A DEFENSE OF RELIGIOUS EXCLUSIVISM ALVIN PLANTINGA PDF

Plantinga — and Lettie G. Bossenbroek — Another of his brothers, Leon , is an emeritus professor of musicology at Yale University. During his first semester at Calvin, Plantinga was awarded a scholarship to attend Harvard University. In , he accepted a teaching job at Calvin University, where he replaced the retiring Jellema. He has trained many prominent philosophers working in metaphysics and epistemology including Michael Bergmann at Purdue and Michael Rea at Notre Dame, and Trenton Merricks working at University of Virginia.

Author:Kigam JoJosho
Country:Chile
Language:English (Spanish)
Genre:Life
Published (Last):6 December 2005
Pages:497
PDF File Size:14.25 Mb
ePub File Size:2.30 Mb
ISBN:130-7-14294-811-6
Downloads:75562
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader:Mozil



Mackie , and to which the free-will defense responds, is an argument against the existence of the Christian God based on the idea that a logical contradiction exists between four theological tenets in orthodox Christian theology.

Specifically, the argument from evil asserts that the following set of propositions are, by themselves, logically inconsistent or contradictory: God is omniscient all-knowing God is omnibenevolent morally perfect There is evil in the world Most orthodox Christian theologians agree with the first three propositions describing God as all-knowing 1 , all-powerful 2 , and morally perfect 3 , and agree with the proposition that there is evil in the world, as described in proposition 4.

The logical argument from evil asserts that a God with the attributes 1—3 , must know about all evil, would be capable of preventing it, and as morally perfect would be motivated to do so. With an explicit contradiction ruled out, an atheologian must add premises to the argument for it to succeed. Plantinga sought to resolve this by offering two further points.

God could not, for example, create square circles, act contrary to his nature, or, more relevantly, create beings with free will that would never choose evil. Instead, his argument sought only to show that the logical problem of evil was unsound. These arguments have not yet gained wider academic philosophical support. Significantly, Plantinga does not need to assert that his new proposition is true, merely that it is logically valid.

As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. A world with morally free creatures producing only moral good is such a world. Plantinga rejects the compatibilist notion of freedom whereby God could directly cause agents to only do good without sacrificing their freedom.

Thus, God could avoid creating such circumstances, thereby weakly actualizing a world with only moral good. That is, he has argued convincingly for the consistency of God and evil. Weisberger writes "contrary to popular theistic opinion, the logical form of the argument is still alive and beating. In such a world people could have chosen to only perform good deeds, even though all their choices were predestined.

Therefore, it is certainly possible that a person completes the world by only making morally good choices; that is, there exist possible worlds where a person freely chooses to do no moral evil.

However, it may be the case that for each such world, there is some morally significant choice that this person would do differently if these circumstances were to occur in the actual world.

In other words, each such possible world contains a world segment, meaning everything about that world up to the point where the person must make that critical choice, such that if that segment was part of the actual world, the person would instead go wrong in completing that world. Less formally: Consider all possible not actual worlds in which someone always chooses the right. In all those, there will be a subpart of the world that says that person was free to choose a certain right or wrong action, but does not say whether they chose it.

If that subpart were actual in the real world , then they would choose the wrong. Mackie has presented the objection that God, being omnipotent and omnibenevolent, would easily be able to create the best of all possible worlds. Hence, the free-will defense fails.

BALTUR COMIST 72 PDF

Essay about “A Defense of Religious Exclusivism”

Mackie , and to which the free-will defense responds, is an argument against the existence of the Christian God based on the idea that a logical contradiction exists between four theological tenets in orthodox Christian theology. Specifically, the argument from evil asserts that the following set of propositions are, by themselves, logically inconsistent or contradictory: God is omniscient all-knowing God is omnibenevolent morally perfect There is evil in the world Most orthodox Christian theologians agree with the first three propositions describing God as all-knowing 1 , all-powerful 2 , and morally perfect 3 , and agree with the proposition that there is evil in the world, as described in proposition 4. The logical argument from evil asserts that a God with the attributes 1—3 , must know about all evil, would be capable of preventing it, and as morally perfect would be motivated to do so. With an explicit contradiction ruled out, an atheologian must add premises to the argument for it to succeed. Plantinga sought to resolve this by offering two further points. God could not, for example, create square circles, act contrary to his nature, or, more relevantly, create beings with free will that would never choose evil.

CARILLON DE WESTMINSTER SHEET MUSIC PDF

Alvin Plantinga

Instead, Plantinga shows that religious pluralism may serve to suppress or support religious exclusivism. Pluralism, he maintains, is in and of itself a defense of religious exclusivism. Plantinga begins his discussion with his pluralist beginnings at Yale, and asks if knowledge of truth is even possible. Using two beginning postulates, he shows that these are not universally accepted for a variety of reasons: in fact there is a wide diversity of opposing ideas, so he asks what impact this has on his own religious beliefs. He observes that knowledge of such pluralisms is as old as time.

CARETTI FORCED BRIDE PDF

“A Defense of Religious Exclusivism”

Religious Exclusivism is an idea that is represented by Alvin Plantiga. And what the idea of Religious Exclusivism represents is that whatever religious belief you hold to be true, must be true exclusively, which then deems all other religions to be false. Therefore, a religious exclusivist ends up rejecting the views of fewer people. Plantiga is a devout Christian, and to hold the position of a Christian from a Religious Exclusivist position, you must believe two things to be true. Firstly, you must be a theist, that is to say that you believe the world was created by God, an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God. While the second belief of the Christian exclusivist, is to believe that humans require salvation, and God presents this salvation in a unique way through Jesus Christ his incarnated son. Plantiga considers two

Related Articles