Hick Again: Yet Another Bad Argument
I found another one of Hick's arguments. This one shows a severe lack of understanding of Christian belief. I don't think that it is quite as bad as the previous two arguments, but it is certainly not very good. His argument is quite short, but seems to appear in more than one place in his work. This argument fails because Hick once again begs the question against the exclusivist.
His argument is as follows: "For me, what is at stake is whether it is realistic today to ignore the global context in which we live, and the fact that other religions, and I am thinking now particularly of Islam, turn human beings away from selfish self-concern to serve God, just as much as Christianity does." Now he may have two different arguments here. One of them might be the argument that our "global context" should cause us to question our exclusivism. The other argument might be the idea that since other religions turn people to God, we should abandon our exclusivism. I will deal with his argument as if it were two arguments, but he may only be advancing the second.
The first argument is nothing more than a fallacy. The fact that we live in a "global" context does not undermine exclusivism any more than being in a "scientific" age undermines miracles. This is nothing more than snobbery disguised as an argument. I could just as easily suggest that living in the age of the church, we know that atheism is false, or that the superiority of Christianity is revealed in our global context. Yet both of those arguments are also snobbery. Perhaps what Hick means to suggest by this is that Christian belief was suprised to encounter our present context. He does not use this argument, but it would be unsound. Christians have been involved in plenty of missionary work, they have viewed Christ as the Saviour of the entire world, and they have crossed ethnic, language and national barriers to do so. Christianity is not surprised to be in our context.
The second argument begs the question. Christian exclusivists do not believe that any Muslim is serving God by following Islam. They also do not think that Islam turns anyone away from selfishness. Neither do they believe that Islam helps anyone serve God, especially not as well as Christianity. Christian exclusivists believe that one can only serve God by following Christ. One can only be turned away from selfishness by the only salvation there is: the life in Christ. One can only be helped to serve God by the Holy Spirit, who works in that special way in Christian believers only. Now exclusivists do not deny that the Holy Spirit works in the non-believer, but such work is not intended to help the person serve God! It is primarily intended for person to believe and follow Christ so that he can be saved.
Since neither of these arguments work, it is quite obvious that Hick's arguments against exclusivism are a failure. Since all of these arguments have a common fallacy, there must be a reason. My suggestion is that these arguments are not intended for an exclusivist audience. They are intended for pluralists. Since many pluralists do not understand exclusivism, they are convinced that it is defeated by these arguments. Hick is not confronted by hordes of exclusivist critics because their attention is focused on inclusivism instead. His arguments make much more sense if they are viewed as deductions from his interpretation of religious beliefs. In that case, they should no longer be presented as reasons for believing in pluralism. Intead, he should present them as a pluralistic way of understanding religion.
His argument is as follows: "For me, what is at stake is whether it is realistic today to ignore the global context in which we live, and the fact that other religions, and I am thinking now particularly of Islam, turn human beings away from selfish self-concern to serve God, just as much as Christianity does." Now he may have two different arguments here. One of them might be the argument that our "global context" should cause us to question our exclusivism. The other argument might be the idea that since other religions turn people to God, we should abandon our exclusivism. I will deal with his argument as if it were two arguments, but he may only be advancing the second.
The first argument is nothing more than a fallacy. The fact that we live in a "global" context does not undermine exclusivism any more than being in a "scientific" age undermines miracles. This is nothing more than snobbery disguised as an argument. I could just as easily suggest that living in the age of the church, we know that atheism is false, or that the superiority of Christianity is revealed in our global context. Yet both of those arguments are also snobbery. Perhaps what Hick means to suggest by this is that Christian belief was suprised to encounter our present context. He does not use this argument, but it would be unsound. Christians have been involved in plenty of missionary work, they have viewed Christ as the Saviour of the entire world, and they have crossed ethnic, language and national barriers to do so. Christianity is not surprised to be in our context.
The second argument begs the question. Christian exclusivists do not believe that any Muslim is serving God by following Islam. They also do not think that Islam turns anyone away from selfishness. Neither do they believe that Islam helps anyone serve God, especially not as well as Christianity. Christian exclusivists believe that one can only serve God by following Christ. One can only be turned away from selfishness by the only salvation there is: the life in Christ. One can only be helped to serve God by the Holy Spirit, who works in that special way in Christian believers only. Now exclusivists do not deny that the Holy Spirit works in the non-believer, but such work is not intended to help the person serve God! It is primarily intended for person to believe and follow Christ so that he can be saved.
Since neither of these arguments work, it is quite obvious that Hick's arguments against exclusivism are a failure. Since all of these arguments have a common fallacy, there must be a reason. My suggestion is that these arguments are not intended for an exclusivist audience. They are intended for pluralists. Since many pluralists do not understand exclusivism, they are convinced that it is defeated by these arguments. Hick is not confronted by hordes of exclusivist critics because their attention is focused on inclusivism instead. His arguments make much more sense if they are viewed as deductions from his interpretation of religious beliefs. In that case, they should no longer be presented as reasons for believing in pluralism. Intead, he should present them as a pluralistic way of understanding religion.
posted by Matthew at 9:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home