John Hick and a Worthless Argument for Pluralism
Now it is hardly pointless to critize something that Hick has written decades ago without knowing that he still believes it. However, he has given this argument again, in February of 2005. His argument for pluralism is supposed to create a problem for the belief that one religion is the most true. Instead, his argument contains a false premise and is irrelevant and question-begging.
Hicks argument is this: "In the vast majority of cases throughout the world, probably 98% or so, the religion to which a person adheres (and also against which some rebel) depends on where they were born. Someone born into a Muslim family in a Muslim country, or indeed a Muslim family in a non-Muslim country, is very likely to become a Muslim. Someone born into a Christian family is equally likely to become a Christian. And the same is true of Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Taoists." He continues his argument as follows: "And the religion which has formed us from childhood naturally seems to us to be obviously true; it fits us and we fit it as usually none other can. It is true that there are individual conversions from one faith to another, but these are statistically insignificant in comparison with the massive transmission of faith from generation to generation within the same tradition."
I bit of thinking will tell you that this argument contains a false premise. Just about two thousand years ago, there were no Christians. In 500 AD there were no Muslims. About two and a half thousand years ago there were no Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs or Taoists. The only religions older than all of these are Judaism and tribal religions. So that means that the vast majority of people today belong to a religion that began at some point in history. So obviously just about every religion had to gain adherents through conversion. This is exactly the opposite of the point that Hick was trying to make, but it is nonetheless true. The fact that Christianity gained many adherents through non-violent conversion was historically viewed as an argument for the truth of Christianity. What he is describing is not even true in the present! Christianity and Islam are both gaining numerous adherents through conversion.
His argument is also irrelevant. There could be many explanations for the fact that many people retain their original religion. Perhaps they have not been exposed to the correct one yet. Perhaps they unwilling to follow the correct one when they hear it. Perhaps some other explanation is given. Without a specific explanation for this followed by an argument for the explanation, this argument is worthless even if it did contain true premises. In fact, without the explanation his argument sounds exactly like an appeal to majority. If the majority did follow their traditional religion, that does not mean anything more about their traditional religion.
His argument is also question-begging. He cannot start his argument by assuming that no one religion is most true. That is what the argument is trying to show. Obviously, if the idea that Christianity is not most true is assumed, then he is begging the question. This is exactly what he does. Christians believe that no one can be saved without hearing the gospel. They also believe that the sin of human beings and the influence of the devil blind people so that they cannot understand this gospel even if they do hear it. It is only an act of God that can unblind people to hear and understand the gospel. So the fact that most now remain in their traditional religion can be explained in two different ways. First, they have not heard the gospel. Any other religion that approached them would not have contained the truth of God and they would not have converted to it. Second, when some hear the gospel, they remain blinded and do not believe it. These considerations function quite well as a explanation for Hick's "data". The only reason he could have to ignore it is if he was assuming it was false. Since that would be question-begging, his argument is question-begging.
Now it should be obvious that Hick's argument is an abysmal failure. This does not say anything about the actual status of pluralism as a belief. What it does say is that pluralism needs a good argument, and this is not one of them. It is also wise to keep in mind that some philosophers miss problems in arguments for their own belief systems. It is also good to remember that numbers and percent signs do not transform unfounded speculation into statistical knowledge.
Hicks argument is this: "In the vast majority of cases throughout the world, probably 98% or so, the religion to which a person adheres (and also against which some rebel) depends on where they were born. Someone born into a Muslim family in a Muslim country, or indeed a Muslim family in a non-Muslim country, is very likely to become a Muslim. Someone born into a Christian family is equally likely to become a Christian. And the same is true of Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Taoists." He continues his argument as follows: "And the religion which has formed us from childhood naturally seems to us to be obviously true; it fits us and we fit it as usually none other can. It is true that there are individual conversions from one faith to another, but these are statistically insignificant in comparison with the massive transmission of faith from generation to generation within the same tradition."
I bit of thinking will tell you that this argument contains a false premise. Just about two thousand years ago, there were no Christians. In 500 AD there were no Muslims. About two and a half thousand years ago there were no Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs or Taoists. The only religions older than all of these are Judaism and tribal religions. So that means that the vast majority of people today belong to a religion that began at some point in history. So obviously just about every religion had to gain adherents through conversion. This is exactly the opposite of the point that Hick was trying to make, but it is nonetheless true. The fact that Christianity gained many adherents through non-violent conversion was historically viewed as an argument for the truth of Christianity. What he is describing is not even true in the present! Christianity and Islam are both gaining numerous adherents through conversion.
His argument is also irrelevant. There could be many explanations for the fact that many people retain their original religion. Perhaps they have not been exposed to the correct one yet. Perhaps they unwilling to follow the correct one when they hear it. Perhaps some other explanation is given. Without a specific explanation for this followed by an argument for the explanation, this argument is worthless even if it did contain true premises. In fact, without the explanation his argument sounds exactly like an appeal to majority. If the majority did follow their traditional religion, that does not mean anything more about their traditional religion.
His argument is also question-begging. He cannot start his argument by assuming that no one religion is most true. That is what the argument is trying to show. Obviously, if the idea that Christianity is not most true is assumed, then he is begging the question. This is exactly what he does. Christians believe that no one can be saved without hearing the gospel. They also believe that the sin of human beings and the influence of the devil blind people so that they cannot understand this gospel even if they do hear it. It is only an act of God that can unblind people to hear and understand the gospel. So the fact that most now remain in their traditional religion can be explained in two different ways. First, they have not heard the gospel. Any other religion that approached them would not have contained the truth of God and they would not have converted to it. Second, when some hear the gospel, they remain blinded and do not believe it. These considerations function quite well as a explanation for Hick's "data". The only reason he could have to ignore it is if he was assuming it was false. Since that would be question-begging, his argument is question-begging.
Now it should be obvious that Hick's argument is an abysmal failure. This does not say anything about the actual status of pluralism as a belief. What it does say is that pluralism needs a good argument, and this is not one of them. It is also wise to keep in mind that some philosophers miss problems in arguments for their own belief systems. It is also good to remember that numbers and percent signs do not transform unfounded speculation into statistical knowledge.
posted by Matthew at 10:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home