The Truth Behind Tolerance

Elephants
But doesn't the blind men and elephant story show us that we should view different religions as just having a different perspective on the same thing, and therefore as different paths to the same God?

No. If it were true that all religions lead to God, the blind men and elephant story would be a wonderful illustration of that fact. But as an argument attempting to prove that all religions lead to God, it makes the classic logical mistake of assuming the very point it is trying to prove. By assuming all four men are touching an elephant, the analogy is assuming all religions are in touch with God. But this is what it's trying to prove. Whenever an argument assumes what it is trying to prove, it is guilty of the logical error of "arguing in a circle." An alternative analogy makes the point clear.

Three blind men are in a room and are asked to describe an elephant. The first blind man walks out of the room and falls down a flight of stairs. "Oh," he says, "an elephant is hard and lumpy." The second man turns and walks into the restroom. "No, not at all. An elephant is cool and smooth like porcelain." The third man walks out of the building into the woods. "No, an elephant has branches and leaves like trees."1

The relativist asks, "Are any of them wrong? Aren't they really expressing different parts of the same thing?" Of course not. They're all wrong because none of them is even touching an elephant. Similarly, religions are claiming to experience God but how do we know that they have hold of God at all?

In summary, many people think that to be truly tolerant they have to hold that all religious views are true. But they recognize that all religious views can't be objectively true since they make claims that clearly contradict each other. Therefore, they conclude truth must be relative.

But as we've seen, tolerance contains the notion of disagreement, which presupposes the existence of objective truth. To be truly tolerant, therefore, one does not need to be a religious relativist. Genuine tolerance demands love and respect, not relativism. We show more respect for another religion when we evaluate its truth claims seriously, than when we clothe them with the patronizing cloak of relativism. Denying our differences does no one any favors. Discovering truth (or thinking you have) may have at times led people to act intolerantly. But there is no necessary connection. Therefore, we don't need to be afraid of being labelled intolerant when we share with others the greatest news they could ever hear.

Tolerance needs to be seen in its proper place, as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Tolerance is a virtue when it is used to cultivate and preserve truth. It is a vice when it becomes the end, pursued apart from truth.

We should be inclusive of people but not necessarily beliefs. We should listen and learn from all people, but we should not necessarily agree with all people.

Even though we live in a world that no longer values truth, as thinking and moral people, we should be committed to both truth and tolerance.

After all, God wants all people to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:3,4). Jesus wants us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Luke 10:27). And Paul exhorts us to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians+4:15).

Footnote:

1. This example was first suggested to me by Tim Downs of the Communications Center, Campus Crusade for Christ, Cary, North Carolina.

Back to ARTICLES