Tolerance

Tolerance is essential for human society to work. Tolerance is the difference between a free, peaceful, functional civilization and a perpetual tribal war. I cannot in good conscience advocate anyone who doesn't believe in tolerance.

However, tolerance may not be a word that people have been using correctly. The informal, practical definition of tolerance is: allowing someone else to be in error, in all cases in which that error does not adversely affect anyone beyond himself/herself. Tolerance is granting other people the freedom to make mistakes by making their own decisions...as long as those decisions aren't wreaking havoc. To state the obvious counterpoint, a good society should be intolerant of certain actions (murder, robbery, for starters).

Tolerance is not believing that conflicting viewpoints are simultaneously true. That doesn't make sense, at least not on a fundamental level. (In a more complex example, two people could conceivably find two different "sub-truths" that seem to form a paradox but are actually "two sides of the whole truth coin" when each of the two is reduced and clarified.) If truth corresponds to reality, which is known in philosophy as the correspondence theory of truth, then truth cannot contradict itself because reality cannot contradict itself. If a temperature measurement is 76, then the temperature measurement cannot also be 66. Going further, the measurement that corresponds to reality is not only the true one but also the one of greater value. A false temperature measurement doesn't aid someone in selecting what clothes to wear to be comfortable.

Therefore, tolerance is not believing that all viewpoints are of equal value, unless someone doesn't value truth above falsehood. Alternatively, someone could get around this consequence by simply pronouncing there to be no truth in whatever the specific domain is - because if there is no truth, no viewpoint can be more true than any other. Unfortunately, that person must then explain why there is no such thing as truth in that domain, as well as how he/she can be so sure there isn't. So there are three self-consistent paths to take when considering conflicting viewpoints/statements in some domain: 1) truth exists in this domain so one viewpoint is, if not true, more true and valuable than the rest; 2) truth may or may not exist in this domain but truth has no value, so all viewpoints are equally valuable (that is, equally worthless or inconsequential); 3) truth does not exist in this domain, so the truthfulness of a viewpoint is an invalid question. Path 1 would result in a statement like "I believe in Hell, you don't, but only one of us can be right because Hell either exists or it doesn't". Path 2 would result in a statement like "We have conflicting beliefs about Hell, but it doesn't matter which of us is right, so our beliefs are of equal value". Path 3 would result in a statement like "Hell's existence is a meaningless question, so any beliefs about it cannot even be evaluated and thereby compared". Path 2 doesn't make much sense. The truth of one's viewpoint does matter, or else one wouldn't hold to that viewpoint at all. Path 3 doesn't make much sense. Real is real, and truth is truth - what's mysterious about that? Path 1, in which not all viewpoints have the same value, does make sense.

Here is where actual tolerance comes in. Just because someone's viewpoint is not as good as yours, that doesn't mean that he/she is not as good as you. The value of viewpoints is unequal. The value of people is equal, no matter what their viewpoints are. In other words, someone else can (and will, and does) unleash fury against my viewpoint, but not against me.

One way of accomplishing tolerance would be for everyone to never broach any subject that people disagree about, right? A while back, I was part of a conversation in which a stridently-opinionated person was trying to make it abundantly clear that my stance on a (actually, quite trivial) topic was ridiculous/laughable/unsophisticated. However, this same person had on more than one occasion insisted that "nobody should ever judge". Do you see the disconnect? "Nobody should ever judge" really meant "nobody should ever judge, except me, when I feel like it, when discussing things I choose to talk about". I tell this story to illustrate the fact that refusing to say anything divisive is an impossible mission, so we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Moreover, I think it's self-evident that there are things that should be peacefully discussed regardless of who becomes uncomfortable. Tolerance is not a code of silence to pretend that we don't differ, or that the differences make no difference.

For anyone, and for Christians in particular, respectful communication must go beyond whatever is compulsory. There's too much at stake, and people care too much about others and about the truth to clam up about things that have definite consequences. To take a well-known example, there are a variety of sexual mores believed by a variety of groups. Most are not absolutely destructive, so people tolerate others with differing mores. Yet sexual promiscuity undoubtedly has and can possibly have undesirable consequences - even those who include this in their mores must admit that it cheapens sex, affects the stability of relationships, and runs the risks (though greatly reduced through shrewd prudence) of unwanted pregnancies & diseases. From the Christian's point of view, the irresponsible and unloving choice would be to not try to convince people against this practice. Or, turn it around, if you like, the logic is the same. From the point of view of a (in his/her words) sexually-liberated person, the irresponsible and unloving choice would be to not try to convince Christians that they are missing out on and causing unneeded stress about the wonderful experience of sex. Tolerance is not me telling you that everything you do is all right; tolerance is me letting you make your own choices, but nevertheless telling you the truth as I understand it.