If God is the ultimate truth...

[Just_me_Mike]

...than isn't it fair to say that only one way can be the right way?

I mean if we reduce God to God's singularity how can it be divided? How can there be more than one truth? How can one say that multiple teachings are OK, or that all religions are OK, in regard to truth and God?

It seems politically correct to have such an attitude of tolerance and acceptance, and on the other hand extremists to declare you by yourself have the truth, but at the end of the day, truth has to fall somewhere, doesn't it?

Of course that is if there really is a truth.

 

[Wandered Off]

Think of the blind men with the elephant fable. Each had the truth, from his perspective. The fact that our perceptions and perspectives are limited allows for more than one interpretation to be valid. Even if there is some objective truth singularity out there, we do not have the ability to access it directly. All we have is the image of truth we form in our consciousness from our limited and imperfect sensory input.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Think of the blind men with the elephant fable. Each had the truth, from his perspective. The fact that our perceptions and perspectives are limited allows for more than one interpretation to be valid. Even if there is some objective truth singularity out there, we do not have the ability to access it directly. All we have is the image of truth we form in our consciousness from our limited and imperfect sensory input.

And it would be self torture to imagine one could find this singularity? No?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Think of the blind men with the elephant fable. Each had the truth, from his perspective. The fact that our perceptions and perspectives are limited allows for more than one interpretation to be valid. Even if there is some objective truth singularity out there, we do not have the ability to access it directly. All we have is the image of truth we form in our consciousness from our limited and imperfect sensory input.

But this doesn't allow for divine revelation: if a sighted person tells you exactly what an elephant is like, then your knowledge of the elephant is based on the trust in the sighted person and isn't hampered by your own limited perspective.

As to the OP, I agree. I think that religious tolerance pretends like it's neutral toward all beliefs, but it inherently contradicts any belief that a particular religion has an exclusive claim on truth. And universalism is incompatible with many religions.

 

[Willamena]

...than isn't it fair to say that only one way can be the right way?

Assuming the ultimate truth isn't that they are all the right way.

 

[Arav]

And it would be self torture to imagine one could find this singularity? No?

No, no one can know God COMPLETELY, God is infinite. So no one can possibly fully understand God or even try to imagine the Absolute Truth (God) in His fullness.

I believe that any religion that teaches Love for God (absolute truth) is a real Religion.

 

[Wandered Off]

But this doesn't allow for divine revelation: if a sighted person tells you exactly what an elephant is like, then your knowledge of the elephant is based on the trust in the sighted person and isn't hampered by your own limited perspective.

Even so, the revelation still has to go past your own imperfect interpretations and experiences in order for you to put it in any sensible context -- unless part of the divine revelation process does this for you.

 

[Man of Faith]

I believe that if there is a truth about God then it is divisive and intolerant of all non-truth. Just like 2+2=4 is intolerant of all other answers. With the blind men and the elephant, none of the blind men know the truth so that doesn’t refute the OP in the fact that if there is a truth about God then it is only one way or thing. What the blind men and the elephant tale attempts to show is that truth is relative. But it fails in doing that because the blind men don’t know the truth, they only know what they think is the truth. However there is a truth, and that is the elephant is an elephant and no other animal, in the same way that God could have only one truth. In conclusion, one religion could be right and all others wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe that if there is a truth about God then it is divisive and intolerant of all non-truth. Just like 2+2=4 is intolerant of all other answers.

Some types of answers are exclusive and others are not. There are often many routes from point 'A' to point 'B'. Do you know for certain that there is only one route to God?

However, I do agree that the claim that there is only one route to God is incompatible with the claim that there are many routes to God.

With the blind men and the elephant, none of the blind men know the truth so that doesn’t refute the OP in the fact that if there is a truth about God then it is only one way or thing. What the blind men and the elephant tale attempts to show is that truth is relative. But it fails in doing that because the blind men don’t know the truth, they only know what they think is the truth. However there is a truth, and that is the elephant is an elephant and no other animal, in the same way that God could have only one truth. In conclusion, one religion could be right and all others wrong.

No - the tale doesn't say that all the men were wrong; it says that all of them were right... only in a limited way. All of their opinions about the nature of the elephant were based in fact and truth; it's just that none of them were based on the whole truth.

 

[Willamena]

ALL of the blind men knew the truth. Any "greater truth" that we assume, especially in the context of story background, is just that ...a story.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even so, the revelation still has to go past your own imperfect interpretations and experiences in order for you to put it in any sensible context -- unless part of the divine revelation process does this for you.

But even with our imperfections, not all views have equal merit. For instance, if one of the blind men had said "an elephant is a creature that I can fit in my pocket", he would've been flat-out wrong (or talking about some animal that wasn't an elephant). In the original story, the five blind men all had partial knowledge of the truth, but this doesn't mean that all opinions of the nature of an elephant are necessarily based on even partial knowledge of the truth.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It seems politically correct to have such an attitude of tolerance and acceptance, and on the other hand extremists to declare you by yourself have the truth, but at the end of the day, truth has to fall somewhere, doesn't it?

Truth isn't really a major consideration of either of those groups of people.

Anybody who claims truth about something which is unknowable, isn't really concerned with the truth of things anyway.

 

[Cypress]

Truth is one, but ways to truth are manifold.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Anybody who claims truth about something which is unknowable, isn't really concerned with the truth of things anyway.

Unknowable denotes pointlessness. If I felt God was unknowable than I would indeed move on, but I do not feel that way. Though I understand where you are coming from...

 

[Man of Faith]

Some types of answers are exclusive and others are not. There are often many routes from point 'A' to point 'B'. Do you know for certain that there is only one route to God?

However, I do agree that the claim that there is only one route to God is incompatible with the claim that there are many routes to God.


No - the tale doesn't say that all the men were wrong; it says that all of them were right... only in a limited way. All of their opinions about the nature of the elephant were based in fact and truth; it's just that none of them were based on the whole truth.

Let me take two religions as an example to attempt to show how it is improbable that there are multiple routes to God or multiple “truths" if you will. Both Christianity and Islam claim to be the only way to God. Both can’t be the truth, Jesus can’t be the only way to God and Islam also be the only way to God. So we have two religions that claim to be the only way to God. One of them could be true which means the other one isn't true and if one of them is true then all other religions can’t be true also.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me take two religions as an example to attempt to show how it is improbable that there are multiple routes to God or multiple “truths" if you will.

That wouldn't be "multiple truths"; it would be multiple paths to truth.

Both Christianity and Islam claim to be the only way to God.

I don't know about Islam, but not all forms of Christianity claim this. I'd be surprised if most denominations do, actually.

Both can’t be the truth, Jesus can’t be the only way to God and Islam also be the only way to God. So we have two religions that claim to be the only way to God. One of them could be true which means the other one isn't true and if one of them is true then all other religions can’t be true also.

I don't agree with you on Christianity (or possibly Islam) in general, but when we're talking about individual denominations with exclusive claims, I do agree. If we have to strip away one of the core beliefs from a belief system to make it fit within a viewpoint of "tolerance", then we're not really tolerating the belief system.

 

[JP of PA]

Some types of answers are exclusive and others are not. There are often many routes from point 'A' to point 'B'. Do you know for certain that there is only one route to God?

However, I do agree that the claim that there is only one route to God is incompatible with the claim that there are many routes to God.


No - the tale doesn't say that all the men were wrong; it says that all of them were right... only in a limited way. All of their opinions about the nature of the elephant were based in fact and truth; it's just that none of them were based on the whole truth.

The mistake man makes is that he thinKs of there having to be a "way" or "route" to God. This is made by failing to know that God is within every man, and every man is within God.

Being made in His image, we can come to understand that the more we understand about ourselves and our fellow man, the more we understand God, and the more we come to know Him. We know Him by knowing ourselves.

 

[Wotan]

There is there other possibility. They are ALL wrong. There is no way, no path, there is no there there. Just myth and wishful thinking. The blind men had something real they could at least feel on which to make their judgments.

The religious have . . . what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is there other possibility. They are ALL wrong. There is no way, no path, there is no there there. Just myth and wishful thinking. The blind men had something real they could at least feel on which to make their judgments.

The religious have . . . what?

Well, that is one way to resolve the conflict. A set of mutually exclusive claims can all be equally right if they're all completely wrong.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Think of the blind men with the elephant fable. Each had the truth, from his perspective. The fact that our perceptions and perspectives are limited allows for more than one interpretation to be valid. Even if there is some objective truth singularity out there, we do not have the ability to access it directly. All we have is the image of truth we form in our consciousness from our limited and imperfect sensory input.

None of the blind men were correct, though.