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: Tunris Nabar
Country: Nepal
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Art
Published (Last): 9 February 2010
Pages: 270
PDF File Size: 18.28 Mb
ePub File Size: 2.47 Mb
ISBN: 882-8-41410-623-9
Downloads: 60368
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Taulkis

But I think that if Feldman is right, then B is too strict. Plantinga hints at this idea when he says: Owen Anderson – – Sophia 47 2: So if they are not oppressive, why is he oppressive?

Now, I can imagine an objection like the dfense.

Find it on Scholar. And since I have cited several philosophers who have argued that seemings can justify beliefs, we have no reason, yet, to think that such justification cannot happen in cases of epistemic peer disagreement—not, at any rate, without some antecedent acceptance of B. These questions go unexplored by either Plantinga or Feldman, but are worth further exploration.

His argument, we could say, provides reasons for thinking that EP is true. Exclusivism is a vice: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism Particularly the first half. A Reply to Gavin D’Costa. But she must still think that there is an important epistemic difference: Whatever moral failures exclusivism has, non-exclusivism has as well.

Suppose a medical researcher does a careful study to examine the effectiveness of drugs E, F, G, and H for treating some disease. To see why, consider the following from Thomas Kelly: But this is not true, because of the weaker attitudes that can be taken up and continued.

“Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism&quot

Issues and History Section: The pluralist who withholds belief from any specific propositions involving religion holds that: Defending Religious Pluralism for Religious Education. You do this by supposing that Plantinga endorses EP, and then showing that Feldman has introduced a principle, B, that contradicts EP without so much as an argument as to why EP might be false other than introducing B. From a Christian perspective, the situation of religious pluralism and our awareness of it is itself a manifestation of our miserable human condition.


Are missionaries who try to convert people of other religions x This is an arrogant or elitist attitude and as such is morally reprehensible. Please log in to set a read status.

One final point about B. Consider, then, the following anti-exclusivist principle that Feldman thinks exclusividm captures common intuitive reactions to cases of acknowledged epistemic peer disagreement.

Alvin Plantinga, “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism&quot – PhilPapers

To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side:. The reason you might think it clearly false that one cannot believe in such circumstances is because you are thinking that one would then have to just give up and close down. This entry has no external links. At this point, we can assume, she is reasonably well justified in thinking that E works best. So far as I can tell, Feldman does not offer any argument as to why we should think B properly rules out mere seemings from justifying in cases of peer disagreement.

How would it be possible to do better with respect to any belief? Exclusivists believe that, in this sense, they are privileged. This 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.


Science Logic and Mathematics. So they cannot be charged with being arbitrary. Suppose that at first this is all the information she has relevant to the issue.

Plantinga considers two types of objections to religious exclusivism. Enter the email address you signed up with and we’ll email you a reset link. Exclusivism holds that a particular religion is the only way to get in a proper relationship with God the only way to salvation. So, he thinks that A is not the principle that undermines the exclusivist position. The particular problem that Feldman thinks Plantinga has failed sufficiently to address planringa the problem of epistemic peer disagreement—that is, disagreement between two or more equally competent thinkers who share equally good reasons for, and are in equally good epistemic situations regarding, their contradictory beliefs—in matters of religious belief.

To see an initial reason why not, consider how Plantinga puts the case regarding racial bigotry: Condition c is very important to this argument. One further point before moving on. Your reading intentions are also stored in your profile for future reference. Please do not cite this draft. But it is not clear that this argument works because it might be argued that B deals with belief only. What are reading intentions? Exclusivism is arbitrary, irrational, unjustified, unwarranted.

Coffman for alviin me to this possible objection. Even so, suppose Plantinga, or some other exclusivist, does endorse EP.