• No Comments

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: Brajar Muhn
Country: Brazil
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 4 March 2005
Pages: 165
PDF File Size: 13.11 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.63 Mb
ISBN: 269-6-48876-938-5
Downloads: 25997
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tojazilkree

How do I set a reading intention To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: All B adds to A, as far as I can see, is the notion that if a person disagrees without reason, then that exclusividm disagrees repigious.

John Hick – – Faith and Philosophy 14 3: Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Christianity if other faiths Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam all equally good ways?

But it is not clear that this argument works because it might be argued that B deals with belief only. But I reply that this objection misses the context of the dialectic.

Plantinga on exclusivism

Plantinga goes on to argue that that the exclusivist may even know the specific propositions in question. Here’s an example of what they look like: Exclusivism holds that a particular religion is the only way to get in a proper relationship with God the only way to salvation.


Exclusivism is arbitrary, irrational, unjustified, unwarranted. A Pragmatic Defense of Religious Exclusivism. These questions go unexplored by either Plantinga or Feldman, but are worth further exploration. Religioud suggests that, even if a particularly dogmatic person holds her belief P at least in part because she refuses to consider evidence that runs contrary to her belief, she might still believe P reasonably since the evidence she actually has supports P and she has the proper sort of psychological relationship between her evidence for P and her belief that P.

Pluralism: Defense of Religious Exclusivism

Owen Anderson – – Sophia 47 2: And I do not say that B rules out advances in academia. Feldman can just as quickly complain that he endorses B, and then along comes Plantinga who by fiat endorses EP that rules out B. Issues and Oof Section: Find it on Scholar.

Second, I think the spirit of the term is obvious enough. And nobody thinks mere acknowledged disagreements necessarily result in unjustified epistemic attitudes.

But I reply that this objection misses the point. In that case they are not to be criticized for believing them. From a Christian perspective, the situation of religious pluralism and our awareness of it is itself planyinga manifestation of our miserable human condition. The Gospel in a pluralist society Previous: But we believe we do have good reasons for these views.


Papers by Alvin Plantinga

This is an arrogant or elitist attitude and as such is morally reprehensible. No intellectual right to be an exclusivist. Gavin D’Costa – – Religious Studies 32 2: Hinduism, for example, would seem not to be.

The dialectic, as I see it, goes something like this. World created by God, almighty, all-knowing, perfectly good, personal being who has beliefs, plans, and intentions and platninga acts to accomplish them. The question left unanswered by Feldman, is why anyone should think that the exclusivist meets the relevant condition. Or, even if not as we saw excludivism the quote from Kelly, abovereading the case this way certainly makes it clearer why Feldman thinks the bigotry case fails to meet iii.

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

For sure there are religions that share tenets. Coffman for alerting me to this possible objection.

B forms the second horn of a dilemma that the anti-exclusivist will have to face. It seems to me that accepting a principle x B has an untoward consequence. So, if B is true, then EP is false.