Do you believe in the "Elephant and the Blind Men" assertion?

R o c k e t · October 15, 2014, 12:33:31 PM

Do you believe this assertion about Religion and skeptics?

"Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.

"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

"Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.

The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree too. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, "Maybe you have your reasons." This way we don’t get in arguments. In Jainism, it is explained that truth can be stated in seven different ways. So, you can see how broad our religion is. It teaches us to be tolerant towards others for their viewpoints. This allows us to live in harmony with the people of different thinking. This is known as the Syadvada, Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions."

I'll post my views shortly

rC · October 15, 2014, 12:36:22 PM

The blind men in that story must have been some new form of autistic.

More Than Mortal · October 15, 2014, 12:39:28 PM

I can understand a sense of metaphysical deference to the views of others, but it really isn't essential. If somebody is going to profess a doctrine like substance dualism, they'd better damn well have a good reason.

As for just general epistemology? Yeah, I'm not going to allow people who deny science to get off that lightly. Somebody "having reasons" for something doesn't make it any more valid. It's just a stupid tautology.

Mad Max · October 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM

This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.

R o c k e t · October 15, 2014, 12:53:32 PM

Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM

This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.

It also implies that the skeptic knows what God looks like. He sees an Elephant, the full picture, while the religious only see parts. how can a non-believer see more of God than religious people?

He cannot. He wouldn't see anything.

R o c k e t · October 15, 2014, 12:56:02 PM

Quote from: RC5908 on October 15, 2014, 12:36:22 PM

The blind men in that story must have been some new form of autistic.

the summary of the story is basically:
>religious people are only seeing "parts" of God
>skeptics can see ALL of God........in spite of being nonbelievers

I found this like a week ago, and laughed. Who uses this, and takes this seriously?
This is a TERRIBLE assertion.

RustingFloor · October 15, 2014, 12:56:33 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 12:53:32 PM

Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM
This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.

It also implies that the skeptic knows what God looks like. He sees an Elephant, the full picture, while the religious only see parts. how can a non-believer see more of God than religious people?

He cannot. He wouldn't see anything.

How does the religious man know? God hardly appears in children's picturebooks.

Mad Max · October 15, 2014, 12:58:09 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 12:53:32 PM

Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM
This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.

It also implies that the skeptic knows what God looks like. He sees an Elephant, the full picture, while the religious only see parts. how can a non-believer see more of God than religious people?

He cannot. He wouldn't see anything.

Nobody sees anything, regardless of their faith.

R o c k e t · October 15, 2014, 01:01:05 PM

Quote from: RustingFloor on October 15, 2014, 12:56:33 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 12:53:32 PM
Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM
This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.

It also implies that the skeptic knows what God looks like. He sees an Elephant, the full picture, while the religious only see parts. how can a non-believer see more of God than religious people?

He cannot. He wouldn't see anything.
How does the religious man know? God hardly appears in children's picturebooks.

This assertion was made by a skeptic, im assuming.
He calls religious people "blind". He also claims to see what they cannot.
The problem is, the assertion is referring to God as the Elephant, not something else.

The skeptic claims to be able to see more of God than the religious, that they see parts where he can see the whole thing. Which makes no sense because the skeptic doesn't believe in God.

R o c k e t · October 15, 2014, 01:02:44 PM

Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 15, 2014, 12:58:09 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 12:53:32 PM
Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM
This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.

It also implies that the skeptic knows what God looks like. He sees an Elephant, the full picture, while the religious only see parts. how can a non-believer see more of God than religious people?

He cannot. He wouldn't see anything.
Nobody sees anything, regardless of their faith.

Then the assertion is totally off. Because it is saying the skeptic sees more of God.
If God isn't real, HOW can they see more of something nonexistent?

The religious see more of God than the skeptic, for one by simply believing he exists.
That's a start. Anything on top of that, just increases their lead over the skeptic.

Spoiler

You won't take my anecdotal evidence, but I've seen plenty. Not God Himself for I would die, but I've seen Him work.

Yu · October 15, 2014, 01:03:11 PM

Its a silly story regardless.

rC · October 15, 2014, 01:04:46 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 12:56:02 PM

Quote from: RC5908 on October 15, 2014, 12:36:22 PM
The blind men in that story must have been some new form of autistic.

the summary of the story is basically:
>religious people are only seeing "parts" of God
>skeptics can see ALL of God........in spite of being nonbelievers

I found this like a week ago, and laughed. Who uses this, and takes this seriously?
This is a TERRIBLE assertion.

Is that how you read it? I read it as "all religious people pray to the same god unknowingly."

Either way, this is grandma's Facebook copypasta tier.

RustingFloor · October 15, 2014, 01:06:07 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 01:01:05 PM

Quote from: RustingFloor on October 15, 2014, 12:56:33 PM
Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 12:53:32 PM
Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM
This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.

It also implies that the skeptic knows what God looks like. He sees an Elephant, the full picture, while the religious only see parts. how can a non-believer see more of God than religious people?

He cannot. He wouldn't see anything.
How does the religious man know? God hardly appears in children's picturebooks.

This assertion was made by a skeptic, im assuming.
He calls religious people "blind". He also claims to see what they cannot.
The problem is, the assertion is referring to God as the Elephant, not something else.

The skeptic claims to be able to see more of God than the religious, that they see parts where he can see the whole thing. Which makes no sense because the skeptic doesn't believe in God.

A skeptic wouldn't claim to see god in the first place. If he did he wouldn't be a skeptic, now would he?

Mad Max · October 15, 2014, 01:07:12 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 01:02:44 PM

Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 15, 2014, 12:58:09 PM
Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 12:53:32 PM
Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM
This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.

It also implies that the skeptic knows what God looks like. He sees an Elephant, the full picture, while the religious only see parts. how can a non-believer see more of God than religious people?

He cannot. He wouldn't see anything.
Nobody sees anything, regardless of their faith.

Then the assertion is totally off. Because it is saying the skeptic sees more of God.
If God isn't real, HOW can they see more of something nonexistent?

Exactly. It doesn't follow.

Quote

The religious see more of God than the skeptic, for one by simply believing he exists.
That's a start. Anything on top of that, just increases their lead over the skeptic.

If anything, the analogy should be flipped; skeptics see a pillar, rope, etc, whereas the religious man sees an elephant. Even then it's still a bad analogy.

R o c k e t · October 15, 2014, 01:11:23 PM

Quote from: RC5908 on October 15, 2014, 01:04:46 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: RC5908 on October 15, 2014, 12:36:22 PM
The blind men in that story must have been some new form of autistic.

the summary of the story is basically:
>religious people are only seeing "parts" of God
>skeptics can see ALL of God........in spite of being nonbelievers

I found this like a week ago, and laughed. Who uses this, and takes this seriously?
This is a TERRIBLE assertion.
Is that how you read it? I read it as "all religious people pray to the same god unknowingly."

Either way, this is grandma's Facebook copypasta tier.

uh, no. I googled the assertion then just picked one.
Then copied the whole thing andpasted.
My views are my own.

R o c k e t · October 15, 2014, 01:12:26 PM

Quote from: RustingFloor on October 15, 2014, 01:06:07 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: RustingFloor on October 15, 2014, 12:56:33 PM
Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 12:53:32 PM
Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM
This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.

It also implies that the skeptic knows what God looks like. He sees an Elephant, the full picture, while the religious only see parts. how can a non-believer see more of God than religious people?

He cannot. He wouldn't see anything.
How does the religious man know? God hardly appears in children's picturebooks.

This assertion was made by a skeptic, im assuming.
He calls religious people "blind". He also claims to see what they cannot.
The problem is, the assertion is referring to God as the Elephant, not something else.

The skeptic claims to be able to see more of God than the religious, that they see parts where he can see the whole thing. Which makes no sense because the skeptic doesn't believe in God.
A skeptic wouldn't claim to see god in the first place. If he did he wouldn't be a skeptic, now would he?

So we are in agreement. Neither of us find this assertion plausible.

God · October 15, 2014, 01:18:18 PM

I just looked it up and it seems the story originated from India and is shared in Jain, Buddhist and Hindu lore, not skepticism.

Personally it sounds like stupid hippy crap to me. How could the blind men all be considered "partially right" when they were all completely wrong?

RustingFloor · October 15, 2014, 01:18:54 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 01:12:26 PM

Quote from: RustingFloor on October 15, 2014, 01:06:07 PM
Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: RustingFloor on October 15, 2014, 12:56:33 PM
Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 12:53:32 PM
Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM
This example doesn't really work because God cannot be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, heard, or sensed in any other capacity.

It also implies that the skeptic knows what God looks like. He sees an Elephant, the full picture, while the religious only see parts. how can a non-believer see more of God than religious people?

He cannot. He wouldn't see anything.
How does the religious man know? God hardly appears in children's picturebooks.

This assertion was made by a skeptic, im assuming.
He calls religious people "blind". He also claims to see what they cannot.
The problem is, the assertion is referring to God as the Elephant, not something else.

The skeptic claims to be able to see more of God than the religious, that they see parts where he can see the whole thing. Which makes no sense because the skeptic doesn't believe in God.
A skeptic wouldn't claim to see god in the first place. If he did he wouldn't be a skeptic, now would he?
So we are in agreement. Neither of us find this assertion plausible.

I don't get what you're trying to say with this thread.

The problem with comparing skeptics of religion to blind men is that we actually generally have functioning senses and can make any observations a religious person could. Religious types don't just have some special sixth sense that lets them see god.

This story works better as an argument that all monotheists unknowingly worship the dame entity, not as some kind of logical counter to skepticism.

God · October 15, 2014, 01:20:12 PM

Damn, I hit quote instead of edit. I shouldn't post drunk.

Word Wizard · October 15, 2014, 01:59:51 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 01:02:44 PM

Spoiler
You won't take my anecdotal evidence, but I've seen plenty. Not God Himself for I would die, but I've seen Him work.

This goes back to the assumption game where you survived a survivable condition and attributed your survival to god rather than the doctors who helped you.

R o c k e t · October 15, 2014, 02:04:11 PM

Quote from: Sly Instinct on October 15, 2014, 01:59:51 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on October 15, 2014, 01:02:44 PM
Spoiler
You won't take my anecdotal evidence, but I've seen plenty. Not God Himself for I would die, but I've seen Him work.

This goes back to the assumption game where you survived a survivable condition and attributed your survival to god rather than the doctors who helped you.

This thread isn't about my religious beliefs. Its about the "Elephant and the Blind Men".

I'd rather not have every serious thread I post in get derailed. Let's just not go there.

Word Wizard · October 15, 2014, 02:08:02 PM

This story doesn't make sense seeing as skeptics don't see any proof of god.

R o c k e t · October 15, 2014, 02:36:21 PM

Quote from: Sly Instinct on October 15, 2014, 02:08:02 PM

This story doesn't make sense seeing as skeptics don't see any proof of god.

I agree. I was curious to see what others thought of it. How this even became a thing.......I'll never know.

challengerX · October 15, 2014, 02:47:16 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

The Lord Slide Rule · October 15, 2014, 02:48:55 PM

It's not about skepticism, it's not even an assertion. Its a silly fable, probably concerning Brahma or some other metagod of Indian origin.

On second thought it's actually about. . .