Alvin Plantinga, A Defense of Religious Exclusivism

RELIGIOUS EXCLUSIVISM VERSUS RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
Exclusivism holds that a particular religion is the only way to get in a proper relationship with God (the only way to salvation)

To use the Christian example: In John 14:6, Jesus declares, "I am the way the truth, and the light; No one comes to the Father but through me"

Pluralism holds that there are many equally good ways to relate to God, and that the major world religions are examples.

Why be a adopt a particular religious faith (e.g. Christianity) if other faiths (Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam) all equally good ways?

SOME POSSIBLE RELIGIOUS POSITIONS:
(1) Theist: World created by God, almighty, all-knowing, perfectly good, personal being (who has beliefs, plans, and intentions and who acts to accomplish them)

Note that Taylor's cosmological argument (even assuming it is successful) doesn't prove this

Atheist: There is no god
Agnoistic: Doesn't believe in god or disbelieve in god; witholds judgment.
(2) Christian exclusivist: Humans require salvation, God provides unique way to it and that way is through Jesus Christ his incarnated son

Believe that some other religious belief (than belief in Jesus) is required for salvation
Are other religions exclusivist? Hinduism, for example, would seem not to be

Non-theistic religious people: Deny (1) but believe there is something beyond the natural world and that human well-being/salvation depends on standing in right relation to it
Naturalist: Rejects that there is anything beyond the natural world

Could there be religious naturalists? Natural world is all there is but humans require salvation and getting in right relationship to the natural world is the way to do it.

Exclusivism is a vice: wrong or deplorable in some way (either intellectually or morally or both)

Arrogant, elitist, egotistical, unjust, oppressive, and imperialistic
Are missionaries who try to convert people of other religions arrogant? Intolerant?

Plantinga's general reply to objections: Religious exclusivism is not necessarily a moral or intellectual failure and, (because?) given the human condition, some exclusivism is inevitable in our lives
Plantinga defends an exclusivism that involves two features

First: awareness of world religions and secondly realization one can't prove one's beliefs to others:

Unlike his grandmother who had no knowledge of other religions and thought of believers in other religions as heathens

She didn't know any better as ignorant of other religious
Plantinga understands that there is real piety and religion in many religions other than Christianity

Second: Condition C: Must believe that one has no proof that would convince other intellectually thoughtful people who disagree

Believes he has no knock down, drag out argument that would convince others (like a math proof)
CONDITION C IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS ARGUMENT

MORAL OBJECTIONS

Those who disagree with Plantinga aren't oppressing him, even though they don't believe they have an argument that can convince him
So if they are not oppressive, why is he oppressive?

Exclusivism believes those who reject his way have false beliefs
Exclusivists believe they have something of great value that others lack and are ignorant of
Exclusivists believe that in this sense, they are privileged

Reply: It is not arrogant or intolerant to believe what others don't believe, even if you can't show them you are right: Thus the religious exclusivist is not being arrogant or intolerant.
Moral analogy: Not clear it is arrogant to hold onto moral views that you can't convince others of

Consider views on abortion, environmentalism, sexual morality
Are friends, parents being intolerant and arrogant toward you because they hold on to moral beliefs you lack, even though they can't convince you that you are wrong?
Are you being intolerant of others when you think they are wrong about a moral issue, even though you can't convince them?

Whatever moral failures exclusivism has, non-exclusivism has as well
Tar baby argument: Get close enough to use this objection to exclusivism, you get stuck to it too

Critics of exclusivism reject (1) and (2), believe they are false, and yet they don't believe they have arguments that would convince those who accept (1) and (2) that their views are false
Then no advantage with respect to arrogance: Non-exclusivists believe something that others don't and they can't convince the others either, yet they continue to believe as they do

There is a moral difference between the religious exclusivist and the religious pluralist (who excludes the religious exclusivists) beliefs)
Not different in this way: Both believe something that contradicts what someone else believes, and are unable to provide a convincing proof to the other.
But religious exclusivist excludes all religions except his/her own; while religious pluralist, accepts all religions except the exclusivist version of each.

Also exclusivists deny that others are saved, whereas pluralists do not deny this (though they might deny this of atheists)

EPISTEMIC OBJECTIONS:

Exclusivists (or their beliefs) are irrational, arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted

The problem with this argument is that it can be used to claim one doesn't have a good reason for not being anti-Semitic or anti-racist