Elephant/blindman story..

[Steve]

Hi all,
Thought id start a thread on the elephant/blindman story which many people seem to agree with.

I remember in college a professor trying to explain religious pluralism used a hindi story of an elephant and 5 blindmen. Here is a copy of it
http://www.anekant.org/The%205%20Blind%20Men%20and%20the%20Elephant.htm

I have to say i think the elephant/blindman story is a ridiculous analogy to the many religious views.
Few reasons.
1 - it assumes all the blindman report the truth and are not just making garbage up for some other reason.

2 - many religions flat out deny what another religion specifically teaches. This is very different to not knowing the full picture, it says no we know that you are wrong about this or that. This is not the same as a leg plus a trunk etc
For example some religions claim their is more then one God while others say their is only one, both simple cannot be right. Christianity claims Christ was crucified (which is historical fact if ever there was one, you may disagree why he was crucified though), while islam claims he wasnt. Both cannot be right.


I see this analogy and the reasoning behind it as weak and a butchering of simple logic and intelligence in the name of political correctness and tolerance. Arnt people allowed to agree to disagree anymore?

Like to know your thoughts...

 

[robtex]

1 - it assumes all the blindman report the truth and are not just making garbage up for some other reason.

No you made that assumption. The story only describes how they attain their info. I seeing a parallel applied it to this thread.

2 - many religions flat out deny what another religion specifically teaches. This is very different to not knowing the full picture, it says no we know that you are wrong about this or that. This is not the same as a leg plus a trunk etc
For example some religions claim their is more then one God while others say their is only one, both simple cannot be right. Christianity claims Christ was crucified (which is historical fact if ever there was one, you may disagree why he was crucified though), while islam claims he wasnt. Both cannot be right.

There is no knowing in religion. Religion is a speculation of faith. If we knew there was a God and the aspects of existance there would be much less religious pluralism and few to none non-theists.

Chrsits alleged demised has never been proven or even evidenced. Furthermore since Christ was the only rabbi in the history of Judiasm to not write a single word down there isn't even any evidence he ever existed except in Paul's imagination. Having said that it fits in well with the elephant story. Take an idea and expound on it it using your imagination and by handling a long hose feeling thing walla "you got an elephant!!"

I see this type of analogy and reasoning as weak and a butchering of simple logic and intelligence in the name of political correctness and tolerance. Arnt people allowed to agree to disagree anymore?

The story isn't designed to logic out an elephant. It is an allogory that I used as a parallel to express a point. Logic doesn't apply to faith based systems. There is NO LOGIC to christianity or other religions. They are accepted on faith.

 

[michel]

Hi all,
Thought id start a thread on the elephant/blindman story which many people seem to agree with.

I have to say i think the elephant/blindman story is a ridiculous analogy to the many religious views.
Few reasons.
1 - it assumes all the blindman report the truth and are not just making garbage up for some other reason.

2 - many religions flat out deny what another religion specifically teaches. This is very different to not knowing the full picture, it says no we know that you are wrong about this or that. This is not the same as a leg plus a trunk etc
For example some religions claim their is more then one God while others say their is only one, both simple cannot be right. Christianity claims Christ was crucified (which is historical fact if ever there was one, you may disagree why he was crucified though), while islam claims he wasnt. Both cannot be right.


I see this analogy and the reasoning behind it as weak and a butchering of simple logic and intelligence in the name of political correctness and tolerance. Arnt people allowed to agree to disagree anymore?

Like to know your thoughts...

As a theist, I disagree with you.

The point made was actually a very sound and perfect argument.

I don't know if you are a sola scriptura theist, but most theists, would, I believe, have no qualms about admitting that their religion is one that requires faith.

Sure, we have the Bible and other Religious and holy writings. But there is no proof that these writings are accurate or representative of what they portray.

It is therefore up to each theist, at his discretion, to evaluate his faith in God by meditation, prayer and any other means of 'communion'. Any theist who relies solely on the contents of the Bible and has no faith in the veracity of the life of Christ is, at worst (not intentionally, of course) a folower of an unproved dictate. He would be no better than an indoctrinated mesnerized creature who believes someone else's word because he chooses to accept an unverified belief.

The story, was, I believe, an excellent demonstration of the fact that we all (theists, and non-theists alike) tend (sometimes) to be 'blinkered' (like a horse) and see only half the picture.........perhaps even what we want to see.

An immediate example of that would be that of a theist who believes in Creation per se, and refuses to acknowledge the validity of evolution. He/she would be 'blinkered'.

 

[Steve]

1 - it assumes all the blindman report the truth and are not just making garbage up for some other reason.

No you made that assumption. The story only describes how they attain their info. I seeing a parallel applied it to this thread.

No this analogy dosn't work and is pointless without this assumption. It rests on putting each piece together to make the full picture etc. For eg when it says
"“Gentlemen, all five of you have touched only one part of the body of the elephant. So you have only a partial VIEW of the elephant."
It assumes each man did touch the elephant and report correctly what he felt. Suppose one of the blind men just made garbage up and told the others what he felt for some other reason- it would distroy the final image/discription of the elephant.

2 - many religions flat out deny what another religion specifically teaches. This is very different to not knowing the full picture, it says no we know that you are wrong about this or that. This is not the same as a leg plus a trunk etc
For example some religions claim their is more then one God while others say their is only one, both simple cannot be right. Christianity claims Christ was crucified (which is historical fact if ever there was one, you may disagree why he was crucified though), while islam claims he wasnt. Both cannot be right.

There is no knowing in religion. Religion is a speculation of faith.

I disagree, many men have known whether or not a particular religion is true, eg the apostles knew if Christ was Crucified and if he rose.
For us we need faith true, but it is not blind faith - we can weigh up the evidence for each religion and decide - it shouldnt be just putting names in a hat etc.
For eg, to deny the resurection you have to suppose the apostles died for what they knew was a lie - some may belive this is the case others may not, but our faith either way is based on reason.

Also by your reply can i assume you dont believe any of the religions? If you do why? I figured you did hence your use of the analogy in the first place.

Chrsits alleged demised has never been proven or even evidenced. Furthermore since Christ was the only rabbi in the history of Judiasm to not write a single word down there isn't even any evidence he ever existed except in Paul's imagination.

Are you for real? Not many would bother arguing against Christs crucifixtion(except muslims and this is not because of historical reasons) let alone Christs existance.
You think Paul is the only one to write about Christ? You do realise that the bible is a collection of books, its not just one book. Many authors, thousands of manuscripts all mentioning Christ. If that isnt ennough to convince you that he at least existed are there any historical figures you are willing to accept as having once walked the planet? What was it do you suppose that started the Christian religion if Christ never existed?

 

[Steve]

Sure, we have the Bible and other Religious and holy writings. But there is no proof that these writings are accurate or representative of what they portray.

Well in a sense what you have just said backs up point 1 that i made.
You are saying we dont know if the writings are accurate or representative of that they portray, yet the analogy assumes they are actually describing somthing of the elephant. So the analogy itself is flawed by the very point you make. To belive the analogy reflects the reality of all religions(they all know a piece of the elephant) we have to assume that they all are legitimate. Somthing i disagree with.

The story, was, I believe, an excellent demonstration of the fact that we all (theists, and non-theists alike) tend (sometimes) to be 'blinkered' (like a horse) and see only half the picture.........perhaps even what we want to see.

An immediate example of that would be that of a theist who believes in Creation per se, and refuses to acknowledge the validity of evolution. He/she would be 'blinkered'.

:biglaugh: I could say the same about athiestic propaganda that blindly asserts everything we see is capable of creating itself. Id say to claim such a thing He/she would need to be 'blinkered' and only see what they want to see. I as a Creationist do not blindly dismiss evolution, i belive some parts of the theory, for eg decent with modification provided were talking about decrease in the information carried by the DNA code. However i dont blindly accept that random mutations could just happen to make feathers when they previously didnt exist, or light sensitive cells when they priviously didnt exist etc.
Although lets not turn this into a creation/evolution debate.

 

[michel]

Well in a sense what you have just said backs up point 1 that i made.
You are saying we dont know if the writings are accurate or representative of that they portray, yet the analogy assumes they are actually describing somthing of the elephant. So the analogy itself is flawed by the very point you make. To belive the analogy reflects the reality of all religions(they all know a piece of the elephant) we have to assume that they all are legitimate. Somthing i disagree with.

I dispute that. God is the elephant (or at least the entirety of the universe is God) - not the Bible. The Bible is a man made book which purports to be the word of God and which purports to be the teachings of Christ.

As it happens, I believe that the New Testament is an accurate representation of the life of Christ, but there is no proof. Therein lies the Faith.

I won't even question your second paragraph which, as you say, is material for another thread.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You know Steve...

it is the height of spiritual arrogance that relegates the beliefs of others to being "garbage". Not even Paul had the temerity to do that!

Acts 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. NIV

Later in this passage, Paul found TRUTH in their own writings. Unlike politicians, we have no need to debunk the beliefs of others. Let your light so shine that men will be attracted to it! As it is ALL of us can only hope to slowly have the truth revealed to us:

I Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. NIV

 

[Steve]

I dispute that. God is the elephant (or at least the entirety of the universe is God) - not the Bible. The Bible is a man made book which purports to be the word of God and which purports to be the teachings of Christ.

As it happens, I believe that the New Testament is an accurate representation of the life of Christ, but there is no proof. Therein lies the Faith.

I won't even question your second paragraph which, as you say, is material for another thread.

michel i think we must be arguing different points, because what you have just said (from what i can tell), does nothing to back the point i thought you were trying to make.

Ill try and clear it up as i may not have been clear in my previous posts, the analogy dosnt work because it needs each blindman to have honestly reported what they felt, and it assumes they all felt the same object just in different places.
This isnt necessarily true of religion though and hence isnt a good analogy. Someone may make stuff up which they havnt actually experieced for various reasons.
They may experience something but it may not be God, eg Satan mascurading. (from a christian perspective)

You know Steve...

it is the height of spiritual arrogance that relegates the beliefs of others to being "garbage". Not even Paul had the temerity to do that!

Acts 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. NIV

Later in this passage, Paul found TRUTH in their own writings. Unlike politicians, we have no need to debunk the beliefs of others. Let your light so shine that men will be attracted to it! As it is ALL of us can only hope to slowly have the truth revealed to us:

I Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. NIV

NetDoc i wasnt refering to any specific religion, but was making the point that the analogy assumes no-one made stuff up for there own reasons. Thats it.
Although to be honest i do belive there is alot of garbage out there, lies from Satan and strongholds preventing the truth from being acknowledged. Wouldnt you agree?

 

[Scuba Pete]

There are many words that can be used to disagree with an idea or concept. I avoid the use of emotionally charged words such as "garbage" as they tend to close all dialogues. This doesn't mean that I have never used such words or that their use does not have a place in any discussion.

Specifically, there is one poster that loves to give his one worded (sometimes two) responses to a premise. "Utter rubbish", "Complete trash" etc, etc. I find that this is used primarily to inflame the other poster and is incredibly condescending, not to mention being intellectually vapid and devoid of any reason. But that's just my opinion! While I have done the same in the past, I can do so no longer with a clear conscience.

 

[Aqualung]

There is no knowing in religion. Religion is a speculation of faith. If we knew there was a God and the aspects of existance there would be much less religious pluralism and few to none non-theists.

Your religion asserts that I can't know my religion. My religion asserts that I can know it just as much as I know anything else, such as that I am sitting here typing this reply.

 

[mr.guy]

...the analogy dosnt work because it needs each blindman to have honestly reported what they felt,

When making up a story, you're aware that the narrator can complel his characters to be truthful, you surely realize.

... and it assumes they all felt the same object just in different places.

it dosen't assume that. That's the plainest part of the story.

This isnt necessarily true of religion though and hence isnt a good analogy. Someone may make stuff up which they havnt actually experieced for various reasons.

have you applied this critique to the bible, i wonder?

NetDoc i wasnt refering to any specific religion, but was making the point that the analogy assumes no-one made stuff up for there own reasons.

you did refer to a specific religion. Islam, for one and while you were there you took a couple shots at "athiest gabage". Bear in mind we can scroll up this elephant to read your previous posts, steve.

To belive the analogy reflects the reality of all religions(they all know a piece of the elephant) we have to assume that they all are legitimate. Somthing i disagree with.

So which part of the elephant do you find disagreable? Perhaps the ivory?

It assumes each man did touch the elephant and report correctly what he felt. Suppose one of the blind men just made garbage up and told the others what he felt for some other reason-

Even worse, suppose one of these blind men is here right now on this forum telling everyone that trees are elephants?

it would distroy the final image/discription of the elephant.

That's something of the point. Most mythology is a game of password, after all. But the potentiality for this group of blindmen to deduce an elephant is there.

 

[Steve]

...the analogy dosnt work because it needs each blindman to have honestly reported what they felt,

When making up a story, you're aware that the narrator can complel his characters to be truthful, you surely realize.

Ah yes i do realize that, the problem is when this story is used as an anology of all religions. Simply because like you said in the story they may all be truthful but those who have started religions may not.

and it assumes they all felt the same object just in different places.

it dosen't assume that. That's the plainest part of the story.

:sarcastic
It Does, they all felt the elephant just at different places! Thats the plainest part of the story!

This isnt necessarily true of religion though and hence isnt a good analogy. Someone may make stuff up which they havnt actually experieced for various reasons.

have you applied this critique to the bible, i wonder?

No ive never once in my whole life considered that the bible could have been made up, im a mindless drone who accepts what he has been told and never questions it no matter what. :banghead3 :sarcastic

I think your missing the whole point of this thread.

NetDoc i wasnt refering to any specific religion, but was making the point that the analogy assumes no-one made stuff up for there own reasons.

you did refer to a specific religion. Islam, for one and while you were there you took a couple shots at "athiest gabage". Bear in mind we can scroll up this elephant to read your previous posts, steve.

Out of context, i did not refer to any specific religions as garbage - which is plain to see, Bear in mind anyone can just scroll up and see this.
I pointed to islam and Christianity to show that what they teach cannot both be right at the same time, used as an example for point 2 i made.
When refering to atheists it was in response to michel so again out of context for my response to NetDoc.

To belive the analogy reflects the reality of all religions(they all know a piece of the elephant) we have to assume that they all are legitimate. Somthing i disagree with.

So which part of the elephant do you find disagreable? Perhaps the ivory?

Do you even understand how the anology is used when refering to religion? I dont disagree that the story itself works but that it is not a good analogy for religions.

It assumes each man did touch the elephant and report correctly what he felt. Suppose one of the blind men just made garbage up and told the others what he felt for some other reason-

Even worse, suppose one of these blind men is here right now on this forum telling everyone that trees are elephants?

What? i dont even know what point your trying to make here?