Metafisika Keterbatasan dan Pluralisme Agama Menurut John Hick

Authors

  • Yohanes Slamet Purwadi Universitas Katolik Parahyangan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15575/hanifiya.v6i1.24854

Keywords:

dialog antaragama, inklusivisme, keberagaman agama, kemajemukan, Metafisika

Abstract

Artikel ini membahas konsep metafisika keterbatasan sebagai basis bagi pluralisme perspektif John Hick. Metode kualitatif jenis study literature digunakan dalam penelitian ini. Data diperoleh dari sumber-sumber primer dan sekunder yang relevan dengan topik penelitian. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa konsep metafisika keterbatasan memainkan peran penting dalam pemikiran John Hick tentang pluralisme agama. Menurut Hick, keberagaman agama dan keyakinan adalah suatu keniscayaan dalam kondisi keterbatasan manusia dalam mencapai kebenaran yang mutlak. Oleh karena itu, konsep keterbatasan ini menjadi dasar bagi pandangan pluralis Hick. Hick berpendapat bahwa setiap agama memiliki akses terbatas dalam memahami kebenaran mutlak, dan pandangan pluralis mengakui bahwa masing-masing agama memiliki kebenaran dan nilai yang berbeda-beda. Namun, pandangan ini juga menunjukkan bahwa kebenaran mutlak dapat dipahami secara lebih utuh melalui dialog dan pengalaman antaragama. Dalam konteks ini, Hick mengembangkan teori relativitas agama dan mengusulkan bahwa keberagaman agama tidak bertentangan dengan kebenaran mutlak. Sebaliknya, keberagaman agama dapat menjadi jalan menuju pengalaman kebenaran yang lebih dalam dan universal. Kesimpulannya, jurnal ini menyajikan pandangan Hick tentang pluralisme agama berdasarkan konsep metafisika keterbatasan. Studi literature yang dilakukan dalam penelitian ini mengungkapkan bahwa keberagaman agama dan keyakinan dapat dipahami dan dihargai secara lebih baik melalui dialog dan pengalaman antaragama, yang merupakan jalan menuju pemahaman yang lebih utuh tentang kebenaran mutlak.

References

Ackeren, M. Van. (2018). Moral rationalism and demandingness in Kant. Kantian Review, 23(3), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415418000225

Agbaria, A. (2022). Education for Religious Pluralism in Islam: One Book or Series of Books, a Singular Message or Myriad Messages? Religions, 13(4), 283.

Armayanto, H. (2014). Problem Pluralisme Agama. Tsaqafah, 10(2), 325. https://doi.org/10.21111/tsaqafah.v10i2.191

Astley, J. (2017). Conceptual enquiry and the experience of “the transcendentâ€: John Hick’s contribution to the dialogue. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 20(4), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2017.1284190

Barnes, L. P. (2019). Cult books revisited: John hick’s god and the universe of faiths. Theology, 122(2), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040571X18817438

Basinger, D. (2021). Religious diversity: A philosophical assessment. taylorfrancis.com. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315244655

Brunkhorst, H. (2020). A Marxist Educated Kant: Philosophy of History in Kant and the Frankfurt School. In Kantian Review (Vol. 25, Issue 4, pp. 515–540). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415420000394

Cheetham, D. (2017). John hick: A critical introduction and reflection. In John Hick: A Critical Introduction and Reflection. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315251462

Cheetham, D. (2020). Creation and Religious Pluralism. books.google.com. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ByX3DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=religious&ots=bFuswCWtzj&sig=_XvgvE5N6hUXdi35rPT947jGnE8

Cheung, L. K. C. (2020). A Zhuangzian Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy. Sophia, 59(3), 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-019-0720-y

Cohn-Sherbok, D. (2023). Jewish Pluralism and John Hick. In John Hick’s Religious Pluralism in Global Perspective (pp. 135–154). Springer.

Cramer, D. C. (n.d.). John Hick (1922—2012).

Eddy, P. R. (2018). John hick’s pluralist philosophy of world religions. In John Hick’s Pluralist Philosophy of World Religions. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315190181

Gava, G. (2019). Kant and crusius on belief and practical justification. Kantian Review, 24(1), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415418000523

Haq, M. Z. (2021). Hate Studies: The Urgency and Its Developments in the Perspective of Religious Studies. Jurnal Aristo (Social, Politic, Humaniora), 9(2), 375–395.

Haq, M. Z., & Sen, H. (2021). Transforming Hate into Compassion as an Islamic Nonviolent Thought of Bediüzzaman Said Nursi. Wawasan: Jurnal Ilmiah Agama Dan Sosial Budaya, 6(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.15575/jw.v6i1.13159

Hick, J. (1980). God has Many Names. The Macmillan Press LTD. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16308-3

Hick, J. (1990). Philosophy of Religion. Prentice-Hall.

Hick, J. (1993a). Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion. Macmillan Press LTD. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300157031

Hick, J. (1993b). God and the Universe of Faiths. One World. https://doi.org/10.2307/2184270

Hick, J. (1997). The Possibility of Religious Pluralism: A Reply to Gavin D’Costa. Religious Studies, 33(2), 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412597003867

Hick, J. H. (1985). Problems of religious pluralism. Springer.

Howard-Snyder, D. (2016). Two peas in a single polytheistic pod: John Hick and Richard Swinburne. Journal of Philosophical Research, 41, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.5840/jpr201642061

Howard-Snyder, D. (2017). Who or What is God, According to John Hick? Topoi, 36(4), 571–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9395-y

Hutasoit, D. (2017). Sorotan Alkitabiah Terhadap Konsep Keselamatan Menurut John Hick. Missio Ecclesiae, 6(2), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.52157/me.v6i2.72

Kaźmierczak, Z. (2021). On the Key Terminological Decision in John Hick’s Religious Pluralism. Rocznik Teologiczny, 1, 263–288. https://doi.org/10.36124/rt.2021.10

Maharaj, A. (2017). Kant on the Epistemology of Indirect Mystical Experience. Sophia, 56(2), 311–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-016-0528-y

Mao, X. (2018). Transformation from real-centredness to other-centredness: A levinasian re-appraisal of John Hick’s religious pluralism. Religions, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/rel9090255

Marshall, C., Lewin, M., & Gambarotto, A. (2022). Teleology and the organism: Kant’s controversial legacy for contemporary biology. Kantian Review, 23(2), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.02.005

Maulana, A. M. R. (2020). Problematika Pluralisme Agama Antara Teologi Dan Filsafat: Membaca Kritik Marianne Moyaert Atas John Hick. Jurnal Studi Agama Dan Masyarakat, 16(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.23971/jsam.v16i2.2136

Messina, J. P. (2019). Kant’s Provisionality Thesis. In Kantian Review (pp. 439–463). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415419000207

Mudd, S. (2017). The demand for systematicity and the authority of theoretical reason in Kant. Kantian Review, 22(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415416000388

Muthmainnah, L. (2018). Tinjauan Kritis Terhadap Epistemologi Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Jurnal Filsafat, 28(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.22146/jf.31549

Nardin, T. (2017). Kant’s republican theory of justice and international relations. International Relations, 31(3), 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117817723064

Nassar, D. (2021). Kant, schelling, and the organization of matter. In Kantian Legacies in German Idealism (pp. 211–235). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429429828-12

Pasternack, L. (2020). On the Alleged Augustinianism in Kant’s Religion. Kantian Review, 25(1), 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415419000487

Rahman, M. (2020). Filsafat Ilmu Pengetahuan. Prodi S2 Studi Agama-Agama UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung.

Rahman, M. T. (2014). Social Justice in Western and Islamic Thought: A Comparative Study of John Rawls’s and Sayyid Qutb’s Theories. Scholars’ Press.

Ruhmkorff, S. (2013). The incompatibility problem and religious pluralism beyond Hick. Philosophy Compass, 8(5), 510–522.

Ruston, T. W. (2016). The John Hick Papers: Religious Pluralism in the Archives. Expository Times, 128(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014524615621451

Said, N., & Tengah, J. (2015). Nalar Pluralisme John Hick Dalam. Fikrah: Jurnal Ilmu Aqidah Dan Studi Keagamaan, 3(2), 371–392.

Schmidt, E. E. (2017). Kant’s moral realism regarding dignity and value. Some comments on the Tugendlehre. In Realism and Antirealism in Kant’s Moral Philosophy: New Essays (pp. 119–152). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110574517-006

Spagnesi, L. (2022). The Idea of God and the Empirical Investigation of Nature in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Kantian Review, 27(2), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136941542100073X

Sulistio, T. C. (2001). Teologi Pluralisme Agama John Hick: Sebuah Dialog Kritis dari Perspektif Partikularis. Veritas: Jurnal Teologi Dan Pelayanan, 2(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.36421/veritas.v2i1.51

TolvajÄić, D. (2022). John Hick ’s Epistemology of Religion. Diacovensia, 30(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.31823/d.30.2.1

Wibisono, M. Y., Truna, D. S., & Haq, M. Z. (2020). Modul Sosialisasi Toleransi Beragama (A. Muhyidin & M. T. Rahman (eds.); 1st ed.). Prodi S2 Studi Agama-Agama UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung.

Williams, B. M. (2017). C. S. Lewis & John Hick on Theodicy: Superficially Similar but Significantly Different. Journal of Inklings Studies, 7(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.3366/ink.2017.7.1.2

Zhang, Q. (2020). John hick’s religious pluralism from the perspective of cultural heterogeneity. International Journal of Sino-Western Studies, 19, 67–81. https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85097403816

Zhao, X. (2022). A Buddhist reconfiguration of John Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis: A Madhyamaka perspective. Religious Studies, 58(1), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412520000256

Downloads

Published

2023-03-30

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 1 (2023): Hanifiya: Jurnal Studi Agama-Agama

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA)  that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).