John Hick
John Hick (1922-2012) was a philosopher of religion who was born in England but moved to America. As a student, he was an evangelical Christian and was a conscientious objector during World War II. Studying the philosophy of Kant made him question his fundamentalist views. He became a liberal Christian and championed religious pluralism - the idea that there is truth in all religions. His views were criticised by the Pope in 2000. His most popular book is Evil & the God of Love (1966).
In this course John Hick is a key scholar for the Influence of Religious Experience on Arguments for the Existence of God
|
The Influence of Religious Experience
THE PLURALISTIC HYPOTHESIS
Hick follows Kant's thinking. He argues that the real nature of the divine TRANSCENDS (goes beyond) human ideas, but that people make sense of it in ways that are meaningful to them. Religious experiences are, according to Hick:
different human responses to one divine Reality - John Hick
Therefore, a devout Christian and a Buddhist might both experience the same divine reality, but one will perceive (subjectively) God the Heavenly Father but the other as Nirvana. Hick calls this view the Pluralistic Hypothesis and refers to the divine reality as "the Real".
Hick's Pluralistic Hypothesis claims that:
Hick's Pluralistic Hypothesis claims that:
- There is one divine reality, the Real, which is the ultimate source of all religious experience
- No religious tradition has direct perception of the Real
- Each religious tradition represents the Real as they experience it
- The Real transcends all descriptions
Hick uses an analogy from science to explain this. He suggests that theism (which views the Real as a divine person) and monism (which views the Real as universal truths) might be the same thing in the end, just like:
the two ways of conceiving and registering light, namely as waves and as particles - John Hick
If this analogy isn't helpful, Hick's ideas are shown in this famous parable:
Several blind men were investigating an elephant. The first blind man held the elephant's leg. He said, "I think an elephant is like the truck of a great tree." The second blind man disagreed. While holding the elephant's trunk he said, "I believe an elephant is like a large snake," The third blind man believed they were both wrong. "An elephant is like a great wall," he exclaimed. He was touching the elephant's side. Each blind man was convinced he was right and others were wrong without ever realizing they were all touching the same elephant. Some believe the blind men in this parable represent the major religions of the world, each in contact with the same "elephant" without knowing it. (adapted from God & the Universe of Faiths, 1973) |
ESCHATOLOGICAL VERIFICATION
Another criticism of religious experiences is that they cannot be verified - there is no evidence that can support them. This is particularly true of mystical experiences which can't be observed by anyone else and may be entirely subjective.
Philosophers like A.J. Ayer argue that the lack of verification does more than just weaken religious experiences as an argument - it makes religious experiences MEANINGLESS.
Hick responds to this with another parable of his own: the Parable of the Celestial City.
Two men are traveling together along a road. One of them believes that it leads to the Celestial City, the other that it leads nowhere. But since this is the only road there is, both must travel it. Neither has been this way before, therefore neither is able to say what they will find around each corner. During their journey they meet with moments of refreshment and delight, and with moments of hardship and danger. All the time one of them thinks of his journey as a pilgrimage to the Celestial City … The other, however, believes none of this, and sees their journey as an unavoidable and aimless ramble … Yet, when they turn the last corner, it will be apparent that one of them has been right all the time and the other wrong (adapted from Faith & Knowledge, 1966)
Philosophers like A.J. Ayer argue that the lack of verification does more than just weaken religious experiences as an argument - it makes religious experiences MEANINGLESS.
Hick responds to this with another parable of his own: the Parable of the Celestial City.
Two men are traveling together along a road. One of them believes that it leads to the Celestial City, the other that it leads nowhere. But since this is the only road there is, both must travel it. Neither has been this way before, therefore neither is able to say what they will find around each corner. During their journey they meet with moments of refreshment and delight, and with moments of hardship and danger. All the time one of them thinks of his journey as a pilgrimage to the Celestial City … The other, however, believes none of this, and sees their journey as an unavoidable and aimless ramble … Yet, when they turn the last corner, it will be apparent that one of them has been right all the time and the other wrong (adapted from Faith & Knowledge, 1966)
This parable reflects many of Hick's ideas: the universe is religiously ambiguous so both the believer and the non-believer have good reasons to think as they do; God is epistemically distant so there is no clear indication whether the "moments of refreshment and delight" (religious experiences) are accidental or not, or why there is "hardship and danger" (evil and suffering).
Reasoning about Design & Cosmology
Hick makes a contribution to the importance of interpreting experience when evaluating the Design Argument and the Cosmological Argument.
Hick famously argued that the universe is "religiously ambiguous" (Faith & Knowledge, 1957).
"Ambiguous" means "having more than one meaning" or "open to more than one interpretation". If an experience is ambiguous, then there's more than one way to interpret what it means and you may never be able to "get to the bottom of it".
Hick famously argued that the universe is "religiously ambiguous" (Faith & Knowledge, 1957).
"Ambiguous" means "having more than one meaning" or "open to more than one interpretation". If an experience is ambiguous, then there's more than one way to interpret what it means and you may never be able to "get to the bottom of it".
the universe is religiously ambiguous. It evokes and sustains non-religious as well as religious responses - John Hick
The idea that the universe is "religiously ambiguous" means that both believers and non-believers may be drawing valid conclusions from the Design & Cosmological Argumenst because it all boils down to how you interpret your experiences: some people experience design or feel the need to look for a cause, others don't. In some people, the universe "evokes" a religious response - they are struck by the appearance of design and order or the need for a First Cause. It may "sustain" a religious response, reassuring them of God's existence even when they are faced with evil and suffering. But non-believers perceive the same events completely differently.
This sort of thinking goes back to the philosopher Immanuel Kant who proposed a difference between the Noumenon and Phenomenon:
God (if he exists) is the noumenal reality. Hick puts it like this:
This sort of thinking goes back to the philosopher Immanuel Kant who proposed a difference between the Noumenon and Phenomenon:
- Noumenal reality (or the Noumenon) is reality as-it-really-is. Kant thinks that no one ever gets to experience this directly.
- Phenomenal reality is reality as it comes to us through our senses and as we construct it in our minds. Each individual person's phenomenal reality is probably slightly different from everyone else's.
God (if he exists) is the noumenal reality. Hick puts it like this:
the same thing appears in either slightly or considerably different ways to different people owing both to their varying spatial locations in relation to it and to differences in their sensory and mental equipment and interpretive habits - John Hick
Detecting design or cause-and-effect in nature might be due to your "sensory and mental equipment" (your brain, how much attention you pay, how you understand it) and your "interpretive habits" (such as whether you've been brought up to view things as the work of God).
Hick draws liberal conclusions from this: neither religious believers nor atheists can claim to have 100% certainty and (crucially) no one religion can claim with certainty to be the true religion. We need to be tolerant. Hick doesn't even call the Noumenon "God" - he prefers terms like "the Absolute" or "the Ultimate" or simply "the Real".
Hick draws liberal conclusions from this: neither religious believers nor atheists can claim to have 100% certainty and (crucially) no one religion can claim with certainty to be the true religion. We need to be tolerant. Hick doesn't even call the Noumenon "God" - he prefers terms like "the Absolute" or "the Ultimate" or simply "the Real".
Solutions to the Problem of Evil
THE "VALE OF SOUL-MAKING" THEODICY
John Hick takes Keats' soul-making phrase and uses it to explain how evil and suffering help people develop into more moral, holy and spiritual people. The world is a place (a 'vale') where souls are strengthened and improved, so that they can be ready for heaven.
The idea behind this theodicy is that God deliberately creates a world with some evil and the potential for suffering in it. God does this because he wants his freewilled creatures to grow and change. In particular, he wants them to develop morally. Evil and suffering might bring this about because of:
Some of this "soul-making" involves bringing out a person's potential - such as the sight of suffering moving someone to try to help. Other sorts of suffering correct people's selfishness; for example, losing all you own in a fire might teach you to be less materialistic.
John Hick develops the ideas of Irenaeus of Lyons. He argues that instead of creating humans as morally perfect beings from the outset, human beings have been created as imperfect and flawed
The idea behind this theodicy is that God deliberately creates a world with some evil and the potential for suffering in it. God does this because he wants his freewilled creatures to grow and change. In particular, he wants them to develop morally. Evil and suffering might bring this about because of:
- Admiration: when there is evil, we have reason to admire good people and appreciate goodness
- Altruism: when other people need help, this is the opportunity for us to put their needs ahead of our own
- Compassion: the sight of other people suffering moves us to feel compassion for them and comfort them
- Courage: when there is danger or pain, our values are put to the test
- Humility: suffering reminds us that we need help from others and makes us humble
- Spirituality: setbacks and troubles remind us not to look for physical happiness or physical possessions
Some of this "soul-making" involves bringing out a person's potential - such as the sight of suffering moving someone to try to help. Other sorts of suffering correct people's selfishness; for example, losing all you own in a fire might teach you to be less materialistic.
John Hick develops the ideas of Irenaeus of Lyons. He argues that instead of creating humans as morally perfect beings from the outset, human beings have been created as imperfect and flawed
in order to attain through freedom the most valuable quality of goodness - John Hick
Hick admits that this makes God partly responsible for the evil in the world. However he argues that God has good reason for allowing evil to stay and it doesn't count against his goodness. God has to allow humans to develop themselves because when a person develops qualities overcoming temptations and challenges, these are
intrinsically more valuable than virtues created within him ready made without effort on his own part - John Hick
John Hick argues that God is right to permit evil to strike randomly and sometimes disproportionately. The alternative would be a world where everyone got "poetic justice" - only the evil they deserved and needed and no more. In this sort of world, suffering would be like a lesson from God telling you exactly how you were supposed to behave. This would take away our freewill and reduce our moral behaviour to mere obedience and cautiousness.
EPISTEMIC DISTANCE
Linked to the Soul-Making Theodicy is the idea of the "hiddenness" of God, which John Hick calls epistemic distance. Hick argues that God could have created humans so that they were automatically aware of his divine power, but if God had done this then humans would have no freedom. God has set this "epistemic distance" (or 'knowledge gap') so that humans are not constantly aware of God. Feeling themselves to be alone in the universe, humans have to make choices for themselves. Humans have to seek God through faith but have the freedom of choice as to whether they worship or turn away from God.
Humanity is created at an epistemic distance from God in order to come freely to know and love their Maker - John Hick
The idea of a "hidden" or epistemically distant God is important for the Soul-Making Theodicy. Humans have to learn to love God before they know that he is God - and they learn to love God by learning to love one another.
ESCHATOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION
The Soul-Making Theodicy depends on the afterlife. This is partly because only a supremely good future in Heaven can justify the suffering some people endure on earth. In addition, John Hick recognises that the journey towards moral perfection is rarely "completed in the life of the individual" (except perhaps for a few people who are recognised as saints). If life ends at death, God's purpose of bringing about perfect creatures would fail. But an omnipotent being cannot fail to bring about its purposes, so there must be an afterlife.
God will eventually succeed in His purpose of winning all men to Himself in faith and love - John Hick
Hick also admits that many apparently 'evil' people really "victims of the system". They include people who are brought up badly and who cannot be held totally responsible for their actions. God would not be just if these people were sent to hell.
Hick also follows Irenaeus in arguing for UNIVERSALISM - the idea that everyone eventually goes to Heaven. This may take many lifetimes, so Hick is committed to some form of reincarnation (with souls returning to the world to finish the job of soul-making) or transmigration of souls (with souls moving on to other worlds to continue the process of soul-making).
Hick also follows Irenaeus in arguing for UNIVERSALISM - the idea that everyone eventually goes to Heaven. This may take many lifetimes, so Hick is committed to some form of reincarnation (with souls returning to the world to finish the job of soul-making) or transmigration of souls (with souls moving on to other worlds to continue the process of soul-making).