A DEFENSE OF RELIGIOUS EXCLUSIVISM ALVIN PLANTINGA PDF

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: Dujind Voodoomi
Country: Syria
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 12 August 2014
Pages: 372
PDF File Size: 10.70 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.72 Mb
ISBN: 767-6-90710-181-7
Downloads: 24944
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Darr

This entry has no external links. Belief that one has no proof that would convince other intellectually thoughtful people who disagree. Also exclusivists deny that others are saved, whereas pluralists do not deny this though they might deny this of atheists.

Click here to sign up. Feldman thinks that all should agree that this is a counterexample to A. But I reply that this objection misses the point.

The junior philosopher should not give up. The Epistemological Challenge of Religious Pluralism. So, if the objection is right, then we have, here, a reason to think that B is dialectically improper.

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

So, taking the above question in the epistemic way, is Plantinga wrong? Feldman can just as quickly complain that he endorses B, and then along comes Plantinga who by fiat endorses EP that rules out B. Both believe something that contradicts what someone else believes, and are unable to provide a convincing proof to the other.

  CROOKES RADIOMETER PDF

Exclusivism holds that a particular religion is the only way to get in a proper relationship with God the only way to salvation.

Exclusivists believe they have something of great value that others lack and are ignorant of. Why be adopt a particular religious faith e. Thus, our researcher and her colleagues are not epistemic peers; and, if not, then RC is not a case of acknowledged epistemic peer disagreement. For sure there are religions that share tenets.

“Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism&quot

So, Feldman may conclude, the bigotry case is not a very serious threat to B at all given the support B enjoys from our intuitive reactions to specific cases of acknowledged peer disagreement, etc. For, many religions share some tenets they hold to be true e.

Oxford University Press, That is, A is a principle regarding mere disagreement as to whether p between two or more parties in which each party is aware of the other, dissenting, party, as opposed to disagreement as to whether p between two or more parties who believe each other to be equally competent thinkers who share equally good reasons for, and are in equally good epistemic situations regarding, whether p.

Please do not cite this draft. Of course, this raises all sorts of questions about what makes competing reasons for belief as to whether p equally good.

Pluralism: Defense of Religious Exclusivism

For, I think there are additional things we can say about excousivism add into the bigotry case that make it more clearly a refuting counterexample to B than not. Roger Turner This is the penultimate version of a paper printed in Faith and Philosophy 32 Doing so is how advances are made in academic matters.

  CZARNY NOJSZEWSKA MIKROEKONOMIA PDF

Condition c is very important to this argument. For example, should in the moral sense of that word the bigot believe differently than she does even if she has no reason to hold the competing belief?

One final point about B. Suppose a medical researcher does a careful study to examine the effectiveness of drugs E, F, G, and H for treating some disease. But we exclusivixm we do have good reasons for these views.

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

Religious exclusivism is not necessarily a moral or intellectual failure and, because? Coffman for bringing this to my attention. This article has no associated abstract. But he thinks we should all agree because A is a principle regarding mere acknowledged disagreement as opposed to acknowledged epistemic peer disagreement.

As Nathan Ballantyne and E. No intellectual right to be an exclusivist. But it is not clear that this argument works because it might be argued that B deals with belief only. Pluralism holds that there are many equally good ways to relate to God, and that the major world plantnga are examples. But this argument is reversible.