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.
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||6 April 2009|
|PDF File Size:||7.31 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.16 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It makes it easy to scan through your lists and keep track of progress.
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. But I think that if Feldman rellgious right, then B is too strict. Please log in to set a read status.
But this is not true, because of the weaker attitudes that can be taken up and continued. It also raises questions about moral epistemological issues. And, even if she could, how likely is it that this sort of thing happens in fact or, perhaps better: So exclusivist is more tolerant; rejects the views of fewer people.
The pluralist who withholds belief from any specific propositions involving religion holds that: Hinduism, for example, would seem not to be. Here’s an example of what they look like: The practice of theology: Moreover, this objection seems to me to imply that I have argued for the claim that Feldman is unjustified in believing that Plantinga is unjustified in his beliefs in the racist case.
A Reply to Richard Feldman. How do I religuous a reading intention To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side:. I will do this by offering three main objections: To see why, consider the following from Thomas Kelly: Am I wrong in thinking racial bigotry is despicable, even though I know there are others who disagree, and even if I think they have the same internal markers for their beliefs as I have for mine?
Find it on Scholar. Edit this record Mark as duplicate Export citation Find it on Scholar Request removal from drfense Translate to english Revision history.
Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism | University of St Andrews
Even so, suppose Plantinga, or some other exclusivist, does endorse EP. Consider that Plantinga believes, for example, that Serious Actualism i. But this argument is reversible. You claim that B would bar an academic from believing any controversial academic thesis and drive home the point with the example of the junior level philosopher.
Thus, our researcher and her colleagues are not epistemic peers; and, if not, then RC is not a case of acknowledged epistemic peer disagreement. Religious Diversity in Contemporary Philosophy of Religion: The dialectic, as I see it, goes something like this. Such cases seem to be the basis of reasonable philosophical impasse. Doing so is how advances are made in plantimga matters.
Pluralism: Defense of Religious Exclusivism
As Nathan Ballantyne and E. B forms the second horn of a dilemma that the anti-exclusivist will have to face.
The argument is another philosophical tar baby applies to exclusivism too: I relugious B is dialectically unhelpful in an additional way. No intellectual right to be an exclusivist.
Sign in to use this feature.