John Harwood Hick

1. Introduction

John Harwood Hick (1922–2012) was a British philosopher of religion and theologian whose work reshaped late twentieth‑century discussions of religious belief, evil, and the status of world religions. Trained in the Reformed Protestant tradition and in analytic philosophy at Oxford, he became a central figure in bringing philosophical rigor to questions that had previously been treated mainly within confessional theology.

Hick is especially associated with three interconnected ideas. First, he developed a pluralistic hypothesis, according to which the major world religions are historically conditioned but genuinely salvific responses to a single transcendent Reality, which he termed “the Real.” Second, he articulated a modern soul‑making theodicy, arguing that suffering and evil form part of a divinely intended environment for the moral and spiritual growth of human persons. Third, he advanced a critical realist approach to religious experience and language, drawing heavily on Kant’s distinction between things as they are in themselves and as they appear to human consciousness.

His work provoked sustained debate across philosophy, theology, and religious studies. Proponents have treated Hick as a constructive mediator between traditions and as a model of philosophically sophisticated pluralism. Critics from diverse perspectives—analytic, confessional, and comparative—have questioned the coherence, empirical adequacy, and theological implications of his views. The following sections situate Hick’s ideas in their biographical and historical context, trace his intellectual development, and survey the principal themes, controversies, and interpretations that structure his place in the philosophy of religion.

2. Life and Historical Context

Hick’s life spanned major social, political, and intellectual shifts in Britain and the wider world. Born in 1922 in Scarborough, North Yorkshire, into a middle‑class family, he initially pursued law before undergoing an evangelical Christian conversion around 1940. This experience redirected him toward ministry and theological study during and immediately after the Second World War.

2.1 Educational and Professional Trajectory

2.2 Historical and Intellectual Milieu

Hick’s early career unfolded against the backdrop of post‑war analytic philosophy, dominated by concerns about language, verification, and the rationality of religious belief. His work engaged contemporaries who questioned whether religious statements were cognitively meaningful.

From the 1960s onward, decolonization, immigration, and the emergence of visibly multi‑faith urban centers, especially Birmingham, placed living religious diversity at the center of public debate in Britain. Hick’s direct encounters with Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, and Jewish communities in this context influenced his move from Christian exclusivism to religious pluralism.

At the same time, ecumenical theology and early interfaith movements were challenging older confessional boundaries. Within this environment Hick’s proposals—on evil, pluralism, and Christology—interacted with both secular philosophical critiques and intra‑Christian disputes about doctrine and modernity, shaping the reception and controversy that surrounded his writings.

3. Intellectual Development

Hick’s intellectual trajectory is commonly described in four overlapping phases, each marked by shifts in emphasis rather than abrupt breaks.

3.1 Evangelical and Reformed Beginnings (1940–1953)

Following his conversion, Hick adopted a fairly conservative evangelical outlook, shaped by Reformed theology. During studies at Edinburgh and Cambridge, and later at Oxford, he engaged classical Christian doctrines while becoming increasingly interested in epistemological questions about faith, evidence, and the justification of belief.

3.2 Analytic Epistemology and Theodicy (1953–late 1960s)

After completing his doctorate at Oxford on religious epistemology, Hick worked within the analytic tradition, interacting with debates about verificationism and the meaningfulness of religious language. Faith and Knowledge articulated an early version of his “experiencing‑as” account of religious belief. With Evil and the God of Love, he developed an Irenaean soul‑making theodicy, contrasting it with Augustinian fall‑and‑punishment models.

3.3 Turn to Pluralism and Critical Christology (1970s–1980s)

Teaching in Birmingham exposed Hick to extensive interfaith contact. He participated in local dialogues and civic initiatives involving Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and others. This context contributed to his gradual move from Christian exclusivism through inclusivism toward a fully pluralistic stance. Works such as God and the Universe of Faiths and the edited volume The Myth of God Incarnate signal a shift to mythological Christology and a more universalist soteriology.

3.4 Mature Pluralistic Hypothesis and Eschatological Reflection (late 1980s–2012)

In An Interpretation of Religion Hick presented a systematic pluralistic hypothesis built around the notion of the Real. Later writings, including Death and Eternal Life and The Metaphor of God Incarnate, refined his views on eschatology, post‑mortem moral development, and symbolic religious language. Throughout this period he engaged critics from philosophy, theology, and religious studies, revising but not abandoning his central pluralist commitments.

4. Major Works

Hick’s main publications trace the evolution of his thought from analytic epistemology to mature pluralism and revisionist Christology.

4.1 Overview Table

4.2 Thematic Groupings

1. Epistemology and Method: Faith and Knowledge lays the groundwork for Hick’s critical realist approach, drawing on Kant and on the concept of religious experience as interpretive.

2. Theodicy and Eschatology: Evil and the God of Love and Death and Eternal Life elaborate his soul‑making view and related eschatological ideas, including post‑mortem development.

3. Pluralism and Comparative Religion: God and the Universe of Faiths and An Interpretation of Religion develop his thesis that major traditions are valid responses to the Real.

4. Christology: The Myth of God Incarnate and The Metaphor of God Incarnate present and defend a non‑literal, mythological understanding of Christian doctrines about Jesus.

These works together form the primary textual basis for interpreting Hick’s philosophical and theological contributions.

5. Core Ideas: The Real, Pluralism, and Theodicy

5.1 The Real

Central to Hick’s mature system is the notion of “the Real”—a transcendent Reality that is ultimately ineffable and beyond full conceptual grasp. Drawing on Kant, he distinguished between the Real an sich and the Real as it is experienced and conceptualized within different religious traditions. Religious images of God, Nirvāṇa, Brahman, or the Dao are interpreted as culturally conditioned “faces” or personae/impersonae of this one Reality.

"

“Our religious concepts and images do not literally describe the Real as it is in itself, but indicate the way in which it is consciously experienced from within a particular cultural‑religious tradition.”

— John Hick, Faith and Knowledge (rev. ed.)

5.2 Religious Pluralism and the Pluralistic Hypothesis

Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis claims that the great world religions constitute distinct but broadly equivalent paths of salvation or liberation:

Proponents interpret this as a realist, non‑relativist account that preserves religious truth while explaining doctrinal conflict. Critics argue that it may homogenize traditions or impose an external philosophical scheme on them.

5.3 Soul‑Making Theodicy

In Evil and the God of Love, Hick advances a soul‑making theodicy inspired by Irenaeus. Instead of viewing evil chiefly as punishment for a primordial fall, he posits that God created an epistemically and morally challenging world to enable the development of mature, free persons. Natural laws, suffering, and moral risk form the “vale of soul‑making” in which virtues such as compassion and courage emerge.

Supporters regard this as addressing both moral and natural evil within a developmental framework. Detractors question whether it can justify extreme or seemingly pointless suffering, and whether all forms of evil genuinely contribute to soul‑making.

6. Key Contributions to Philosophy of Religion

Hick’s work influenced the structure and content of late twentieth‑century philosophy of religion in several distinct areas.

6.1 Systematizing Positions on Religious Diversity

Hick helped establish exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism as standard categories for classifying views on salvation and truth among religions.

This typology has been widely adopted in subsequent philosophical and theological literature, though some critics propose more nuanced taxonomies.

6.2 Religious Epistemology and Critical Realism

Hick’s account of faith as “experiencing‑as” and his critical realist stance contributed to debates about whether religious beliefs can be rational without conclusive evidence. He argued that:

• Religious experience is interpreted through conceptual schemes.
• Commitment is rationally permissible when embedded in an overall “experiencing‑as” that makes sense of one’s life and moral experience.
• The success of religious traditions in transforming lives counts as cumulative, though non‑decisive, support.

Philosophers have drawn on and contested these claims when addressing the rationality of belief, the role of experience, and the parity (or lack thereof) between religious and secular interpretive frameworks.

6.3 Theodicy and Eschatology in Analytic Debate

Evil and the God of Love became a touchstone in analytic discussions of the problem of evil. Hick’s detailed distinction between Augustinian and Irenaean models provided a conceptual map for subsequent theodicies. His integration of eschatological considerations—especially the possibility of post‑mortem moral development—linked the logical problem of evil to questions about life after death and ultimate justice, influencing later treatments of “heaven, hell, and universalism” in analytic philosophy.

7. Methodology and Use of Kantian Themes

Kantian ideas pervade Hick’s methodology, though commentators disagree about the exact nature of this dependence.

7.1 Critical Realism and the Noumenal/Phenomenal Distinction

Adapting Kant’s distinction between noumenon and phenomenon, Hick maintains that:

• The Real an sich is beyond direct human cognition.
• Religions present phenomenal manifestations of the Real, structured by culturally specific concepts and practices.
• Religious truth‑claims are therefore indirect and analogical, yet still about a mind‑independent Reality.

He calls this stance critical realism—a middle path between naïve realism and non‑cognitivism.

7.2 Experiencing‑As and Conceptual Mediation

In Faith and Knowledge, Hick uses the notion of “experiencing‑as” (e.g., seeing a figure as a duck or as a rabbit) to illustrate how the same experiential content can be interpreted differently. Religious perception of the world “as” creation, or “as” empty of self, is taken to be similarly shaped by prior concepts and traditions. This model supports both his pluralism and his claim that none of the traditions literally captures the Real.

7.3 Methodological Commitments and Debates

Hick’s method combines:

• Phenomenological description of religious experience across cultures.
• Comparative analysis of doctrines and soteriological patterns.
• Pragmatic‑ethical criteria (e.g., transformation of character) for assessing religions.

Supporters see this as a philosophically rigorous extension of Kant to a global religious context. Critics argue that Hick’s use of Kant may be selective, that the Real functions as a largely empty postulate, or that his method imports liberal Protestant assumptions under the guise of neutral philosophical analysis.

8. Christology, Eschatology, and Religious Language

8.1 Mythological Christology

Hick’s treatment of Christology is closely tied to his pluralism. In The Myth of God Incarnate and The Metaphor of God Incarnate he contends that traditional doctrines of Jesus as literally, uniquely God incarnate are best read as mythological or metaphorical affirmations of God’s presence in Jesus’ life, rather than as precise metaphysical descriptions.

"

“The doctrine of the incarnation is best understood, not as the assertion of a metaphysical curiosity, but as a metaphorical or mythological way of affirming the decisive presence of God in the life of Jesus.”

— John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate

Supporters see this as reconciling Christian faith with religious pluralism, allowing for the possibility of other “incarnational” figures. Critics maintain that it undermines classical credal orthodoxy and empties incarnation language of its distinctive content.

8.2 Eschatology and Life After Death

In Death and Eternal Life, Hick surveys a wide range of eschatological beliefs, exploring resurrection, reincarnation, and other models. He proposes that personal identity could be preserved in a divinely created replica world, allowing for continued post‑mortem moral and spiritual development. This eschatological framework is intertwined with his soul‑making theodicy and with the idea that ultimate justice may be realized beyond earthly life.

8.3 Religious Language as Symbolic and Analogical

Hick generally treats religious language as symbolic, analogical, and oriented toward transformation rather than literal description. Doctrines are seen as second‑order interpretations of primary religious experience. This view aims to explain how conflicting doctrinal statements across traditions can all be meaningful responses to the Real, even if none is strictly literal. Critics argue that this stance risks relativizing doctrinal content, while defenders suggest that it offers a coherent account of religious meaning compatible with modern linguistic and hermeneutical insights.

9. Impact on Theology, Religious Studies, and Interfaith Dialogue

Hick’s ideas have been influential across several disciplines, though in different ways and with varying degrees of acceptance.

9.1 Christian Theology

In theology, Hick played a major role in liberal and revisionist movements that questioned exclusivist claims. His mythological Christology and pluralism have been incorporated by some theologians into broader projects of “theology of religions,” while others defend traditional doctrines in explicit opposition to his work. His system helped frame debates about whether Christianity can affirm the equal validity of other faiths.

9.2 Religious Studies and Comparative Religion

In religious studies, Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis offered a philosophical framework for interpreting religious diversity. It has been used as a reference point in discussions of:

• Whether and how scholars can speak of a common core across religions.
• The relationship between insider beliefs and outsider analysis.
• The methodological status of normative claims in an ostensibly descriptive discipline.

Some scholars welcome his effort to treat all traditions symmetrically; others criticize the approach as “essentialist” or insufficiently attentive to power, history, and internal diversity.

9.3 Interfaith Dialogue and Public Discourse

Hick’s work has been cited in interfaith organizations, church reports, and public discussions of pluralism and tolerance. His emphasis on ethical transformation as a shared criterion for evaluating religions has appealed to practitioners seeking common ground. In multi‑faith contexts such as Birmingham, he participated in local initiatives that used philosophical pluralism as a basis for mutual respect and cooperation.

At the same time, some religious leaders and communities have resisted his proposals, viewing them as incompatible with strong confessional identities. Thus his impact on interfaith practice has been both catalyzing and contested, shaping agendas even where his specific views are rejected.

10. Criticisms and Ongoing Debates

Hick’s work has attracted sustained critique from diverse angles, generating ongoing debates about pluralism, theodicy, and religious language.

10.1 Pluralism and the Real

Critics of Hick’s pluralism raise several concerns:

Defenders respond that Hick’s model is a good‑faith attempt to balance realism with recognition of cognitive limits and cultural conditioning.

10.2 Theodicy and Suffering

Hick’s soul‑making theodicy is debated on moral and logical grounds. Critics argue that:

• Extreme or apparently “gratuitous” evils do not plausibly contribute to soul‑making.
• Justifying suffering by appeal to future growth may trivialize victims’ experiences.
• Alternative approaches (e.g., “anti‑theodicy,” skeptical theism) avoid some of these issues.

Supporters see his view as one of the most philosophically developed attempts to integrate evil, freedom, and eschatological hope.

10.3 Christology and Religious Language

From within Christian theology, Hick’s mythological Christology is often judged incompatible with classical creeds. Some philosophers of religion also worry that his symbolic account of doctrine lacks clear criteria for truth and falsity. Debates continue over whether his approach can preserve religious commitment and identity, or whether it inevitably leads to a more generic spirituality.

More broadly, Hick’s use of Kantian themes remains contested: some see it as a faithful extension of critical philosophy to religion; others regard it as a selective appropriation that raises as many epistemological questions as it answers.

11. Legacy and Historical Significance

Hick is widely regarded as one of the most influential Anglophone philosophers of religion of the late twentieth century. His work helped to institutionalize philosophy of religion within analytic philosophy, demonstrating that questions about God, evil, and salvation could be treated with conceptual rigor without collapsing into either dogmatism or skepticism.

Historically, Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis has served as a major reference point for subsequent discussions of religious diversity. Later models—such as various forms of “inclusivist pluralism,” post‑colonial critiques, and comparative theological approaches—often define themselves in dialogue with, or in contrast to, Hick’s framework. In this sense, his proposals function as a benchmark against which alternative accounts of interreligious truth and salvation are measured.

His soul‑making theodicy remains a standard option in textbooks and scholarly debates on the problem of evil, frequently contrasted with free‑will defenses, skeptical theism, and protest theologies. Even critics acknowledge the systematic clarity with which he distinguished Irenaean from Augustinian strategies.

In terms of broader cultural history, Hick’s career exemplifies the interaction between post‑war secularization, immigration‑driven pluralism, and liberal theology in Britain and the United States. His attempts to articulate a theologically serious yet religiously inclusive worldview have been interpreted as characteristic of late modern liberal religious thought. Whether received as a pioneering model, a problematic form of theological minimalism, or a stimulus for more contextual approaches, Hick’s work continues to shape the landscape in which contemporary philosophy of religion and theology address questions of truth, diversity, and the meaning of religious commitment.