exclusivists or their beliefs are irrational, arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted. Not different in this way: We can take this question in a moral way: No researcher knows about any study other than his or her own.

He concludes that his belief that racial bigotry is despicable is justified nonetheless. For, as Feldman points out, we can add further details to RC such that both i and ii are satisfied, but the researcher is fairly obviously justified in continuing to hold her belief that E works better rfligious its competitors.


Thus, by your own lights, these seemings justify the belief that B is true. They are, however, beyond the scope of this paper; so, I, too, will defejse them unexplored. Recall, again, principle B: So, taking the above question in the epistemic way, is Plantinga wrong? Religious exclusivism is not necessarily a moral or intellectual failure and, because? History of Western Philosophy.

Both believe something that contradicts what someone else believes, and are unable to provide a convincing proof to the other. But I reply that this objection misses the point. One final point about B. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Plantinga allows that great variety of religious beliefs around the world could weaken an exclusivist beliefs in 1 and 2. Find it on Scholar. But I think reading the case this way i.

Then no advantage with respect to arrogance: At this point, each of them has reasons good enough to justify believing that the drug that did best in his or her own study is in fact most effective….

And I do not say that B rules out advances in academia. Believe that some other religious belief than belief in Jesus is required for salvation.

Pluralism: Defense of Religious Exclusivism – The Veritas Forum – The Veritas Forum

I have argued that B fails to render such a verdict if seemings can justify beliefs. Suppose further that three other researchers have done similar studies, and one study indicates that F works best, another that G works best, and the last that H works best.


John Hick – – Religious Studies exclusivizm 2: Please do not cite this draft. This article has no associated abstract. Humans require salvation, God provides unique way to it and that way is through Jesus Christ his incarnated son.

Second, I think the spirit of the term is obvious enough. But, then Feldman responds by saying that exclusivism does necessarily lead to unjustified religious beliefs because principle B is true.

I will do this by offering three main objections: This serves for more than expediency, however. Could there be religious naturalists? If you had been born lf India, you would be a Hindu not a Christian.

“Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism&quot

How would it be possible to do better with respect to any belief? As an anonymous referee points out, Feldman has, in recent work see, e. Remember me on this computer. Either the anti-exclusivist will have to accept A i. Exclusivists are guilty of moral failures. Roger Turner This is the penultimate version of a paper printed plantknga Faith and Philosophy 32