So, What about the Blind Men and the Elephant?

Last month I posted “Pondering Pachyderm Perambulation,” relating to the book Circling the Elephant (2020) by John J. Thatamanil. But there was more I wanted to say about that book and the important subjects it explores—so, here goes.  

What Do We Learn from the Blind Men?

There is value in pondering the old story of the six blind men and the elephant. But there are also problems that arise from a serious consideration of that fable/allegory. (Author Thatamanil considers five of those problems on pages 5 to 11 of his book.)

To me, a basic problem is this: If all you knew about an elephant was from what you learned from six blind men, would you have anything like an adequate idea of what an elephant is? Not at all.

True, you would know something about six aspects of the animal called an elephant, but that would be far from understanding a real pachyderm.

More importantly, one has to know something about an actual elephant for the fable to be instructive.

So, what does this say to those who take the old story as helpful for understanding the various religious traditions of the world? Does each tradition have something true to teach us about God (by whatever name God is called)? Perhaps.

But can we reach an adequate understanding of what God is really like by just putting all the religious teachings together? Not at all. One has to know something about God for the old fable to be helpful for interreligious discussion.

What about the Value of Religious Diversity?

Author Thatamanil seeks to develop a theology of religious diversity, asserting that such diversity is beneficial rather than problematical.

The fact of religious plurality certainly must be recognized, and as I wrote back in 2010, all of us should relate to different religious faiths with an attitude characterized by adjectives such as open, respectful, and dialogical.

There are, undoubtedly, benefits by learning from those of other religious traditions. But a full-blown pluralism that accepts all as more or less equally “true” or “good” is highly questionable.

Is religious diversity good when some forms are injurious to people, such as in supporting over/under relationships, racism, neglect of the social/physical world, etc., etc.? Aren’t, in fact, some religious views clearly better than others?

“Liberal” scholars such as Thatamanil and those who basically agree with him are loath to say so.

And, certainly, the differences within the various religious traditions must be fully recognized as well as the differences among those traditions.

Still, to say that all expressions of religion are basically the same and all are basically good, or bad, is seriously mistaken.

What about Social Ethics?

Knowing an elephant is partially like a tree, or a wall, or a rope, etc. says nothing about the beneficial or detrimental effects elephants have on humans.

Interreligious (or even intrareligious) discussions can end up without shedding much light on how the various religious views impact the way humans live and interact in society.

How do religious beliefs, of any tradition, impact living/loving in the “real world” (by which I mean the world in which people live their day-by-day lives)?

Back in 1975, Christian ethicist John C. Bennett (1902~95) published a seminal book titled The Radical Imperative: From Theology to Social Ethics. The emphasis was on moving from an emphasis on religious doctrines to focusing on the social responsibility of (Christian) believers.

Maybe now is the time to move from a theology of religious diversity to considering how religious faiths help or hinder the flourishing of human beings in society today.

In that regard, Thatamanil does recognize a fundamental problem in traditional Hinduism, the inherent caste system which lingers to this day, including the ongoing “discrimination and horrific violence against Dalits” (p. 105).

The caste system embraced by Hinduism is injurious to (Asian) Indians (even those in the U.S.; see here and here) to this day.

To speak metaphorically, the blind men sharing their limited views of an elephant can’t, for example, understand or deal with the harm caused by a stampeding elephant.

An Apology for Apologetics

Communication is hard—for many reasons, one being that the same word sometimes has quite different meanings. Apology is one such word, and I invite you to think with me a bit about the meaning, and value, of apology and apologetics.

My Lifelong Interest in Apologetics

An apology often means an expression of regret or remorse for something a person has said or done. But there is another, technical meaning of that same word. Apology can also be legitimately used to mean the verbal or written defense of one’s basic beliefs.

There is a long history of apology being used in the latter sense with regards to the Christian faith, beginning with these New Testament words: “Always be ready to make your defense [ἀπολογίαν, apologian] to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

One of the important Christian books of the second century CE is First Apology of Justin Martyr (c.156), and his Second Apology was written shortly after the first one.

As a third-year college student, I became deeply interested in Christian apologetics, the religious discipline of defending Christian beliefs through rational discourse.

Philosophers/theologians such as Pascal and Kierkegaard were the Christian “apologists” I was most interested in at first and through graduate school, although I also read and wrote papers by lesser-known thinkers such as German theologian Karl Heim and Hungarian philosopher Michael Polanyi.**

A Good Book on Apologetics

This article was prompted by my recent reading of Randal Rauser’s 2020 book, Conversations with My Inner Atheist: A Christian Apologist Explores Questions that Keep People Up at Night.

Rather than writing more about that book in this article, I invite you to see here for a brief review of that intriguing work by Rauser (b. 1973), a Canadian Baptist seminary professor. 

A Different Type of Apologetics

Even though I maintained my initial interest in apologetics, long ago I began to shift my emphasis from apologetics by rational argument to what I sometimes refer to as “apology by life.”^##

That shift was prompted by my growing awareness that the main reason so many Japanese students in my classes at Seinan Gakuin University rejected Christianity was not because of intellectual issues but because of ethical problems.

The bulk of the students in my Christian Studies classes did not have as much problem, I gradually began to see, with Christian doctrines as with Christian actions.

Rejection of Christianity was based far more on what they had learned in high school world history classes about the Crusades, for example, or what they had seen on television about racism in the United States, which they generally thought was a “Christian nation.”

With that awareness, I began to read and think less about traditional apologetics and more and more about Christian social ethics. Thus, I began thinking more about apology by life rather than apology by rational discourse.

Rauser hardly deals with this matter in his book, although the 20^th chapter begins with Mia saying, “It’s often been said that the biggest objection to Christianity is the life of Christians.” That is probably true.

Although I was unable to find the source, I have often heard these or similar words that Nietzsche reportedly said to Christians: “Show me that you are redeemed, and I will believe in your Redeemer.”

For a long time now, Christians have needed to say less about their beliefs and to act much more deliberately and lovingly for peace and justice, that is, for the basic well-being of all people.

_____

** My last essay published by The Seinan Theological Review in Japan was in March 2004, and it was largely on the thought of Karl Heim. It is available for viewing/reading here.

^## In footnote 16 of the above article, I wrote, “I have long wanted to write an essay on ‘Apology by Life.’ Apologetics has long been one of my strongest interests, but long ago I realized that the best apologetics may well be done by loving action rather than by words.”

Disclosure: The review I wrote of Rauser’s book and my mentioning of Rauser and his book in this blog article is partly because of receiving the book for review from Mike Morrell and his Speakeasy book review network.