The Intolerance of Modern Tolerance

Recently on Twitter a friend and I were casually discussing the nature of tolerance. My friend (a secular thinker, not a Christian) observed that for many people these days, the word tolerance has actually come to mean an intolerance of intolerance – it might not be the technical meaning of the word, but it does appear to be the working definition for many people.

It is this definition of tolerance that seems to be driving the notion that Christians as a collective group are intolerant. For example, because Christians unpopularly support biblical standards in regards to sexuality and marriage, they are considered by the general public to be intolerant of homosexuals, and are then subjected to intolerance themselves. The whole thing is viciously circular – intolerance only ever breeds more intolerance.

Don’t get me wrong, some Christians ARE intolerant. Some atheists/hindus/muslims/etc are also intolerant. People have a tendency to divide and split over differences of opinion on all kinds of matters, and they often find it difficult to respect people on the other side of the fence from them. The problem is a human one. Nothing about this issue is unique to Christianity.

If tolerance has come to mean intolerance of intolerance, as my friend suggested, then it really is just plain intolerance. It’s a wolf in a woollen jacket. It’s dressed up like tolerance, but really its plain old intolerance with a socially-acceptable facelift. And because it’s actually intolerance, it will only lead to more intolerance.

A second definition of tolerance comes to us from the perspective of Cultural Relativism. Relativism claims that every belief or perspective is equally valid and that morality and ethics are are subject to the individual person. Under this view, everything is right and nothing is wrong - it rejects an objective standard for both truth and morality. 

This has a knock-on effect for the definition of tolerance. Where Relativism has been adopted, tolerance has come to mean an acceptance that the opinions of others are equally valid to your own. There is no weighing of views to see which is factually correct and best explains the observable evidence. Instead, conflicting ideas, or even world-views that are diametrically opposed, are considered equally true.

This seems like nonsense to many of us. How can Christian claims that there is a creator God and its atheistic denial both be true? Or how can the biblical account of the death of Jesus on a Roman cross be true at the same time as the Quranic claim that Jesus never died?

Relativistic tolerance is self-referentially illogical. If you define tolerance as the acceptance that all beliefs, opinions and actions are equally valid, then the definition fails by its own standard. 

If my personal view is that "all beliefs, opinions and actions are NOT equally valid", then by the definition this view has to be accepted as valid, even though it is an explicit denial of the definition. Someone operating out of the relativistic definition of tolerance would either need to accept my view as equally true to their working definition - making it true and not true at the same time - or treat my view as the one exception to the definition and choose not to accept it as true. It's an inescapable dilemma for the relativist.

The solution here is to reclaim the original definition of tolerance, because it’s the only one robust enough to carry the required burden.

According to Google, the definition of tolerance is “the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with." Right from the get-go we can see that this idea of tolerance requires us to accept other people even if we dislike their practices or disagree with their opinions. This kind of tolerance, if practiced, is the kind that can lead to peaceful, mature discussions over differences of opinions about the nature of truth, or the origins of life, or the beginning of the universe. If we are going to truly tolerate each other, then there needs to be a provision to disagree respectfully with others, because in reality there are so many people in the world who will hold to divergent views. If we are going to get along with those people, or maybe even persuade them with the evidence for our own world-view, then we need to be able to have honest discussions about those issues that don’t descend into trench warfare.

How should I practice tolerance as a Christian? How should you practice it from your own specific world-view? We should respect other people in everything we do and say, without making ideas off-limits for critical evaluation. Criticise ideas and ideologies, without attacking the person who holds them. Disagree respectfully with each other.

I firmly believe that each world-view should be under the microscope, and that ultimately we should believe whichever view most accurately corresponds with reality. My view is that Christianity does this best - and I invite you to test it yourself. In the meantime let's practice tolerance - real tolerance - with the people we disagree with on the answers to life's big questions.