John Hick - Do Religions Complement or Contradict?
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
🤔 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.
💭 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
💡Ultimate Reality
💡Contradiction
💡Naive Realism
💡Critical Realism
💡Tradition
💡Transcendent
💡God
💡Buddhism
💡Interpretation
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.
Transcripts
John I would desperately want all
religions to be true or even one
religion to be true it would give me
some hope for the future other than the
bleak
picture that my cosmologist Friends Are
For Me
but you see such contradictions between
religions that it is very tempting to
just reject them all it's impossible for
them all to be real and therefore how
could any of them be real well what kind
of what's a contradictory are there
doctrines their beliefs aren't they well
that seems to be pretty important but
what are their beliefs about the general
assumption is their beliefs about
Ultimate Reality yes but I would say
they're not that their beliefs about
the way in which we are perceiving
reality within our own tradition and
through the lens of our tradition
so
um actually they don't contradict one
another because their awareness is a
different things one set of doctrines is
a description of
um let's just say the Christian
uh understanding of of the ultimate
and Islamic Doctrine is um a description
of the Islamic understanding of the
ultimate they're not they're not
different descriptions of the ultimate
itself but of the ultimate as as thought
and experience by us within our
tradition
well the only thing that you can say
they have in common is they all have
they have an ultimate right and that
ultimate is a Transcendent ultimate
beyond the physical world yes but that's
where you stop because after that they
are directly contradictory yes well
that's correct yes and that disturbs me
but doesn't disturb you quite as much
not quite as much no no I mean I can um
I can put up with with facts when I'm
presented with them and it is a fact
that within different traditions
the Transcendent the ultimate is very
differently thought about and and
experienced
and um why not that's okay
well I I'm not sure it's okay
um but I I'd like to try to understand
uh you talk about the difference between
naive realism and critical realism yeah
how does that help us here well it does
help us yes that's a good provides quite
a good way of putting it which is your
language of course well you see naive
realism
the distinction incidentally was drawn
first by some a group of American
philosophers in the early 20th century
um naive realism says that things are
just as we perceive them
if I see something as solid it is solid
critical realism
acknowledges that there is a country a
human contribution
[Music]
I mean it was canned who first pointed
this out there's a human contribution
that enables us to interpret the clues
of experience
you see when I when I look at you
um I assume that there's a back of your
head as well as the front that I can see
and that there's a that there's a whole
body and not just empty clothes but this
is an assumption but assumption based on
experience and and this assumption
actually affects the way I'm seeing you
I'm seeing you as solid
even though you know I don't actually
see it literally see you as solid
nevertheless uh when my mind is at work
as it is all the time and looking I see
you as solid okay
now how does that apply to the obvious
contradictions between the father of
Jesus who is the god of the
judeo-christian religions and the um the
Allah of Islam and then the cosmic
consciousness of uh of Buddhism and the
uh different gods in the Hindu religion
well
a naive realist would say of each of
these that it is that it is itself real
and therefore contradictory and
therefore contradictory yes but the
critical realist will say that
just as the human mind is at work in
sense perception so also it is in our
religious awareness
so that what we are describing in each
case is the way in which the the
Transcendent appears uh through the lens
of that particular tradition
and so there's no contradiction in the
fact that different Traditions provide
different lenses leading to different
sets of doctrines is there no
degradation of the real diminishment of
the real because it is expressed in all
these bizarre different ways no I don't
why should there be
well if the real is so real and so
powerful you'd think you'd be able to
interpret it in at least consistent ways
but to see it interpreted in all these
strange and contradictory ways at least
lets me say if it if it is real it's not
very powerful well each of these ways is
consistent
but the real no I mean to to call the
real powerful or weak is to use a set of
terms which don't apply to it it's
neither it isn't that in that it's um
and not being powerful is weak or not
being weak as powerful it's rather that
this dichotomy simply doesn't apply
is that a rationalization uh uh to to
get out of the responsibility of if you
if you have a a truth Claim about
something so important like the
fundamental reality and then just
telling me any question I ask about it
is out of bounds
well let me remind you of um something
we find in the Buddhist scriptures
um somebody asked the Buddha
uh what happens to a Buddha after death
does here in what kind of world does he
arise the Buddha said arise does not
apply
so the other man says then does he not
arise and the Buddha says not arise does
not apply and then does he both arise
and not arise no that doesn't apply does
he neither arise nor not arise that
doesn't apply see it's the idea of of
dichotomies or trichotomies or
corporates not applying
and so that a lot of the questions we
ask about the ultimate the real
simply don't apply
浏览更多相关视频
Skeptic STORMS Off the MOMENT the Preacher Says This
THE ARMY OF SATAN - PART 26 - Truth About Islam
Filósofo (ATEU) Clóvis de Barros Filho, reconsiderá o fato de NÃO acreditar em DEUS
What is Perception? Understand the Perceptual Process.
Knowledge of the External World (Direct Realism, Indirect Realism & Idealism)
Theological Challenges - Religion and Society
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)