John Hick's Allegory

[saxyroze]

I was wondering what everyone thought of the pluralistic allegory made popular by John Hick. Now this isn’t exactly how he worded but I tried my best.

 

Three men, blindfolded, stood before an elephant. They’ve never seen an elephant before nor ever heard of it but sensed it standing before them. One man reached out and touched the elephant’s leg and said it was a trunk of a tree, he then went on explaining the best way he could how the tree trunk got there and what it’s purpose was. The second man reached out and touched the elephant’s trunk and said that it was a snake, he also went on to explain the existence of the snake. The third man reached out and touched the elephant’s side and said that it was a wall. All three of the quarreled about who was right and who was wrong without realizing that they were all touching the same exact elephant.

 

Many people interpret this different ways but this is how I interpret it. The blindfolded men are to be religions around the world; the elephant is what Hick calls the Ultimate Devine Reality. It’s basically saying that every religion is reaching out towards the same Ultimate Devine Reality but because of our mental restrictions we can only grasp a tiny bit of the Ultimate and the rest we have to interpret for ourselves. Each religion has different interpretations because of different cultural influences, different leaders and laws, different times, ect. So in short, all religions are trying to worship the same Ultimate Devine but in different ways with different rules, rituals and beliefs.

 

What do you think of that idea? Think it might have truth in it or is it complete rubbish?

[pandora]

I encountered this in my philosophy of religion course.

 

I forget what the "issues" with that allegory were, but if there is a divine reality, than surely that is the case. It makes sense to me, but I am not about to go out and start trying to describe my own elephant.

 

Obviously, people who aren't universalist have major problems with that notion, claiming that all religions do not touch the same reality in a legitimate way... because that allegory is often used to explain the legitimacy of all religions and interpretations.

[Ouroboros]

You haven't read my sig line. (Saxe was first.)

 

 

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Blindmen_and_the_Elephant

 

And the interpretation is that when it comes to things we don't understand or can currently know for sure, we have different opinions, but we're just like blind men trying to understand through our limited abilities.

 

We don't understand gravity fully, or quantum mechanics, or Big Bang, or Abiogenesis, or ... some religious matters (and it includes the religious people too, they claim to know God, but say the same time God can't be known...)

[Fweethawt]

Three men, blindfolded, stood before an elephant. They’ve never seen an elephant before nor ever heard of it but sensed it standing before them. One man reached out and touched the elephant’s leg and said it was a trunk of a tree, he then went on explaining the best way he could how the tree trunk got there and what it’s purpose was. The second man reached out and touched the elephant’s trunk and said that it was a snake, he also went on to explain the existence of the snake. The third man reached out and touched the elephant’s side and said that it was a wall. All three of the quarreled about who was right and who was wrong without realizing that they were all touching the same exact elephant.

 

Many people interpret this different ways but this is how I interpret it.

How 'bout interpreting it like this...

 

There are three, blindfolded men standing around and elephant. They are taking turns touching it, and they are arguing about it. They are insane.

 

[saxyroze]

You haven't read my sig line. (Saxe was first.)

 

 

 

....I didn't realize you're sig line. But it's good to know that Saxe was actually first. Thanks.

 

 

There are three, blindfolded men standing around and elephant. They are taking turns touching it, and they are arguing about it. They are insane.

 

 

 

[Ouroboros]

Saxe wrote it just like a reflection on religious debates, but I guess that Hicks took it to the philosophical epistemological level. What can we know, and how do we know it... and such.

 

The elephant story was later used for the "elephant test" (IIRC), which is, take the stories of all the blind men, put them together and you get a full picture of the elephant.

 

But actually I like to expand the story a bit, or change it.

 

The blindmen are scientists. They actually test to see what an elephant is. Just like scientists today try to see back in the past, into the subatomic level etc. They can't really see, but only speculate what the causes are to the effects.

 

The religious people are the blind people in the village. They claim to know how the elephant looks like. Some say it's blue, some say it's green, and some say it has 3 legs and some say it has 5 legs. When the scientists say they can't know the color, the religious still claim they know the color. When scientists finds 4 legs, the religious scream that the scientists can't really know for sure. When the scientists finds the trunk, the five-leg-ists immediately wake up and say "see, the science proves that the elephant have 5 legs." And then you have the pseudo-scientific-person from the village, he lifts a rock, throw it in the air, hit someone that screams, and he say "the elephant can scream!"

 

We're all blind, but the scientists at least try to guess based on observations, while the religious guess from thin air.