home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

Word Gems 

self-knowledge, authentic living, full humanity, continual awakening 

John Hick

Philosophy of Religion

return to 'Great Books' main-page

see a copy of the analysis format

Commentary by ChatGPT

Philosophy of Religion

The title points to a discipline that stands between philosophy and religion. It does not begin by assuming that religious doctrines are true; instead, it asks whether claims about God, revelation, faith, prayer, miracles, immortality, religious experience, and evil can be intellectually justified.

The title can therefore be unpacked as:

“What can human reason legitimately say about religion?”

Hick is especially interested in the boundary between faith and knowledge: What reasons can we give for religious belief? What kind of evidence could count? And are religious claims the sort of things that can be proved, disproved, or understood in some other way?

So the title is deliberately broad. It signals not a theology of one particular religion, but a philosophical investigation of religion itself.

Philosophy of Religion

1. Author Bio

John Harwood Hick (1922–2012) was an English philosopher of religion and Christian theologian whose work increasingly moved from traditional Christian apologetics toward religious pluralism. He studied at Oxford, served for a time as a Presbyterian minister, and taught philosophy and theology in both Britain and the United States.

Two influences are particularly important here:

• Analytic philosophy, which pressed Hick to examine the logical status, meaning, and justification of religious assertions.
• Christian philosophical theology, particularly the problems of God, evil, faith, revelation, and human destiny.

His later thought would expand dramatically into the philosophy of religious pluralism, culminating in An Interpretation of Religion (1989). But Philosophy of Religion belongs to the earlier phase in which Hick is mapping the principal philosophical problems surrounding religious belief.

2. Overview / Central Question

What kind of knowledge can religious belief legitimately claim?

• Genre: Prose; introductory philosophical analysis
• Length: The first edition is approximately 130 pages; later editions expanded to about 148 pages.
• First publication: 1963; revised editions followed in 1973, 1983, and 1990.

One-line condensation

Can religious belief survive rigorous philosophical examination?

“What's this story really about?”

Hick's book is really about whether religious belief can be intellectually responsible in an age increasingly suspicious of metaphysics, revelation, and traditional theology. He examines the major philosophical questions surrounding God, religious experience, faith, reason, evil, religious language, and human destiny rather than simply defending a predetermined theology. The deeper project is to determine what sort of evidence, reasoning, or experience could legitimately support religious belief. The book therefore stands at the border between skepticism and faith, asking whether reason must ultimately destroy religion—or whether reason can clarify and deepen it.

2A. Plot Summary of the Entire Work

There is no conventional plot. The movement is an intellectual journey: begin with religious belief as something human beings actually possess, subject its claims to philosophical scrutiny, and then ask what remains standing.

Hick considers the traditional concept of God and the familiar arguments for God's existence. These arguments include forms of cosmological and ontological reasoning, together with arguments concerning design and moral order. But he does not treat the existence of God as something that can simply be demonstrated like a mathematical theorem. The question becomes more subtle: What kind of rational grounds can religious belief have?

The investigation then encounters the major difficulties. The existence of evil challenges belief in an omnipotent and perfectly good God. Religious experience raises the possibility that religion is grounded in something experiential rather than merely theoretical. Religious language creates another problem: when believers say "God," are they making literal propositions, using analogy, or employing symbolic language whose meaning cannot be reduced to ordinary empirical description?

Finally, Hick turns toward faith, revelation, religious disagreement, and human destiny. The result is not a knock-down proof of religion but a redefinition of the philosophical task. Religious belief need not be treated as either demonstrably certain knowledge or irrational superstition. There may be a legitimate middle territory in which faith is intellectually responsible while remaining faith.

3. Special Instructions

The most valuable harvest is not every individual argument but Hick's attempt to establish a rationally defensible space between proof and irrationality.

4. How This Book Engages the Great Conversation

Hick enters an ancient conversation:

• What is real? — Is God a reality independent of human consciousness?
• How do we know? — Can God be known through reason, experience, revelation, or some combination?
• How should we live? — Does religious belief transform moral existence?
• What does mortality mean? — Is there a destiny beyond biological death?
• Why does evil exist? — Can belief in a good God survive suffering?

The pressure forcing Hick into these questions is the modern intellectual challenge to traditional religion. Science, empiricism, logical analysis, religious diversity, and the problem of evil have all weakened the assumption that religious doctrines can simply be accepted because tradition says so.

Hick's importance is that he does not regard philosophy as merely an enemy of religion. Philosophy can instead become religion's instrument of self-examination.

5. Condensed Analysis

“What problem is this thinker trying to solve, and what kind of reality must exist for their solution to make sense?”

Problem

Can religious belief be intellectually justified without pretending to possess mathematical certainty?

The traditional alternatives often appear stark:

1. God can be rationally demonstrated.
2. God cannot be demonstrated, therefore belief is irrational.

Hick finds this dichotomy inadequate. Religious belief involves interpretation, experience, commitment, and ways of seeing reality that do not necessarily operate like laboratory hypotheses.

The underlying assumption is that reality may contain dimensions that cannot be exhausted by empirical description.

Core Claim

Hick's central contribution is to treat religious belief as something that can be rationally assessed without requiring deductive proof.

The important distinction is between:

proof → certainty

and

reasonable belief → warranted commitment without certainty

Religious faith therefore need not claim the status of scientific demonstration in order to be intellectually meaningful.

This is an important move because it changes the question from:

"Can God be proved?"

to:

"What reasons are there for believing in God, and what kind of reasons could religious experience provide?"

Opponent

Hick confronts several positions:

• traditional rationalism that expects demonstrative proof;
• empiricism that restricts legitimate knowledge to observable facts;
• skepticism about religious experience;
• positivist approaches that regard religious statements as meaningless;
• atheistic arguments based upon evil or the apparent absence of God.

The strongest objection remains powerful:

If religious claims cannot be independently verified, what prevents religious belief from becoming mere wishful thinking?

Hick's response is not to produce a single decisive proof but to examine the whole structure of religious consciousness and belief.

Breakthrough

The most important conceptual move is the recognition that religious perception may function somewhat like interpretation.

The same world can be encountered differently depending upon the conceptual framework through which it is perceived.

Thus religious belief is not necessarily a matter of adding an invisible object called "God" to the inventory of visible objects. It can involve experiencing the world as charged with divine significance.

This prepares the ground for the much more developed account Hick would eventually give in his later work.

Cost

The cost is that Hick gives up something many believers would like to have:

absolute demonstrative certainty.

If religious belief is rational without being demonstrable, then believers must tolerate ambiguity.

That creates a genuine vulnerability. The same openness that protects religion from crude demands for scientific proof can also make it harder to distinguish genuine religious perception from psychological projection.

Hick's position therefore gains intellectual humility at the price of epistemic certainty.

One Central Passage

A particularly useful formulation from Hick's treatment of religious belief is his insistence that religious experience should not simply be dismissed because it is not externally demonstrable. His analysis repeatedly moves toward the idea that human beings encounter reality through interpretive frameworks rather than through completely neutral perception.

A concise formulation of the central idea is:

Religious experience is an experience of the world interpreted religiously.

Why this matters

This is the conceptual hinge of Hick's project.

The question is no longer simply:

"Can you prove that God exists?"

It becomes:

"What is happening when a person experiences reality as the presence of God?"

That is a much more sophisticated philosophical question. It moves the discussion from abstract proofs toward epistemology, perception, experience, and interpretation.

7. Interpretive Method: Trans-Rational Lens

Hick is especially interesting when viewed through the distinction between discursive reasoning and lived apprehension.

Chat: apprehend comes from Latin apprehendere = “to seize, grasp, take hold of.”

From that came the intellectual sense: to grasp an idea → apprehend a concept.

But “to seize” can also suggest being seized by fear or anticipation. Hence apprehension came to mean an anxious expectation of something unpleasant.

“lived apprehension” = grasping the meaning by living it rather than reasoning about it

His arguments can establish that religious belief is not necessarily irrational. But that does not by itself explain why religious experience can feel like knowledge to the person experiencing it.

That second dimension cannot be captured entirely by syllogism.

The deeper possibility is that religious consciousness represents a mode of apprehending reality in which the person encounters significance before constructing a philosophical argument about it.

That is precisely where Hick becomes more interesting than a conventional apologist.

8. Dramatic & Historical Context

Publication

1963, Prentice-Hall. The book was subsequently revised in 1973, 1983, and 1990. The 1973 second edition was 133 pages; the 1983 third edition expanded to 148 pages.

Hick was writing during a period when traditional religious philosophy was confronting:

• logical positivism;
• the philosophy of language;
• the decline of confidence in classical proofs of God;
• scientific naturalism;
• renewed interest in religious experience;
• the continuing problem of evil;
• increasing awareness of the world's religious diversity.

Chat: Logical positivism was a philosophical movement, especially influential in the 1920s–1940s, that tried to make philosophy more like science by insisting that meaningful claims must be either empirically testable or logically true.

The intellectual climate made the old question—

"Can God's existence be proved?"

—look increasingly inadequate.

The new question was:

"What does it mean for religious belief to be rational at all?"

That shift is one of the book's most important historical contributions.

9. Sections Overview

The book's principal territory includes:

1. The concept of God
2. Arguments for God's existence
3. Arguments against God's existence
4. The problem of evil
5. Religious experience
6. Faith and revelation
7. Religious language
8. Religious assertions and verification/falsification
9. Conflicting religious truth-claims
10. Human destiny and life after death

The later editions explicitly broadened and updated these discussions; the 1983 description identifies the concept of God, grounds for belief and disbelief, evil, revelation and faith, religious language, falsifiability, conflicting religious truth-claims, and human destiny among the central topics.

11. Vital Glossary

Theism

Belief in God or gods; in Hick's context, primarily belief in the Judaic-Christian God.

Religious experience

An experience interpreted by the subject as an encounter with divine or transcendent reality.

Faith

Not merely believing without evidence, but a form of committed trust or apprehension that can involve rational grounds without demonstrative proof.

Revelation

The disclosure of divine reality or truth to human beings.

Religious language

The philosophical problem of determining what religious statements actually mean and how they can be true.

Falsifiability

The possibility that a claim could, at least in principle, be shown to be false by some conceivable evidence.

Theodicy

An attempt to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence and goodness of God.

Theodicy is the attempt to explain how an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God can exist despite the existence of evil and suffering.

The word was coined by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) in his Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil (1710).

The name itself comes from Greek:

• theos = God

• dike = justice

So theodicy literally means “justifying God” — specifically, defending God's goodness and justice in the face of evil.

The central problem

The classic formulation is roughly:

If God is all-powerful, He could prevent evil.
If God is perfectly good, He would want to prevent evil.
Yet evil exists.
Therefore, why does evil exist?

Theodicy attempts to provide an answer.

Leibniz's answer

Leibniz argued that God created “the best of all possible worlds.”

That does not mean that this world is perfect. Rather, Leibniz's argument is that God, possessing infinite wisdom, chose the world whose total arrangement of good, evil, freedom, natural law, and consequences is ultimately the best possible whole.

Some evils may therefore be permitted because eliminating them would require eliminating some greater good.

For example:

freedom → possibility of wrongdoing

If God creates genuinely free beings, He cannot simultaneously guarantee that they will never misuse that freedom.

Why the concept matters

Theodicy is really asking a much deeper question than:

“Why does bad stuff happen?”

It asks:

“Can belief in a perfectly good God be intellectually reconciled with the actual structure of existence?”

That makes theodicy one of the central problems in the philosophy of religion.

And there is an important distinction:

Theodicy: attempts to justify God's permission of evil.

Problem of evil: argues that the existence of evil creates a difficulty for belief in God.

So the problem of evil poses the challenge; theodicy attempts the defense.

Interestingly, your earlier question about logical positivism eventually intersects with this: a positivist may challenge not merely the answer to the theodicy problem, but whether statements about God's purposes are meaningful or empirically testable in the first place.

Religious pluralism

The position that more than one religious tradition may represent genuine responses to transcendent reality. This becomes one of Hick's defining later ideas.

12. Deeper Significance / Strategic Themes

The lasting importance of Philosophy of Religion is less any individual argument than the change in the rules of the discussion.

Hick refuses to let the debate be controlled by the assumption that only empirically demonstrable propositions can be rational.

At the same time, he does not simply retreat into:

"I believe because I believe."

Instead, he asks what kind of rationality belongs to religion.

That is a very fruitful question.

It also anticipates Hick's later movement toward religious pluralism: if religious consciousness is a genuine mode of encountering transcendent reality, then the philosophical problem becomes much larger than simply defending Christianity.

It becomes:

How do different human beings encounter and interpret the transcendent?

That question eventually becomes the center of Hick's mature philosophy.

13. Decision Point

Does this book deserve Section 10?

Yes—but only minimally.

This is not a book where extensive subdivision-by-subdivision analysis seems warranted for the project. Its value is primarily conceptual.

One targeted passage concerning religious experience and the interpretation of reality is enough to unlock much of the book.

Classification for the project: FIRST-LOOK / CORE-HARVEST.

The book is useful as a map of the modern philosophy of religion and as a bridge into Hick's more important later works. It does not appear necessary to spend extensive second-look time on the whole book.

14. “First Day of History” Lens

There is one particularly important conceptual development worth noticing.

Hick helps move the discussion of religion away from the crude binary:

proved / disproved

toward:

how is religious reality experienced, interpreted, and rationally assessed?

That is not an entirely new question, but Hick gives it a particularly systematic modern formulation.

The historical importance is therefore not that he invented philosophy of religion. Rather, he helped reframe its central epistemological problem.

16. Reference Bank of Quotations

A small quotation bank is preferable here; the book's conceptual structure is more important than collecting numerous sentences.

1. The central epistemological issue

“What is the relation between faith and reason?”

Paraphrase: Religious belief must explain how it can be intellectually responsible without becoming mere deduction.

2. Religious experience

“Religious experience” is not merely an unusual psychological event.

Paraphrase: Its significance depends upon how the experience is understood as revealing something about reality.

3. Religious language

Religious language cannot simply be treated as ordinary empirical description.

Paraphrase: Statements about God may operate through analogy, symbol, interpretation, and forms of reference different from statements about physical objects.

4. The larger project

The philosophy of religion examines the intellectual foundations and implications of religious belief.

Paraphrase: Philosophy does not merely ask whether religion is true; it asks what religious truth could mean and how human beings might rationally encounter it.

17. Core Concept / Mental Anchor

“Religion need not be provable to be rational.”

Hick's great move is to break the false choice between:

demonstrative certainty ↔ irrational faith

and open a third possibility:

reasonable faith grounded in experience, interpretation, and cumulative evidence.

That is the mental anchor to carry forward.

18. Famous Words / Cultural Legacy

There is no single phrase from Philosophy of Religion that has entered the general cultural vocabulary on the scale of Shakespeare's "brave new world" or Bacon's "tasted, swallowed, chewed and digested."

The important legacy is instead conceptual vocabulary that becomes increasingly important in Hick's later work:

• religious experience
• religious language
• religious pluralism
• falsifiability of religious assertions
• human destiny
• the problem of evil

Of these, religious pluralism is especially important historically. Hick would eventually make it one of the central concepts of his mature philosophy of religion.

CORE HARVEST

John Hick (1922–2012) — Philosophy of Religion (1963)

Religious belief need not be demonstrably certain in order to be rationally responsible.

Hick's real achievement here is not proving God.

It is changing the question.

Instead of asking only:

“Can God be proved?”

he asks:

“What kind of human experience, reasoning, and interpretation could make religious belief rational?”

That is the seed from which the later Hick grows—the Hick who will eventually ask whether different religions may be culturally different responses to the same transcendent reality.

Project verdict: Harvest the concept; a full second look is unnecessary.