John Hick - What is Ultimate Reality?

What is the deepest nature of things? Our world is complex, filled with so much stuff. But down below, what’s most fundamental, what is ultimate reality? Is there anything nonphysical? Anything spiritual? Or only the physical world? Many feel certain of their belief, on each side of controversial question.

John Harwood Hick was a philosopher of religion and theologian.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[stephenkagan]

Do religious experiences contradict each other or do religious interpretations of these experiences contradict one another?

[scottc]

This is the closest interview that I've seen on this channel to describe the indescribable. We all experience reality at every moment in time, we just don't recognize it, so we pass it over. A special spiritual experience may mean you came close, but because that experience came and went, reality again was passed over.

[picksalot]

The best definition of ever heard of absolute reality is: That which exists, and is not limited by space, time, or type, nor is it subject to destruction. To explain further, it is everywhere, always, and everything, without being limited by it's appearance, just as Space may appear small in a cup, large in a room, and unfathomable in the Universe.

It is useful to have some adjectives when describing reality, as they can provide important distinctions, such as subjective reality, objective reality, empirical reality, and absolute reality, to bring clarity to the topic.

[jamesmckenzie]

I'm grateful not to carry the burden of faith as learning is an experience I cannot compromise.

[cfunlearn]

In the end, Robert says that saying that the reality can not be captured through categories of thought is like a defence mechanism. I think, the best way to approach this problem is through a careful dialectic examination of thought itself. It is done in Mulmadhyamika-Karika by Nagarjuna, where he exposes the limitations of thought and shows how the reality can not be captured by intellect and it is beyond the concepts created by the thought.

[Earthad]

Science doesn’t answer any of these questions, the question we want an answer to is who am “I”?

[renko]

Most mainstream religions are misinterpretations of what the mystics have said. But when you look closely, the mystics are in complete agreement. This is undoubtable.

Modern day Zen and Vedanta teachers have postulated that quantum mechanic theorists will one day grasp what the masters have been saying for millennia. I believe this is starting to happen, however, a scientist living in the desert may work out the math for an ocean but will not understand it like a blue-collar worker who swims in it every day.

What the mystics teach is very simple really: through proper meditation, subject and object drop away and momentarily you are what this really is. Then time and practice is needed to make full sense of it. And there is no doubt. The mystics of every religion are in complete agreement about it.

You either get it or you don’t.

[percentSNAFU]

To me, ultimate reality would be knowing all the answers to all the questions that remain unanswered, or unanswerable in our current existence. Maybe this life is but one small step towards achieving this.

[peweegangloku]

The book of Acts chapter 17 verses 26 and 27 in the Bible say: "26 And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell, 27 so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us."
If one is honestly, humbly, sincerely groping, feeling around as a blind man for God, that person will, no doubt, find him.

[brendangreeves]

Change is necessary and is fundamental. Logic determines that the absolute state is impossible.
The dynamic relative state is fundamental.
Quantum flux fields of potentiality, governed by constraints, manifest as what we call nature.
Essentially it’s about process.
There is a creative process, but no creator.

[raywkilleen]

It seems concepts separate one from ultimate reality, including this very concept

[janjolley]

Very insightful. It appears to me that there is a problem with the word ‘religion ‘, as it is used by powerful groups to wield power and make money. I would rather concentrate on the word ‘spiritual’ experience in this discussion. Despite all the conflicts between different religions, they mostly share some basic common beliefs: that there is a higher power beyond Human understanding and that people should be loving towards one another. Different Interpretations of religious text will always be used to create conflict.
The fact that such a large percentage of humanity have some belief in a God seems to me to suggest that it can not be so easily dismissed by Science. Science deals in physical facts and cannot deal with what it describes as ‘emotion’.

[johnsgarage]

If you cannot measure the so called 'real' then this sounds like allot of conjecture.

[stephenzhao]

1:56 ... so the actual experience is of a uh God, a personal God all of the universal principle of the Tao in Taoism or of another personal God the Allah of Islam um or Vishnu Shiva Etc within the Hindu faith all of these are joint creations of the impact upon us of the transcendent real and are human sets of concepts. 2:31 3:51 ... how can we have confidence that the diverse religions which you've said and which clearly contradict one another uh are in some way related to this real based upon isolated religious experiences that some people have it seems a little flimsy to tether all of these conflicting religions to some real. 4:15 ... 5:21 well the emotional experiences are certainly real and one sees that in church revival services and different expressions of different religions but what also sees that at football games (yes) and it would be hard for me if I came from Mars to distinguish between one from the other it looks like the same kind of human expression energized by crowds and crowd psychology and rooting for your side or whatever it happens to be rather indistinguishable 5:48 ... 6:30 ... and so can for exmple the silent worship in a Quaker meeting place uh which actually this is where I go myself um in the silence we become conscious of being in the presence of a transcendent (卓越的, 至高无上的) reality that makes various claims upon us and this is not emotion so the analogy you've been suggesting doesn't really apply. 7:00 I understand that ... JH: as it exists in itself we can't say anything in human language about it because it is trans-categorical beyond the categories of the human mind um we have to postulate it but it has no we can't say that it is personal or impersonal good or bad large or small etc simply because none of these um opposites apply to it isn't that because it is not good therefore it is bad rather the concept of good and bad simply do not apply to it it's these are human concepts and it is beyond it is trans categorial beyond the categories of the human mind 8:01

[CMVMic]

Ultimate reality/the Real/Being/Existence all words that refer to the same thing

[TheUltimateSeeds]

I suggest the *"Ultimate"* reality consists of two fundamental features. The first being a singular substance (in the spirit of Spinoza's *"oneness"* substance) that is an amalgam of the essence of life and that of the infinitely malleable (holographic-like) substance that life (consciousness) uses to create what consciousness generally refers to as "reality." And the second feature of, again, *"Ultimate"* reality is an infinite arena of *absolute nothingness* that will forever make room for whatever life and consciousness creates - even if that creation consists of new individualizations of life and consciousness.

[catherinemira]

What is so different between a spiritual revelation and a scientific description of reality is the inclusion of the personal, the unique experience which is nonetheless universal in its expression.

[ericjohnson]

On trusting science vs. trusting experience - did Robert consult science to trust that people have personalities or did he trust his personal experience of them? I'm just sayin'...
Significant because our Divine Father-friend has a personality too, which we can, and should, have an interpersonal relationship with. It's outside the realm of "science."

[ResmithSR]

And no matter what we conjecture or believe about what Ultimate Reality is, it doesn't matter whether we get it right or completely right or not. Science and Scientific knowledge is the best and most accurate knowledge we have of the Universe and despite our sensory and intellectual limitations we will always strive to make progress and improve on that knowledge.

[kallianpublico]

Does science really chase consistency, or just a certain type of consistency?
What would be the difference between a scientist's description of quantum phenomena and a description of fishing? Is a fish real before we catch it: if it isn't on the boat. Is Schrodinger's Cat dead before we make a measurement?