hick's pluralism

criticism of anonymous christianity

was a critic of anonymous Christianity. He accused Rahner of paternalism, of not properly valuing the belief of others. Similar to Hans Kung, Hick wanted to refocus thinking onto a global theology, a way of resolving disputes between religions in a world that is increasingly multicultural and multi faith

pluralism

• Hick argued that no particular set of religious beliefs can claim priority over another

• Hick, influenced by Kant, focused on the experience of religion, and denied that any religion is able to prove its objective claims about the nature of God. what a person believes to be a religious experience is open to a variety of interpretations.

• This can be the result of belonging to different cultures, because these cultures provide different lenses through which God is perceived.

• These lenses correspond in part to the Kantian idea that the mind shapes our experiences, and that what we believe we know is in fact the ‘phenomenal’ rather than the ‘noumenal’

the real

• With respect to Christianity, Hick was a proponent of demythologising beliefs about Christ.

• Traditional doctrines, such as the incarnation and the resurrection, are referred to as myths, as are the various theories of salvation, each having the goal of lifting moral behaviour from the self centred to behaviour that seeks the common good.

• Hick’s ideas complement the understanding of religion as something which seeks a transformative, unifying ‘ultimate reality’

• We have no direct knowledge of “The Real”

• Religions are human responses to “The Real” and are coloured by the historical and social contexts in which the religions evolve

• The same spiritual reality lies at the heart of every religion, yet "their differing experiences of that reality, interacting over the centuries with the different thought-forms of different cultures, have led to increasing differentiation and contrasting elaboration"

parable of an elephant

Hick pointed to the ancient Islamic parable of blind men each touching a different part of an elephant. After describing what they felt, they concluded an elephant was something different, just like religions say different things about God. However this was because they were too blind to see how they were really all touching the same thing in different ways. Hick claimed the same was true for religion as different religions are different human interpretations of the one true divine reality. Hick thought the differences between religions were merely cultural.

WEAKNESS: hume

• argues that all religions cannot be true since they make contradictory truth claims.

• Either Jesus was the son of God or he wasn’t. If he was, Christianity is true.

• If he wasn’t, then Judaism or Islam could be true.

• Hindu and ancient Greek/Roman religions believe in multiple Gods, whereas the Abrahamic religions believe in just one.

• Hume thought these multiple claims cancel each other out and make it more likely that none of the religions are true, since they cannot all be right, but can all be wrong.

COUNTER to hume

• He argues that those particular theological details such as the divinity of Jesus or number of Gods believed in are part of the ‘conceptual lens’ that different cultures project onto reality.

• Clearly Christianity can’t be right that Jesus is the son of God at the same time as Judaism being right that he wasn’t.

• Hick claims they can both be right in that they are both pointing to the same divine reality which exists and is true however.

• Hick essentially discounts many of the truth claims of religions as cultural projections which are not true.

• What is true in all religions is the central element he identified in Birmingham of people opening their minds to a higher, personal and good, divine reality that demands righteousness and love.

• Hick says that different religious beliefs “conflict in the sense that they are different … however this is not to say that they may not constitute different ways in which the same ultimate Reality has impinged upon human life”

STRENGTH: promotes interfaith tolerance + cooperation

One of Hick’s most applauded contributions is his promotion of religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue. In an increasingly pluralistic and globalised world, Hick’s model provides a theological basis for respecting different faiths as authentic paths to salvation or transformation.

• Hick argues that just as light is refracted differently through various lenses, the Real (ultimate divine reality) is interpreted through diverse religious and cultural lenses (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Hinduism).

• He critiques exclusivist and inclusivist models (e.g., Barth or Rahner), claiming they are inherently imperialistic by reducing other religions to inferior or partial versions of Christianity.

• Hick’s pluralism has been instrumental in shaping interreligious theology, particularly after the atrocities of the Holocaust and the rise of multi-faith societies.

COUNTER to interfaith dialogue

• critics have pointed out that this ethical emphasis may come at the cost of theological depth and metaphysical integrity.

• Specifically, they argue that Hick’s model tends to reduce the truth of religion to its ethical outcomes—that is, how well a religion promotes love, compassion, and human flourishing—rather than whether its doctrines correspond to objective spiritual or metaphysical realities.

• Stephen Prothero, in God Is Not One (2010), criticises Hick’s model for oversimplifying religious aims by assuming that all faiths are just different paths up the same mountain. He insists that religions aim at different goals—salvation, liberation, union with God, moral purity, or social justice—and that Hick’s ethics-first model imposes a single standard across divergent traditions.

STRENGTH: philosophical consistency and epistemic humility

Hick’s pluralism is grounded in Kantian epistemology—the idea that we cannot know the “Real an sich” (Reality as it is in itself), only the “Real as it appears” in different cultural and religious forms. This gives his model strong philosophical coherence.

• Just as Kant distinguished between the noumenal and the phenomenal, Hick distinguishes the “Real” from its various manifestations in history—e.g., Yahweh, Allah, Nirvana.

• Hick thus argues that doctrinal contradictions among religions are not problematic, as they are culturally conditioned perceptions of the same ineffable ultimate.

• Hick’s pluralism avoids theological arrogance. Rather than asserting the superiority of one tradition (e.g., Christianity), Hick acknowledges the limits of human understanding, encouraging open dialogue.