John Hick - Do Religions Complement or Contradict?

Closer To Truth

3 Mar 202307:12

Summary

TLDRThe discussion explores the complexity of religious beliefs and contradictions between different traditions. One speaker expresses frustration with the apparent contradictions between religions, while the other suggests that these differences arise from the way each tradition perceives ultimate reality. The concept of naive realism versus critical realism is introduced, proposing that our perception of reality, including religious beliefs, is influenced by human interpretation. Ultimately, the speakers conclude that despite differences, these varying religious lenses don’t necessarily diminish the power or truth of the ultimate reality they describe.

Takeaways

😀 The speaker expresses a desire for at least one religion to be true, as it would provide hope, but struggles with the contradictions between different religions.
🤔 The speaker notes that religions appear contradictory, making it difficult to believe that all or even one can be real.
🧐 Contradictions arise because religious doctrines describe different perceptions of ultimate reality rather than the ultimate reality itself.
📖 Religions offer descriptions based on their own traditions and lenses, so they don't necessarily contradict each other.
💡 All religions acknowledge a transcendent, ultimate reality beyond the physical world, but their interpretations of it differ.
😕 The speaker finds the contradictions between different religious perceptions troubling, while the other person is more accepting of them.
🔍 The concept of naive realism (things are just as we perceive them) vs. critical realism (our perceptions involve human interpretation) helps frame religious differences.
🛠 Critical realism suggests that just as humans interpret sensory experience, they also interpret religious awareness through their own traditions.
⚖️ A naive realist would see the differences between religious beliefs as contradictory, but a critical realist would view them as different interpretations of the same transcendent reality.
🧘 The speaker is frustrated by how religious claims about ultimate reality can't be questioned in conventional terms, with responses indicating that certain dichotomies simply do not apply.

Q & A

What does the speaker express about their desire for religions to be true?
-The speaker wishes that all religions or even one could be true, as it would give them hope for the future instead of the bleak outlook their cosmologist friends have painted.
Why does the speaker find it tempting to reject all religions?
-The speaker sees contradictions between different religions and finds it impossible for all of them to be true. This makes them tempted to reject all religions altogether.
What does the other speaker argue about the perceived contradictions between religions?
-The other speaker argues that the contradictions arise from the way reality is perceived through each religious tradition, rather than contradictions about Ultimate Reality itself. Each religion describes how their tradition understands the ultimate, not the ultimate itself.
How does the concept of 'naive realism' differ from 'critical realism' according to the dialogue?
-Naive realism is the belief that things are exactly as we perceive them, while critical realism acknowledges that there is a human contribution to interpreting experiences, meaning we do not perceive reality exactly as it is.
How does critical realism help explain the different religious perspectives on Ultimate Reality?
-Critical realism suggests that, just like with sense perception, religious awareness involves human interpretation. Therefore, the different religious doctrines reflect how the ultimate appears through each tradition's lens, rather than contradictory descriptions of the same reality.
Why is the speaker disturbed by the contradictions between religious doctrines?
-The speaker finds it unsettling that, after accepting a Transcendent Ultimate across religions, their respective descriptions are contradictory. This leads them to question whether any of them can be real.
What is the response to the idea that the real (Ultimate Reality) should be more powerful or consistent in its interpretation?
-The response is that the real isn't subject to being powerful or weak, and these terms don't apply to it. Just because religious interpretations differ doesn't degrade the real or make it less valid.
How does the dialogue address the issue of contradictory descriptions between religions?
-The dialogue suggests that each religious tradition provides a different lens for interpreting the same ultimate, so contradictions between doctrines are reflections of different perspectives rather than contradictions about the ultimate itself.
How does the dialogue use Buddhist philosophy to address questions about Ultimate Reality?
-The dialogue references a story where the Buddha rejects all possible dichotomies (arise/not arise) when asked about what happens to a Buddha after death. This illustrates that certain questions about the ultimate are simply not applicable, according to some traditions.
Why does the speaker suggest that questions about Ultimate Reality might not apply?
-The speaker argues that certain questions, like whether the ultimate is powerful or weak, do not apply to the real, similar to how the Buddha rejected certain dichotomous questions. These dichotomies are seen as irrelevant or inappropriate when discussing the nature of the ultimate.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Exploring Religious Contradictions and Perceptions

The speaker expresses a desire for all religions to be true, as it would offer hope, but acknowledges the contradictions between them. This raises skepticism, as it's impossible for all to be real. Despite this, the speaker explores the idea that religious doctrines aren't necessarily contradictory since they reflect different perceptions of reality within each tradition. Religious doctrines, like the Christian and Islamic views of the ultimate, are not about the ultimate itself, but rather how each tradition experiences and understands it. The speaker notes that the commonality among these religions is their belief in a transcendent ultimate, but after that, their views diverge, which disturbs the speaker. The dialogue also touches on the concept of naive realism, which suggests things are as we perceive them, versus critical realism, which acknowledges human interpretation in perceiving reality.

05:03

💭 The Power of Reality: Divergent Interpretations

The speaker questions whether the real or ultimate is diminished by its many contradictory interpretations across different religions. They wonder if something so powerful should be consistently interpreted. The counterpoint is that calling the real 'powerful' or 'weak' is a misapplication of concepts, as such dichotomies don't apply to the real. The speaker also raises concerns about whether this is a rationalization to avoid tough questions about fundamental reality. The Buddhist scriptures are referenced to demonstrate that certain dichotomies or questions about the ultimate (e.g., does a Buddha arise after death?) don't apply, as the ultimate transcends such categorizations.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Religions

Religions in the video refer to different belief systems, such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, each offering varying understandings of the ultimate reality. The discussion centers around the contradictions between these religions, especially in how they perceive the transcendent or the divine. The speaker is concerned that these contradictions may invalidate them, but another view suggests that these differences are shaped by the cultural and traditional lenses through which people experience ultimate reality.

💡Ultimate Reality

Ultimate reality is a key concept in the discussion, referring to the transcendent or the fundamental truth behind existence. Different religions are seen as offering distinct perspectives on this ultimate reality, which causes contradictions in their doctrines. The video explores whether these contradictions undermine the truth of any particular religion, with one perspective suggesting that they are merely reflections of human perception rather than contradictions of the ultimate itself.

💡Contradiction

Contradiction is central to the discussion, where the speaker points out the conflicting doctrines of different religions. For example, the Christian understanding of God may differ from the Islamic or Buddhist view, which raises concerns about the truth of any one religion. The discussion addresses whether these contradictions invalidate religious beliefs or if they can coexist when viewed through the lens of critical realism, where human perception shapes religious understanding.

💡Naive Realism

Naive realism is introduced as the belief that things are exactly as we perceive them. In the context of religion, a naive realist would argue that each religion's depiction of the ultimate reality is objectively true, leading to apparent contradictions. The speaker contrasts this with critical realism, which acknowledges that human perception influences our understanding of reality, including religious beliefs.

💡Critical Realism

Critical realism is the philosophical stance that, while there is a reality independent of human perception, our understanding of it is shaped by our interpretive frameworks. In the context of religion, this means that different religions may describe the ultimate reality in different ways without necessarily contradicting each other. This concept is used to explain how various religious traditions can coexist despite their different depictions of the transcendent.

💡Tradition

Tradition in the video refers to the cultural and religious frameworks through which people experience and interpret ultimate reality. The speaker suggests that religious contradictions arise not because different religions are inherently false, but because each tradition provides its own lens for understanding the transcendent. The differences in belief systems are seen as products of these traditions rather than evidence of conflicting truths.

💡Transcendent

The transcendent refers to the ultimate, spiritual reality that is beyond the physical world, as described in various religious traditions. In the discussion, it is acknowledged that while all religions agree on the existence of a transcendent ultimate, their descriptions of it differ. The debate explores whether these differing descriptions are contradictory or simply reflections of the diverse ways humans perceive the transcendent through their religious traditions.

💡God

God is a term that is used in reference to the ultimate being or deity worshipped in monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The discussion contrasts the Christian 'God the Father' with the Islamic 'Allah,' noting the contradictions between these conceptions of the divine. The exploration of these differences highlights the tension between religious truth claims and the possibility of reconciling them through critical realism.

💡Buddhism

Buddhism is one of the religious traditions mentioned, offering a distinct view of ultimate reality, often centered around concepts like cosmic consciousness rather than a personal God. The speaker uses an example from Buddhist scriptures to illustrate how certain questions about the ultimate may be beyond the scope of human comprehension, suggesting that dichotomies like 'arise' or 'not arise' may not apply to the transcendent.

💡Interpretation

Interpretation is a crucial concept, referring to how humans perceive and explain their experiences of ultimate reality through the lens of their cultural and religious traditions. The video suggests that religious doctrines are interpretations of the transcendent as experienced within specific contexts, rather than literal, universal truths. This idea helps reconcile the contradictions between different religious beliefs by recognizing the role of human perception in shaping religious understanding.

Highlights

The speaker expresses a desire for religions to be true as it would provide hope, despite contradictions between them.

Religious doctrines seem contradictory to the speaker, making it tempting to reject them all, as they can't all be true.

The idea that religions are describing how people perceive reality within their traditions, rather than the ultimate reality itself.

Different traditions experience and describe the transcendent in unique ways, but these are not necessarily contradictions.

The commonality between religions is the belief in a transcendent ultimate reality, though what comes after varies significantly.

The speaker finds it disturbing that religious beliefs diverge drastically, while the other person is more accepting of this.

Critical realism is introduced as a concept, acknowledging human interpretation in perception, both in the physical and religious sense.

Naive realism assumes that things are exactly as we perceive them, whereas critical realism includes a human contribution in interpreting experience.

Religious awareness is seen through the lens of critical realism, where each tradition interprets the transcendent differently.

The speaker questions why, if the transcendent is so real and powerful, it would be interpreted so inconsistently across traditions.

It is suggested that these differences in interpretation do not diminish the reality of the transcendent, but are simply varied lenses.

The speaker raises concerns that responses to fundamental questions about reality often feel as though they're considered 'out of bounds.'

A Buddhist example is used to demonstrate that certain dichotomies, such as whether a Buddha 'arises' after death, may not apply to the ultimate reality.

The speaker is frustrated by the idea that questions about the ultimate might not apply, and wonders if this is a way to evade the issue.

The conversation emphasizes that certain human ways of questioning, rooted in dichotomies, may simply not apply when discussing ultimate reality.