Customer Reviews

An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent, Second Edition

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Undoubtedly, Hick's work is the most important book on Philosophy of Religion written in the last 50 years.

This book is a tough read. I found myself re-reading several paragraphs and pages until I "got it". Clear headed, incisive, a book for those who are not afraid to think. One of the best books I've read.

its fantastic book for everyone

and i receive this book on time without of any delay and .....

i have sagest to who want to bye this book please do it now because this book is very useful for who interested a theology & philosophy in religious side

and however i know this book is not very different by another pluralistic mind but its nice book and we can learn many thing from this book like a John Hick opinion about religious and god

best wish for everyone working for knowing better :D

First, since he is a Kantian, Hick wrongfully assumes there to be no real correspondence between thought and reality so he remains skeptical of any correspondence claims between the two. The Real is therefore ineffable, meaning that Hick remains agnostic about what concepts may or may not apply to the Real (i.e. God). The problem is this is self-defeating because Hick applies concepts such as "ultimate" and "real" to God while he argues that concepts do not apply to God.

Second, Hick's soteriological formula becomes the standard by which all other religious claims must submit. In order to do this without irrationally combining incompatible soteriological doctrines, he reduces each of them to the lowest common denominator. The fact that different religions possess similar ethical values, such as love, goodwill, and compassion, has become more meaningful to Hick than the truth claims of the teachings of any particular religion. In emphasizing the pragmatic results of religions over their truthfulness, Hick confuses their truthfulness with with their results. Just because an ideology changes a life for the better morally does not mean it is a true ideology, nor does it mean it is the ideology with the best result. From an exclusivistic perspective, what if salvation involves something much more than just becoming morally better? Hick can't just define other salvation doctrines out of existence and then claim that pluralism alone is valid.

Ultimately, Hick's pluralism is cast on the rocks of relativism. However, relativism is also self-refuting. In order for relativism to be true, it must be false. On one hand, the notion that relativism (i.e. pluralism) is right and that non-relativism (i.e. exclusivism) is wrong is to give up relativism. At best, Hick could only say that pluralism is "relatively" better than exclusivism. While it seems that Hick is admitting that all religious claims are equally valid, he cannot avoid the rejection of all exclusivistic philosophical claims concerning religion other than his own. In Hick's model, the Western liberal doctrine is defined as the only valid standpoint for evaluating individual religions. The truth is that all religious claims have to be evaluated from some standpoint. The problem is that Hick considers the Christian framework to be biased and his own to be neutral. In the end, Hick holds merely another exclusivistic view that is wrought with difficulties, thereby eliminating it as a viable replacement for exclusivism.