“Pluralism: A

Defense of
Religious
Exclusivism”
Alvin Plantinga
Defining religious exclusivism
Religious exclusivism, or exclusivity, is the doctrine or belief
that only one particular religion or belief system is true.
- The Oxford handbook of philosophy of religion
3 Conditions of Religious
Exclusivism
1. The belief that one’s theological
propositions/beliefs are true.

2. The belief that any other theologies or

propositions that oppose one’s own are false.

3. The awareness of the existence of other

religions and their beliefs, knowing they can
be just as devout and pious as you are, and
that no argument that you know of can
convince all of these believers of other
religions to your side.
2 Kinds of objections against
Religious Exclusivism
Moral Epistemological
Objection Objection
Moral Objection

Religious exclusivism is arrogant,

egotistical, arbitrary, dishonest,
imperialistic, and oppressive.
The Accusation

“It is morally wrong to go out to the

world and say to others that ‘we believe
that we know God and we are right; and
you believe you know God, and you are
totally wrong.’”
The Response
“Yes, religious exclusivism can be
arrogant, egotistical, and arbitrary.
But are they guilty of these things
BECAUSE they’re exclusivist?”
The Response
“Does believing that your own religion is
true and everything else is false
arrogant, egotistical, and arbitrary, or
DOES SIMPLY BELIEVING IN ANYTHING AT
ALL mean one is arrogant, egotistical,
and arbitrary?”
All beliefs are innately
arrogant, egotistical, arbitrary,
dishonest, imperialistic, and
oppressive.
 “Religious exclusivism is Arrogant
and Egotistical”

Let’s say you are a religious exclusivist who

believes that Christianity is the one, true
religion. You are then faced with some
arguments against Christianity which put your
beliefs to the test. What do you do?
 “Religious exclusivism is Arrogant
and Egotistical”
You Have 3 Options:
1. Continue to believe in Christianity, and say that
the arguments against it are wrong in some way
2. Withhold your beliefs – believe in neither
Christianity nor the arguments against it.
3. Accept the arguments against Christianity as
true, and abandon it for the opposition.
 “Religious exclusivism is Arrogant
and Egotistical”
Say you chose Option #3 - So you change your
religion. Let’s say you are now a Muslim. Does that
solve the problem?

Answer: NO! You are back to where you started!

 “Religious exclusivism is Arrogant
and Egotistical”

• Even if you changed beliefs from Christian to Muslim,

you are still guilty of being arrogant- You still believe
in Allah and his teachings, and by doing so, you think
that all other beliefs are false and that you are right!

• Even being an atheist doesn’t change this! You still

believe that there is no God and that all other beliefs
are wrong.
 “Religious exclusivism is Arrogant
and Egotistical”

• ANY BELIEF INNATELY APPEARS ARROGANT, as

a belief pertains that one’s opinion is right and
everyone else’s is wrong.

• Even Religious Pluralism is arrogant, because

it says that Religious Exclusivists are wrong!
 “Religious exclusivism is Arrogant
and Egotistical”
Now, let’s say you chose option #2

Option 2 denotes abstaining – not picking a side.

Neither believing in one’s religion, nor others’. Surely,
given they believe in neither, it means you escape
arrogance, do you not?
 

Answer: Still NO.

 “Religious exclusivism is Arrogant
and Egotistical”
• While their beliefs are not arrogant, their ATTITUDE
is. By abstaining, you believe that your DECISION TO
ABSTAIN is RIGHT.

• Which means that you think that THE ATTITUDE OF

THE OTHER PERSON IS WRONG. You are implying that
your attitude is superior to that of the other.
 “Religious exclusivism is Arrogant
and Egotistical”
“But can’t you just abstain from believing that your
attitude is superior from the other?”

“If you can abstain from thinking your beliefs are right,
couldn’t you just abstain from thinking your attitude is
right, too?”
 “Religious exclusivism is Arrogant
and Egotistical”

Yes. However, this would mean that you view the other
person as your equal. In that case, you cannot call
religious exclusivists arrogant. If you do not believe
yourself to be wrong, all while being their equal, then
they cannot be wrong either.
 “Religious Exclusivism is
Imperialistic and Oppressive”

Catholic Church A is a church that follows the conservative sect

of Catholicism. As such, they believe that women cannot preach
in church as a priest, and the most they can do is become nuns,
submissive to the will of their male superiors.

The Liberal State the church is in, on the other hand, finds this
church to violate its laws of anti-gender discrimination, and
forces the church to allow female priests.
 “Religious Exclusivism is
Imperialistic and Oppressive”
• We can say that Catholic Church A is oppressive in
not allowing women to serve the church as priests.

• However, the Liberal State had also essentially forced

Catholic Church A to follow their liberal laws, which is
founded on liberal belief.

• Then, isn’t the Liberal State just as guilty of

oppression as Catholic Church A?
 “Religious Exclusivism is
Imperialistic and Oppressive”

Thus: All beliefs, to some extent, are oppressive

and imperialistic to some degree, as these
beliefs are often imposed to another.
 “Religious Exclusivism is
Imperialistic and Oppressive”
And this holds true for religious pluralists too!

By saying that all religions are equally as true and as

valid, they are essentially imposing their beliefs onto
others, even those who don’t agree. Thus, they are
“oppressing” the people who do not believe in religious
plurality by forcing their will onto them.
Epistemological
Objection
“Religious Exclusivists’ beliefs are
arbitrary, irrational, and unjustified”
The Accusation

“Religious exclusivists fail to make proper

epistemological judgements by sticking
to their arbitrary, unjustified, and
irrational beliefs, in the face of pluralism”
The Response
“How can that be said when
exclusivists line their beliefs
towards evidence and their own
experiences?”
These assumptions are false.
Religious exclusivists are just
as rational and justified as
pluralists.
 Religious Exclusivism is Arbitrary
“Religious exclusivists betray epistemological duty by
arbitrarily choosing and defending only their side, and
not considering the side of others”

Let us go back to the 3 conditions of what defines a

religious exclusivist. The third point of what makes a
religious exclusivist is:
3 Conditions of Religious
Exclusivism
1. The belief that one’s theological
propositions/beliefs are true.

2. The belief that any other theologies or

propositions that oppose one’s own are false.

3. The awareness of the existence of other

religions and their beliefs, knowing they can
be just as devout and pious as you are, and
that no argument that you know of can
convince all of these believers of other
religions to your side.
 Religious Exclusivism is Arbitrary
• This means one can only be an exclusivist IF AND
ONLY IF they are fully aware of the beliefs of other
religions.

• If religious exclusivists are fully aware of the beliefs of

other religions and non-religions, then haven’t they
ALREADY CONSIDERED their arguments, and just
chose to stick to their own beliefs because they
find it more sound, valid or logical?
 Religious Exclusivism is Arbitrary

Thus, religious exclusivists do not arbitrarily

choose to defend only their side.
 Religious exclusivists are Irrational and
lack Justification for their beliefs.
Sasha is a student who had, out of nowhere, suddenly suffered
from stage 3 colon cancer. The doctors, fearing the fact that she
was diagnosed late, say they cannot do anything, and that she
most likely won’t survive.

Desperate, Sasha had turned to God and prayed that if she

survives, she shall devote her life to the church. A few days later,
the malignant tumor in her colon had started shrinking, and
within a month, she was cancer-free. The doctors were shocked,
as there is no way she should have survived.
 Religious exclusivists are Irrational and
lack Justification for their beliefs.

Thus, Sasha came to the conclusion that the only reasonable

explanation was that it was a miracle of God. She then moved on
to a life of service and became a nun.
 Religious exclusivists are Irrational and
lack Justification for their beliefs.

• Given that Sasha had experienced a miracle whose

only possible explanation was an act of divine mercy,
who is one to say that she is irrational? How
can we say that Sasha’s belief in God lacks
justification?

• Religious exclusivists line their beliefs on par with

their phenomenological evidence. Thus, they are not
unjustified, nor irrational in their beliefs.
Final Comments

Possible Critiques, and things to note.

 Final Comments
• The paradox is that religious pluralists accuse
exclusivists of being either morally wrong, or
epistemologically wrong. However, pluralists are
just as guilty of these things as exclusivists.

• They think that they have somehow made a mistake

in judgement, reasoning, ethics, etc., when in reality,
these are merely things that can be found in ALMOST
ALL BELIEFS. Thus, pluralists are NO BETTER.
 Final Comments

• Note #1: Plantinga didn’t argue whether his beliefs

are RIGHT nor TRUE. Only that they are JUSTIFIED.
 Final Comments
• Note #2: Notice how Plantinga emphasized a lot on
the 3rd condition of what makes a religious
exclusivist. One can only be an exclusivist if they
are aware of the beliefs of others.

• If read in between the lines, Plantinga implies that

exclusivists are rational and aware of opposing
ideas, but stick to their own beliefs anyways, as
their own reasoning concludes that their own
beliefs is more true than that of others.
 Final Comments

This is the reason why Plantinga wrote the 3rd

condition. One cannot be an exclusivist if one is
irrational, unreasonable, or illogical.
“Pluralism: A
Defense of
Religious
Exclusivism”
Alvin Plantinga

Thank you!