Philosophy of Religion

by John Harwood Hick

Revision features an updated discussion on the main topics in the philosophy of religion: the concept of God - grounds for belief in God - ground for disbelief in God - the problem of evil - revelation and faith - problems of religious language - the conflicting falsifiability of religious assertions - the conflicting truth-claims of different religions - human destiny and more.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, Theology, Academic, History

148 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1963

Reviews

[Wiseask · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the late 1960’s I was an undergraduate in the newly designated Honors Philosophy program at Temple University, which at the time boasted one of the strongest departments of philosophy in the country based on the stellar reputations of its faculty.

Among its stars were the renown husband and wife team of Monroe and Elizabeth Beardsley. Elizabeth’s field was ethics, Monroe’s was aesthetics. He was formerly chairman of Swarthmore’s philosophy department before joining his wife at Temple. Together the Beardsleys edited the Foundations of Philosophy series by asking distinguished colleagues such as John Hick to write foundational texts, such as on the philosophy of religion, to introduce students to a particular field of philosophy.

Although Richard Taylor’s slim volume on Metaphysics remains my favorite in the Foundations of Philosophy series, John Hick’s on the Philosophy of Religion came a close second. It was that text I was assigned as a sophomore which inspired me to choose Philosophy as a major. His chapters on the grounds for belief and disbelief in God are the most lucid and exciting I have ever encountered. It was through him that the arguments of Hume and Kant first captured my imagination.

Professor Hick himself was educated at Oxford, taught philosophy at Cornell and was teaching at Cambridge when he wrote Philosophy of Religion for the Beardsleys.

As an aside, in the 1970’s I was pursuing a graduate degree in philosophy as well as a law degree at Temple, and Mrs. Beardsley invited me to address her seminar in legal ethics from my perspective as a law student. As a show of her gratitude, she gifted me with an autographed copy of the Philosophy of Law volume from her Foundations series. A personal treasure in my library.

[Parnian · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب با ارائه ی برداشت ها و تعریف های متفاوتی از دین شروع می شه. به بررسی برهان های وجود و عدم وجود خدا می پردازه و نهایتا بحث پلورالیسم دینی رو مطرح می کنه.
کتاب سازش کاریه و با هر نوع اعتقادی نسبت به وجود خدا می شه از خوندنش چیز یاد گرفت.

[Kaleb · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good introduction to the philosophy of religion, God, the problem of evil, conflicting religious truth claims, and the difficulties of religious language. This is a great introduction, Hick explains and evaluates many of the major problems and questions in the philosophy of religion, offering his own perspective as well. Who is “God”? What does it mean for “God” to exist? How can we know that God is real, much less the God of our own particular religious tradition? How can language sufficiently describe God/the Divine?

Hick is a theological liberal, arguing that the traditional proofs for God are well-argued but not entirely sufficient to establish theism. Nevertheless, theism is a justified belief because, given our experience with the Divine, we can trust our religious encounters just as much as we can trust our senses in other domains. Hick concludes with a discussion of reincarnation in Hinduism and Buddhism, and the conceptual difficulties it poses.

There’s also a very interesting discussion of parapsychological research, telepathy and such. Apparently, there is real academic research that somewhat points to it being true. Very strange! I remain a skeptic.

Quotes:

For the ontological approach, which Tillich espouses and which he associates with Augustine, God is already present to us as the Ground of our own being, and yet at the same time infinitely transcends us. Our finite being is continuous with the infinity of Being; consequently, to know God means to overcome our estrangement from the Ground of our being. God is not Another, an Object which we may know or fail to know, but Being-itself, in which we participate by the very fact of existing.

The biblical writers were (sometimes, though doubtless not at all times) as vividly conscious of being in God's presence as they were of living in a material environment. It is impossible to read their writings with any degree of sensitivity without realizing that to these people God was not a proposition completing a syllogism, or an abstract idea accepted by the mind, but the reality that gave meaning to their lives.

The practical question is whether or not to trust our religious experience as an authentic awareness of the Divine. We have seen that it is rationally permissible either to trust or to distrust it. Each option carries with it momentous consequences. For one must risk either, if disbelief turns out to be misplaced, missing a great good, indeed the greatest of all goods; or on the other hand, if belief turns out to be misplaced, falling into the most pathetic of delusions.

[Aju · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good Introduction, concise

[Esra Raja · Rating 5 out of 5]

من اجمل ما قرات من كتب الفلسفة في كثير من المطالَب يكون جامع وهذا اساس نجاحه

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A NOTEWORTHY PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGIAN SUMMARIZES THE SUBJECT

John Harwood Hick (1922-2012) was a philosopher of religion and theologian who taught at a number of universities, and wrote/edited many other books such as 'Evil and the God of Love,' 'The Existence of God,' 'The Myth of God Incarnate,' etc. (NOTE: I am here reviewing the 1973 Second edition of this book.)

He said in the Introduction, "A complete treatise on the philosophy of religion would have to investigate the nature or religion in general and would deal with all the main ideas of the many different religions. It is not possible in this short book to undertake either of these tasks... We shall accordingly be considering the philosophical questions provoked by the religious ideas that lie behind our western Atlantic civilization and that still form the main religious options within our culture." (Pg. 3)

He observes, "As David Hume points out in his discussion of analogical reasoning, the fact that there is only one universe precludes our making probable judgments about it. If---impossibly---we knew that there were a number of universes (for example, ten) and if in addition we knew that (say) half of them were God-produced and half not, we could deduce that the probability of our own universe being God-produced would be one in two. However... clearly no reasoning based upon the frequency theory of probability is possible concerning its character." (Pg. 27)

He observes, "A number of philosophers have pointed out the logical difficulty involved in any claim to have encountered God. How could one know that it was GOD whom one had encountered? ... One can recognize that a being whom one encounters has a given finite degree of power, but how does one recognize that he has unlimited power? How does one perceive that his goodness and love... are actually infinite? Such qualities cannot be given in human experience. One might claim to have encountered a Being whom one presumes, or trusts, or hopes to be God; but one cannot claim to have encountered a Being whom one RECOGNIZED to be the infinite, almighty, eternal Creator." (Pg. 94)

He concludes the book while asking about "theists ('those who sincerely seek God') who have had no contact with the Christian gospel. But what of the nontheistic Buddhists and nontheistic Hindus? And what of those Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Parsees, etc., both theists and nontheists, who have heard the Christian gospel but have preferred to adhere to the faith of their fathers?" (Pg. 129)

This is an excellent "textbook-style" overview of the philosophy of religion, and will be of interest to anyone studying that subject.

[Brandt · Rating 2 out of 5]

The immediate question this text seeks to answer is: “What is ‘Philosophy of Religion?’” The importance of this question can not be overstated. For many, philosophy is synonymous with religion. Perhaps this is because a failure to understand what defines philosophy as opposed to religion. Once both definitions are explained and agreed to, then the definition of philosophy of religion becomes “philosophical thinking about religion”.

From this preparatory step, one can then understand that philosophy of religion encompasses many questions that are not dependent upon an association with a specific religious doctrine. Hence, everyone, from the devout theist to the atheist, can study the concepts of various belief systems, associated phenomena, experiences, and activities from an impersonal perspective. This book does a terrific job of explaining this information within the introduction.

As the work moves through the multitude of philosophical question pertaining to religion, it provides clear steps that define key terms and suggests follow-up readings for those interested in exploring the questions further.

As an introductory text, it fulfills its purpose. The problem, of course, is that no text can be written without bias. Nor can any text be written inclusive to the profound and often immeasurable amount of various religious beliefs. At times, this book does get into some very difficult to explain concepts of religious doctrines (specifically, see Chapters 9, 20, and 22). Hence, the text itself could not hope to do anything but gloss over some of the most intricate arguments.

Overall, I would think that by taking portions of this text and including additional readings from sources found in the book, a clear picture of the questions surrounding Philosophy of Religion can be discussed. The danger, of course, lies only in the ability of the interlocutor, free from bias, to discuss the viewpoints presented in this book as candidly as possible. This is a book I will keep in my collection and refer as appropriate when discussing diverse religious arguments.

[Carlos · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting if limited book. Hick seeks to flesh out the philosophy behind religious beliefs and present them to a general audience. While he consciously limits himself to the Judeo-Christian tradition, he nonetheless treats all major questions in this tradition, i.e., the nature of god, reasons for believing or not in him/her/it, acknowledging the problem of evil and the role of faith, etc. In all these questions, Hick presents the arguments made by renowned classical theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas as well as their atheist critics and contemporary theologians like Paul Tillich. He also doesn’t shy away from questioning arguments that he sees as insufficient, as when some modern theologians claim that god is “beyond” existence. While there are certainly “out-there” parts of the book, such as his discussion of parapsychology research and an impromptu discussion of reincarnation, Hicks does a great job of introducing interesting arguments as well as maintaining a balance for the reader to understand the back and forth of the philosophical discussion.

[Stephen Bedard · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short introduction to the philosophy of religion by a respect philosopher (William Lane Craig studied under him). It's not from a Christian perspective specifically, and it looks at religion in general.

[Belle Meade School]

200.1

[Zachary Mays · Rating 3 out of 5]

A descent introduction to some of the big issues, but obviously somewhat thin.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing resource! Crazy to see original prices.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an excellent introduction to the Philosophy of Religion concerning the Judeo-Christian tradition. He does a little bit with other traditions, but not much, and left me wanting more. In the last chapter about reincarnation and karma, he talks about the Hindu tradition.

[Ci · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found Hick through reading about Paul Tillich. What interested me in Hick is the "Soul-Making Defense”, or more formally as the “Irenaean theodicy”. This book is an introduction to Hick’s writing for this reader. It turned out to be an excellent introduction to the major themes in Philosophy of Religion. Hick’s writing is direct and plain, yet nicely enlivened by simple and vivid examples, metaphors and analogies. This book has met its distinct objective as an educational, foundational pamphlet, mostly on the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.

*** The following are this reader’s notes ***

1. Definition of “religion”: instead of a universal, essential definition to characterize “religion”, the author uses Wittgenstein’s “family resemblance” to include a wide range of religious features.

2. All the great developed world faith have a “soteriological” (salvation) structure. “.. they each offer their own way to the Ultimate — through faith in response to divine grace; or through total self-giving to God; or though the spiritual discipline and maturing …” (Reader note: by this observation, Confucius’s Teaching is not among the soteriological structured ones, hence perhaps not a religion.)

3. In practice, even within a culture is dominated by monotheistic teaching, most people’s belief is mostly polytheistic (many gods) and henotheistic (prefer one God out of many). Gods of money, of nation, of family, etc,. are never quite replaced by the One in monotheistic teaching. As Hick said, “Hebrew scriptures … never fully resolved the struggle with polytheism and henotheism.”

4. “Love”: “eros”: desiring love, love that is evoked by the desirable quality of the beloved. “agape”: the unconditional love through seeking the deepest welfare and fulfillment of the beloved. “Agape” is radically different from “eros”, and it is this word in connection with God. (This points to the problem of language in religious text which the author specifically addressed in a whole chapter).

5. The problem of Evil and various forms of theodicy:
(1) Augustinian’s evil being the perversion of the Good (2) Irenaean theodicy (a two-stage development of human race) (3) the process theodicy (proposed and developed by A. N. Whitehead, David Griffin etc. Modern ideas published in our own time.)

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Hick is clearly a scholar of both philosophy and religion, and this book demonstrates his encyclopedic knowledge and critical thought in each. Early on, Hick comments appropriately on existentialism: “The language of existentialism tends to be the language of the soul’s distress. It depicts twentieth-century urban life in the industrialized West as the spiritual nightmare that it can be for minds acutely sensitive to the decay of tradition, the collapse of established cultural forms, and the threat of a nuclear holocaust. Existentialist literature—which includes drama, poetry, novels, autobiography, and psychological description and analysis, as well as formal and systematic discussions—expresses the neuroses of an age which finds itself being carried into the unknown on the wheel of immense and bewildering changes.” (2) This distress can be seen in all aspects of modern artistic expression. I agree with Hick that to ignore this philosophical impulse when discussing religion would intentionally ignore a fundamental aspect of modern society.

The text unfolds as Hick systematically reviews the various philosophical and logical conceptions of the Judaic-Christian concepts of God. This book is a deep survey. No book of its size could be considered complete, and the language is entirely formulaic. That being said, it is a great survey of fundamental assumptions, arguments and criticisms. He summarizes Hume’s criticisms incredibly well in two pages, as an example – Hume who left a vast library of writings mainly without superfluous language. Ultimately, after reviewing all of the arguments, he ably concludes, with evidence, that “we cannot decisively prove the existence of God; here it appears that neither can we decisively disprove his existence.” Ultimately, Hick appears to have a theistic bias, but I can’t determine where this impacts his logic or critical analysis. This isn’t an enjoyable read, but it is a thoughtful one, and a work that could clearly be useful in a scholastic context.

[Karan Gupta · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was advised about reading "Philosophy of Religion" by an uncle of mine as a response to another post. I had put it on my reading list and even got myself a copy but the dry schoolbook-like text had put me off the task of reading it for quite a while. Eventually I did get to it.

The book starts of in a rather dry fashion, but you need to remember that this is primarily an academic text. The author goes into great detail about the concept of God as seen in the Judaic-Christian way. Then he expounds on multiple theories that have been proposed to support and to deny the existence of such a being. It was on limited interest to me because I belonged to a household of different faith before turning agnostic. But it did shed some very interesting light on the way that human beings tend to see God. Towards the end the book did get more interesting when it got to the concept of religion and the various contradictory claims by the many religions in the world.

The book is in no way exhaustive and I do not suppose any book can ever be comprehensive on such a varied and evolving subject. But I felt that the book was primarily designed for the followers of Christian faith in order to understand their religion and God better. In parts it was interesting but overall a rather dry book. Perhaps it's use is limited to the academia.

[Tadashi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have used this book for my philosophy of religion class, and have been very impressed how well this book is written. This book illustrates religions very objectively and interestingly. Western philosophy and/or theology tend to mostly focus on monotheism; however, Hick, a British theologian and philosopher, focuses on concepts of Buddhism such as karma and reincarnation. He also points out the controversial problems such as existence of evil and God, immortality, the problem of religious language, and so forth. In existence of God chapter, he introduces sociological, scientific and Freudian theories, which can be very debatable; moreover, He introduces many philosophers as well as theologians in this book such as Immanuel Kant, Thomas Aquinas, Sigmund Freud, Plato, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Paul Tillich and many more. Their theories are pretty tough to understand, but Hick explains each of them carefully; therefore, if you are interested in philosophy or theology, or both this is the book for you. My favorite part of this book is Judaic-Christian concepts, because many books, relating to philosophy of religion, do not really cover the Judaic-Christianity; therefore, it was very interesting for me to read the traditional concepts of Christianity. I think this book can be used in both introductory and advanced level because it introduces many kinds of theories as well as throws you tough questions you can think about. You may find difficulties of understanding at the beginning, but as you go on reading it you may find things that can release your wonders.

[Murtadha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear and readable, but very brief. If doesn't go in detail (or depth) with regard to explaining or criticizing any theory, point or philosophical position set in this book, which ultimately constitute the book's specific subject of focus, namely : Philosophy of Religion. That being said, it's a beautiful introductory text to this branch of philosophy, and is worth reading.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a textbook used in Lud Schlecht's Philosophy of Religion class.

[Tim · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hick examines the traditional arguments for the existence of God. He seems to conclude that the moral argument is fairly strong, But does not settle on what kind of God exists.

[M.J. Mandoki · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book. He is a great philosopher and writer. I can't say enough good things about him! I am a huge fan of his work!