Comparison of Al-Farabi and John Hick's Conceptions of Religion in terms of Pluralism

Nesrin Bağcı Erciyas

Article Details

Comparison of Al-Farabi and John Hick's Conceptions of Religion in terms of Pluralism

Authors:

Nesrin Bağcı Erciyas

Publisher:

Afyon Kocatepe University

Main Topics:

İslam Araştırmaları (Diğer)

Journal:

Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.6 Issue 2, pp.588-609

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2023

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001305278

pISSN:

2757-8399

Keywords:

Abstract:

 The subject of this article is the comparison of Al-Farabi and John Hicks conceptions of religion in terms of pluralism. The aim of this article is to compare the conceptions of religion of these two thinkers, despite the fact that they lived in different times and belonged to different religious traditions, and to show the aspects that are compatible with religious pluralism. Both thinkers define the human being as a living being with social and religious aspects. Al-Farabi uses the concept of religion or milla in the sense of a social and political system. According to Al-Farabi, religions are divided into two as virtuous or non-virtuous ignorant according to whether they aim to achieve ultimate happiness, which is the purpose of human existence. All religions established to serve a purpose other than ultimate happiness, which is the purpose of human existence, are non-virtuous religions. Non-virtuous religions are diverse; a religion is non-virtuous if it aims at a goal other than happiness, a worldly good such as wealth or fame. Likewise, a religion founded by a first leader who believes he is in possession of the truth when he is not in possession of the truth is a heretical religion and therefore also a non-virtuous religion. A religion that ostensibly aims at attaining ultimate happiness, but in the background is established to serve the rulers other worldly goal, is also a non-virtuous religion based on deception. A virtuous religion, on the other hand, is a religion that aims for its followers to attain ultimate happiness; in this religion, the truth, which is one and which is reached through theoretical philosophy, is expressed in a symbolic way in accordance with historical and cultural conditions. Therefore, virtuous religion can be more than one. For John Hick, on the other hand, religion is the phenomenological answers given to the Ultimate Truth The Real, which is the object to which human ultimate concern is directed, within the experiential relationship established with The Real, in accordance with the historical and cultural reality in which it exists. In this sense, religions are equal as answers to the noumenal Ultimate Truth to the extent that they can transform human beings from self-centredness to reality or truth-centredness despite their diversity and multiplicity in reality. Al-Farabi, who defends a rational realist epistemology of truth, and Hick, who defends a critical realist epistemology, have different conceptions of religion. However, despite these different positions, both thinkers conceptions of religion seem to support a pluralist approach in the face of the fact of religious diversity, not exclusivism that accepts a single religion as true and falsifies those outside of it, or inclusivism that accepts a single religion as true and accepts all religions outside of it as true to the extent of their conformity to this accepted religion. The basis of the comparison we aim to make between both systems of thought is the approach that supports this pluralism. For Hick, pluralism is the most reasonable answer to the case of religious diversity, and Hick established and defended religious pluralism as a theory in his works. This is not the case for Al-Farabi. There is no theory established as religious pluralism in Al-Farabis thought system. But for Al-Farabi, the plurality of virtuous religions based on theoretical philosophy and its symbolic expression is a fact. Because people have various potentials by virtue of their existence and are in various levels accordingly. The truth needs to be expressed in a way that is appropriate to the levels of people at these various levels, and these people need to be guided to the ultimate happiness, which is the purpose of their existence, in accordance with their levels. This is achieved by expressing the truth reached through theoretical philosophy in a symbolic expression in accordance with the historical and cultural situation of each society and directing those who are subject to the virtuous religion to actions that will lead them to ultimate happiness. This will naturally result in more than one virtuous religion, which Al-Farabi clearly expresses in his theory. In this respect, Al-Farabis conception of religion is different from the pluralism advocated by Hick, who accepts all religions as equal as different historical and cultural views of the ultimate truth, The Real, but we believe that it can be considered pluralist in terms of the diversity and equality of virtuous religions as different symbolic views of the same truth.

 Bu makalenin konusu Farabi ve John Hickin din tasavvurlarının çoğulculuk açısından mukayesesidir. Bu makalenin amacı ise farklı zamanlarda yaşamış ve farklı dini geleneklere mensup olmalarına rağmen bu iki düşünürün din tasavvurlarının kıyaslanması ve dini çoğulculukla uyumlu olan yönlerinin gösterilmesidir. Her iki düşünür de insanı, toplumsal ve dini yönü olan canlı olarak tanımlamaktadır. Farabi din yahut kendi kullandığı terimle mille kavramını, toplumsal ve siyasi bir sistem anlamda kullanmaktadır. Farabiye göre dinler, insanın varoluş amacı olan nihai mutluluka ulaşmayı hedefleyip hedeflemediklerine göre erdemli yahut erdemsiz cahilî olarak ikiye ayrılırlar. İnsanın varoluş amacı olan nihai mutluluktan başka bir amaca hizmet etmek için tesis edilmiş bütün dinler erdemsiz dinlerdir. Erdemsiz dinler çeşitlidir, bir din mutluluktan başka bir amacı, zenginlik yahut şan gibi dünyevi bir iyiliği hedefliyorsa erdemsizdir. Aynı şekilde hakikate vakıf olmadığı halde hakikate vakıf olduğuna inanan bir ilk başkan tarafından tesis edilen bir din sapkın ve dolayısıyla yine erdemsiz bir dindir. Görünüşte nihai mutluluğa ulaştırmayı hedefler göründüğü halde arka planda yöneticinin başka bir dünyevi hedefini gerçekleştirmeye hizmet etmek üzere kurulan din de aldatmaya dayalı erdemsiz bir dindir. Erdemli din ise, kendisine tabi olanların nihai mutluluğa ulaşmasının hedeflendiği dindir, bu dinde tek olan ve nazari felsefe ile ulaşılan hakikat, tarih ve kültürel şartlara uygun olarak sembolik bir şekilde ifade edilmektedir. Dolayısıyla erdemli din birden fazla olabilir. John Hick için ise din, insani nihai endişenin yöneldiği nesne olan Nihai Gerçek The Real ile kurulan tecrübi ilişki içerisinde Ona içinde bulunulan tarihsel ve kültürel gerçeklikle kayıtlı olarak verilen fenomenolojik cevaplardır. Bu manada dinler, vakıadaki çeşitliliği ve çokluğuna rağmen insanı ben merkezlilikten hakikat merkezliliğe dönüştürebildiği oranda numenal nihai Gerçeke verilen cevaplar olarak eşittir. Hakikate dair rasyonel realist bir epistemolojiyi savunan Farabi ile eleştirel realist bir epistemolojiyi savunan Hickin din tasavvurları birbirinden farklı bir konumdadır. Fakat bu farklı konumlara rağmen, her iki düşünürün din tasavvuru da dini çeşitlilik vakıası karşısında, tek bir dini doğru kabul edip onun dışındakileri yanlışlayan dışlayıcılık yahut yine tek bir dini doğru kabul edip onun dışındaki tüm dinleri bu doğru kabul edilen dine uyumları oranında doğru kabul eden kapsayıcılığı değil çoğulcu bir yaklaşımı destekler görünmektedir. Her iki düşünce sistemi arasında hedeflediğimiz kıyasın temeli bu çoğulculuğu destekleyen yaklaşımdır. Hick için dini çeşitlilik vakıasına cevaben çoğulculuk en makul cevaptır ve Hick, dini çoğulculuğu bir teori olarak eserlerinde tesis edip savunmuştur. Farabi için ise böyle bir durum söz konusu değildir. Farabinin düşünce sistemi içinde dini çoğulculuk olarak tesis edilen bir teori yoktur. Fakat Farabi için nazari felsefeye dayanan ve onun sembolik ifadesi olan erdemli dinlerin çokluğu bir vakıadır. Çünkü insanlar varoluşu gereği çeşitli potansiyellere sahiptir ve buna bağlı olarak çeşitli mertebelerdedir. Hakikatin bu çeşitli mertebelerdeki insanların seviyelerine uygun bir şekilde ifade edilmesi ve bu insanların mertebelerine uygun olarak, varoluş amaçları olan nihai mutluluğa yönlendirilmeleri gerekmektedir. Bu da nazari felsefe ile ulaşılan hakikatin her toplumun tarihsel ve kültürel durumuna uygun bir şekilde sembolik bir anlatımla ifade edilmesi ve erdemli dine tabi olanların onları nihai mutluluğa ulaştıracak eylemlere yönlendirilmesi ile olmaktadır. Bu doğal olarak erdemli dinlerin birden fazla oluşu ile sonuçlanacaktır ki Farabi de bunu teorisinde açıkça ifade etmektedir. Bu açıdan Farabinin din tasavvuru, tüm dinleri aşkın nihai hakikat olan Nihai Gerçekin farklı tarihsel ve kültürel görünümleri olarak eşit kabul eden Hickin savunduğu çoğulculuktan farklı olmakla birlikte aynı hakikatin farklı sembolik görünümleri olarak erdemli dinlerin çeşitliliği ve eşitliği manasında çoğulcu olarak değerlendirilebileceği kanaatindeyiz.

 The subject of this article is the comparison of Al-Farabi and John Hicks conceptions of religion in terms of pluralism. The aim of this article is to compare the conceptions of religion of these two thinkers, despite the fact that they lived in different times and belonged to different religious traditions, and to show the aspects that are compatible with religious pluralism. Both thinkers define the human being as a living being with social and religious aspects. Al-Farabi uses the concept of religion or milla in the sense of a social and political system. According to Al-Farabi, religions are divided into two as virtuous or non-virtuous ignorant according to whether they aim to achieve ultimate happiness, which is the purpose of human existence. All religions established to serve a purpose other than ultimate happiness, which is the purpose of human existence, are non-virtuous religions. Non-virtuous religions are diverse; a religion is non-virtuous if it aims at a goal other than happiness, a worldly good such as wealth or fame. Likewise, a religion founded by a first leader who believes he is in possession of the truth when he is not in possession of the truth is a heretical religion and therefore also a non-virtuous religion. A religion that ostensibly aims at attaining ultimate happiness, but in the background is established to serve the rulers other worldly goal, is also a non-virtuous religion based on deception. A virtuous religion, on the other hand, is a religion that aims for its followers to attain ultimate happiness; in this religion, the truth, which is one and which is reached through theoretical philosophy, is expressed in a symbolic way in accordance with historical and cultural conditions. Therefore, virtuous religion can be more than one. For John Hick, on the other hand, religion is the phenomenological answers given to the Ultimate Truth The Real, which is the object to which human ultimate concern is directed, within the experiential relationship established with The Real, in accordance with the historical and cultural reality in which it exists. In this sense, religions are equal as answers to the noumenal Ultimate Truth to the extent that they can transform human beings from self-centredness to reality or truth-centredness despite their diversity and multiplicity in reality. Al-Farabi, who defends a rational realist epistemology of truth, and Hick, who defends a critical realist epistemology, have different conceptions of religion. However, despite these different positions, both thinkers conceptions of religion seem to support a pluralist approach in the face of the fact of religious diversity, not exclusivism that accepts a single religion as true and falsifies those outside of it, or inclusivism that accepts a single religion as true and accepts all religions outside of it as true to the extent of their conformity to this accepted religion. The basis of the comparison we aim to make between both systems of thought is the approach that supports this pluralism. For Hick, pluralism is the most reasonable answer to the case of religious diversity, and Hick established and defended religious pluralism as a theory in his works. This is not the case for Al-Farabi. There is no theory established as religious pluralism in Al-Farabis thought system. But for Al-Farabi, the plurality of virtuous religions based on theoretical philosophy and its symbolic expression is a fact. Because people have various potentials by virtue of their existence and are in various levels accordingly. The truth needs to be expressed in a way that is appropriate to the levels of people at these various levels, and these people need to be guided to the ultimate happiness, which is the purpose of their existence, in accordance with their levels. This is achieved by expressing the truth reached through theoretical philosophy in a symbolic expression in accordance with the historical and cultural situation of each society and directing those who are subject to the virtuous religion to actions that will lead them to ultimate happiness. This will naturally result in more than one virtuous religion, which Al-Farabi clearly expresses in his theory. In this respect, Al-Farabis conception of religion is different from the pluralism advocated by Hick, who accepts all religions as equal as different historical and cultural views of the ultimate truth, The Real, but we believe that it can be considered pluralist in terms of the diversity and equality of virtuous religions as different symbolic views of the same truth.

 The subject of this article is the comparison of Al-Farabi and John Hicks conceptions of religion in terms of pluralism. The aim of this article is to compare the conceptions of religion of these two thinkers, despite the fact that they lived in different times and belonged to different religious traditions, and to show the aspects that are compatible with religious pluralism. Both thinkers define the human being as a living being with social and religious aspects. Al-Farabi uses the concept of religion or milla in the sense of a social and political system. According to Al-Farabi, religions are divided into two as virtuous or non-virtuous ignorant according to whether they aim to achieve ultimate happiness, which is the purpose of human existence. All religions established to serve a purpose other than ultimate happiness, which is the purpose of human existence, are non-virtuous religions. Non-virtuous religions are diverse; a religion is non-virtuous if it aims at a goal other than happiness, a worldly good such as wealth or fame. Likewise, a religion founded by a first leader who believes he is in possession of the truth when he is not in possession of the truth is a heretical religion and therefore also a non-virtuous religion. A religion that ostensibly aims at attaining ultimate happiness, but in the background is established to serve the rulers other worldly goal, is also a non-virtuous religion based on deception. A virtuous religion, on the other hand, is a religion that aims for its followers to attain ultimate happiness; in this religion, the truth, which is one and which is reached through theoretical philosophy, is expressed in a symbolic way in accordance with historical and cultural conditions. Therefore, virtuous religion can be more than one. For John Hick, on the other hand, religion is the phenomenological answers given to the Ultimate Truth The Real, which is the object to which human ultimate concern is directed, within the experiential relationship established with The Real, in accordance with the historical and cultural reality in which it exists. In this sense, religions are equal as answers to the noumenal Ultimate Truth to the extent that they can transform human beings from self-centredness to reality or truth-centredness despite their diversity and multiplicity in reality. Al-Farabi, who defends a rational realist epistemology of truth, and Hick, who defends a critical realist epistemology, have different conceptions of religion. However, despite these different positions, both thinkers conceptions of religion seem to support a pluralist approach in the face of the fact of religious diversity, not exclusivism that accepts a single religion as true and falsifies those outside of it, or inclusivism that accepts a single religion as true and accepts all religions outside of it as true to the extent of their conformity to this accepted religion. The basis of the comparison we aim to make between both systems of thought is the approach that supports this pluralism. For Hick, pluralism is the most reasonable answer to the case of religious diversity, and Hick established and defended religious pluralism as a theory in his works. This is not the case for Al-Farabi. There is no theory established as religious pluralism in Al-Farabis thought system. But for Al-Farabi, the plurality of virtuous religions based on theoretical philosophy and its symbolic expression is a fact. Because people have various potentials by virtue of their existence and are in various levels accordingly. The truth needs to be expressed in a way that is appropriate to the levels of people at these various levels, and these people need to be guided to the ultimate happiness, which is the purpose of their existence, in accordance with their levels. This is achieved by expressing the truth reached through theoretical philosophy in a symbolic expression in accordance with the historical and cultural situation of each society and directing those who are subject to the virtuous religion to actions that will lead them to ultimate happiness. This will naturally result in more than one virtuous religion, which Al-Farabi clearly expresses in his theory. In this respect, Al-Farabis conception of religion is different from the pluralism advocated by Hick, who accepts all religions as equal as different historical and cultural views of the ultimate truth, The Real, but we believe that it can be considered pluralist in terms of the diversity and equality of virtuous religions as different symbolic views of the same truth.

Article Details

Comparison of Al-Farabi and John Hick's Conceptions of Religion in terms of Pluralism

Authors:

Nesrin Bağcı Erciyas

Publisher:

Afyon Kocatepe University

Main Topics:

İslam Araştırmaları (Diğer)

Journal:

Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.6 Issue 2, pp.588-609

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2023

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001305278

pISSN:

2757-8399

Al-Farabi

John Hick

Religion

Milla

PluralismFarabi

John Hick

Din

Mille

Çoğulculuk

Issues

Article Details

Authors: Nesrin Bağcı Erciyas

Publisher: Afyon Kocatepe University

Main Topics: İslam Araştırmaları (Diğer)

Journal: Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.6 Issue 2, pp.588-609

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 12/2023

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2001305278

pISSN: 2757-8399

Issues

Authors:

Nesrin Bağcı Erciyas

Publisher:

Afyon Kocatepe University

Main Topics:

İslam Araştırmaları (Diğer)

Journal:

Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.6 Issue 2, pp.588-609

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2023

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001305278

pISSN:

2757-8399