The blind men and the elephant – Walking With Giants

A famous Indian fable tells of a number of a blind men who try to describe an elephant. One, touching its side, declares that it is ‘like a wall’. Another, feeling the tusk, think that it is ‘like a spear’. Yet another, encountering its trunk, says that it is ‘like a snake’. Other contenders are ‘like a fan’ (the ear), ‘like a rope’ (the tail) and so on.

The intended moral of the story is clear: no-one has a monopoly on the truth. Religious truth, especially, is a matter of limited knowledge, based on one’s own experience and perspective.

I’ve certainly heard this story used to promote an attitude of religious inclusivism. Each religion has its own view of God. Each one has a bit of truth, but none has the whole truth. Let’s be humble about our own truth-claims and accepting of other people’s.

There are, however, some serious flaws in the argument.

For one thing, the story depends on there being an elephant out there. There is a whole to be discovered, even if our knowledge of it is incomplete. Someone has put it like this:-

In theology, just because we have limited access to Truth, that doesn’t mean any and all versions of Truth are equally valid. Actually, if we know the Whole Elephant is out there, shouldn’t this drive us to open our eyes wider and seek every opportunity to experience more of Him?

For another thing, as Tim Keller observes, the story ‘backfires on its users’:-

The story is told from the point of view of someone who is not blind. How could you know that each blind man only sees part of the elephant unless you claim to be able to see the whole elephant?…How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed that none of the religions have?

(The Reason for God, p9)