I have been inspired by Xavier to post some stuff on John Hick that I haven’t though about in a while. Here is Hick’s argument for the ineffability of God on which I spoke to a youth group one time.
1) God’s being transcends the categories of human thought.
2) Any being which transcends the categories of human thought cannot be accurately described.
3) Therefore, any description of God will be inaccurate
Is this a good argument?
Premise 2 seems unproblematic and true.
Premise 1 has at least 2 problems:
a. Self-defeating—one cannot know that God transcends the categories of human thought without knowing something about God that doesn’t transcend the category of human thought………
b. If it is true then it is false.
But are there any more problems?
a. Hick adopts a Hindu conception of God—that God is beyond any human conception. He is neither personal or impersonal, good nor evil.
“Theologically, the Hindu distinction b/t Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman is important and should be adopted into western religious thought”
-(Hick, “Religious Pluralism and Ultimate Reality,” 513)
1. The problem here, of course, is that no religion is supposed to be more valid than another, but Hick has elevated Hinduism to being closer to the truth!!!
2. If he is elevating this view of Ultimate Reality is he then excluding other different or contradictory views?
I hope this spurs some good dialogue. Please share your thoughts, whether positive or negative.