Yes, this is an overgeneralized statement because I think you are really referring to nihilism in your statement. Skeptics are the ones who question a claim and demand evidence for said claim. Cynics, on the other hand, tend to have a worldview that questions the motives of a particular group or individual, feeling that all is done out of self-interest.

“We may be perceiving something out there differently, but the fact remains, we are all perceiving SOMETHING. And our inconsistent descriptions of that SOMETHING out there do not prove there is NOTHING out there.”

You’re right, Andrew. The simple idea that people have contradictory spiritual experience does not disprove the existence of deity nor does it prove deity. It simply proves that people have a wide range of experiences that they attribute to deity.

As far as what the king’s response represents, I see it as a lack of critical thinking and jumping to premature conclusions. It shows the king’s inability to “connect the dots” and believe in his own superiority in claiming truth. He has rejected the truths the sages were able to obtain without taking the time to examine all that they may hold. Furthermore, the sages, likewise, reject the concept of cooperation and combining knowledge, especially when faced with the child’s (the new guy) discovery. It further shows that without further investigation, they remain in their ignorance rather than investigating each others’ and the child’s claim. Had they done so, they would have obtained a significant truth…the -elephant- is real, just in the way that they perceived.

“The Christians say God is X, the Buddhists say God is Y, the Taoists say God is Z. They contradict each other. Therefore, THERE IS NO GOD!”

OR

“Brigham Young said God told them X, and Joseph F. Smith said God told him Y. They contradict each other. Therefore, GOD CANNOT BE TALKING TO THEM!”

For me, the message is that our individual perceptions of God (and many other things in life) will inevitably vary because we “see through a glass, darkly.” But even though our individual experiences and impressions of God differ and even contradict each other, those contradictions do not rule out God’s existence any more than the sages’ inconsistent descriptions prove that “there is no such thing as an elephant!” We may be perceiving something out there differently, but the fact remains, we are all perceiving SOMETHING. And our inconsistent descriptions of that SOMETHING out there do not prove there is NOTHING out there.

It’s interesting that the sages may have heard incomplete descriptions of the elephant from those who had encountered it which may have guided them to the part of the elephant they were ready to touch and understand.

The size of an elephant vis a vis humans also seems to suggest the futility of ever fully understanding other big concepts.

Anyone? . . . Bueller? . . .

Andrew, I’m reminded of Julia Sweeney’s frustration while reading the New Testament. At one point she yells at Jesus: “Stop talking in parables. It’s not working. Even your staff isn’t getting it.”

http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=290

Anyone? . . . Bueller? . . .

The lion walked through the jungle, seeking to establish his reign. He saw a gazelle running by, quickly ran him down, pinned him to the ground and roared, “Who’s king of the jungle?” The gazelle say, “You are, sire, you are!” The lion, satisfied, let the gazelle go.

The lion walked on some more and saw a young gorilla moving from one patch of jungle to another. Again, the lion ran up, pinned the gorilla to the ground, and roared, “Who’s king of the jungle?” The gorilla said, “You are, o mighty one, you are!” The lion, again satisfied, let the gorilla go.

Wandering more onto the veldt, the lion spotted a bull elephant giving itself a dust bath. The lion ran up behind the elephant at full speed and with a mighty leap, jumped onto the elephant’s back, digging in his claws. “Who’s king of the jungle?”, the lion roared. The bull elephant reach up with his trunk, grabbed the lion, and proceeded to smash him repeatedly into the ground. Finally growing bored of this activity, the elephant dropped the now-limp lion and wandered off.

The lion, after a little while, painfully got to his feet, and as he limped back to the jungle, he said, “Sheesh, just because you don’t know the answer is no reason to get mad about it….”

OK, corny I know, but it was one of my (late) father’s favorite jokes. ..bruce..

The Saxe version is the one I’m most familiar with. I wasn’t even aware there were other versions of the story until I read yours. I hadn’t realized that it had a much deeper history and meaning than I thought.

This also helps me identify which parts of the above parable were my own adaptations. One of my additions is the king’s reaction to the sages’ contradictory accounts. I’d love to hear what people make of the king’s reasoning and his conclusion (There is no such thing as an elephant!), and to know whether anyone sees any parallels in our lives.

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 approached 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 an 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,
Than, 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!

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!

I have long thought that in our attempts to understand theological questions we resemble the sages in this story.

The acquisition of knowledge should be coupled with increased humility and openness, not the other way around, as is unfortunately all too often demonstrated.