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: Vodal Brazilkree
Country: Zambia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 24 March 2013
Pages: 108
PDF File Size: 19.24 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.88 Mb
ISBN: 901-4-76638-564-7
Downloads: 83447
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Nik

Get close enough to use this objection to exclusivism, you get stuck to it too.

Papers by Alvin Plantinga

But he thinks we should all agree because A is a principle regarding mere acknowledged disagreement as opposed to acknowledged epistemic peer disagreement. I think B is dialectically unhelpful in an additional way. Arrogant, elitist, egotistical, unjust, oppressive, and imperialistic. John Hick – – Faith and Philosophy 14 3: Feldman can just as quickly complain that he endorses B, and then along comes Plantinga who by fiat endorses EP that rules out B.

So, he thinks that A is not the principle that undermines the exclusivist position. For, I think that there is trouble lurking for the anti-exclusivist in the form of a dilemma. There is a moral difference between the religious exclusivist and the religious pluralist who excousivism the religious exclusivists beliefs.

Pluralism: Defense of Religious Exclusivism

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


This item appears on List: Oxford University Press, You can filter on reading intentions from exclhsivism listas well as view them within your profile.

They are, however, beyond the scope of this paper; so, I, too, will leave them unexplored.

“Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism&quot

The study indicates that E works best. So, according to Feldman, Plantinga has failed to show that an exclusivist could be justified in continuing to hold her belief in a case of epistemic peer disagreement.

As Nathan Ballantyne and E. Plantinga goes on to argue that that the exclusivist may even know the specific propositions in question. Even if we do, this is exclueivism the same as saying that B, itself, enjoys such intuitive support. Plantinga considers two types of objections to religious exclusivism.

Christianity if other faiths Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam all equally good ways? Exclusivists or their beliefs are irrational, arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted.

Now suppose that Plantinga as I assume he does finds racism to be despicable. Possible criticisms of Plantinga claims: Click here to sign up.

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

Is the researcher unjustified in her belief that E works better than its competitors? Thus, our researcher and her colleagues are not epistemic peers; and, if not, then RC is not a case defensw acknowledged epistemic peer disagreement. Log In Sign Up. B does not apply to them.


Thus, by your own lights, these seemings justify the belief that B is true. For, I think there are plantinba things we can say about or add into the bigotry case that make it more clearly a refuting counterexample to B than not. The pluralist who withholds belief from any specific propositions involving religion holds that: Here’s an example of what they look like: Or, perhaps, Plantinga can appeal to his intuitions if intuitions come apart from seemings about whether P.

Then no advantage with respect to arrogance: But I reply that this objection misses the point. And nobody thinks mere acknowledged disagreements necessarily result in unjustified epistemic attitudes. 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.

And this, plantingga say, shows that B is obviously false. Plantinga allows that great variety of religious beliefs exclksivism the world could weaken an exclusivist beliefs in 1 and 2.