Are You Seeing Elephants?!

for a while now, i've had a growing sense of frustration with the idea that faith cannot be analysed and rationalised.  lots of people say it, whether religious or not, whether traditional, new age, or whatever else.

i understand that aspects of faith are something more than can be systematically observed and measured by the traditional scientific method.  but the problem with throwing out the application of all reason when exploring what we believe is that it can propagate the misnomer that faith is necessarily blind.  it also leads to the idea that all faiths are equally valid because they do not need to stand up to objective scrutiny.

certainly, not everything can be adequately explained in words.  and some things defy even complex articulation.  elements of faith are often understandably described as mysteries.  but as an analyst, i struggle with the idea that everything cannot be analysed. or that some things shouldn't be analysed... that analysing things doesn't always help.

i simply don't believe it.  

it can - i do it. 

it does - i've seen it time and time again.

(bear with me.  i'm working towards the elephant!)

i've spent my life analysing - everything from breakfast cereal packets to the purpose of existence, from lego blocks to my own mental processes and emotions, from the grain of a piece of wood to the mind of God. 

i am in no way claiming to have solved every mystery under the sun, but for me, analysis always improves clarity.

whilst words are no substitute for experiences, thought is an experience in itself. it's a pathway to potential revelation. i can see that there are cycles of thought that are unhealthy, but good healthy analysis is good and it's healthy.  and my understanding often augments my experience.  the rainbow doesn't need to be understood scientifically to be appreciated, but personally, since understanding the mechanics of light refraction, rainbows seem even more beautiful and wondrous to me than they did before.

i'm not suggesting that analysing everything is the right way for everyone.  not at all.  where there is a depth of beauty and magic that i experience through understanding, i recognise that plenty of people enjoy their own different delights.  

and i'm happy for them to use their own means to reach their own ends...

...except when it means that they're unreasonable!  ;)

what i find hard to ignore is when non-sense is heralded as wisdom.  when irrational ideas are laid out as an inviting path.

so i'm posting...

specifically i'm posting my opinion that there is no all-encompassing open and accepting perspective on spirituality that is broader than other views (which it considers more exclusive).  and i'm posting because i think it really matters what we believe.

but enough of my words.  this is simply a section of a book i read some months/years ago that articulated my thoughts on the matter and stuck with me as a simple and effective example of how easy it can be not to recognise a twist in a tale...

so here it is. i call it "keller's elephant". it's from the book The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. it doesn't promote anything religious. it simply levels the ground.

'All major religions are equally valid and basically teach the same thing' 

The problem with this position is its inconsistency. It insists that doctrine is unimportant, but at the same time assumes doctrinal beliefs about the nature of God that are at loggerheads with those of all the major faiths. Buddhism doesn’t believe in a personal God at all. Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe in a God who holds people accountable for their beliefs and practices and whose attributes could not all be reduced to love. Ironically, the insistence that doctrines do not matter is really a doctrine in itself. It holds a specific view of God, which is touted as superior and more enlightened than the beliefs of most major religions. So the proponents of this view do the very thing they forbid in others.

'Each religion sees part of a spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth' 

Sometimes this point is illustrated with the story of the blind men and the elephant. Several blind men were walking along and came upon an elephant that allowed them to touch and feel it. "This creature is long and flexible like a snake", said the first blind man, holding the elephant's trunk. "Not at all - it is thick and round like a tree trunk," said the second blind man, feeling the elephant's leg. "No, it is large and flat", said the third blind man, touching the elephant's side. Each blind man could feel only part of the elephant - non could envisage the entire elephant. In the same way, it is argued, the religions of the world each have a grasp on part of the truth about spiritual reality, but none can see the whole elephant or claim to have a comprehensive vision of the truth.

The illustration 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 sees only part of the elephant unless you claim to be able to see the whole elephant?

There is an appearance of humility in the protestation that the truth is much greater than any one of us can grasp, but if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth it is in fact an arrogant claim to a kind of knowledge which is superior… [Lesslie Newbigin]

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?

make up your own mind.

but be reasonable.

:)

i'm not recommending it, but it seems
silly not to provide a link to it, so
if you're interested in the book, the
image links to it on amazon.co.uk (it
has a high customer rating on there, but
i know at least one person who didn't like it)