ARTICLE: The Myth of Tolerance

[STR Ambassador]

The Myth of Tolerance

by Greg Koukl

Let’s take a look at the confusing and mistaken ways tolerance is used in our culture today. We’ll start with the modern notion of “tolerance,” then show how returning to the classic understanding of tolerance is the only way to restore any useful meaning to the word.

Using the modern definition of tolerance, you will see that no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It’s what my friend Frank Beckwith calls the “passive aggressive tolerance trick.” Let’s start with a real life example.

Last month I had the privilege of speaking to seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines. I wanted to alert them to this “tolerance trick,” but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board:

“All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another.”
“Jesus is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting that.”


They all nodded in agreement as I wrote the first sentence. As soon as I finished writing the second, though, hands flew up. “You can’t say that,” a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. “That’s disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?”

“In fact, that happens to me all the time,” I pointed out, “including right now with you. But why should it bother me that someone thinks I’m wrong?”

“It’s intolerant,” she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn’t see was that the first statement also violated itself.

I pointed to the first statement and asked, “Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another?” They agreed.

Then I pointed to the second statement—the “intolerant” one—and asked the same question: “Is this a view?” They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them. They’d been taken in by the tolerance trick.

If all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians have a better view on Jesus than Jews is just as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on Jesus than Christians. But this is hopelessly contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because “tolerance” turns out to be gibberish.

“Would you like to know how to get out of this dilemma?” I asked. They nodded. “Return to the classic view of tolerance and reject this modern distortion.” Then I wrote these two principles on the board:

“Be egalitarian regarding persons.”
“Be elitist regarding ideas.”

“Egalitarian” was a new word for them. Think “equal,” I said. Treat others as equal in value or worth. They knew what an elitist was, though, someone who thought he was better than others. “Right,” I said. “When you are elitist regarding ideas, you’re acknowledging that some ideas are better than others. And they are. We don’t treat all ideas as if they have the same merit, lest we run into contradiction.”

The first principle is true tolerance, what might be called “civility.” It can loosely be equated with the word “respect.” Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false. Tolerance requires that every person is treated courteously, no matter what her view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.

To say I’m intolerant because I disagree with someone’s ideas is confused. The view that one person’s ideas are no better or truer than another’s is simply absurd and contradictory. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance.

Worse, the modern definition of tolerance turns classical tolerance on its head:

“Be egalitarian regarding ideas.”
“Be elitist regarding persons.”

If you reject another’s ideas, you’re automatically accused of disrespecting the person (as the coed did of me). On this new view of tolerance, no idea or behavior can be opposed, even if done graciously, without inviting the charge of incivility.

Ironically, this results in elitism regarding persons. If you think your ideas are better than others’ ideas, you can be ill-treated as a person, publicly abused as bigoted, disrespectful, ignorant, indecent and—can you believe it—intolerant. Sometimes you can even be sued, punished by law, or forced to attend re-education programs.

The irony is that according to the classical notion of tolerance, you can’t tolerate someone unless you disagree with him. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to “put up” with. Tolerance is reserved for those who we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat them decently and with respect.

This essential element of classical tolerance—elitism regarding ideas—has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant no matter how you treat them.

Whenever you’re charged with intolerance, always ask for a definition (the “Sticks and Stones” tactic), then point out the contradiction built in to this new view.

Most of what passes for tolerance today is intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word “intolerant” are unwilling to be challenged by other views, to grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It’s easier to hurl an insult—“you intolerant bigot”—than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. In the modern era, “tolerance” has become intolerance.

Stand to Reason - Equipping Christian ambassadors with knowledge, wisdom, and character. - www.str.org

[Meh_Gerbil]

It is helpful to look up the term in a dictionary written in the 50's and then to look up the term in a dictionary written today.

In the 50's the term meant roughly speaking: "Abiding the presence of a dissenting opinion".

Today the term means: "Appreciating, understanding, and celebrating the importance of another opinion"

It's just another word switch - the modern concept of tolerance is silly.

[Barry Desborough]

I certainlty disagree with, “All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another.” I know that I'm from Alpha Centauri and I know that anyone who disagrees with me is talking rubbish.

There is one aspect of tolerance I'd like to pick out, and it is related to humility as opposed to the arrogance that seems to come with a sense of certainty. It's irrelevant to me exactly what any arrogantly certain person is actually certain about. Their certainty breeds a form of intolerance that prevents them from considering the merits of differing views or from seriously questioning their own.

[Nanny]

There is one aspect of tolerance I'd like to pick out, and it is related to humility as opposed to the arrogance that seems to come with a sense of certainty. It's irrelevant to me exactly what any arrogantly certain person is actually certain about. Their certainty breeds a form of intolerance that prevents them from considering the merits of differing views or from seriously questioning their own.

Just trying to understand here. Do you equate certainty with arrogance?... and uncertainty with humility?
N.

[Barry Desborough]

Just trying to understand here. Do you equate certainty with arrogance?... and uncertainty with humility?
N.

Maybe not equate, but there does seem to be some correlation in my view. What I was talking about was the inability to empathise, to put oneself in someone else's shoes, someone else's frame of mind, in order to understand them, even if one might disagree with them. The danger in a heightened sense of certainty is the presupposition that people who disagree with you must be in error in their thinking, either because of their own failings or because they have been misinformed. It precludes the possibility that you (one) may have failings or have (has) been misinformed.

I think a telling indication of humility v arrogance is whether a person is interested in trying to understand others or not, and whether they are prepared to give others credit and respect or not.

Re. the main thrust of the OP, barmy or wicked PoVs are to be criticized, but the criticism must be reasoned and, ideally, compassionate.

[Little Shepherd]

Re. the main thrust of the OP, barmy or wicked PoVs are to be criticized, but the criticism must be reasoned and, ideally, compassionate.

I believe the statement in the OP “Be egalitarian regarding persons” states what you've been trying to say in your last couple posts, only more concisely. Also, in the OP Koukl explains his statement "Be elistist regarding ideas" quite adequately. It means to weigh different ideas in order to come to a reasoned conclusion, not to be elitist about ideas you hold without sufficient reason. The OP adequately covers respecting people and carefully considering other opinions.

[Nanny]

Little Shep., Barry:

I believe the statement in the OP “Be egalitarian regarding persons” states what you've been trying to say in your last couple posts, only more concisely. Also, in the OP Koukl explains his statement "Be elistist regarding ideas" quite adequately. It means to weigh different ideas in order to come to a reasoned conclusion, not to be elitist about ideas you hold without sufficient reason. The OP adequately covers respecting people and carefully considering other opinions.

Well said, little Shep.
Does the "elitist regarding persons" apply when person A's conclusion is not acceptable to person B. Person B accuses person A of intolerance instead of respectfully discussing A's facts or logic. This is "ad hom.", arrogant, elitist p.c.
I like what you said about not being elitist about ideas you hold w/o sufficient reason. It can sound arrogant to say "I think ....(this)", or "In my opinion ....(that)." Koukl has said sometimes that's just plain lazy thinking. I'm guilty.

Barry,
Don't you think we all have our own "certainties?" Hopefully, these are well-reasoned conclusions. Since we all lack infinite knowledge, anyone can be mistaken so I think we all agree that it is good to listen to the other guy and be prepared to give a valid reason for one's position. We should not label someone "intolerant" or arrogant if they happen to disagree.

N.

[Dark Knight]

What's wrong with being intolerant?

[Barry Desborough]

Barry,
Don't you think we all have our own "certainties?" Hopefully, these are well-reasoned conclusions. Since we all lack infinite knowledge, anyone can be mistaken so I think we all agree that it is good to listen to the other guy and be prepared to give a valid reason for one's position. We should not label someone "intolerant" or arrogant if they happen to disagree.

N.

No, we shouldn't, but we should label them such if they do not reciprocate.

What I'm trying to say is that a sense of certainty has been implicated, down the ages, in all manner of inhuman acts. Give me people who can entertain a wee bit of doubt that what they believe might just possibly be mistaken. Me, I strive to renounce belief of any sort. Hence my motto.

[Teallaura]

No, we shouldn't, but we should label them such if they do not reciprocate.

What I'm trying to say is that a sense of certainty has been implicated, down the ages, in all manner of inhuman acts. Give me people who can entertain a wee bit of doubt that what they believe might just possibly be mistaken. Me, I strive to renounce belief of any sort. Hence my motto.

Um, Barry - you just expressed a belief.

[Barry Desborough]

Um, Barry - you just expressed a belief.

Oops! I did say I strive to renounce belief. Maybe I don't always succeed.

But no, what I expressed was an opinion.

[Alien]

Maybe not equate, but there does seem to be some correlation in my view. What I was talking about was the inability to empathise, to put oneself in someone else's shoes, someone else's frame of mind, in order to understand them, even if one might disagree with them. The danger in a heightened sense of certainty is the presupposition that people who disagree with you must be in error in their thinking, either because of their own failings or because they have been misinformed. It precludes the possibility that you (one) may have failings or have (has) been misinformed.

I think a telling indication of humility v arrogance is whether a person is interested in trying to understand others or not, and whether they are prepared to give others credit and respect or not.

I totally agree, Barry. I too tend to distrust any opinion that is stated with absolute certainty. I offer in evidence the liberal/conservative syndrome we see here all too frequently. The other side is automatically wrong before their arguments are even considered. The pro life/pro choice battle is another example.

It's not only a matter of lack of empathy (though that is important). It's also hubris to a great degree. To make such dogmatic statements one has to have not only absolute confidence in one's own intelligence, but also a certainty that one has all the facts. I can't tell you how many times I have changed my mind about something when I have obtained more evidence, and felt foolish in the process. Hanging on to that element of doubt is, apart from everything else, an insurance against having to make an embarrassing admission of error!

[Teallaura]

Oops! I did say I strive to renounce belief. Maybe I don't always succeed.

But no, what I expressed was an opinion.

So, you don't believe your own opinion?



Actually, the one I had in mind was in an earlier post.

[Teallaura]

I totally agree, Barry. I too tend to distrust any opinion that is stated with absolute certainty. I offer in evidence the liberal/conservative syndrome we see here all too frequently. The other side is automatically wrong before their arguments are even considered. The pro life/pro choice battle is another example.

It's not only a matter of lack of empathy (though that is important). It's also hubris to a great degree. To make such dogmatic statements one has to have not only absolute confidence in one's own intelligence, but also a certainty that one has all the facts. I can't tell you how many times I have changed my mind about something when I have obtained more evidence, and felt foolish in the process. Hanging on to that element of doubt is, apart from everything else, an insurance against having to make an embarrassing admission of error!

Taken too far it's also insurance against ever having a meaningful impact. If you're too scared of breaking eggs you'll never get them out of the henhouse.

Example: I believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS. However, I've read some pretty good counter arguments. Can I be 100%, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, postive that HIV does in fact cause AIDS? No - and neither can even the best researchers. But if I wait for that level of certainity to do my job, I'm effectively letting people die by not informing them that a reactive HIV test means being infected with the causative agent of AIDS. Further, I'm hampering the ability of at risk persons to respond appropriately by failing to educate both about the cause and, as a direct result, prevention methods.

Fear of absolutes, in my opinion, can be every bit as debilitating and harmful as overconfidence. It's overconfidence - not absolutes - that you gentlemen seem to be actually taking issue with.

[Alien]

Taken too far it's also insurance against ever having a meaningful impact. If you're too scared of breaking eggs you'll never get them out of the henhouse.

True, but a certain amount of caution, if not outright fear, is appropriate in risky situations. It actually takes courage to proceed with a course of action despite having doubts. Maybe that's why some people cling to certainties and defend them so vigorously.

Example: I believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS. However, I've read some pretty good counter arguments. Can I be 100%, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, postive that HIV does in fact cause AIDS? No - and neither can even the best researchers. But if I wait for that level of certainity to do my job, I'm effectively letting people die by not informing them that a reactive HIV test means being infected with the causative agent of AIDS. Further, I'm hampering the ability of at risk persons to respond appropriately by failing to educate both about the cause and, as a direct result, prevention methods.

Right. But I wasn't suggesting that we need 100% certainty to take action. In fact we act on high probabilities all the time. What you are actually saying to people is "I am 99% certain that HIV causes AIDS and that's good enough for me to give you this advice and should be good enough for you to follow it".

Fear of absolutes, in my opinion, can be every bit as debilitating and harmful as overconfidence. It's overconfidence - not absolutes - that you gentlemen seem to be actually taking issue with.

Maybe so, though I do believe that absolute certainty is probably not attainable in any but very simple cases. My problem is with the certainty that will not allow any doubt at all. It seems to me that you would be open to evidence that there is some other cause for AIDS than HIV even though you think it is very unlikely, and that's good enough for me.

I suppose what I am getting at (I will let Barry answer for himself) is that in my experience the world is not simple, and descriptions of it are rarely black and white. I therefore tend to distrust simple, black and white statements about the world.