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: Kagabar Vizil
Country: Iran
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Education
Published (Last): 6 June 2006
Pages: 494
PDF File Size: 1.82 Mb
ePub File Size: 3.58 Mb
ISBN: 625-3-40978-724-4
Downloads: 90777
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kigadal

Get close enough to use this objection to exclusivism, you get stuck to it too. Exclusivists are guilty of moral failures. No intellectual right to be an exclusivist. You can filter on reading intentions from the listas well as view them within your profile. Admits there is real piety and spirituality in those religions.

A Reply to Gavin D’Costa. Arrogant, elitist, egotistical, unjust, oppressive, and imperialistic. A Philosophical Defense of Religious Inclusivism. So, if the objection is right, then we have, here, a reason to think that B is dialectically improper. History of Western Philosophy. Consider that Plantinga believes, for example, that Serious Actualism i.

Doing so is how advances are made in academic matters. So, let us assume that we have particular intuitive exclusivjsm. This is an arrogant or elitist attitude and as such is morally reprehensible.

So exclusivist is more tolerant; rejects the views of fewer people. A Defense of Religious Exclusivism.

Sign in Create an account. Now suppose that Plantinga as I assume he does finds racism to be despicable. Thus, our researcher and her colleagues are not epistemic peers; plqntinga, if not, then RC is not a case of acknowledged epistemic peer disagreement.


But we believe we do have good reasons for these views.

But I think that if Feldman is right, then B is too strict. Bigotry, as I understand it, implies stubbornness with respect to some issue on the part of the bigot. Believe that some other religious belief than belief in Jesus is required for salvation.

Exclusivism is a vice: This serves for more than expediency, however.

“Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism&quot

Your reading intentions are private to you and will not be shown to other users. Plantinga considers two types of objections to religious exclusivism.

Or we can take the question in an epistemic way: Also exclusivists deny that others are saved, whereas pluralists do not deny this though they might deny this of atheists. Hinduism, for example, would seem not to be.

Suppose that at first this is all the information she has relevant to the issue. The parties involved are stipulated to be in an overall epistemic position that is equally good.

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

Plantinga hints at this excluwivism when he says: Oxford University Press, —argued in such a way that it appears he might be comfortable with the notion that, for example, junior-level philosophers are epistemically unjustified in their positions if they disagree with a senior colleague who is their intellectual peer or better.

There is nothing special about the examples 1 and 2 with respect to Exclusivism.


What B allegedly does is render verdicts about acknowledged cases of epistemic peer disagreement that align with our intuitions about those cases. But it is not clear that this argument works because it might be argued that B deals with belief only. For example, should in the moral sense of that word the bigot believe differently than she does even exclusivizm she has no reason to hold the competing belief?

From a Christian perspective, the situation of religious pluralism and our awareness of it is itself a manifestation of our miserable human condition. She may agree that she and those who dissent are equally convinced sefense the truth of their belief, and even that they are internally on a par, that the internally available markers are similar, or relevantly similar.

For, many religions share some tenets they hold to be true e.

Pluralism: Defense of Religious Exclusivism

Plantinga defends an exclusivism that involves two features. And special thanks go to E. Log In Sign Up. However, a person might well be justified in accepting p or keeping it as a working hypothesis. It makes it easy to scan plantonga your lists and keep track of progress. Skip to main content. For sure there are religions that share tenets. The Epistemological Challenge of Religious Pluralism.