Alvin Plantinga Does Not Agree With John Hick's Rejection

Alvin Plantinga does not agree with John Hick's rejection of religious exclusivism

Instructions: Please choose one of the following questions and post an answer/response by Thursday 11:59pm ET. Also please make sure to respond to at least two posts of your classmates and/or the instructor by Sunday 11:59pm ET. To earn full credit for this discussion assignment you need to make three substantive posts (see Discussion Guidelines under Course Home). Make sure to include references to the course materials in your responses.

Question 1: Alvin Plantinga does not agree with John Hick's rejection of religious exclusivism. Indeed, Plantinga attempts to defend religious exclusivism, even going as far as to reject the idea that there is something inherently misguided or objectionable about the religious exclusivist position. Briefly summarize Plantinga's arguments in defense of religious exclusivism. What do you think? More specifically, when reading Plantinga's essay, did you find yourself more in agreement with Plantinga or Hick? Does Hick make any good points that Plantinga fails to adequately address? Does Plantinga make any good points that Hick fails to adequately address?

Paper For Above instruction

Alvin Plantinga’s defense of religious exclusivism centers around his epistemological framework, particularly the concept of properly basic beliefs, which he argues can justify religious commitments without the need for external evidence. Unlike John Hick, who adopts a more pluralistic view emphasizing the validity of multiple religious paths, Plantinga insists that religious exclusivism is rational when based on properly basic beliefs rooted in divine revelation or personal religious experiences that are properly formed and supported by divine warrant.

Plantinga challenges the notion that religious exclusivism is inherently mistaken or intolerant. He asserts that individuals' religious beliefs can be properly basic, meaning they are justified independently of empirical evidence, given certain conditions. For instance, if a person’s religious experiences are genuinely designed by God, then believing in God on the basis of such experiences is rational and justified, making religious exclusivism a defensible position. Plantinga maintains that the refusal to accept the uniqueness of Christianity, for instance, neglects the rational basis for religious belief rooted in divine revelation. His argument hinges on the idea that religious beliefs, properly grounded, are akin to perceptual beliefs like sense perception, which are justified on their own terms.

In contrast, Hick’s pluralistic approach suggests that all major world religions are valid responses to the same ultimate reality, and thus, exclusivism undermines the possibility of sincere religious belief across different traditions. Plantinga counters this by arguing that religious exclusivism does not entail intolerance or dogmatism but is instead a rational stance based on the integrity of religious experiences and divine testimony.

Personally, I found myself more in agreement with Plantinga’s perspective, especially considering his emphasis on the rationality of religious belief grounded in properly basic beliefs. His analogy comparing religious beliefs to perceptual beliefs helps clarify how religious beliefs can be justified without the need for extrinsic evidence. However, Hick’s recognition of religious diversity as a reflection of different cultural contexts and spiritual understandings offers an important counterpoint, particularly in emphasizing religious tolerance.

Hick’s argument that religious exclusivism can promote intolerance is compelling, but Plantinga’s insistence that exclusivism is compatible with rational justification provides a nuanced perspective that challenges the notion that religious exclusivism must be inherently intolerant or irrational. Conversely, Plantinga’s reliance on divine revelation and divine warrant as the basis for religious beliefs may face criticism for potentially dismissing the interpretive diversity within religious traditions, which Hick highlights.

References

• Alvin Plantinga. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press.
• John Hick. (1989). An Interpretation of Religion. Princeton University Press.
• William Lane Craig. (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Crossway.
• Richard Swinburne. (2004). The Existence of God. Oxford University Press.
• Brian Davies. (2012). Philosophy of Religion: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Richard Dawkins. (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Press.
• William Alston. (1991). Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience. Cornell University Press.
• Keith Ward. (2010). Religion and Human Nature. Oxford University Press.
• Muhammad Iqbal. (2000). The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. Oxford University Press.
• Stephen T. Davis. (2010). The Logic of Theistic Proofs. Cornell University Press.