Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2009 A Critical Evaluation of John Hick's Religious Pluralism in Light of His Eschatological Model Haejong Je Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.edu/dissertations Part of the Philosophy Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Je, Haejong, "A Critical Evaluation of John Hick's Religious Pluralism in Light of His Eschatological Model" (2009).edu/dissertations/70 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact repository@andrews. ABSTRACT A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF JOHN HICK’S RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN LIGHT OF HIS ESCHATOLOGICAL MODEL by Haejong Je Adviser: John T.
Baldwin ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF JOHN HICK’S RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN LIGHT OF HIS ESCHATOLOGICAL MODEL Name of researcher: Haejong Je Name and degree of faculty adviser: John T. Date approved: April 2009 Introduction to the Problem The philosophy of John Hick, who is famous for his religious pluralism, has received vigorous study in terms of its epistemology, authority, the concept of God, and Christology. However, less attention has been given to his pareschatology. As explained below, initial investigation shows that there is a need for in-depth study of Hick’s religious philosophy in this area.
The Problem Based upon preliminary research, Hick’s religious pluralism seems to reveal a critical problem with external correspondency, as follows. His pareschatology, which is an attempt to accept all eschatologies of major world religions as valid, may as a consequence tend to invalidate them all in the end. Moreover, other factors may indicate the presence of inconsistencies in Hick’s pareschatological model, which may reflect upon the adequacy of his overall model of religious pluralism. The Purpose The purpose of this dissertation is to address and critically evaluate the external correspondency and internal consistency of Hick’s eschatological model, which may provide the basis for a critical evaluation of his religious pluralism as a whole.
The evaluation of John Hick’s religious pluralism in light of his pareschatology will be accomplished through the lenses of the correspondence and coherence theories of truth. Conclusions Hick’s pareschatology, as discussed in detail in chapters 4 and 5, and summarized in chapter 6, is open to various criticisms when judged by correspondence and coherence theories of truth. From my research of Hick’s pareschatology, I uncover and present reasons which back twenty criticisms of Hick’s concept of pareschatology. Based upon these twenty criticisms, the first general conclusion of my dissertation is that Hick’s notion of pareschatology does not show sufficient internal coherence, and it is also not fully coherent with his pluralistic model of world religions.
The second general conclusion is that there is lack of external correspondence with the noumenal Real and with the phenomenal pareschatological manifestations of religious experiences in particular religions. As a result, questions may be raised whether his pareschatological model can be regarded as a convincing theological philosophical scientific construct. These considerations also have important implications for Hick’s religious pluralism, which lead to the final conclusion of my dissertation. I find Hick’s religious pluralism as a whole to be weakened by the problematic condition of his pareschatology.
Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF JOHN HICK’S RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN LIGHT OF HIS ESCHATOLOGICAL MODEL A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Haejong Je April 2009 © Copyright by Haejong Je 2009 All Rights Reserved A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF JOHN HICK’S RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN LIGHT OF HIS ESCHATOLOGICAL MODEL A dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy by Haejong Je APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE: _______________________________ _______________________________ Faculty Adviser, Director of Ph. Gane Professor of Systematic Theology _______________________________ _______________________________ Fernando L. Canale Dean, SDA Theological Seminary Professor of Theology and Philosophy Denis Fortin _______________________________ Miroslav M. Kiš Professor of Ethics Chair, Theology and Christian Philosophy _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ Date Approved TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I.
INTRODUCTION ····························································································· 1 Background of the Problem ·········································································· 1 Statement of the Problem ·············································································· 7 Purpose of the Research ················································································ 8 Justification for the Research ········································································ 8 Scope and Delimitations ··············································································· 8 Methodology ································································································ 9 II. JOHN HICK, THEOLOGIAN AND PHILOSOPHER ···································· 12 Introduction ·································································································· 12 Biographical Background of Hick ································································ 13 Early Life ································································································ 14 Family Background and Childhood ·················································· 14 Education ·························································································· 15 Religious Experiences ······································································· 17 Publications ···························································································· 21 Teaching Career ······················································································ 25 Cornell University (1956–1959) ······················································· 26 Princeton Theological Seminary (1959–1964) ·································· 28 Cambridge University (1963–1967) ·················································· 31 Birmingham University (1967–1982) ··············································· 32 Claremont Graduate University (1978–1992) ··································· 37 Personal Journey: From Theologian to Philosopher ····································· 40 Early Hick: The Theologian ···································································· 40 The Evangelical Period (to 1940s) ···················································· 41 Philosophical Turn to Pluralistic Thinking (1950–1960s) ················· 43 Later Hick: The Philosopher ··································································· 47 Pluralist from Christian Perspective (1970s) ····································· 48 Pluralist from Philosophical Perspective (1980s–Present) ················ 50 Hick’s Starting Point: Views of Scripture ····················································· 53 Theological Presuppositions ··································································· 53 Some Examples of Interpretation ····························································· 57 The Creation Story of Genesis ·························································· 57 iii Accounts of Jesus in the Four Gospels ·············································· 58 Mythological Understanding of the Bible ··············································· 60 Summary and Conclusion ············································································· 63 Life Experience ······················································································ 63 Mythological Interpretation of the Bible ················································· 64 III. AN ANALYSIS OF HICK’S PLURALISTIC HYPOTHESIS ························ 66 Introduction ·································································································· 66 Hick’s “Copernican Revolution” and Subsequent Kantian Shift ·················· 67 Hick’s Early Theocentric Model of Religions ·········································· 69 Hick’s Later Shift to Kantian Model of Religions ·································· 72 Implications for Christology ··································································· 75 Theism Assumed ···················································································· 76 Truth Claims ···························································································· 77 Theology (Doctrine of the Real) ··································································· 79 The Concept of the Real ········································································· 80 The Distinction between Noumenon and Phenomenon ··························· 83 The Possibility of Knowledge of the Real ··············································· 90 The Linkage between the Noumenal Real and the Phenomenal Real ······ 95 Christology ··································································································· 100 From Christocentrism to Theocentrism ··················································· 101 An Inspirational Christology ··································································· 106 Mythological Understanding of Christ ···················································· 110 Soteriology ··································································································· 113 Historical Sketch ····················································································· 115 Salvation as Human Transformation ······················································· 117 Universal Salvation ················································································· 120 Soteriology and Ethics ············································································· 122 Summary and Conclusions ··········································································· 124 IV. HICK’S ESCHATOLOGICAL MODEL—PARESCHATOLOGY ················· 129 Introduction ··································································································· 129 Anthropology ································································································ 132 What Is Humanity? ·················································································· 132 Dichotomous View of Mind and Body ··················································· 136 Concept of Soul ······················································································ 141 Death ············································································································ 145 Death and Eternal Life ············································································ 146 A New Look on Death ············································································ 148 Afterlife ········································································································ 151 Pareschatology as a Product of Pluralism ····················································· 156 Definition of the Term ············································································ 157 The Survival of the Disembodied Mind ·················································· 159 iv The Resurrection of the Person ······························································· 165 Reincarnation ·························································································· 172 Basic Conception of Reincarnation ··················································· 174 Rebirth in Buddhism ········································································· 176 Christianity and Reincarnation ·························································· 179 Memories and Reincarnaion ····························································· 181 The Third Possibility ·············································································· 184 The Bardo World ·············································································· 185 The “Next World” in Western Spiritualism ······································ 186 Critique of the Idea of the Immortal Ego ·········································· 187 Hick’s Pareschatology Model: Many Lives in Many Worlds ············ 190 A Possible Eschatology ················································································ 195 Summary and Conclusions ··········································································· 201 V.
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF HICK’S PLURALISM IN LIGHT OF PARESCHATOLOGY ························································································ 210 Introduction ··································································································· 210 Pareschatology Criticized in Light of Correspondence Theory ····················· 212 Correspondence Theory of Truth ···························································· 212 Pareschatology and Criticisms from Correspodence Theory ···················· 214 One: The Real, Pareschatology and Correspondence Theory ············· 214 Two: Anthropology, Pareschatology and Correspondence Theory ···· 217 Three: Death, Pareschatology and Correspondence Theory ··············· 219 Four: Afterlife, Pareschatology and Correspondence Theory ··········· 221 Pareschatology Criticized in Light of Coherence Theory ······························ 223 Coherence Theory of Truth ····································································· 223 Pareschatology and Criticisms from Coherence Theory ·························· 224 One: Principles of Method, Pareschatology and Coherence Theory ·· 225 Two: Anthropology, Pareschatology and Coherence Theory ·············· 229 Three: Theology of Death, Pareschatology and Coherence Theory ··· 233 Four: Afterlife, Pareschatology and Coherence Theory ···················· 236 Five: Soul-Making, Pareschatology and Coherence Theory ·············· 238 Six: Universal Salvation, Pareschatology and Coherence Theory ······ 242 Conclusion: Criticism of Hick’s Religious Pluralism as a Whole ·················· 247 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ································································· 250 Summary of Findings ···················································································· 250 Hick’s Life and Religious Pluralism ······················································· 250 Hick’s Pareschatology ············································································ 251 Anthropology ···················································································· 252 Death ································································································ 252 Afterlife ···························································································· 253 Pareschatology as a Product of Pluralism ········································· 253 v Criticisms of Hick’s Pareschatology ······················································· 254 Principles of Method: Two Criticisms ··············································· 254 The Real: Two Criticisms ·································································· 255 Anthropology: Three Criticisms ······················································· 257 Death: Three Criticisms ···································································· 257 Afterlife: Three Criticisms ································································ 258 Soul-making: Three Criticisms ························································· 260 Universal Salvation: Four Criticisms ················································ 261 Conclusions ·································································································· 262 Some Suggestions for Further Study ···························································· 264 BIBLIOGRAPHY ····································································································· 266 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem Religious pluralism is one of the most influential philosophical approaches in the postmodern world. It is to be understood in the light of philosophical pluralism, which is “a philosophical perspective on the world that emphasizes diversity rather than homogeneity, multiplicity rather than unity, difference rather than sameness.” 1 Religious pluralism, 2 according to John Hick, is “the view that the transformation of human existence from self-centredness to Reality-centredness is taking place in different ways within the contexts of all the great religious traditions. There is not merely one way but a plurality of ways of salvation or liberation.” 3 Along with many other theologians and philosophers, a contemporary British philosopher of religion and theologian, John Hick (1922–) 4 has offered “one of the most sophisticated and influential pluralistic 1 Calvin O.
Schrag, “Pluralism,” The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. 2 From now on “pluralism” refers to religious pluralism unless otherwise mentioned. 3 John Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism (New York: St. 4 See John Hick, John Hick: Philosopher of Religion and Theologian, http://www.
He currently holds the following titles and positions: “an Emeritus Professor of Claremont Graduate University, California; University of Birmingham, UK; Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Research in Arts & Social Sciences, University of Birmingham, a Vice- 1 philosophies of world religions.” 5 The research of this dissertation concerns Hick’s pluralistic model of world religions, what he frequently calls “religious pluralism,” or “the pluralistic hypothesis”—“The idea that each of the great world religions is response to the ultimately real, and that each is a context of human salvation.” 6 More particularly, the focus will be on Hick’s eschatological model within the entire system of religious pluralism. According to the modern and postmodern mind-set, a person’s religion is no longer the true religion but only one of many equally valid alternatives. While the diversity of world religions was an undeniable phenomenon in the past, as Gordon D. Kaufman notes, in the present the diversity of world religions has been more fully recognized, experienced, and sometimes even positively evaluated by adherents of all President of British Society for the Philosophy of Religion and of the World Congress of Faiths” (ibid.
5 Paul Eddy, “Religious Pluralism and the Divine: Another Look at John Hick’s Neo-Kantian Proposal,” Religious Studies 30, no. Many admit that John Hick is one of the most influential thinkers on religious pluralism. See Yong Huang, “Religious Pluralism and Interfaith Dialogue: Beyond Universalism and Particularism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 37, no. Rowe, “Religious Pluralism,” Religious Studies 35, no.
6 John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 41. See John Hick, “The New Map of the Universe of Faiths,” in Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, ed. Cahn and David Shatz (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); idem, Problems of Religious Pluralism, 47; idem, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 231, 233; idem, A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths, 11, 31, 34, 41, 42, 43. 7 “What is questionable is the ‘pluralistic theology’ that is proposed by many of the writers” 8 in the postmodern world, according to Gavin D’Costa.