Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism

The threefold typology of stances on the truth and salvific status of religions other than one's own.

Definition

A classification of positions on religious diversity according to how they assign truth and salvific efficacy across competing religious traditions.

Scope

This topic covers the standard typology in the philosophy of religious diversity: exclusivism, which restricts truth and salvation to one tradition; inclusivism, which holds one tradition uniquely true while allowing others a derivative share in salvation; and pluralism, which treats the major traditions as equally valid. It covers the debate over whether the typology is exhaustive and whether pluralism is coherent. It does not cover the epistemology of disagreement, treated separately.

Core questions

• Is truth or salvation confined to a single religious tradition?
• Can a tradition be uniquely true yet others still salvific?
• Are all major traditions equally valid responses to ultimate reality?
• Is the threefold typology exhaustive, and is pluralism internally coherent?

Key theories

Pluralism

Hick argues that the major traditions are equally authentic responses to one transcendent Real and equally effective in transforming adherents from self-centeredness toward reality-centeredness, so none is uniquely true or salvific.

Exclusivism and inclusivism

Exclusivists such as Plantinga hold that the distinctive truth claims of one tradition are true and incompatible rivals false, while inclusivists hold one tradition uniquely true yet allow that sincere adherents of others may be saved through it.

History

The typology crystallized in late-twentieth-century debates, building on Karl Rahner's inclusivist notion of anonymous Christianity and Hick's pluralist turn. Hick proposed a Copernican revolution placing the Real, not any one tradition, at the center; exclusivists and inclusivists such as Plantinga and D'Costa responded, and some critics questioned whether the three categories are genuinely exhaustive.

Debates

Whether pluralism privileges its own viewpoint

Critics charge that Hick's pluralism is itself a substantive metaphysical position that no tradition endorses and that it covertly favors a particular interpretation; pluralists reply that it best accommodates the data of religious life.

Whether exclusivism is rationally and morally defensible

Pluralists allege exclusivism is arbitrary and arrogant; Plantinga argues the exclusivist is no worse off epistemically than the pluralist, since both reject the contrary views of many sincere people.

Key figures

• John Hick
• Karl Rahner
• Alvin Plantinga
• Gavin D'Costa
• William Alston

Seminal works

• hick1989
• plantinga1995
• dcosta1986

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between inclusivism and pluralism?

Inclusivism holds that one religion is uniquely or fully true but that adherents of other faiths may share in its salvation; pluralism holds that several traditions are independently and equally valid, with none privileged over the others.

Is exclusivism the same as intolerance?

No. Exclusivism is a claim about which religious beliefs are true, not a prescription for how to treat others; one can hold exclusivist beliefs while being tolerant and respectful toward people of other faiths.