“I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism.”-Gandhi
Anyway, I wanted to share a pic based on a story I used to read. It illustrates Gandhi’s point exactly.
The story is about six blind men who come across an elephant and feel parts of its body. Each one contends with the others that they know what is really there, only by feeling their part of the elephants body. One would say “It’s a wall.”, while another would say “It’s a snake!”, and so on. Each man thought he had the truth when really they were all holding on to the same thing.
The moral of the story is that all claims of truth are just part of the ultimate Truth (with a capital T.) It doesn’t matter what you believe; its all a part of the big picture, anyway.
I’ve come to understand religion in the same manner. All religions are just different paths to the same end. In fact, in the book Embraced by the Light*, Betty Eadie accounts a moment in her near-death experience where she is told the same thing.
Of course, I don’t think Gandhi is implying that all religious doctrines constitute the same truth. There can’t be One God, Multiple Gods, and No God at the same time. I think he’s just saying all religions have their part in fulfilling different people’s lives.
Why can’t there be? Why can’t one God be the only one of its kind then there could be another species of gods that has multiple entities belonging to it. And then of course no god attached to you.
If we have multiple species on this planet why must there only be one species of god like creatures? The 10 commandments specifically points out that if you follow that God you shall have no other Gods before it…
Now that is an admission of multiple Gods is it not?
Multiple gods? polytheism? These ideas are old and Obsolete. You may say hindus believe in multiple gods but there all just different parts of the same god. Its seems a pity to waste time on such matters.
Gloabization is a fact of life in the 21st centuary. We need to stop looking at how different cultures and relgions conflict and instead understand how they are all equally valid. These conflicting ideas onlt exist in the mind.
There is only one true relgion. But that religion is not written in any one scipture. Indeed it is not possible to explictly write down the one true relgion. But through all relgious ideas we get different interpretations of the same truth.
Maybe it is time for a new religion. But not in the sense of a new theology. But just a new way of looking at old ideas and how they relate to the ideas of science. A new world view is needed that can be excepted by rational minds all over the world.
Too many intellectuals consider atheism as the correct world view. No doubt these atheists are thinking rationally but I don’t think they see the whole picture. They are more concerned with pointing out the faults in christanity than seeing that religious ideas as a whole still have a great role to play in the future of mankind.
Lets move on from discussions on how religions are true or false. Instead we should discuss the practicalities of there being a new relgious world view free of dogma and conflict.
Have you checked out Robert Neville (the professor, not the bishop)? He takes a synthetic approach to world religions (with globalization in mind, actually) that I think you’d appreciate.
From the little I know about Unitarian Universalism it seems a little flimsy. I Think we need I subtle change in the way we view religions and religious truth. I’m personnally not a believer in the supernatural; in the sense that things that science has the power to explain it can adequately. I don’t believe in the virgin birth for instance. But i think true religion exists out side the scope of science or scientific explaination. Religion has relavence to our experience of the world to our perceptions.
I think a new movement needs to convince people that all religious texts are not to be taken literally. While at the same time we need to take religious practices seriously. Maybe Unitarian Universalism goes some of the way here. But the way I see it something more is needed. I think we need something to pull mankind through into a new spirtual age. It is clear we are going further into a new advanced technology/information age. There is also a climate of fear devolping. We need something to counter the effects something to bring people together. If people from one town/city can come together and experience something the feeling that they are a community is strengthened. This is just the idea of a church.
I will admit that it would be nice if that were really true. I’d like to fly like a bird, I really would; but somehow I don’t think that my believing that I can, no matter how sincerely I believe it, will ever permit me to do so.
Unfortunately, some claims to truth are actually false.
You miss the point entirely. Stop being facetious. I’m sure Mental edge was not suggesting the laws of physics be invalidated by blind belief. I’m pretty sure you know what he ment.
I am not being facetitious in any way. Gods either ARE or they ARE NOT. They cannot exist in your world and not in mine because we share the same world. If they exist in your world then they also exist in mine. If they do not exist in my world then they do not exist in yours, either, except perhaps in a trivial sense.
Or maybe it is as you say, that I’ve missed the point entirely. If so, then explain to me what Mental_Edge intended when he/she wrote “The moral of the story is that all claims of truth are just part of the ultimate Truth (with a capital T.) It doesn’t matter what you believe; its all a part of the big picture, anyway.”
What I’m talking about is that each ‘claim of truth’ is just a way to understand reality, not an inarguable universal law.
Belief and ability are two different things; I believe I can fly, but I can’t. For that matter, belief and truth aren’t the same either. I could believe gravity doesn’t exist, but empirical truth states, and more importantly shows, that all things gravitate toward the earth’s surface, so it does.
But you strongly imply that this means that each claim is equally likely to be true. Is this what you mean to imply or instead do you believe that some claims are much more likely to be true than are others?
What we believe DOES matter.
Right – which also reinforces my point: What we believe does matter.
Ok so you missed the point. I’ll speak for me as i can’t really speak for mental edge. But in my understanding of what he ment and what I mean and I think Gandhi ment. Evidently if you take religious scripture litrally you will find many contrdictions. But if you look at the messages of the religions they are all the same. The actual Truth is really impossible to express with words. You may say Buddhism has no god but does it not come to the same conclusions as christanity to the way we should live our lives. Indeed it does. Buddhism may speak of the Buddha Nature taoism of the tao Christanity of God. These ideas are the same really. Of course there is no guy in the sky with a beard. God is a deeper idea than that. Any prophet from the major religions gave us more of the big picture they all taught mankind parts of the Truth.
I think any one who claims they fully understand God should be treated with suspicion. At the sametime we should not deny the exsistance of something we do not fully understand; we shouldn’t give up or deny meaning to religious practiceses.
As gandhi pointed out all religions also have error in them. This error is human error. Bible was written by men it wasn’t even written by jesus. Jesus clearly understood the Big Picture, he saw great truths, but some of the bible can be in error. This does not mean we do not accept the truths he gave us as part of The Truth.
I think we can agree it does. I don’t think mental edge or myself are denying this. Most of what religious people believe is the same. Differences are down to poltics not the nature of the Truth. Gandhi was talking about the conflict between the muslims and the hindus in india/pakistan. They were killing each other because of a power struggle because they saw themselves as so different. But if the hindus had been good hindus and the muslims good muslims they would not of been killing each other.
“all religions” refers to the great religions of the world not just any random belief you may think up. Its also not “true” in a scientific sense, its more than that, its moral truths and truths relating to the human condition. No amount of scientific knowledge will lead you to the conclusion that its right to love people and wrong to hate them but all religions preach this idea. The great relgious truths were found by people of all religions practicing similar ideas. What is to say there are not more great truths to be found. If we all become atheists or deny certain religions we lessen our ability to find these truths and also rob humanity of one of its greatest achievments.
“In the same breath we shouldn’t attribute existence to something for which there is no proof.”
your applying science to religion. Science deals with what can be disproven. You can’t really ever prove a scietific theory beacause tomorrow you could do a new experiment and see that your theory needs to be adjusted to agree with new results. But matters of religion aren’t testable!!! This is the problem; there never will be any proof of god or the buddah nature.
We can’t deny exstence to something just because we can never gain proof of it. By god’s very nature there never will be proof. You’ll never prove love either does that mean you should never be in love?