No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
On Worshipping the Same God
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008
Extract
There is a story told of Bertrand Russell, that upon being imprisoned as a conscientious objector he was asked his religion, and replied ‘Agnostic’. The warder asked how that was spelt, and Russell spelled it out. The warder said, ‘Well, that's a new one on me, but I suppose we all worship the same God.’
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992
References
1 John Hick, God has Many Names, MacMillan, 1980, p. 48–9. He argues the case more fully in An Interpretation of Religion, MacMillan, 1989.
2 Rig Vedas i 164.46.
3 Hegel, , Philosophy of History, translated Sibree, J., Dover, , 1956, pp. 289–90.Google Scholar
4 An Interpretation of Religion, pp. 1–2.
5 Sir James Frazer, The Golden Bough, abridged edition, MacMillan, 1957, chs XV and XVI.
6 op. cit., p. 218.
7 op. cit., p. 212.
8 Frazer's final sentence of Chapter XV, where he summarizes part of his discussion, is thoroughly ambiguous: ‘From the foregoing survey it appears that a god of the oak, the thunder, and the rain, was worshipped of old by all the main branches of the Aryan stock in Europe, and was indeed the chief deity of their pantheon.’ (p. 213) That could mean that they all worshipped some such god or other, or that there was a particular god whom they all worshipped. I think the former interpretation makes most sense of the chapter as a whole.
9 S. Blackburn, Spreading the Word, Oxford, 1984.
10 op. cit., p. 321.
11 op. cit., p. 211.
12 There are problems here concerning reference which I pass over. Quine in Word and Object and Putnam in Meaning, Truth and History claim that reference is always radically indeterminate, so that we can never say what objects are being referred to.
13 There are some limits to how much an author can get wrong and still be said to be writing about Buchan's hero, just as there are limits to how unlike an object a picture can be and still be a picture of it. But they are very broad.
14 If the object of worship is a person or physical object then it may be that believers and non-believers can agree about the object of worship. But even in these cases there might be problems. Suppose that a ruler is worshipped as a god. After his death he is believed to be reincarnated as the next child born in the kingdom. Outsiders and believers would differ over criteria of identity.
15 Acts, ch. 17, V. 23.
16 Saint Augustine, City of God, Bk VI, ed Bourke, Vernon books, 1958, p. 118.
17 op. cit., p. 139.
18 op. cit., p. 190.
19 Ross, J. D., Philosophical Theology, Indianapolis, 1969, p. 50–51.Google Scholar
20 Hick, , An Interpretation of Religion, MacMillan, 1989, pp. 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Hume, The Natural History of Religion, Section xii. Quoted in R. Wollheim, Hume on Religion, Fontana, 1963, p. 77.
22 Hick, An Interpretation of Religion, p. 249.
23 op. cit., p. 153.
24 op. cit., p. 239.
25 op. cit., p. 2.
26 How far beyond the major religions this tolerance extends is not clear. Hick regards adherents to the major faiths as not merely co-believers but also as, in a sense discussed below, co-religionaries. Adherents to minor faiths, while not sharing this relationship, may nevertheless distortedly worship the same Deity.
27 op. cit., p. 379.
28 op. cit., p. 379.
29 Leaving aside fantasies such as that Mohammed was really Jesus reincarnated.
30 I am grateful to Angus McKay for his helpful comments on an earlier draft.