John Hick, Rabbi Irwin Kula and Walter Kaufmann

John Hick: "The Pluralist Hypothesis”

John Hick’s hypothesis raises many questions and doubts and does not provide a proper and independent answer to the main questions of religion. An author of the “Pluralist Hypothesis” implies that the existing religions are different interpretations of an answer to the question of human existence.

This statement provides some questions that require answers. Firstly, his theory offers the reader analogies that are not correct to be a foundation for discussion the ultimate of religion. This statement was generated in the process of studying the author’s offers about theodity. His arguments are based on the narrow interpretation of the question of human being. Moreover, the author's interpretations of evil and its existence contradicts many existing theories (such as theory of the “Universe Balance”).

Also, there is another viewpoint on the question of religious pluralism. This viewpoint states that all the existing religions are right in their core of human being explanation. The only problem is an ideology that is given to each representative of the human race from his birth. Moreover, it provides a statement that the existing religions cannot be called equal because they have extremely different explanations in some aspects. From my point of view, this theory proves to be better than Hick's explanations because it does not go into conflict with any existing statements on the ultimate of religion.


To conclude the above, it can be said that John Hick’s theories of religion pluralism are still in progress of development. They are good for completing the study of world religions. Still they cannot be the core of religion and philosophy studies because of their nebulization. Moreover, the author’s theories are still uncertain on some aspects and can cause a problem in studying them because other provided theories are giving more concrete statements.

Retrievered from

Rabbi Irwin Kula: “The Face of God”

The provided statement shows the auditory another example of “Religious experience”. However, the following statement can be clearly characterized as the “Divine Enlightenment”. The process of such experience is easy to investigate: during any emotional outburst caused by force-major factors people are looking forward to explain their conditions. In the moment of explanation the result depends on the person’s viewpoint and life position. If the human being, who experienced strong emotions is religious, than his explanation will be connected with religious interpretation. If the person has an analytical mind or does not believe in any higher power, then the clarification of the process will be scholarly or naturalistic.

Kula's experience also provides a certain example of the person on the way to understand the world and religions as the united process that has differences only in clarification by the religion officials. Moreover, the provided case is a clear show of the “Unification with God” stance that was explained by William James in his referring to the words of St. Theresa: "If you, nevertheless, ask how it is possible that the soul can see and understand that she has been in God, since during the union she has neither sight nor understanding, I reply that she does not see it then, but that she sees it clearly later, after she has returned to herself, not by any vision, but by a certitude which abides with her and which God alone can give her.”

Retrievered from


To conclude the information above, it can be stated that the provided piece of self-reliving can be compared to many other examples of such stances. However, Kula's speech has a problem: it is not original. From my point of view, interpretation of any statement depends on education, country traditions, religion, etc. Consequently, the provided statement is exceptionally personal and can be provided as an example for the “Jastrow’s duck-rabbit drawing”.

Walter Kaufmann

Walter Kaufmann’s critique of scholarly understanding that the defining element of religions is an ineffable mystical core is a question that requires deeper studying to understand it clearly. From my point of view, Kaufmann intends to provide a more detailed explanation to the mystical experiences. Moreover, he does not intend to argue with other authors about such types of experiences, and still wants to give more rational and fundamental explanation to them. His statements about mystical experiences are based on such hypothesizes:

  1. Because of the personality of the mystic, mystical experience and its intensity will vary from mystic to mystic.
  2. Because of prior beliefs and expectations, experiences will be polymorphic and will not reduce to the unitary sense.
  3. Mystical experience is based on the history of religion: it is not a defining phenomenon, but, certainly, an important one.

According to the statements above, the difference between Kauffmann’s and James’ explanations of mystical experience is understandable. William James considers that such experience is real and bases his works on this statement1. On the other hand, Kaufmann gives a path to the possibility of statement that all mysticism in religions is not ineffable and can be explained if the viewpoint of question observer is broader. Consequently, the problem of mystical experience can be examined not from the side of religion, but using multiple disciplines.


As a conclusion, it can be declared that Kaufman's hypothesis is clearer and more multiple-sided than James’. Moreover, it is clear that Kaufmann’s theories provide a vast field for religions and philosophies to explain the question of human being. However, from my point of view, the philosophers, theologians and scientists will never agree on the question of being if they do not accept the possibility of multiple views on one question. Kaufmann tried to provide it, however, his work is not finished yet.

call us
scroll to top