The analogy is this: there are four blind men who discover an elephant. Since the men have never encountered an elephant, they grope about, seeking to understand and describe this new phenomenon. One grasps the trunk and concludes it is a snake. Another explores one of the elephant’s legs and describes it as a tree. A third finds the elephant’s tail and announces that it is a rope. And the fourth blind man, after discovering the elephant’s side, concludes that it is, after all, a wall.
Each in his blindness is describing the same thing: an elephant. Yet each describes the same thing in a radically different way.
This analogy is frequently used to suggest that we can each have different opinions and experiences of God, but we shouldn’t put down anyone else’s (equally valid) viewpoint.
The EveryStudent article does a great job of showing why that is not actually something that can be logically concluded from the story. I found it very interesting. My logic skills aren’t as polished as I’d like them to be, and I like information that helps me develop better analytical thinking faculties.
Thanks for the link. I too wish my logic skills were that good. Oh well, to each his own giftedness.