The Myth of Tolerance

I recently thoroughly enjoyed listening to this talk from Michael Ramsden, given at Bath University Christian union, which my sister recommended to me. Ramsden starts with the premise - laudable, it must be said - of a free, just and tolerant society. I would recommend listing to the talk, its a superb example of intelligent Christian, a wonderful debunking of the secular myth, and a generally entertaining way to fill your ears. Do it!


He then goes on to claim that the third criteria is a nonsense.


And he is absolutely right.


Tolerance is a myth.


I've talked before about the need, in discussion, to define some terms so that everyone taking part is on the same page. Its key, in a conversation, especially in a debate, to know what the participants actually mean by the words they use. Richard Dawkins, for example, points out the flaws in religion and faith - but entirely fails to map what he understands these words to mean to resemble anything like the faith I base my life on, and the religious life that flows from it. Definition is vitally important.


A quick look at the fairly reputable Oxford English Dictionary reveals the following definition of 'Tolerance';

"n. 1 the ability to accept things one dislikes or disagrees with"

There is also a second definition, which is quite comical when we are talking about tolerance in terms of a societal ideal;

"2 the amount by which the measurement of a value can vary without causing problems"

This second is obviously relating to the meaning of tolerance when used by cleverer people than I, such as engineers. The first definition is a good thing - though obviously working out what acceptance means is key, the second is a slightly awkward thing - in the talk I linked to above (do listen to it!) Ramsden points out that 'tolerable' is not the best thing. No-one wants to be told that their hard work resulted in a meal or essay that was 'tolerable'. Few people would like to be told that a friend can 'tolerate' their company. In many ways, a tolerable society would be a pain. The same dictionary defines it as "fairly good".


But shouldn't people demand better?


The notion of tolerance is often misused. So-called "secular tolerance" is a thinly veiled nonsense. Its based on mutually exclusive ideas.


Most people in our modern, Western culture would likely agree with the following statement:


"All views and ideologies have equal merit, and none should be considered better than any other".


So far, so good.


But then you have to realise that this statement doesn't work. If, as a Christian, I decide to quote Jesus and say;

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"

We have a problem.


Jesus makes an exclusive claim, and the very nature of an exclusive claim is that it renders all other claims as not true. If all views are equal, then truth is a nonsense. If all views are not equal, then tolerance is a nonsense.


Consider this sentence:

"Jesus is the Divine Son of God, the Messiah, and Islam is wrong in only seeing him as a prophet"

This is a view. Yet it implies, as a view, that the view of Islam that Jesus is only a prophet is wrong - that it has less merit. This understanding of tolerance falls apart because it is hopelessly contradictory. We need a return to a classic, arguably Christian understanding of tolerance.


Tolerance is NEITHER approval or indifference - it should be an atmosphere in which we can have a constructive debate. When some figures in the media talk about tolerance, they need to check their dictionaries. It is not intolerant to disagree with someone. It is not intolerant to challenge deeply held, deeply felt, or fought for beliefs. It is not intolerant - provided (and this is key) it is done with sincere respect (or, from a Christian perspective, love with the truth) - to disagree with a minority, majority, group, race, nation, or whatever.


It is, however, intolerant to blanket debate, to stifle discussion, or to allow violence. True tolerance is going to look rather different from what passes for so-called 'tolerance' in today's culture.




I borrow this phrase from an article I link to below;

"Be equal regarding persons. Be elitist regarding ideas"

This means you can tolerate people who disagree with you - they remain people, its their ideas that are the issue. It would allow us - especially in emotive debates - to move on from petty ad-hominem discussion and look at truth claims.


And this is the crux of the issue.


Tolerance isn't enough.


We need respect.


And that means ideas can be examined on their own merits. It means people can be free to hold an idea - no matter how nonsensical. And it means people are freed up to search for the truth - rather than stepping on eggshells around controversial and emotive issues. It means we can ask questions we might have thought we can't. But we can. Because there is truth. We can earnestly, intelligently, reasonably seek out truth. And a huge element of truth, in a Christian sense (and yes, I'm biased, I DO think that Christianity is true, that Jesus existed, died, and that his Resurrection happened), is of course love and respect for and towards other people. But that doesn't mean we should never tell the truth. Even when its hard, or not popular, or barely heard.


Tolerance is often used to silence discussion. To silence legitimate debate. In his excellent book (my review here) "Who Is My Enemy: Welcoming the People the Church Rejects", American pastor Rich Nathan has a great section on Tolerance as an absolute virtue in the postmodern culture - and how Christians can respond. I love his usage of one of my favourite older authors;

"G.K.Chesterton, the Christian writer, once said much the same thing when he remarked that tolerance is the virtue of those who don't believe in anything. There is, after all, a difference between tolerance, which may mean patience and grace toward those with whom I strongly disagree, and utter indifference"

Rich Nathan goes on to say something that I absolutely agree with, and think is real food for thought;

"Apparently, however, as long as one marches in step with a perspective considered progressive at this moment in history, it is perfectly OK to be intolerant to those who are out of step".

I don't want to be intolerant, but instead be tolerant in an different way. I want to be loving, and I want to be respectful. But tolerance as commonly understood is a nonsense. A myth. It isn't desirable. Love is desirable. Truth is desirable. Respect is desirable. But tolerance is a myth.


Because there IS truth.


I'd love your comments, links, and this and that. Everything I write is a work in progress - so I'd value a deconstruction of what I've said here, or an encouragement, or an outright condemnation!

______________________

If you've enjoyed this post, you might enjoy these resources:


"Freedom Matters" - a talk by Michael Ramsden, which you can listen to here, which I would thoroughly recommend, as he does a far better job on a number of issues than I do on anything raised here.


"The Myth of Secular Tolerance" - an article by John Coffey, from the Jubilee Centre, which does a superb job of debunking the myth of secular tolerance - which lies behind much of New Atheism, and indeed our modern, secular culture.


"Who Is My Enemy: Welcoming the People the Church Rejects" - by Rich Nathan. For those Christians who want to examine in more detail how to engage with people who often accuse us of being intolerant - my review here - link to Amazon here.


"The Myth of Tolerance" - an article I used partly for this post, that looks in more detail at some of the ideas I examine here.