John Hick - Do Religions Complement or Contradict?

Summary

The 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.