An able defence of Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology against criticisms based on the existence of religious diversity and disagreement.


An important contribution to both philosophy of religion and Christian apologetics, defending Alvin Plantinga’s central principle in Warranted Christian Belief, arguing for Christian exclusivism rather than religious plurality. Plantinga argued that religious plurality was self-defeating and that anybody with a properly functioning cognitive faculty can produce warranted Christian belief, provoking numerous objections and epistemic disagreements.

Joseph Kim investigates the problem of religious diversity which lies at the intersection of epistemology, the philosophy of religion, and religious pluralism. The key to Plantinga’s case is that the warrant in Christian belief is linked with the proper cognitive function of the believer and that the evidence of externalism gives credence to the theory of internalism. Kim argues that not only is this reasonable, but that the equal weight theory is simply mistaken; other world religions do not necessarily act as defeaters for Christian exclusivism. Prominent criticisms of Plantinga are deftly refuted from within the perspective of Reformed Epistemology.

This is a thorough and articulate defence of Plantinga’s work, revealing the epistemic deficiency of religious diversity. Kim uses a mixture of informal and formal logic, making the book a useful tool for the academic theologian and accessible for the general reader.