Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:23:58.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I CAN'T HELP WHAT I BELIEVE: THE MORAL CASE AGAINST RELIGIOUS EXCLUSIVIST DOCTRINES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2018

Kenneth Himma
Get access

Abstract

Christianity and Islam subscribe to a doctrine of salvific exclusivism, according to which only the adherents of the one true religion will escape divine punishment – usually conceived of as an eternity of torment. In this article, I argue that salvific exclusivism is inconsistent with ordinary intuitions about fairness and justice, together with certain facts about belief formation. In particular, I argue that what one believes is sufficiently beyond one's capacity to choose that persons cannot fairly be punished for what they believe. It seems unfair, and inconsistent with God's moral perfection, to base the difference between an eternal reward and an eternal punishment on something that one can't control.

Type
Research Article
Information
Think , Volume 17 , Issue 48 , Spring 2018 , pp. 51 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 See David Briggs, ‘The No. 1 Reason Teens Keep the Faith as Young Adults’, Huffington Post, 29 October 2014, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/the-no-1-reason-teens-kee_b_6067838.html>.

2 See, e.g., Dan Morain, ‘From Birth to Death Row, Violence Surrounded Harris History’, Los Angeles Times, 21 April 1992, <http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/doane/RobertAltonHarris.htm>, p. 18.