Of Theologians and Truth

[Anonymous]

I’m taking a statistics course, and read this snippet about a poem that I think epitomizes discussions about truth. It’s akin to the fog analogy some of you may remember me giving from Ben Franklin’s autobiography.

Quote:

John Godfrey Saxe’s ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend,

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach’d the Elephant,

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side,

At once began to bawl:

“God bless me! but the Elephant

Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,

Cried, -“Ho! what have we here

So very round and smooth and sharp?

To me ’tis mighty clear

This wonder of an Elephant

Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,

And happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Thus boldly up and spake:

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant

Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,

And felt about the knee.

“What most this wondrous beast is like

Is mighty plain,” quoth he,

“‘Tis clear enough the Elephant

Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: “E’en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;

Deny the fact who can,

This marvel of an Elephant

Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,

Then, seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant

Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.

So oft in theologic wars,

The disputants, I ween,

Rail on in utter ignorance

Of what each other mean,

And prate about an Elephant

Not one of them has seen!

Hence, why I feel I KNOW NOTHING!!!

I think the title of this thread may have been just as aptly as “Of Blind Men and Elephants”.

From henceforth and forever, I shall accept the things I believe as only part of the truth — yet steadfast, unchangeable, and unmoveable. Unless I get a whim that convinces me some other partial truth is better

[Anonymous]

That’s why my signature line is what it is.

I believe what I believe, but I reserve the right to change what I believe at any time, for any reason.

[Anonymous]

Well Ray, it appears you and I have stepped into the same room on this one, although I have this feeling that you have been enjoying the room for a considerably longer time than I have, as I only reached this conclusion in the last few months.

And….as I said once before, Ben Franklin spoke about a religious group called The Dunkers who were active in his time,and whose attitude about the ever-shifting, ever improving nature of truth for the mortal man was a departure from traditional thinking in his day. I think his description of this group is akin to the “seeing darkly” analogy we are discussing here. So, at the risk of repetition, I will repeat it.

Franklin quotes their founder as saying:

Quote:

“When we were first drawn together as a society”, says he “it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were error; and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truths From time to time He has been pleased to afford us farther light, and our principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing. Now we are not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge, er fear that if we should once print our confession of faith, we should feel ourselves as if bound and confin’d by it and perhaps be unwilling to receive farther improvement, and our successors still moreso, as conceiving what we their elders and founders had done, to be sacred, never to be departed from”.

This modesty in a sect is perhaps a singular instasnce in the history of mankind, every other sect supposing itself in possession of all truth, and that those who differe are so far in the wrong….

(Page 128).

By the way, as far as I can tell, this Church (The Dunkers) underwent a split and was retooled under the name “The New Dunkers” in the 19th century, and lasted until 1962 when they disbanded…..At the same time, the LDS Church has grown significantly and is still alive and relatively prosperous, although I’ve heard growth has slowed within the United States. My point – it appears this philosophy of growing and changing belief in what is true, to the extent it became a core idea in this Dunkers Church, may not have injected the kind of staying power that the LDS Church’s claim of full truth has. So, while this approach of recognizing we all see darkly is good for individuals – is it really good for an organization as a whole? It may well be the best approach for an organization so it is free to change with the times, but I don’t think it “sells” to the consumer of religion who wants the absolute truth — and all of it.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

My question is, why were they considered wrong?

Seems to me they were partly right and partly wrong…but not ALL wrong.

[Author]

Posts