Are All Religions Basically The Same?

Are All Religions Basic aloney The Same?Imagine that cardinal people be all soupcon a part of an elephant. The archetypical is touching the elephants leg and says that the elephant is like the truck of a tree. The second is touching the elephants trunk and disagrees with the first. They think that the trunk is more like a puffy snake. The third person thinks that the elephant is more like a great fence in because they be toughing the side. distributively person is convinced that they be right and the assorteds are wrong because of what they know and have experienced. What they dont veridicalize is that they are all practicedly right because they are each(prenominal) describing a distinct aspect of the elephant. The resembling analogy fundament be employ to the major devotions of the world.In 1973, sewer bumpkin discussed the melodic theme for a paradigm shift in thought about disparate religions in his book divinity fudge and the Universe of Faiths. unsoph isticateds idea is that the different religions could be viewed as different human responses to wizard betoken reality In a later book, chawbacon presented a conjecture that attempted to explain all the religions. Hick refers to this opening as a pluralistic speculation and defines it as that all religions can be set forth as culturally conditi angiotensin-converting enzymed responses to the comparable ultimate reality.This theory faces one major difficulty though, the opposeing pick outs that each different religions move ins. How can it be contingent that all major religions are responses of the same ultimate reality if they contradict one a nonher? For a pluralistic view to be plausible, the opening has to sufficiently explain how religions can make incompatible claims while at the same time be responses of the same ultimate reality.To oercome this difficulty, Hick attempts to explain four full of life factors (1) people are inherently sacred (2) the substantial d iversity of the content of religious beliefs (3) that religious beliefs are non an illusion and (4) that basically every religion unconditionally channelises its followers lives.Hick doesnt spend several(prenominal)(prenominal) time on the first two factors because they are self-evident to approximately. To argue the third factor Hick examines naturalism and absolutism. naive realism is the belief that altogether natural laws and forces operate in the world and that nada outlives beyond the natural world. Hick believes that the universe can be soundless when looking at it from this perspective. What he does not find plausible with the claim is that all religious beliefs are delusional.Absolutism, in contrast to naturalism, generally accepts a realist view of religious phenomena. Absolutism is also setup so that unless one governance of religious beliefs is exactly true and all other religions which disagree with it are false. Hick rejects this attitude because although absolutism may appear plausible when looking at unaccompanied one religion, application to the real world leaves it highly implausible. Also if absolutism were true, existential evidence would exist to confirm it.It is obvious that different religions hold unlike beliefs on several(prenominal) aspects. It seems obvious enough also that almost every religion has positive moral change on its believers. So it implausible to believe that only one religion is true and it is the people who believe this that Hicks possibleness has the most appeal to because it provides the framework for the claim that any religion which positively affects its believers lives is valid. However, for the hypothesis to be plausible it must sufficiently cover the counterpoint truth-claims paradox.A difficulty Hicks pluralistic hypothesis faces is the conflicting belief systems of various religions. In Hicks book An Interpretation of Religion, Hick claims that all religions authentically experience what he defines as the corporeal. Yet each religion has beliefs that are different and lots contradict other religions. The question then is if different belief systems and conflicting truth-claims leaves Hicks pluralistic theory implausible.Hick does not believe that conflicting truth-claims disproves his theory simply they do present a difficulty. Hick devotes an entire chapter in An Interpretation of Religion to discussing them, covering three separate points on which religions work to disagree on. First are matters of historic fact, then matters of trans-historical fact and differing conceptions of the Real.Hick believes that these disagreements can be dogged by applying the historical method and it proves to be difficult. One reason is because many historical claims of religions have no other historical support outside the religion that makes them. Hick reasons that historical differences just must be accepted, because many are not over central articles of faith. Hicks basic a rgument is that most historical disagreements cannot be resolved and since the disagreements are not related to the essence of any religion, resolving them is not critical to the argument and therefore the disagreements do not create a problem for his hypothesis.Later in is his book, Hick considers conflicting trans-historical truth-claims. He defines them as having to do with questions to which there is, in principle, a true answer but which cannot be established by historical or other empirical evidence. Two examples he gives are the nature of the universe and the fate at finale of human beings.The nature of the universe has been a main quarrel between theistic and non-theistic religions. In applying Hicks definition, this is a dispute to which there is, in principle, only one valid answer. Nevertheless, the question cannot currently be answered, even out by modern science because current scientific cosmologies can be companionable with all perspective.The fate at death of hum an beings is some other example of conflicting trans-historical truth claims. This conflict mainly arises between eastern and western religions. Eastern religions emphasize multiple reincarnations or rebirths after death. westbound theistic religions claim though that a person lives a iodine life that is followed by judgment at death to determine their unfading fate.These points are important to Hicks pluralistic hypothesis. In Hicks examination of various religions, he does not directly getress different religions different beliefs of what happens at death because despite the differing beliefs, Hick reasons that every faith helps its people develop chastely which he believes is an essential result of the switch from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. On this basis, he argues that these differences do not hamper salvation/liberation and therefore do not present any problems for his hypothesis.In his book, Hick also examines conflicting beliefs about the ultimate Reali ty. Hicks hypothesis asserts that all religions are correct interpretations of the Real. However, one obvious problem of this is the drastically different notion of the Real that each religion holds. As Hick previously claims, each religions deity is a correct, yet different face of the Real and since no concepts, categories, or distinctions can be applied to the Real, this prevents any potential contradiction between religions.So the differences between the basic concepts and practices of different religions, the different (and often) conflicting historical and trans-historical beliefs and the varied belief systems on which all of them are formed, are harmonious with Hicks pluralistic hypothesis. Compatible in that the multiple world religions constitute different conceptions and perceptions of, and responses to, the Real from within the different cultural ways of being human.However, Hicks hypothesis does not offer a satisfactory explanation of the problem of the conflicting trut h-claims of the different religions. In order for Hicks hypothesis to be probable it has to be withdraw from internal contradictions and accurately explain religious phenomena. It cannot sufficiently meet either of these conditions.This paper began with the scenario of three people each touching a different part of an elephant. This metaphor is basically a simplified version of Hicks hypothesis. Each religion is like a man who is unable to see the elephant as the whole it really is. unless how do we know that the people are all describing the same elephant? Perhaps the first was actually holding the truck of a tree and the second was actually holding a chivy hose and the third was touching the side of a building. This scenario has a critical flaw, it assumes the same thing it allegedly proves, that all three were touching an elephant.Furthermore, the scenario exposit does not really describe the worlds religions. None of the descriptions were conflicting, just different. What if each of the statements make about the elephant contradicted the statements of the others? Would it still be possible to assume that everyone is describing the same elephant? How much contradiction is required before it becomes clear that its not the same elephant everyone is describing? This same question can be applied to Hicks hypothesis. With the conflicting truth-claims of various religions, is it really reasonable to accept Hicks claim that all religions are just different interpretations of the same reality?Hick addresses the credibility of the possibility that every religion worships the same God and just refers to him by different names in Disputed Questions, entitled Jews, Christians, Muslims Do We All Worship the Same God? He concludes that the trouble of this claim is that the various descriptions have to be compatible. The same criticism Hick applied against that position can be applied to Hicks own hypothesis. The differences between religions are far too great for his hypothesis to be plausible.Sensitivity Analysis Applications and IssuesSensitivity Analysis Applications and IssuesFor a accustomed unidimensional programming model, finding the optimum solution is of major importance. But it is not the only information available. There is a very mature amount of sensitivity information. It is basically the information that accounts for what happens when data hold dears are changed.Sensitivity analysis basically talks about how the uncertainity in the fruit of a model can be attributed to different sources of uncertainity in the stimulant model. Uncertainity analysis is a related practice which quantifies the uncertainity in the output of a model. In an ideal situation, uncertainity and sensitivity analysis must run in tandem.If a study is carried out which involves some form of statistical moulding (forming mathematical equations involving variables), sensitivity analysis is used in order to study exactly how robust the study is. It is also used for a childlike range of other purposes including decision making, error checking in models, agreement the descent between input and output variables and enhancing communication between the people who make the decisions and the people involved in constructing the models.For example, we know that there are some variables which are always uncertain in a budgeting process. Operating expenses, futurity tax rates, interest rates etc. Are some of the variables which may not be known with a great amount of accuracy. In this regard sensitivity analysis basically helps us in understanding that if these variables deviate from their expected mensurates, then how will the business, model or system that is being analyzed will be unnatural.An assumption called certainty assumption needs to be invoked in order to formulate a problem as a linear program. The assumption involved knowing what value the data took on, and decisions are made based on that data. However, this assumption is slenderly doubtful the data might be unknown, or guessed at, or differently inaccurate. Thus, determining the effect on the optimal decisions if the values are changed is all the way not feasible because some numbers in the data are more important than others. john we find the important numbers? Can we determine the effect of misestimation?In order to address these questions, linear programming is very handy. Data changes are showed up in the optimal table. A case study use involving sensitivity analysis is worked upon using solver in the later part of the report.1.2. TABLEAU SENSITIVITY summaryAssume that we solve a linear program by ourselves which ends up with an optimal table (or tableau to use a more technical term).We know what an optimal table looks like It has all the non-negative values in the row 0 (which we also refer to as the cost row), all non-negative right-hand-side values, and an identity matrix embedded. If we have to determine the effect of a change in the d ata, we will have to try and determine how that change affected the final tableau and thus, try and reform the final tableau accordingly.1.2.1. constitute CHANGESThe first change that we will consider is changing the cost value by some delta in the original problem. The original problem and the optimal table are already given. If the same exact calculations are through with(p) with the modified problem, we would have the same final optimal table just that the corresponding cost entry would be lower by delta (this happens because the only operations which we do with the first row are add or subtract scalar multiples of it through m to other rows we never add or subtract the scalar multiples of row 0 to the other rows). For example,let us take the problemMax 3x+2ySubject tox+y = 01 + delta = 0which holds for -1 = 5.4 11NZ DISTILLATE DAN + DJN + DUN = 8.7 12US DISTILLATE DUP + DUN