Introduction to the Diversity of Models of Ultimate Realities

Chapter

Abstract

John Hick has famously argued that the spiritual and moral fruits displayed by adherents of the great religious traditions should compel us to think of these traditions as more or less equally salvific – where Hick understands ‘salvation’ to be “an actual change in human beings from self-centeredness to a new orientation centered in the ultimate divine Reality.” Yet Hick acknowledges that his pluralist intuitions are challenged by the fact – and it is a fact – that many adherents across the spectrum of these traditions claim a privileged status of some sort or other for their respective tradition. This privileged status, it is often believed, is the inevitable result of propositional commitments essential to one tradition that are either not endorsed or explicitly rejected by other traditions. Clearly, this way of privileging one tradition over others proceeds along an epistemic route, as opposed to a practical or ethical route. The attempt to privilege one tradition by arguing that its adherents display significant moral gains over adherents of other traditions, is, according to Hick, a futile one. But Hick takes seriously the logical and epistemic implications of religious diversity and attempts to meet this challenge by offering a Kantian, split-level view – where the central beliefs adopted by the major religious traditions are phenomenally true but noumenally false.

Keywords

Religious Tradition Ultimate Reality Privileged Status Epistemic Peer Religious Philosopher 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Cobb, John B. Jr. 1999. Transforming Christianity and the world, ed. Paul Knitter. Maryknoll: Orbis.Google Scholar
  2. Feldman, R. 2007. Reasonable religious disagreements. In Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on atheism and the secular life, ed. A. Louise, 194–214. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Hick, J. 2000. Religious pluralism and salvation. In The philosophical challenge of religious ­diversity, ed. P.L. Quinn and K. Meeker, 54–66, 58. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Quinn, Philip L., Kevin Meeker (eds.). 2000. The philosophical challenge of religious diversity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. White, R. 2005. Epistemic permissiveness. In Philosophical perspectives, xix: Epistemology, ed. J. Hawthorne, 445–459. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English, World Languages and PhilosophyJoliet Junior CollegeJolietUSA

Personalised recommendations