Reading: Hick, “Religious Pluralism”, pp. 597-604
Reading Guide
Note: This is not a reading to try to rush through. You’ll get more out of it by reading it a bit more slowly.
The editors provide an overview of Hick’s position. Hick rejects both exclusivism and inclusivism.
Hick begins by noting that how we understand religious life affects the kinds of questions we ask about religion. From a traditional way of thinking about religion, the obvious question is “which is the true religion?” (p. 598). For Hick, however, this is not the right question, for it implies that one religion has special epistemic status; that is, one religion has dibs on the truth. On p. 599, he criticizes inclusivism, suggesting that “the old dogma (e.g., in Rahner’s case, Christianity) … has … been so emptied of content as no longer to be worth affirming”. Moreover, Hick thinks it is obvious that inclusivism is “logically” unstable (599). Rather, he thinks we should embrace pluralism. His initial definition of pluralism does not sufficiently distinguish pluralism from inclusivism, but the key difference is that for a pluralist there is no privileged access to the divine. He attributes the Christian’s unwillingness to substitute pluralism for inclusivism to “the traditional doctrine of the Incarnation, together with its protective envelope, the doctrine of the Trinity” (599). On p. 600, he outlines what he takes to be “an acceptable Christian route to religious pluralism”. Here, he contrasts “all-or-nothing Christologies” (or substance Christologies) with “degree Christologies”. He notes that these “degree Christologies” have the “unintended consequence” of removing a barrier to Christians accepting pluralism. From pp. 601-604, Hick makes it clearer what pluralism commits one to and presents considerations that he thinks support pluralism. He admits that we have no “cosmic vision” that can establish that there is one Reality that all religions are tapping into. So, the pluralist cannot KNOW that all religions are accessing ultimate reality or that there even is an ultimate reality. He also admits that “religious experience is capable of a purely naturalistic analysis”. However, if one “treat(s) one’s own form of religious experience … as an experience of transcendent divine Reality … one then has to take account of the fact that there are other great streams of religious experience” (601). Pluralism, rather than exclusivism or inclusivism, provides the best account of this diversity. On p. 602, Hick distinguishes between the Real an sich and “the Real as humanly experienced and thought”. He gives multiple examples of religions that make this distinction. He then distinguishes between religions that are personal (that appeal to a Deity or God) and religions that are non-personal (appeal to the Absolute). In large part, we can account for religious diversity by the fact that we cannot experience the Real as it is in itself, but must encounter it through the lens of our “conceptual framework”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hick's writing on pluralism seems very in-depth and goes along with the other readings on the subject. I see what Hick is writing about as kind of a relative theism approach, which I like.
I think Hick's way of looking at religion with a pluralist model is much easier to beleive that a specific unique path. I also like how he talks about the non-theistic religions. I have always though believing in nothing is a belief in some absolute, therefore it is somewhat involved in the pluralist model Hick portrays.
Initially, I was somewhat perplexed by Hick's approach to the question of ultimate truth. I think the question of an ultimate truth is of great significance, but Hick seems to push that aside and go with Cantwell Smith's ideas. I just find the fact that nearly all religions claim to be true yet in reality there can be at most only one that is actually true to be quite worthy of discussion. Perhaps in another paper he goes into that...
Moving on, I found his criticism of inclusivism quite in line with what I was thinking when I understood Rahner. Rahner doesn't really do a good job of arguing for the Christian faith when one might reach salvation through other 'lawful' religions. In that case, Christianity loses something which makes it special.
He makes a rather far fetched case for the pluralist christian though in my opinion. Really Hick? the "supreme instance of the paradox of grace?" He might convince a few less devout Christians with this idea but I find it rather unlikely he would get very many devout Christians. From a secular standpoint though I find his discussion of the transcendent Real very much in line with something Kant might approve of. That we have to view our world through our own lenses and that inherently limits us but religions offer a multitude of alternative options for experiencing the Real.
Hick suggests a "logical instability" within the theory of inclusivism. He points out that Christians who support their faith inclusively, nonetheless, acknowledge salvation as taking place both inside and outside the Christian religion. He then basically says that it would be useless to gather all people into Christianity, as inclusivism suggests, because it is not necessary for salvation. Firt, I wouldn't go so far as to label this a logical instability. But that's neither here nor there. Second, all Christian religions do not acknowledge salvation outside of their own religions. Growing up in the Mormon faith, I can assert this with confidence. Mormons believe that other religions have access to some of the truths of the Gospel of Christ, but not the entirity of them. They believe that only after death will people without the fullness of the gospel be able to fully accept Christ and thus achieve salvation. For this reason, I cannot aggre with Hick's rejection of inclusivism.
But you're only speaking of Mormonism. In other faiths, you don't get that opportunity after death... and if God wants salvation for all, he better provide it. I can definitely see the instability in the logic with the inclusivist thinking when applied to Christianity. It makes complete sense to me. I feel the same way he does, that inclusivism in Christianity is kind of a cop-out. No, the Christian faiths don't accept inclusivist ideas in their teaching of doctrine, but that doesn't stop some Christians from believing that God does not provide salvation to those who are deserving. I feel like you have to be one or the other if you're Christian- exclusivist or pluralist.
I found the distinction between the Real an sich and the Real as humanly experienced as intuitive but interesting, since I'd never really thought about it before. Hick's exposition on the application of religious and divine thought on our lives as both for physical and emotional/mental/moral survival as very insightful and mostly true. As an atheist, I'm more inclined to side myself with pluralist thinking, since it doesn't make sense to me that we can ever konw the "true religion" if there is one (I'm also inclined to believe there isn't one) and that you can gain insights about the world around us and human behavior through the world religions as a whole, not just through one single religion. For atheists, studying all the religions and picking out the important parts is more useful than just looking at Christianity or Hinduism singularly to find these truths.
The view of pluralism described in Hick's article depends on the existence of an Ultimate Reality (or the Real) that is experienced differently by religious traditions dependent on cultural and societal circumstance. Although Hicks demonstrates his vast knowledge of different religious traditions throughout his work, I remain unconvinced of the primary basis for his argument. He seems to describe Ultimate Reality as both divine entity and philosophical thought, but the "truth" espoused by each different religion seems far too diverse to be united under a single flag. Take three examples of variance for example:
1) Christianity - Faith in Christ and reunification with God as the ultimate truth.
2) Buddhism - Attainment of the Buddha nature.
3) Norse Mythology - Excellent performance as a warrior in order to earn a place at the table of the eternal mead hall.
Each of these versions of Ultimate Reality seem drastically unrelated and incompatible. Pluralism thus seems ultimately insufficient to account for all religious traditions. The thought seems overly optimistic, but is still a refreshing perspective on religious diversity.
I enjoyed Hicks article. I thought he is very thorough. I like how he ties in all religions into the Ultimate reality. "TO give oneself freely and totally to this One is our final salvation/liberation/enlightenment/ fulfillment."
While I don't necessarily agree with what Hick has to say about the Christian religion, I like his breakdown of pluralism. I believe there are some christian sects that believe in inclusivism; however, the picture that Hick paints seems a bit extreme. The idea that Hick presents relating to pluralism is an aspect I really like about the article.
Post a Comment