Comments on: Ought religion be exclusive?

By: John

John — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:13:34 +0000

You could conclude that God likes variety, yet is the varitey that he has placed on earth for the benifit and existiance of men and not to mearly paint a picture or provide some artistic exposition..?

By: addofio

addofio — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:59:49 +0000

How about this for a set of premises:

God is infinite in perfection. Therefore, truths about God are also infinite.

Humans and our institutions, including our religious institutions, are finite, including being finite in understanding.

Therefore humans, individually or collectively, cannot encompass or know all the truth there is about God.

As we look around us, we see that God created an exuberantly diverse creation. Billions of galaxies; here on earth, millions of different species of living creatures, and huge variation within species; thousands of languages and cultures among humans; and each individual person is unique. We might conclude from this that God likes variety.

Part of the human diversity we see is in religion. Perhaps God has either brought this about, or at the least has allowed this to be the case, so that collectively, humans can express, or know, or discover, more of God’s truths.

Just some food for thought.

By: john

john — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:07:45 +0000

John,
I would have to disagree with (1). Because in terms of deception man could mimic and copy a true religion in order to fulfill personal objectives. Thus, the reason for the current lack of “uniformity” could be the interpretations or ideas of men and not the intentions of God. The phrase in (2) ” far more conflict than one would expect ” is not defined properly. The reason I say this is because what conflict? Are you referring to basic beliefs? Are you referring to practices or ordnances? Conflict must also be necessary to support fact that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Thus, if there is truth there must be falsehood. And if we are truly free agents then we have the ability to create conflict and cause falsehoods and deceptions. For those reasons I feel that (2) is not adequately supported to be a successful premise.

By: marcnelson

marcnelson — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:10:07 +0000

The fact is, so many peope of diffing religions feel that they believe in the one “true” religion. This observation about the world combined with the simple argument against Plantinga’s proper function account at the end of the post, as I see them, refute plantinga’s religious exclusivism.
Here is another simple argument to further articulate my thoughts:

1. If there were one true religion, we would expect to observe a certain degree of uniformity of religious belief throughout the world, and a certain degree of conflict (i.e. very little) between false religions and the true religion.
2. There actually is far less uniformity and far more conflict than one would expect were there one true religion.
3. Therefore, there must not be one true religion.

What do you think? I would like help in thinking through this some more. I realize the premises need a lot more backing but… it’s late.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:41:43 +0000

I think that in order for anyone to be able to embrace religion to it’s fullest they must at least believe that it is the only true religion. When religion is a ‘whatever’ thing it does almost no good to mankind other than lead him into a false sense of security, which causes more damage that it could ever possibly contribute in good.
But I do not agree with Plantinga agruement that if someone believes in a certain religion stong enough and gains a witness of the religion that the religion than becomes true. Such a conclusion is counterproductive leaving to many thinking that they have the only truth. Also I feel that God would only provide for one true religion on the earth, and that he would be the keeper of it. There are no doubt many wonderful religion that lift people to seemingly immpossible height of acheivement, but there has been, is, and we can only expect more conflict over religion. Something that one would not hold God accountable for.

By: swen268

swen268 — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:19:46 +0000

i think we are trying to give God human characteristics by asking questions like that when we all know He is higher than us…could we ? Could God be capable of escaping an escape from His own plot?

By: john

john — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:43:56 +0000

Ok I have a question so that i can formulate this argument, answer me this: if god is omniscient and thereby knows his future actions, is he capable of escaping his own plot?

By: John

John — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:05:49 +0000

I see, and I understand what argument you would like to address. My argument needs clarification. I actually am trying to say that a perfect person that is all knowing and all-powerful entity would not need to EVER change. I would like to ask: can a perfect being change even if it possesses attributes that are absolute and “perfect”? One would assume that if a being is all-knowing then obviously it would know it would require no change at all. Is it necessary for such to change? Why should we think that a God that changes is less perfect than one that does not?

Becuase God would not be able to be all-knowing or all-powerful this is because it could not change something that God knows to be a perfect and “utmost” adaptable characteristic from that, his teaching or understanding/principles would then be perfect and absolutely complete according to his eternal and never-ending omnipotence and other (absolute attributes) etc.
so why should we assume that God must change according to the individual necessities of man if deception can be brought about by the deceptions of men?

By: oohlah

oohlah — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:02:09 +0000

John: it is not the case that change makes something less perfect. That’s the argument Addofio and I were looking for from you (if I may be so bold to speak on behalf of Addofio). You have to answer the question: Why should we think that a God that changes is less perfect than one that does not?

Addofio: Analogies aren’t perfect, so I agree with you on the difference. But that difference doesn’t weaken the analogy; it brings the controversial issue of God’s actions to light.

I think your question, “how is God not permitting the deception?,” has a lot built into it. First, does God necessarily deceive us? Or, is it: does God make deception possible? These are two different questions. So, I guess there is a technical, philosophical worry in the background I’m not clear on.

Notice also that the propositions “God deceives Smith” and “Smith is deceived” exemplify two different properties. If the propositions exemplify different properties, then they’re distinct. If they’re distinct, then it is possible that Smith’s being deceived isn’t the result of God’s deceiving Smith.

By: addofio

addofio — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:45:05 +0000

Presumably Smith is neither all-knowing nor all-powerful, so in that case it makes sense that we would not hold him morally responsible for the death (unless we think he should have reasonably anticipated that the piano would move, or taken reasonable precautions against it moving, like blocking the wheels). However, equally presumably God is both all-knowing and all-powerful, so the analogy doesn’t apply. If God could anticipate that deception will occur (being all-knowing), and could prevent the deception from occurring (being all-powerful), then I return to my question–how is God not permitting the deception? Is there some technical, philosophical meaning to the word “permitting” that I’m missing here?

If I as a parent see my infant toddling toward the fire, and am within reach of the infant–am in a position to prevent the toddler from entering the fire–but make no move to do so–and the infant enters the fire or perhaps grabs the coals, have I not “permitted” the child to be burned? And shouldn’t I be held responsible for the consequences of my inaction?