Abstract
This essay develops standards for grading religions including various forms of spiritualism. First, I examine the standards proposed by William James, John Hick, Paul Knitter, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, and Harold Netland. Most of them are useful in grading religions with or without conditions. However, those standards are not enough for refined and piercing evaluation. Thus, I introduce standards used in spiritualism. Although those standards are for grading spirits and their teachings, they are useful in refined and piercing evaluation of religious phenomena. The spiritual standards complement James’s, Hick’s, Knitter’s, and Netland’s standards. Although most of the spiritual standards are rationally unjustifiable, they have practical value.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
James (1982), 18.
James (1982), 380–381. W. T. Stace divides mystical experiences into two types—extrovertive and introvertive ones—and lists characteristics of each type, many of which are common between the two types. The common characteristics include sense of objectivity or reality, blessedness, peace, holiness, paradoxicality, and ineffability. Stace (1960), 131–132.
James (1982), 426.
James (1982), 381.
Hick (1981), 451.
Hick (1981), 461.
Hick (1981), 462.
Netland (1997), 184.
Cohn-Sherbok (1986), 379.
Cohn-Sherbok (1986), 379.
Hick (1981), 462.
Cohn-Sherbok (1986), 379.
Hick (1981), 463.
Hick (1981), 465.
Cohn-Sherbok (1986), 380.
Hick (1981), 458–459.
Cohn-Sherbok (1986), 380–381.
Hick (1981), 466–467.
Hick (1981), 467.
Hick (1981), 467.
Cohn-Sherbok (1986), 380.
Hick (1981), 463.
Knitter (1985), 231.
Cohn-Sherbok (1986), 381.
Cohn-Sherbok (1986), 381.
I say ‘seeming’ because, as we will see, there may be no real incoherence in belief between religions.
Cohn-Sherbok (1986), 381.
Cohn-Sherbok (1986), 384.
Cohn-Sherbok (1986), 385.
For example, Peoples Temple and Aum Shinrikyo would be such religions.
Hick (1981), 467.
Netland (1997), 160.
Netland (1997), 160.
Netland (1997), 160–162. Netland makes a similar critique against Knitter’s standard of practicality, saying that it ‘is entirely useless apart from first settling the question of truth.’ According to Netland, we first need the answer to the following question: ‘What is the ultimate nature of the human predicament and how can one attain release from it?’ Netland (1997), 164.
Cohn-Sherbok (1986), 379.
I suggest the possibility that Cohn-Sherbok’s remark and the incomplete language thesis may apply to external inconsistency between religions. But, as we saw, I do not apply them to internal inconsistency within a religion when grading the religion.
Netland (1997), 166.
Netland (1997), 192–193.
Netland (1997), 190–191.
Netland (1997), 190.
For Weber’s theory of objective possibility, see Weber (1949), 164–188.
Galloway (1925), 181.
Hick (1981), 467.
Moses (1898), 201.
Austen (1998), 137–138.
Ortzen (2000), 111–112.
Kardec (2007), 335.
Kardec (2007), 337.
Kardec (2007), 337.
Ortzen (2000), 112.
It is impossible to find an ultimate rational ground for a spirit’s teachings because the search for it leads to either infinite regress, circularity, or an arbitrary stopping point (Agrippa’s trilemma). The trilemma originates from the Five Modes of Agrippa in ancient Pyrrhonian skepticism. See Diogenes Laertius (1991), book 9, sections 88–89; Sextus Empiricus (2000), book 1, sections 164–177.
Kardec (2007), 337.
Kardec (2007), 340–341.
Kardec (2007), 338.
Kardec (2007), 338.
Kardec (2007), 337–338.
Kardec (2007), 338.
Kardec (2007), 339.
Kardec (2007), 335.
Kardec (2007), 339.
Kardec (2007), 340.
Kardec (2007), 341.
Kardec (2007), 340.
Kardec (2007), 342.
Kardec (2007), 338–339.
Kardec (2007), 339–340.
Kardec (2007), 340.
Kardec (2007), 338.
Kardec (2007), 341–342.
Kardec (2007), 342.
Hick (1981), 467.
The idea of Bankyo Dokon in Oomoto and similar ideas in its derivative religions are such an example. Also, Hick’s religious pluralism suggests that incompatibility between various religions is more seeming than real. On his religious pluralism, see Hick (2004).
References
Austen, A. W. (Ed.). (1998). Teachings of Silver Birch. Oxshott: Spiritual Truth Press.
Cohn-Sherbok, D. (1986). Ranking religions. Religious Studies, 22(3–4), 377–386.
Diogenes Laertius. (1991). Lives of eminent philosophers (R. D. Hicks, Trans. Vol. 2). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Galloway, G. (1925). The philosophy of religion. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Griffiths, P., & Lewis, D. (1983). On grading religions, seeking truth, and being nice to people: A reply to Professor Hick. Religious Studies, 19(1), 75–80.
Hick, J. (1981). On grading religions. Religious Studies, 17(4), 451–467.
Hick, J. (1983). On conflicting religious truth-claims. Religious Studies, 19(4), 485–491.
Hick, J. (2004). An interpretation of religion: Human responses to the transcendent (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
James, W. (1982). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Kardec, A. (2007). The book on mediums: Guide for mediums and invocators. New York: Cosimo.
Knitter, P. F. (1985). No other name? A critical survey of Christian attitudes toward the world religions. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
Moses, W. S. (1898). Spirit teachings (Mem. ed.). London: London Spiritualist Alliance.
Netland, H. A. (1997). Dissonant voices: Religious pluralism and the question of truth. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing.
Ortzen, T. (Ed.). (2000). A voice in the wilderness: Further teachings from Silver Birch. Oxshott: Spiritual Truth Press.
Sextus Empiricus. (2000). Outlines of scepticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stace, W. T. (1960). Mysticism and philosophy. London: Macmillan.
Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences (E. A. Shils & H. A. Finch, Trans.). Glencoe: Free Press.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Peter Byrne and two anonymous reviewers of Sophia for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this essay.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Iwasa, N. Grading Religions. SOPHIA 50, 189–209 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-010-0199-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-010-0199-z