Imagine that three people are all touching a portion of an elephant. The first is touching the elephant ‘s leg and says that the elephant is like the truck of a tree. The 2nd is touching the elephant ‘s bole and disagrees with the first. They think that the bole is more like a big serpent. The 3rd individual thinks that the elephant is more like a great wall because they are toughing the side.
Each individual is convinced that they are right and the others are incorrect because of what they know and have experienced. What they do n’t recognize is that they are all technically right because they are each depicting a different facet of the elephant. The same analogy can be applied to the major faiths of the universe.
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!
order now
In 1973, John Hick discussed the thought for a paradigm displacement in believing about different faiths in his bookA God and the Universe of Faiths. Hick ‘s thought is that the different faiths could be viewed as “ different human responses to one Godhead realityaˆ¦ . ” InA a ulterior book, Hick presented a theory that attempted to explicate all the faiths. Hick refers to this theory as a “ pluralistic hypothesis ” and defines it as that all faiths can be described as “ culturally learned responses to the same ultimate world. ”
This theory faces one major trouble though, the beliing claims that each different faiths makes. How can it be possible that all major faiths are responses of the same ultimate world if they contradict one another? For a pluralistic position to be plausible, the hypothesis has to sufficiently explicate how faiths can do incompatible claims while at the same clip be responses of the same ultimate world.
To get the better of this trouble, Hick attempts to explicate four critical factors: ( 1 ) people are inherently spiritual ; ( 2 ) the significant diverseness of the content of spiritual beliefs ; ( 3 ) that spiritual beliefs are non an semblance ; and ( 4 ) that fundamentally every faith positively changes its followings ‘ lives.
Hick does n’t pass much clip on the first two factors because they are axiomatic to most. To reason the 3rd factor Hick examines naturalism and tyranny. NaturalismA is the belief that onlyA natural lawsA and forces operate in the universe and that nil exists beyond the natural universe. Hick believes that the existence can be understood when looking at it from this position. What he does non happen plausible with the claim is that all spiritual beliefs are delusional.
Absolutism, in contrast to naturalism, by and large accepts a realist position of spiritual phenomena. Absolutism is besides setup so that merely one system of spiritual beliefs is precisely true and all other faiths which disagree with it are false. Hick rejects this attitude because although tyranny may look plausible when looking at merely one faith, application to the existent universe leaves it extremely implausible. Besides if tyranny were true, empirical grounds would be to corroborate it.
It is obvious that different faiths hold conflicting beliefs on several facets. It seems obvious plenty besides that about every faith has positive moral alteration on its trusters. So it implausible to believe that merely one faith is true and it is the people who believe this that Hick ‘s hypothesis has the most appeal to because it provides the model for the claim that any faith which positively affects its trusters ‘ lives is valid. However, for the hypothesis to be plausible it must sufficiently cover the conflicting truth-claims job.
A trouble Hick ‘s pluralistic hypothesis faces is the conflicting belief systems of assorted faiths. In Hick ‘s book An Interpretation of Religion, Hick claims that all faiths genuinely see what he defines as “ the Real. ” Yet each faith has beliefs that are different and frequently contradict other faiths. The inquiry so is if different belief systems and conflicting truth-claims foliages Hick ‘s pluralistic theory implausible.
Hick does non believe that conflicting truth-claims disproves his theory but they do show a trouble. Hick devotes an full chapter in An Interpretation of ReligionA to discoursing them, covering three separate points on which faiths tend to differ on. First are affairs of historical fact, so affairs of trans-historical fact and differing constructs of the Real.
Hick believes that these dissensions can be resolved by using the historical method but it proves to be hard. One ground is because many historical claims of faiths have no other historical support outside the faith that makes them. Hick grounds that historical differences merely must be accepted, because many are non over cardinal articles of religion. Hick ‘s basic statement is that most historical dissensions can non be resolved and since the dissensions are non related to the kernel of any faith, deciding them is non critical to the statement and therefore the dissensions do non make a job for his hypothesis.
Subsequently in is his book, Hick considers conflicting trans-historical truth-claims. He defines them as holding “ to make with inquiries to which there is, in rule, a true reply but which can non be established by historical or other empirical grounds. ” Two illustrations he gives are the nature of the existence and the destiny at decease of human existences.
The nature of the existence has been a chief difference between theistic and non-theistic faiths. In using Hick ‘s definition, this is a difference to which there is, in rule, merely one valid reply. Nevertheless, the inquiry can non presently be answered, even by modern scientific discipline because current scientific cosmologies can be companionable with either position.
The destiny at decease of human existences is another illustration of conflicting trans-historical truth claims. This struggle chiefly arises between eastern and western faiths. Eastern faiths emphasize multiple reincarnations or metempsychosiss after decease. Western theistic faiths claim though that a individual lives a individual life that is followed by judgement at decease to find their ageless destiny.
These points are of import to Hick ‘s pluralistic hypothesis. In Hick ‘s scrutiny of assorted faiths, he does non straight address different faiths different beliefs of what happens at decease because despite the differing beliefs, Hick grounds that every religion helps its people develop morally which he believes is an indispensable consequence of the switch from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. On this footing, he argues that these differences do non halter salvation/liberation and hence do non show any jobs for his hypothesis.
In his book, Hick besides examines conflicting beliefs about the ultimate Reality. Hick ‘s hypothesis asserts that all faiths are right readings of the “ Real. ” However, one obvious job of this is the drastically different impression of the “ Real ” that each faith holds. As Hick antecedently claims, each faith ‘s divinity is a correct, yet different face of the “ Real ” and since no constructs, classs, or differentiations can be applied to the “ Real ” , this prevents any possible contradiction between faiths.
So the differences between the basic constructs and patterns of different faiths, the different ( and frequently ) conflicting historical and trans-historical beliefs and the varied belief systems on which all of them are formed, are harmonious with Hick ‘s pluralistic hypothesis. Compatible in that the multiple universe faiths constitute different constructs and perceptual experiences of, and responses to, the “ Real ” from within the different cultural ways of being human.
However, Hick ‘s hypothesis does non offer a satisfactory account of the job of the conflicting truth-claims of the different faiths. In order for Hick ‘s hypothesis to be likely it has to be free from internal contradictions and accurately explain spiritual phenomena. It can non sufficiently run into either of these conditions.
This paper began with the scenario of three people each touching a different portion of an elephant. This metaphor is fundamentally a simplified version of Hick ‘s hypothesis. Each faith is like a adult male who is unable to see the elephant as the whole it truly is.
But how do we cognize that the people are all depicting the same elephant? Possibly the first was really keeping the truck of a tree and the second was really keeping a fire hosiery and the 3rd was touching the side of a edifice. This scenario has a critical defect, it assumes the same thing it allegedly proves, that all three were touching an elephant.
Furthermore, the scenario described does non truly depict the universe ‘s faiths. None of the descriptions were conflicting, merely different. What if each of the statements made about the “ elephant ” contradicted the statements of the others? Would it still be possible to presume that everyone is depicting the same elephant? How much contradiction is required before it becomes clear that it ‘s non the same elephant everyone is depicting? This same inquiry can be applied to Hick ‘s hypothesis. With the conflicting truth-claims of assorted faiths, is it truly sensible to accept Hick ‘s claim that all faiths are merely different readings of the same world?
Hick addresses the credibleness of the possibility that every faith worships the same God and merely refers to him by different names in Disputed Questions, A entitled “ Jews, Christians, Muslims: Do We All Worship the Same God? ” He concludes that the problem of this claim is that the assorted descriptions have to be compatible. The same unfavorable judgment Hick applied against that place can be applied to Hick ‘s ain hypothesis. The differences between faiths are far excessively great for his hypothesis to be plausible.
