Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T01:38:43.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Religious exclusivism unlimited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2010

JEROEN DE RIDDER
JEROEN DE RIDDER*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Philosophy, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Like David Silver before them, Erik Baldwin and Michael Thune argue that the facts of religious pluralism present an insurmountable challenge to the rationality of basic exclusive religious belief as construed by Reformed Epistemology. I will show that their argument is unsuccessful. First, their claim that the facts of religious pluralism make it necessary for the religious exclusivist to support her exclusive beliefs with significant reasons is one that the reformed epistemologist has the resources to reject. Secondly, they fail to demonstrate that it is impossible for basic religious beliefs to return to their properly basic state after defeaters against them have been defeated. Finally, I consider whether there is perhaps a similar but better argument in the neighbourhood and conclude in the negative. Reformed Epistemology's defence of exclusivism thus remains undefeated.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 449 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alston, William P. (1988) ‘An internalist externalism’, Synthese, 74, 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, William P. (1991) Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Audi, Robert (2004) The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Baldwin, Erik, & Michael, Thune (2008) ‘The epistemological limits of experience-based exclusive religious belief’, Religious Studies, 44, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Stewart (2002) ‘Basic knowledge and the problem of easy knowledge’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65, 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Stewart (2005) ‘Why basic knowledge is easy knowledge’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70, 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, Adam (2010) ‘How to disagree about how to disagree’, in Feldman, R. & Warfield, T. (eds) Disagreement (New York NY: Oxford University Press), 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huemer, Michael (2005) Ethical Intuitionism (New York NY: Palgrave MacMillan).Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas (2010) ‘Peer disagreement and higher-order evidence’, in Feldman, & Warfield, Disagreement, 111–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1903) Principia Ethica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (1993) Warrant and Proper Function (New York NY: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (2000). Warranted Christian Belief (New York NY: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, James (2001) ‘Highlights of recent epistemology’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52, 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, W. D. (1930) The Right and the Good (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Silver, David (2001) ‘Religious experience and the facts of religious pluralism’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 49, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cleve, James (2003) ‘Is knowledge easy – or impossible? Externalism as the only alternative to skepticism’, in Luper, S. (ed.) The Skeptics: Contemporary Essays (Aldershot: Ashgate), 45–59.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter (1996) ‘It is wrong, everywhere, always, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence’, in Jordan, J. & Howard-Snyder, D. (eds) Faith, Reason, and Rationality: Philosophy of Religion Today (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield), 137–153.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter (2010) ‘We're right, they're wrong’, in Feldman, & Warfield, Disagreement, 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Jonathan (2000) ‘Reliabilism leveled’, Journal of Philosophy, 97, 602–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Jonathan (2008) ‘Epistemic bootstrapping’, Journal of Philosophy, 105, 518–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogelstein, Eric (2004) ‘Religious pluralism and justified Christian belief: a reply to Silver’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 55, 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Jonathan (forthcoming) ‘Bootstrapping in general’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar