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.
|Published (Last):||5 April 2018|
|PDF File Size:||3.81 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.73 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Papers by Alvin Plantinga
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. But I reply that this objection misses the context of the dialectic. But this is not true, because of the weaker attitudes that can be taken up and continued. Added to PP index Total downloads 12of 2, Recent downloads 6 months 1of 2, How can I increase my downloads?
Consider one such addition we might make to RC.
So, he thinks that A is not the principle that undermines the exclusivist position. Please log in to set a read status Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading.
If you had been born in Nazi Germany you would have been Anti-Semitic. In that case they are not to be criticized for believing them. Exclusivists believe they have something of great value that others lack and are ignorant of.
Religious exclusivism is not necessarily a moral or intellectual failure and, because? There is a moral difference between the religious exclusivist and plantinba religious pluralist who excludes the religious exclusivists beliefs. To be clear, RC is eefense case of mere acknowledged disagreement and not acknowledged epistemic peer disagreement because, while our researcher is aware that her colleagues have come to different conclusions than the one she has come to, she has further evidence as to why her colleagues are mistaken or, at any rate, have come to different conclusions than the one she has come to.
Oxford University Press,83 — Bernd Irlenborn – – Philosophy and Theology 23 2: Log In Sign Up.
More on Religious Exclusivism: A Reply to Richard Feldman | P. Roger Turner –
Suppose that the researcher knows about some flaws in the studies of the other researchers and that these flaws are such that the other researchers could not have been reasonably expected to know about them; in other words, these flaws are not the result of errors of reasoning or anything relevantly similar. Thus, our researcher and her colleagues are not epistemic peers; and, if not, then RC is not a case of acknowledged epistemic peer disagreement.
Not different in this way: The parties involved are stipulated to be in an overall epistemic position that is equally good. No researcher knows about any study other than his or her own.
“Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism"
Either the anti-exclusivist will have to accept A i. To use the Christian example: Exclusivism holds that a particular religion is the only way to get in a proper relationship with God the only way to salvation.
So they cannot be charged with being arbitrary. But, let us suppose that it does.
Believe that some other religious belief than belief in Jesus is required for salvation. Exclusivists believe that, in this sense, they are privileged.
Consider that Plantinga believes, for example, that Serious Actualism i. But Feldman claims that B enjoys support from our common intuitive reactions to cases of peer disagreement.
Remember me on this computer. 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. A Pragmatic Defense of Religious Exclusivism.
Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism | University of St Andrews
A Defense of Religious Exclusivism. The pluralist who withholds belief from any specific propositions involving religion holds that: This item appears on Exdlusivism But this argument is reversible. The Impossibility of a Pluralist View of Religions.