Imagine three people all touching one part of an elephant. The first one touches the elephant's leg and says that the elephant is like a tree truck. The second touches the elephant's trunk and disagrees with the first, saying that the elephant is like a big snake. The third person touches the elephant's side and says that the elephant is like a big wall. Each person is convinced that they are right and that others are wrong because of what they know and have experienced. What they don't realize is that they're all technically right because they each describe a different aspect of the elephant. The same analogy can be applied to the major religions of the world. In 1973, John Hick discussed the idea of ​​a paradigm shift in thinking about different religions in his book God and the Universe of Faiths. Hick suggested that each of the world's religions should be seen as "diverse human responses to a single divine reality...". In a later book, Hick presented a theory that attempted to explain all religions. Hick refers to this theory as a "pluralistic hypothesis" and argues that all religions are culturally conditioned responses to the same ultimate reality. Hick's pluralistic theory, however, faces one of its main difficulties, the contradictory claims made by each religion. How can all major religions be responses to the same ultimate reality when they contradict each other? For a pluralistic view to be plausible, the hypothesis must sufficiently explain how religions can make incompatible claims and at the same time be responses to the same ultimate reality. To overcome this difficulty, Hick attempts to explain four critical factors: (1) people are intrinsically religious; (2) there is a substance... in the center of the paper... do they all describe the same elephant? How much contradiction is needed before it becomes obvious that it is not the same elephant? A similar question can be asked for Hick's hypothesis. Considering the conflicting truth claims of various religions, is it really reasonable to accept Hick's claim that all religions are interpretations of the same ultimate reality? In a chapter of Disputed Questions, titled "Jews, Christians, Muslims: Do We All Worship the Same 'God?'" Hick evaluates the plausibility of the claim that all religions worship the same God and simply refer to him by different names. He notes that the difficulty with this position is that the various descriptions must be compatible. The same criticism that Hick leveled against that position can be applied to Hick's hypothesis. The differences between religions are too great for his hypothesis to be plausible.