Uppsatsen jämför en teistisk-metafysisk och en existentiell trosförståelse när det gäller deras förklaringar till att en människa har att förhålla sig till vissa värden som objektivt givna, och vad som krävs av en människa för att få tillgång till denna kunskap. Som representant för det teistisk-metafysiska perspektivet används Francis A. Schaeffer och för det existentiella Paul Tillich.

In this essay I examine the relation between religious non-realism and religious pluralism. Religious pluralism is celebrated by it's adherents, to be benevolent and tolerant towards other religions truth claims and practices. Religious non-realism is also, by its adherents, praised for its including way to look upon truth claims and differing opinions about reality. When it comes to questions like what there is and what is not, does God exist or does he not etc. the religious non-realist is prone to less dogmatism and definite answers than metaphysical realists. Or at least so does the non-realists themselves like to think. What I examine in this essay is whether religious non-realism pragmatically implies religious pluralism, or if a non-realist judiciously can dismiss religious pluralism and instead adopt a form of confessional view of a specifik religion. Religious exclusivism, like the one Alvin Plantinga defends, rejects the possibility of x being both true and false. If a religious claim is taken to be true then incompatible claims have to be considered false according to this view. This fits poorly whith religious non-realism since the latter does not embrace a correspondance theory of truth. Religious pluralism is strongly criticized, among others for leaving “God” or other religious entities empty and whithout characteristics or content. This, because if God is litterally indescribable and unreachable, we would have no reason to believe that God has the chatacteristics we think he has. If religious pluralism cannot answer to the criticism, and if non-realism can not help pluralism evade the problems, then we are in need of a religious inclusivism that does not depend on metaphysical realism. I propose, what I have called, a pragmatic non-realistic inclusivism as an answer to the problem. This is a non-realistic theory that evades metaphysical realism and reductionism of religion, but nevertheless can prefere one religion before others. Not because one religion is concidered to have metaphysical and objective truth while others do not, but because one could prefere a specific religious language and consider that religion to be the most adequate response to human life

Först presenteras metafysisk funktionalism. En Ramseysats för smärta spelar en central roll som en implicit definition av ett mentalt tillstånd över sensorisk input och beteendemässig output. Därefter presenteras reliabilismen som en teori om kunskap. Några allmänna kunskapsteoretiska problem, samt några av reliabilismens problem presenteras. De mest relevanta problem är följande: fallet med en elak demon, klärvoajans samt Mr. Truetemp, och generalitetsproblemet. En formell och schematisk presentation ges för reliabilism som en teori för kunskap, eller möjligen tillskrivande av kunskap, och processreliabilism som en teori för epistemiskt rättfärdigande. Därefter exponeras strukturella likheter mellan funktionalism och processreliabilism. Det får anses plausibelt att det råder ett nära släktskap mellan dessa teorier då Ramseysatser för rättfärdigade trosföreställningar presenteras. Dessa analyseras sedan utifrån möjliga fall. Med ny teoretisk bakgrund prövas reliabilismens problem ånyo inom ett funktionalistisk ramverk. Nya sätt att bemöta problemen presenteras genom en analys av det Kinesiska Rummet. Det svårlösta generalitetsproblemet kan ses som ett frameproblem och hanteras med hjälp av enveloping. / Firstly, a presentation of metaphysical functionalism. A Ramsey sentence plays a central role as an implicit definition of a mental state over sensory input and behavouristic output. A presentation of reliabilism as a theory of knowledge. A summary of some general epistemological problems and some specific to reliabilism; the main ones are the evil demon, clairvoyance and Mr. Truetemp, and the generality problem. A formal and schematic presentation of reliabilism as a theory of knowlege, or possibly knowlege attribution, and process reliabilism as a theory of belief justification. Structural similarities between functionalism and process reliabilism are exposed. A close kinship between these two theories seems plausible because of the possibility to present Ramsey sentences for justified beliefs. These Ramsey sentences are then analysed over possible cases. This new theoretical background, warrents another look at problems for reliabilism. New ways to counter these problems are presented via an analysis of the Chinese Room. The elusive genrality problem is seen as a frame problem and treated using enveloping.