John Hick on Religious Pluralism: a Summary

Exclusivism is natural inclination for those who live only in their own religion borders. But this tendency soon become criticized in finding other religions’ result of transforming human being from selfishness to divine awareness, moreover if values of various religions are regarded, both of which can be found in various religious traditions.
Having seen other religions contributions to the humanity, inclusivist have a tendency not to see other religious traditions to be less compared to his own. For illustration, a Buddhist may regard other religion as imperfect dharma. In the same way, Roman Catholic, while convinced that human salvation is entirely dependent on sacrifice of Christ, consider that all people can be saved by that sacrifice. We can summarize that inclusivism is a view that, while considering superiority of one’s own tradition, is commited not to underestimate others’ tradition

Although inclusivism is socially acceptable, but it is logically in problematic status. Religious pluralism tries to solve this by taking more radical position, that is, to consider other religions as the same soteriological way as one’s own. Each religions are considered to represent one consciousness of the divine. In religious texts, we find words to developed into inclusivist or pluralist understanding. For example, in New Testament we read that the Logos was “the light that lightens every man” (Jn. 1:9). And so is the case with Rumi’s statement which is, for many, considered to have pluralist significance. “The lamps are different but the light is the same; it comes from beyond”.
But so far, there is no single general agreement on how to define religious pluralism philosophically. This definition should be able to cover all phenomena in every religions and understand them as constituting one single divine reality.
One of the most promising manner, which can be found in every religions, is through distinction between God an sich and as humanly experienced. In religions can be found a common concept that can be represented by term the Real. In Arabic we know al-haqq; in Sanskrit sat; in English ultimate reality. In Hinduism, it is distinction between nirguna brahman (brahman beyond the scope of human concepts) and saguna brahman (brahman humanly experienced as personal deity). In Christianity, it is distinction between God in his eternal and God as known from within his creatured things. And so we find other religions.
From the modern point of view, first formulated by Immanuel Kant, we find that circumstance, in which we live, is abstracted by our mind through interpretative process before it comes to our awareness as concepts and ideas. And this can be utilized to read religious awareness which can be categorized into two groups; the Real as personal in theistic traditions and the Real as nonpersonal in nontheistic traditions.
But in religious history, there is no concept of God as abstract ultimate reality, instead it is always in particular concrete forms. Gods in religions are always understood by specific community in personal relationship and, therefore, historical. Yahveh as conceived by Jews cannot be regarded as the same as god in any other community. And so is the case with other religion.
In the seemingly nonpersonal gods as conceived, for example, by Hindus, there is concretization of that nonpersonal gods. They are experienced as universal transpersonal consciousness which give mean to one’s life.
The variety of religious experiences of the Real, as found in Hinduism and Buddhism, suggests that there is human contribution to those experiences. This can be proven by different meditation and scriptures read in every religion which result in different religious consciousness. So, Kantian thesis of interpretative process within human mind seems to be applicable to both personal modes of awareness of the Real and nonpersonal.
Another Kantian idea that seems to be applicable to the problem of the Real is the distinction between noumenon, which always means involvement of human interpretation, and phenomenon. There is no “pure” noumenon independent of human as knowing subject, because of the impossibility of that mode of knowing. The same is relevant to the problem of divine reality. The Real as it is cannot be experienced, for there is always interpretative involvement of human’s mind. As a result, we may assume that there is one divine noumenon, which can be explained, and different phenomena in religious traditions, each of which is constituting that one divine noumenon.
This pluralist interpretation is aimed to religiously describe the plurality of religions. For, if we use naturalistic approach to this plurality, we will arrive at conclusion of considering all religious phenomena as human illusion. To propose the divine noumenon is to defend religions in general by regarding them as manifestations and responses to the Real.
The most challenging disagreement to pluralist point of view comes from those who hold the exclusivist view of one’s own tradition. For pluralist view to be widely accepted, each person in one tradition must initiate to understand one’s tradition and modify one’s exclusivist view to be more universal and acceptable to all.