So here's the basic analogy for agnostics - it's one that agnostics tend to use as an argument in favour of agnosticism so this is not derogatory - read on! Imagine an elephant, and a number of blind men trying to describe what an elephant is like. One is by the leg, and says, 'an elephant is like a tree.' Another says, 'no it's not, it's like a wall'; he's feeling the elephant's side. A third, feeling the trunk, says, 'it's not like any of them; it's like a long tube with holes at one end.' A fourth, holding the tail, says, 'what, are you blind? It's very thin and hairy, and slightly humid'... So the theory is that every world view (Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Scientologist, etc) has a part of the elephant, but if one says that they have the only true view then they are being foolish and arrogant - they cannot know it all! Here's the problem: by declaring that no-one could ever know the whole truth, the agnostic is declaring that they do! By their own picture of the elephant, they must be a blind man feeling around too, which means that by stating that no-one could know the truth, the only thing we know is that that's not true! Is there such a thing as ultimate truth? That's the whole point; if someone claims that they know ultimate truth, or more, that they are ultimate truth, then they must be listened to, and scientifically investigated so that the real truth can be found out; if there's no evidence to the contrary, then the true agnostic must submit to them! So when Jesus says, 'I am the truth,' how is the only way we could really respond? By investigating his claims! Bookmark/Search this post with: |
|||
Post new comment