Two days ago on my way home from work I had a conversation about God with my coworker CG. She knows I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, and she respects that, but she believes that truth (ie - God) is unknowable. Furthermore, she believes that all religions are equal, leading to God. She gave me the following analogy to explain her point:
Four blind men discover an elephant. They grope about, seeking to understand and describe the elephant. One of them grabs the trunk, and concludes the elephant is "a snake." Another one, grabbing the tail, says "It's a rope." The third one has a hold of the leg, and describes it as "a tree." The last one, feeling the side of the elephant says "I think the elephant's a wall!"
She continued by telling me that this analogy is descriptive of all the religions of the world. Just as all four blind men are telling the "truth" about the elephant, so all religions are "right " in explaining their experience of God. The conclusion follows, that all religions are equally valid, and no one religion can claim itself to be the "unique holder of truth."
I've heard this analogy before, and I've heard the "rebuttals" to it, but at the time of our discussion, try as I might, I could not think of the right response. Since then I've reflected a little, read a little, and talked to a good friend, about an "appropriate answer" to this analogy. Here are the three places the analogy breaks down. Hopefully I'll remember this the next time I'm in a similar situation.
1) The elephant. The blind men are attempting to describe something real and factual: an elephant. The elephant is a certain way, and not another, irrespective of our opinion. Elephants are what they are, and to describe them as other than what they really are is erroneous. The same can be said of God. God has certain attributes or qualities, whether we believe it or not, and to deny these attributes is a mistake. Therefore, not all descriptions of God - or elephants, for that matter - are equally valid. Some are true. Some are false.
2) All four men are mistaken. They were describing an elephant, not a snake, a rope, a tree, or a wall. Their opinions are not equally true - in fact, they are all equally false! In terms of pluralism, the best the analogy can do for us is prove that all religions are false, not true! Applying this analogy to God, at best, we could describe what God is not. God would then be the sum of our misconceptions about him!
3) The men are blind. This is the most important point. The analogy leaves out any account of special revelation. The dynamics of the analogy would change completely if a "fifth man", a credible man with sight, were to come and describe the elpehant as he really is. The same is true for God. The truth about God could be known if someone was to reveal who God is. Jesus Christ claimed to be this "fifth man" who could see. He claimed to be the one who could explain who God is. In fact, he made himself "equal with God." (John 5:18).
Even today, Christ speaks to us, and tells us that he "opens eyes" and shows us the true nature of God. In fact, this is why people - then and now - cannot accept him. He claims to be "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), the "bread" that satisfies our spiritual hunger (John 6:35).
I unashamedly got these rebuttals (and expanded on them, so as to better understand them myself) from here.
Four blind men discover an elephant. They grope about, seeking to understand and describe the elephant. One of them grabs the trunk, and concludes the elephant is "a snake." Another one, grabbing the tail, says "It's a rope." The third one has a hold of the leg, and describes it as "a tree." The last one, feeling the side of the elephant says "I think the elephant's a wall!"
She continued by telling me that this analogy is descriptive of all the religions of the world. Just as all four blind men are telling the "truth" about the elephant, so all religions are "right " in explaining their experience of God. The conclusion follows, that all religions are equally valid, and no one religion can claim itself to be the "unique holder of truth."
I've heard this analogy before, and I've heard the "rebuttals" to it, but at the time of our discussion, try as I might, I could not think of the right response. Since then I've reflected a little, read a little, and talked to a good friend, about an "appropriate answer" to this analogy. Here are the three places the analogy breaks down. Hopefully I'll remember this the next time I'm in a similar situation.
1) The elephant. The blind men are attempting to describe something real and factual: an elephant. The elephant is a certain way, and not another, irrespective of our opinion. Elephants are what they are, and to describe them as other than what they really are is erroneous. The same can be said of God. God has certain attributes or qualities, whether we believe it or not, and to deny these attributes is a mistake. Therefore, not all descriptions of God - or elephants, for that matter - are equally valid. Some are true. Some are false.
2) All four men are mistaken. They were describing an elephant, not a snake, a rope, a tree, or a wall. Their opinions are not equally true - in fact, they are all equally false! In terms of pluralism, the best the analogy can do for us is prove that all religions are false, not true! Applying this analogy to God, at best, we could describe what God is not. God would then be the sum of our misconceptions about him!
3) The men are blind. This is the most important point. The analogy leaves out any account of special revelation. The dynamics of the analogy would change completely if a "fifth man", a credible man with sight, were to come and describe the elpehant as he really is. The same is true for God. The truth about God could be known if someone was to reveal who God is. Jesus Christ claimed to be this "fifth man" who could see. He claimed to be the one who could explain who God is. In fact, he made himself "equal with God." (John 5:18).
Even today, Christ speaks to us, and tells us that he "opens eyes" and shows us the true nature of God. In fact, this is why people - then and now - cannot accept him. He claims to be "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), the "bread" that satisfies our spiritual hunger (John 6:35).
I unashamedly got these rebuttals (and expanded on them, so as to better understand them myself) from here.
No comments:
Post a Comment