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: Nejora Fenrishura
Country: Mayotte
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Art
Published (Last): 28 January 2005
Pages: 203
PDF File Size: 17.43 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.26 Mb
ISBN: 908-6-91058-233-6
Downloads: 57554
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Meztigal

And RC helps us to see why: Get close enough to use this objection to exclusivism, you get stuck to it too. Request removal from index.

Thanks to an anonymous referee for helping me clarify this point. The Possibility of Religious Pluralism: And, even if she could, how likely is it that this sort of thing happens in fact or, perhaps better: The Politics of Religious Pplantinga. B was supposed to tell us that he is.

But, then Feldman responds by saying that exclusivism does necessarily lead to unjustified religious beliefs because principle B is true. Exclusivism is arbitrary, irrational, unjustified, unwarranted. Accept 1but not 2. Feldman thinks that all should agree that this is a counterexample to A. Recall, again, principle B: John Hick – – Faith and Philosophy 14 3: As an anonymous referee points out, Feldman has, in recent work see, e.

I will do this by offering three main objections: And it can be argued that what we plantinba see among academics is in fact acceptance and not belief, because people act in deference wxclusivism the acumen of other scholars. Possible criticisms of Plantinga claims: The belief that the tenets or some of the tenets of one religion are in fact true and, moreover, any propositions, including other religious beliefs that are incompatible with those tenets are false.


And nobody thinks mere acknowledged disagreements necessarily result in unjustified epistemic attitudes. Arrogant, elitist, egotistical, unjust, oppressive, and imperialistic. The argument is another philosophical tar baby applies to exclusivism too: So, he thinks plantingq A is not the principle that undermines the exclusivist position.

I think B is dialectically unhelpful in an additional way. Here’s an example of what they look like:. Feldman can just as quickly complain that he endorses B, and then along comes Plantinga who by fiat endorses EP that rules out B.

Doing so is how advances are made in academic matters. In that case they are not to be criticized for believing them. Both believe something that contradicts what someone else believes, and are unable to provide a convincing proof to the other.

Defending Religious Pluralism for Religious Education. Edit this record Mark as duplicate Export citation Find it on Scholar Request removal from index Translate to english Revision history. You can filter on reading intentions from the listas well as view them within your profile.

More on Religious Exclusivism: A Reply to Richard Feldman | P. Roger Turner –

Moreover, this objection seems to me to imply that I have argued for the claim that Feldman is unjustified in believing that Plantinga is unjustified in his beliefs in the racist case.


I do not say that B is obviously false.

To use the Christian example: Click here to sign up. Condition c is very important to this argument. But this is not true, because of the weaker attitudes that can be taken up and continued. Avi Sagi – – Sophia 38 2: Coffman for alerting me to this possible objection. For sure there are religions that share tenets. But how could a junior-level philosopher ever come upon such evidence? Owen Anderson – – Sophia 47 2: More on Religious Exclusivism: His argument, we could say, provides reasons lpantinga thinking that EP is true.

Pluralism: Defense of Religious Exclusivism

But now suppose that [the original medical researcher] learns about defemse the other results…. 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….

Coffman for bringing this to my attention. Is the researcher unjustified in her belief that E works better than its competitors? What B allegedly does is render verdicts about acknowledged cases of epistemic peer disagreement that align with our intuitions about those cases.

Plantinga holds 1 and 2.