Talk:John Hick

Mark Mann link
The Mark Mann link does not link to the correct Mark Mann. I'm going to remove it. Hazillow (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge PhD
I've removed the claim that he had a PhD from Cambridge. True, I do not have access to the biographical resource (more's the pity) cited but I do have access to the introduction to his Gifford Lectures: http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=219, his own website http://www.johnhick.org.uk/ and the Cambridge University Library Catalogue: http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/newton/. The first two mention his two doctorates and conspicuously mention no qualification from Cambridge (though the Gifford preamble notes he received his ordination here, which might be where the confusion arises from) and the University Library lists no thesis under 'Hick John' (all all doctorates are held in the UL's manuscript archive). I have nothing but respect for Hick but I'm not willing to let an opaque source award him a PhD (Cantab) when all available sources seem to suggest the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.243.176 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hicks Philosophy" Section
This section barely touches on his philosophy.

It merely mentions in passing his interest in Religious Pluralism & salvation for susbscribers to other faiths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.236.185 (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Completely rewritten and proposals
Okay, I've completely rewritten the article and currently everything in it is now sourced. I've also removed the non-free book images. The result of this is not only a very different "views" section, but a complete gutting of the "Major Works" section. However, I feel a lot of the stuff that was in that section was helpful - meandering, long, hard to follow, but helpful. Here are some proposals for future editors:
 * 1) Make sure everything you write has a source. This should go without saying. If you feel like clicking the "edit this page" button, STOP!!!! Look at your library. Do you have a book about John Hick or about him? Do you have an independent, scholarly resource that you found online? If you answer no to either of these, please do not edit! Much of the stuff in this article that was unsourced was true, but Wikipedia only goes by what can be verified.
 * 2) I realize that the discussion on his philosophy is rather one-sided, and Wikipedians feel the need to put opposing viewpoints in every single article they can. But please, please, please keep it in check. This article is not about whether or not his views are valid (personally, I do not think they are, but I'm an atheist), it is about him as a man and his contributions to philosophy and theology. Please do not make a "Criticisms" section; instead, work the criticisms into existing parts of the article, or make another section about John Hick's life/work/philosophy/eating habits/whatever you think should be included and criticized/ and put it there. Sections completely devoted to "criticism" or "controversy" often become dumping grounds for any sort of POV that the editor wants to inject into the article. Because of this, they often go like this: "Critics allege..." "However, Hick responds..." "but some allege that this is ignoring..." These types of things are not good.
 * 3) Please don't actually make a section about his eating habits.
 * 4) Trivia sections are discouraged. Incorporate the tidbits into the article.
 * 5) Please don't think I am dictating how this article should be. I'm merely giving suggestions for future improvement so we don't see this on the AfD again. This man has contributed a lot to his fields.
 * 6) I think we should try to get a reassessment on this article's importance. Currently it is "low." But through my research in writing this article, he seems to have contributed more than anyone else in the 20th century to religious philosophical thought.

And that's it. Please don't be mad if I gutted your contribution.--Hazillow (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well yes, you gutted a lot of my contributions. Nonetheless there was a lot of garbage in the previous article that needed to go.  I was probably too nice, and when adding material always tried to preserve most of what had gone before.  This made it "meandering" I suppose.  What's bothersome is that the article is a *lot* less useful now, however.  You largely threw out the baby with the bathwater.  The "Major Works" section needs to be restored. I understand we need more references of course.   I agree wholeheartedly about your statement as to the importance.  Hick is probably the most influential philosopher of religion of the second half of the 20th century, having impacted theodicy, christology, epsitemology of religion, eschatology, and pluralism.  Hard to pass a PhD dissertaion in philosophy in any of those areas without referencing Hick.  Of no other living philosopher could one say such a thing.  So, we need to make this article better. --Tim Musgrove  —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Hick IR 2nd Ed Cover.jpeg
Image:Hick IR 2nd Ed Cover.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work
This article is written like an essay, and only cites 2 sources in the whole article. It needs a ton of work in order to make it suitable for Wikipedia. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is a very limited article, but the page should not be deleted because of that. John Hick is a highly respected and internationally renowned philosopher of religion, and someone more than deserving of an entry here. I have done extensive studying and writing on Hick and his work, and recently interviewed him for my own website. I will take on tidying up this page if it not going to be deleted any time soon. Pelusa MG (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some great work has been done on this page these last couple days. Thanks Hazillo for helping out.  Just a brief question: The Metaphor of God Incarnate (2nd ed. 2005) on the "Major Works" section was originally called The Myth of God Incarnate (1977).  Should it be listed under its original name or newer name? Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should be listed as something like "formerly known as "The Myth of God Incarnate" right after it. Hazillow (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, these are two separate books. "The Myth of God Incarnate" (1977) was a volume of essays by different authors on the subject of Christology, which was edited by John Hick. "The Metaphor of God Incarnate" (1995) was a book written by Hick to expand and explain some of the issues that had arisen due the publication of the former book. The latter book is also written in light of Hick's most developed pluralist hypothesis, which he had set out in "An Interpretation of Religion" (1986). Please feel free to use my article on Hick's pluralist hypothesis (http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Articles/Theology/Theology_of_Religions/john_hick_pluralism.html) and Irenaean Theodicy (http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Articles/Philosophy_of_religion/Evil/irenaean_theodicy_hick.html) in this section. My recent interview with Hick can be found here (http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Interviews/Books/john_hick.html)Pelusa MG (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, someone did put in more references. And allowing that the perception of essay-style can be tempered by some decent referencing makes the current version more acceptable. Pelusa MG, I am guessing maybe you added an exact date of birth to the article, but anyway, it's unverifiable from any of the resources quoted in the References that I can see. As an unsourced item, I have removed it to leave just the verifiable year of birth. And we now can't use your article from your website, as you have created a conflict of interest dilemma. Ref (chew) (do) 16:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a crying shame this article is so limited, given its importance. CaliforniaKid (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo needed
Can anyone add a photo? --9s (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Hick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216032902/http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=219 to http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=219
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216032902/http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=219 to http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=219
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321150208/http://www.johnhick.org.uk/jsite/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71&Itemid=54 to http://www.johnhick.org.uk/jsite/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71&Itemid=54

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: Problem of evil

 * ...In the book Encountering Evil, Stephen Davis has stated his four criticisms of Hick, "First, while no theodicy is free of difficulties, I believe Hick's is not entirely convincing in its handling of the amount of evil that exists in the world... Second, I am dubious about Hick's hope of a gradual spiritual evolution till human beings reach a full state of God-consciousness... Third, I believe Hick also faces what I call the 'cost-effective' criticism of the free will defense... My final and most serious criticism of Hick concerns his commitment to universalism."

Davis' "criticism" is rooted in a conservative religious POV from 1981. I think his stance needs some kind of clarification. Opposition to universalism is about as right-wing as you can get. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Just looked at the source. The criticism is out of context to Davis' larger argument and the material in this article makes it seem like Davis is vehemently disagreeing with Hicks, but the source shows that he is not.  Changes are needed. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are additional issues. Davis says "I see no convincing evidence that the human race is improving morally or spiritually", yet we have various indices and datasets collected by authors like Steven Pinker which show otherwise. And while you can attack Pinker at various levels, whether it's from the teleology or Whig history angle, it still doesn't matter; the data is very clear: humanity is improving "morally" at whatever metric you choose to use.  It's interesting to see Davis go to the mat on such an easy to prove concept, but that's par for the course for conservatives.  They believe that social improvements to health and well-being are "immoral". It's almost like conservatives aren't part of the larger debate because they deliberately choose to sit on the sidelines and put their fingers in their ears. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And as if right on cue, Davis defends his opposition to universalism "as a theologically conservative Christian" who doesn't believe "universalism is consistent with the data of the Christian tradition". So what we have here is not an argument against Hick, but rather Davis arguing for the supremacy of his own theological position.  Some things never change. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)