The Religious Perspective of John Hick - Article Example

The Religious Perspective of John Hick In presenting his argument, John Hick introduces the problem ofstudying world religions as being an issue of multiply divergent belief systems and suggests a more beneficial approach might be to look at the various world religions as a means of achieving salvation. “’Salvation’ is primarily a Christian term, though I shall use it here to include its functional analogues in the other major world traditions” (Hick, 1988: 2). While he concedes that often salvation is defined in specific terms that require adherence to a single tradition in order to be attained, he argues that the fundamental concept of salvation is generic, indicating a radical change from one imperfect state of being to another, more perfect state of being. In addition to all sharing the same concept of being in a less perfect state here on earth, Hick points out that each tradition also points to the concept that the journey to the more perfect state can be started from the current plane of existence and understanding. In making this inquiry, Hick illustrates how the process must, by necessity, be generally empirical in nature as the only means we have of judging spirituality or salvation is through observation of its manifestation in human relationships. “The word ‘spiritual’ which occurs above is notoriously vague; but I am using it to refer to a quality or, better, an orientation which we can discern in those individuals whom we call saints” (Hick, 1988: 3). Again, the use of the Christian term is explained to have a more generic, general meaning that vaguely refers to individuals manifesting a closer connectedness with God or, as Hick terms it, Reality. This is primarily manifested in a deep change in personal orientation from one centered in self to one centered in the real, either through removal from society or from greater involvement in it. The way in which this judgment regarding who is saintly and who is not is made is considered to be nearly universal, primarily expressed in the generic concept of having and expressing love or compassion for others. Applying this idea to the world’s populations and religions finds a similar valuation of the spiritual, but also a sadly similar level of commitment to them. Because the idea of salvation occurs in each of the world’s religious traditions and does appear to occur within them as a result of following their doctrines, Hick suggests that there must be an infinite ultimate reality, ‘God’ figure, that is understood differently by the various faiths as a means for the human mind to begin to comprehend the largeness of it. As a result of this difference in understanding, different forms of observance have been developed. To illustrate how these various interpretations can be both real and not real at the same time, Hick uses the analogy of a mountain and “a plurality of differently placed observers” (7). While there is only one mountain to look upon, observers at different points around it will describe the mountain in different ways. Some may see rocks and cliffs while others may see fields and grass while still others may see entire forests. All of them are correct and, at the same time, none of them are because they are unable to comprehend the entire mountain. Partially because of this understanding that our knowledge is limited, Hick dismisses the metaphysical differences of the various religious doctrines. “They are of intense interest, properly the subject of continuing research and discussion, but are not matters concerning which absolute dogmas are appropriate … We have seen that the transformation of human existence from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness seems to be taking place within each of the great traditions despite their very different answers to these debated questions. It follows that a correct opinion concerning them is not required for salvation. Likewise, in investigating historical disagreements among the great traditions, Hick says they rarely overlap and when they do, they generally do not disagree. “The overlaps are mainly within the thread of ancient Near Eastern history that is common to the Jewish, Christian and Muslim scriptures; and within this I can only locate two points of direct disagreement” (10). Like the metaphysical question, the historical question proves to be unimportant to the basic issues of salvation. Having made these points, Hick summarizes his concepts. “Our human religious experience, variously shaped as it is by our sets of religious concepts, is a cognitive response to the universal presence of the ultimate divine Reality that, in itself, exceeds human conceptuality” (10). As a result, this reality is expressed in a variety of concepts that are limited by comparison but which seem to share numerous commonalities of fundamental understandings. Because none of the traditions has proven itself to be more successful, or ‘correct’, then any of the others and all retain evidence of salvation occurrences, it is necessary to understand that salvation does not depend upon ideological differences and tolerance for differences must be adopted. In making this statement, though, Hick finds it necessary to address the uniquely Christian dogma that insists it is the only possible path to God through his son, Jesus Christ. While other religions suggest salvation is attained through their doctrines, only Christianity has traditionally excluded the possibility that other doctrines might have validity. However, Hick points out that this attitude is slowly changing, developing into a belief in the concept that all salvation occurs through Jesus whether a man knows it or not. In the end, Hick admits that each religion ultimately has a conception of itself as the superior path. Speaking with the inclusivist stance he has taken toward Christianity, Hick says, “But it is not for us to tell people of other traditions how to do their own business. Rather we should attend to our own” (13). Reading through his article, I really appreciate what Hick is trying to do. I find I must agree with him that there is no right religion, but if you live your life as a good altruistic person, you will reach the same salvation no matter what religion you are, or even if you believe in religion at all. He makes this point very well when he points out how the various disagreements to be held in religious traditions are not actually found in the fundamental principles, much like the variously placed plurality of observers might all agree that the mountain before them is tall and pointy and full of rocks and dirt and other earthly materials. The differences are instead focused upon the doctrines of the ‘church’ body, the forms of religious observation, the specific name and history of the deity or deities worshipped and the understanding of ancient history, which usually doesn’t overlap anyway. There are numerous spiritual leaders who would seem to agree with him as well. In The Autobiography of a Yogi, the author Yogananda borrows Einstein’s concept that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed as a means of illustrating how we ourselves are energy. As a result, we are all constituted of the same basic elemental material and thus must agree at some fundamental level regarding our origins and our ultimate destinations. This connection with the ultimate energy source is what is generally considered to be salvation, which is usually not thought to progress in this material form, but some people possess the knowledge or ability to gain a sense of salvation while still in this material form through the process of meditation and self-realization. Rather than presenting his ideas as an alternative to Christianity or any of the other world traditions, Yogananda suggests the ways of Indian Yoga and meditation were possibly the tools used by Jesus Christ to attain his own enlightenment. If we all have a similar sense of what is meant by salvation as being that which brings us closer to the energy source, or the ultimate reality, and the differences in the world’s religions turn out to be little more than the differences in coat colors or styles, then it follows that one needs follow no particular religion or any religion at all in order to achieve salvation. In the end, each of the traditions has demonstrated living salvation through practicing their particular form of religious dogma and none has emerged as more successful than another. This is despite the fact that all identify living salvation as characterized by that individual who is capable of stepping outside of himself (or herself) and be capable of feeling compassion and consideration for their fellow human beings. He who can do this even in times of extreme personal stress is closer to ‘god’ than he who cannot do it at all. Again, examples of this idea abound throughout the great religious books. The Good Samaritan in the Bible, for instance, knew nothing of the Hebrew religion or God, but is placed before all Christians as an example of how to live and good and righteous life. Within the song lyrics of “John Walker’s Blues” by Steve Earle is another indication that the world’s religions, rather than being set against each other as one being superior to another, actually share a similar message couched in different viewpoints, again supporting the concepts brought forward by Hick. The speaker in this song/story says “I started lookin’ round / For a light out of the dim, / And the first thing I heard / That made sense was the word / Of Mohammed, peace be upon him” (Earle). Taken in context with what Hick has been talking about, the picture of religion that emerges seems to me to be something along the idea of a food line. Everyone needs to eat in order to survive just as everyone must have some concept of salvation to be saved. However, not everyone can stomach oysters and some just must have something sweet while others can’t stand anything but sour. Those who have achieved salvation are those who have managed to be born into a family that honors traditions inimical to their own unique ways of perceiving the world or who has had the courage to seek for a path of enlightenment that works for them as the speaker in Steve Earle’s song has done or as the Good Samaritan of the Bible has done without realizing it. There are some objections that can be brought forward regarding Hick’s argument. The first of these is in the idea of full tolerance. Hick said individuals and religions must learn to tolerate all those who are following their religion and acting in accordance with the salvation path espoused by that tradition. This is because they are on their own path to enlightenment whether it is perceptible by others or not. However, there are numerous religions in which murder and violence are seen to be predominant forces within the group, particularly as they relate to outsiders. It is difficult to conceive of the idea that a person who kills thousands indiscriminately as a part of their religion should receive the same level of salvation as another individual who has never harmed anything larger than the occasional fly. Even once this is carefully thought out, most people in the Western traditions would be unable to accept the idea as would many in the East. However, this is exactly the position taken by the Muslim extremists who kill people because that is what they believe God wants them to do. The Muslims are not unique, though. There are some Hindu extremists in India that believe they are supposed to carry out all of the attributes of all of their gods, and one of these gods is the god of destruction. It is almost impossible for many adherents of other religions to accept the idea that individuals who kill indiscriminately like this are acting out the will of their god without also associating this god with the Christian concept of the devil, yet Hick would have us believe this is a path to salvation. While Islam remains one of the world’s largest organized religions, Hick might argue this opposition by pointing to the concept of extremism. It is extremist Muslims who participate in death and murder as a means of observing their religions and are therefore presumably deviated from the Truth in a manipulative, human-oriented game of control. By the same token, it is extremist Indians who feel it necessary to act out the assigned roles of their various gods, including the god of destruction, in ways that adversely affect other people’s lives. While they are following the actions of their gods, the selection process for victims, etc. remains questionable as to whether it actually leads to salvation or not. Ninian Smart supports Hicks’ opposition with another argument, indicating other, less violent, examples of where the Real does not necessarily present the same characteristics across the world’s religions that Hick asserts. While Hick writes that the world’s religions seem to agree on the concept that the path to salvation depends upon adherence to a concept of motion from a position of self-centeredness to one of Reality-centeredness characterized by an increased ability to show compassion and to empathize, his suggestion in making this assertion seems to be a movement toward the concept of doing no harm upon fellow sojourners toward the truth. Thus, it is suggested that the ultimate Reality is a Reality force for good and justice. However, Smart argues that there are no true positive attributes given to the Real. It is illustrated in Smart’s argument how the Buddhists believe the ultimate Reality is not a force of good but is instead a large Emptiness which would not differentiate between the killer and the pacifist any more than a vacuum would discriminate between a $100 bill and a piece of torn paper wrapping. Since we cannot conceive of the Real, Smart says, how can we be sure there is one. In response to this argument, Hick might point again to the fundamental concepts underlying the world’s major traditions. It is difficult to conceive that so many traditions, each growing up in different historical contexts, as evidenced by the lack of geographic overlapping of many of them, would come to the same basic conclusions regarding the ‘right’ way to live and to achieve a higher plane. The idea that all of these traditions have a concept of salvation and higher purpose suggest that there is something beyond, something greater and something far more vast than anything the human mind can comprehend. Rather than interpreting the Buddhist concept of the Great Emptiness as a refutation of his argument, Hick would probably point to the idea that when all minds, souls, entities or whatever terminology seems most appropriate to the individual believer, are reintegrated into the one Reality, it may be interpreted as Emptiness because it is no longer experiencing in any facet but just simply Is. Works Cited Hick, John. “Religious Pluralism and Salvation.” Faith and Philosophy. Vol. 5, (October, 1988): 365-377. Read More