Why John Hick cannot, and should not, stay out of the jam pot

Religious Studies 36 (1):25-33 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

John Hick uses a distinction between the formal and the substantial properties of the Real an sich, the noumenal God. Hick claims that substantial properties, such as 'being good' or 'being personal', cannot be ascribed to the Real an sich. On the other hand, according to Hick, formal properties -- such as 'being such that none of our concepts apply' -- can be predicated of the Real an sich. I argue, first of all, that many of the properties Hick ascribes to the Real an sich are hard to interpret as anything but substantial, unless we adopt a highly arbitrary substantial/formal distinction. Secondly, I argue that it is never possible to ascribe only formal properties to the Real an sich, since the correct framing and application of formal properties involves a prior knowledge of some substantial properties. I show that the predication of formal properties involves having more knowledge than we need for the application of substantial properties. I conclude that Hick's practice is better than his theory, and that by dispensing with the formal/substantial distinction, he would enable his doctrine of God to stand on more respectable and theological grounds

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,446

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A Response to John Hick.George I. Mavrodes - 1997 - Faith and Philosophy 14 (3):289-294.
Response to Hick.William P. Alston - 1997 - Faith and Philosophy 14 (3):287-288.
Could God Have More Than One Nature?Robert McKim - 1988 - Faith and Philosophy 5 (4):378-398.
God, truth, and reality: essays in honour of John Hick.John Hick & Arvind Sharma (eds.) - 1993 - New York, N.Y.: St. Martin's Press.
John Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy and the Virtue of Love.Eric Silverman - 2009 - Journal of Philosophical Research 34:329-343.
[Hick, Necessary Being, and the Cosmological Argument] Comment.John H. Hick - 1972 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1 (4):485 - 487.
The many gods of Hick and Mavrodes.William Hasker - 2011 - In Kelly James Clark & Raymond J. VanArragon (eds.), Evidence and Religious Belief. Oxford University Press.
Religious pluralism.William L. Rowe - 1999 - Religious Studies 35 (2):139-150.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
30 (#452,445)

6 months
1 (#1,005,371)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references