The parable of the elephant is used to teach that different religions just have different perspectives on the same spiritual reality.
But if that is the case, there are challenging questions the story-teller (and the one who holds that position) must answer, such as:
- They are claiming to have superior knowledge to every wise person who adheres to a major religion that does not share this view. On what evidence do they base the claim that their knowledge is superior?
- This story dismisses absolute truth claims a major religion would make. But the position that there are no absolute truth claims is itself an absolute truth claim. Why should this person’s view be given preferential treatment?
- In the most important topics (nature of God, means of salvation), major world religions hold mutually exclusive views, not just different views. How does the story-teller reconcile that?
- In our pluralistic, globalized society, we recognize the need to respect those different than ourselves. There is increasing pressure (in the West) to go beyond respect for one another and move all the way to Universalism. This story could be catalogued as yet another attempt to force a worldview (Universalism in this case) on someone else. How would the story teller respond to this concern?