RSS 2.0
Some thoughts on Tolerance
I’ve been thinking of this a lot in the last few days, because of the past few posts and comments. So, what is tolerance?? I mean, I know what it is, but I decided to look it up and see what the dictionary had to say.
> 1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
The above is just one of the definitions, and the one that is relevant to this post.
Tolerance is what is expected from people in today’s world. Once upon a time, that was certainly not the case.
Today, to be intolerant is to be bigoted, narrow-minded and hateful.
So where does one draw the line? Who decides what is to be tolerated? Isn’t the intolerance of one groups views, no matter what those beliefs are, being intolerant?
Right now in Ohio, DeWine is backing a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Isn’t that intolerant? Of course it is. DeWine is a Roman Catholic, by the way. Being from a Catholic family myself, I know that the general beliefs of Catholics are anti-gay. They do no tolerate homosexuality. They also do not tolerate abortion, divorce, masterbation, pre-marital sex, etc. So why should I, as an atheist, tolerate their beliefs?
Evangelicals are intolerant of science, in my opinion. It is the tolerance of this that will damage our schools and ultimately the education of our children.
Does it all come down to morality? But then what is moral? What isn’t moral? In my opinion, morality is relative. What is considered moral to someone in, well, lets just say Iraq, isn’t at all moral here in the United States. But do we tolerate them? Do we tolerate acts that we consider crimes? Wouldn’t that be the PC thing to do?
Obviously, I don’t know the answers to a lot of these quesitons. This post is basically me, brainstorming. I’m very open to input and thoughts.
on March 31st, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Hi Cassie.
Your post bring 1 of my favorite Ingersoll quotes to mind:
“For 1 man to say to another, ‘I tolerate you’ is an assumption of superiority, & it is not a disclaimer, but a waiver of the right to persecute.”
Always loved that quote
on April 1st, 2006 at 12:34 pm
This is part of the poison of cultural relativism — the idea that there is no absolute good and bad.
I think in a way it’s related to the mentality involved in religion. Given that no religion (by definition) is based on empirical fact, any religion is equal.
The (fallacious) logical extension is to say that no culture or belief of any kind is based on empirical fact or reason, but that’s simply not true.
From a naturalistic standpoint, it is possible to derive a code of ethics based on fact.
The problem is that, with good intent, the idea of cultural relativism has been widely propagated in the West, and is generally well-recieved.
It needs to be realized by the public that one type of tolerance is not equal to another. Being respectful and treating those of other races (than one’s own) with dignity and equality is not the same ethically as taking cultural precepts as okay simply because they exist as part of a large number of people’s culture.
on April 1st, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Ok, I was probably one that threw the word “tolerance” around. But when we look at the specific definition you quoted, I agree with you. We should not be tolerant of all beliefs. (I was using the word with a slightly different take before).
I, for example, have no respect toward religious beliefs. Do I guess in that way I am intolerant, and that is fine by me.
But, I DO respect a person’s choice to embrace mainstream religion and I support my friends in the postive aspects of religion in their lives. I listen to their stories and about having received answers to their prayers, and I’ll say, “That’s great!” Even when they know I don’t believe with them. To me that is appropriate tolerance with regard to religion.
on April 3rd, 2006 at 2:39 am
Hey
First of all its important to notice that we christians do not have issues with people, but with actions.
We see homosexuality as sin. Likewise for abortion etc. That does not mean that we condemn the persons. We are not allowed to judge anybody. When we speak up against abortion and homosexuality we don’t condemn the persons. We don’t even go around saying that we “tolerate” them, of course we tolerate them, they are sinners just like us and God loves all persons.
We are percieved as hateful and bigoted. Well actually is is you who are hateful and bifoted against christians. You cannot stand the fact the we see things as right and wrong.
Where is the tolerance i ask? Shouldn’t you be practicing what you are preaching? If you are to be tolerant, then tolerate people who disagree with you.
But this is the essence of the tolerance you speak of:
everything is ok except the people who say everything is not ok.
This kind tolerance is self-defeating and in reality extremely intolerant.
Another thing, if morals are relative, you have no right to critizise oppressive regimes. Who are you to say that the going ons in Iraq qre wrong?
on April 3rd, 2006 at 1:14 pm
“For 1 man to say to another, ‘I tolerate you’ is an assumption of superiority, & it is not a disclaimer, but a waiver of the right to persecute.”
That is a great quote. Thank you for posting it!!
RR, thanks for your comment. I’m not just as confused as ever. :-P Seriously, thanks for weighing in. Very good points, and it made me think (even more).
Noell, I think that ultimately we both feel very similar about this subject, even though it didn’t seem that way at first. I would never actually put someone down for praying or believing in anything. My grandmother swears that St. Anthony (The Catholic Patron Saint of Lost Things) is responsible for why she finds lost things. I mean, she REALLY believes that when she says “St. Anthony, St. Anthony, Please come down. Something is lost and can’t be found.” She just mentioned this about a week ago and I just said, “That’s nice.”
Anyway, my point is that I would never condemn someone for their beliefs, just for believing. But if we were to get into a discussion or debate about the subject, I would certainly lay my beliefs, and why I believe them, down on the table, without worrying about offending them or upsetting them.
Goose Henry - Thanks for coming by.
You said: “First of all its important to notice that we christians do not have issues with people, but with actions.”
So you have no problems with a person because they choose to have an abortion, or because they are gay? You will be supportive of them and whatever they choose because it’s not your place to judge? Is that the case? As far as what you say about Christians not judging, well I guess it depends on the person and the flavor of Christianity, huh?
We are percieved as hateful and bigoted. Well actually is is you who are hateful and bifoted against christians. You cannot stand the fact the we see things as right and wrong.
:-* Thanks, Mr. Thou Shall Not Judge. I actually don’t hate Christians. I can honestly say that I don’t “hate” anyone, but Bush is getting up there…
Where is the tolerance i ask? Shouldn’t you be practicing what you are preaching? If you are to be tolerant, then tolerate people who disagree with you.
Well, I’m not really claiming to be tolerant. Or intolerant. I’m just discussing the subject to understand the idea of tolerance more. Maybe I am tolerant of the person, but not tolerant of the beliefs?
Another thing, if morals are relative, you have no right to critizise oppressive regimes. Who are you to say that the going ons in Iraq qre wrong?
You’re absolutely right. Who am I (or more importantly, who are WE) to say what is going on is wrong? I never said that I thought what was going on was wrong. I just posed the question.
on April 4th, 2006 at 3:43 am
“So you have no problems with a person because they choose to have an abortion, or because they are gay?”
I think abortion is an atrocity. And i don’t think homosexuality is right. That is why i won’t condone any of it.
But who am i to judge people? I’ve made my fair share of errors and will continue to do so.
“:-* Thanks, Mr. Thou Shall Not Judge. I actually don’t hate Christians. I can honestly say that I don’t “hate” anyone, but Bush is getting up there…”
Sorry for lashing out.
“Maybe I am tolerant of the person, but not tolerant of the beliefs?”
Isn’t that intolerance?
I’t can’t be said that i do not “tolerate” premarital sex etc. I simply think it is wrong. We must have a right to think differently about things.
“You’re absolutely right. Who am I (or more importantly, who are WE) to say what is going on is wrong? I never said that I thought what was going on was wrong.”
Well if morality is relative then this whole discussion becomes pointless. It then boils down to “abortion is right for me but not for them”. No one can question the other one. Each to his own…
on April 4th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
GooseHenry said:
Well if morality is relative then this whole discussion becomes pointless. It then boils down to “abortion is right for me but not for them”. No one can question the other one. Each to his own…
You’re right. Like I said at the end of my post, I was just brainstorming. “To each his own” has always been my way of thinking. I guess I’m just exploring the ideas of tolerance, intolerance and relativism.
This discussion could go in circles forever, huh? :-)
on April 5th, 2006 at 5:58 am
Cassandra
A question:
Do you think the nazi regime in Germany during the 30’s and 40’s was wrong?
on April 5th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Cassandra and GooseHenry, if you don’t mind me cutting in I’d like to put my opinion here.
I am an agnostic who does not believe in gods. I’m agnostic/atheist, or both. Whatever.
Anyway, I DO believe in right and wrong, good and evil. Not because there is some metaphysical force in the universe, but because we feel and recognize that others feel pain.
The unique thing about humans is that we have the capacity to reason and to have empathy. This is the reason for morality and ethics. We recognize the pain we cause in other people by our actions.
Causing other people unnecessary pain is wrong/evil.
Obviously there are tricky situations where our only options are to cause pain in others, and in that case we must choose the option that will bring the least amount of pain to others, or to the world as a whole.
I have been meaning to write my own post on this, but I guess I’m leaking it here first.
on April 5th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Noell
Since you are an atheist without belief in gods/supernatural, everything around is just energy and matter. It cannot be anything else.
Energy and matter are amoral. An earthquake is not evil when it turns a village upside down. A terrible tragedy, yes, but it cannot be accused of making a choice to be evil.
Since humans are a natural link in, and come from, nature (according to you) neither can we be evil/good. We just are.
Empathy requires seeing some sort of value in another being. Energy and matter are not more valuable than the chemical substances and processes that they are made up of.
Therefore, seeing pain in another human should affect us as much as when seeing a mousetrap slam shut. Given an atheist worldview that is.
on April 5th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Nope, sorry, GooseHenry. What you said just is not true, and it’s a common attempt by religious people to claim a monopoly on morality.
Christians and others like you want to think that it is impossible to have morality without a god so that you can continue to assert that religion is necessary.
You cannot compare volcanoes to humans. Volcanos have no awareness. Humans do. More importantly, humans have an awareness of other live creatures and their ability to feel pain.
I do not act morally because I think there’s a god watching my actions, waiting to make a judgement upon me. I act morally because I hate the idea of hurting someone else. I am sure that is the very same reason YOU make moral choices. If not, I am sorry for you.
Who cares if we are made of matter and energy? The fact still remains that I am aware of you and you are aware of me. I know that you feel pain. I know what pain feels like. I do not want to cause you pain. That is true morality.
It is such a simple concept, but religious people never seen to get it. Of course, I think they don’t want to get it.
on April 5th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Noell
1st of all, i am not accusing you of any immorality. I think we are aware of morals whichever belief/non-belief we adhere to.
But, given evolution (which i assume you see as the truth) there is no room for morals or instrisic value of life.
Do we accuse an animal killing another animal for being evil? Or is it just its nature?
Awareness is nothing but chemical processes…and given that we are just a link in evolution we too are just carrying out our functions. Which are neither wrong nor right, they just are.
Why should it matter if other people feel pain? As long as its not happening to me…?
Acting morally comes naturally for most people.
The question is wh does it?
And here is my answer - we all see Gods likeness in our fellow humans.
NOTE: i’ve no doubt that you are a moral, caring person.
on April 5th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
GooseHenry–I appreciate the end note of your comment :) and rest assured that I don’t regard our fun debate a question of whether of not I am moral. I recognize it is a debate about whether our beliefs/reasoning are consistent. Or rather, whether mine are. It is a plausible debate.
While animals are a more reasonable comparison to humans than volcanoes, and in fact, humans are part of the animal kingdom, there is still one major difference. (Yes, I see evolution as the most reliable answer we’ve found about our origins and the foundation on which to build unless we ever find an inconsistency. In that case it would be necessary to adjust our understanding. For now, new findings so far always support evolution. But that is another subject).
The difference between humans and other animals is that they don’t have the ability to reason and they don’t have much capacity for empathy. You cannot make a moral judgement on a creature who is only able to act out of impulses and instinct.
Earlier humans adapted to their environment in a way that nature selected altruistic tendencies. Our reason and empathy developed. There are many theories of how humans became the way we are, under the semi-science of Evolutionary Psychology. It is fascinating.
The fact is, it DOES matter to each of us that others feel pain for two reasons:
1) The first is selfish and self-preserving: it is better for me if I treat you well because you are more likely to treat me well.
2) The second is more noble: I know what it is to feel pain. I experience it to an extent when I see others feeling it. It drives me to treat others with compassion.
Perhaps second reason evolved as a way to climb the social ladder, thus increasing my survival and the survival of my genes. If so, what does that matter? The wonderful thing is that we have that capability. The important thing is that we encourage it in ourselves, in our children, and in others.
on April 5th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Oh, GooseHenry, I disagree with the statement that evolution does not allow for an intrinsic value for life. Life is valuable simply for the reason that we have it.
You and I have approximately 70 years that we can either endure or enjoy. That is a lot of time to endure if it is painful.
I value the time I have to find as much joy as possible, and also to pass a joyful life to my children. One of the ways for me to do that is contribute in whatever ways I can to make the world a better and joyful place.
I have never experimented with drugs and never will because I believe it will hamper my ability to enjoy life and increase the potential of my hurting others.
I would never steal something that belonged to someone else, even if I knew I wouldn’t get caught, because I would be contributing to a painful world, rather than a joyful one.
I want a joyful world for myself and for my children. Maybe Natural Selection gave me that drive. That’s ok by me.
on April 5th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
noell, GooseHenry,
I’d like to re-enter the conversation here.
GooseHenry: Noell said something that you didn’t answer (intentionally or unintentionall — it doesn’t matter to me) and that is:
Pretend for just a moment there’s no God. Pretend that there is no God’s image in other people.
Now, do you do whatever you want, harm people, do what you (outside of this exercise) would consider amoral things? Is God the only reason that you have a sense of ethics or morality?
Noell: One key point that you missed about the advantages of altruistic behavior is that historically, the humans around one’s self had a high likelihood of carrying the same genes. This is even true today, though less essential to survival. Since the genes are more likely to stay around if they help themselves in the carriers around them, altruistic genes could in some circumstances benefit themselves.
GooseHenry: Humans are not special in this. Other animals, including chimps, act the same way. Given the church’s position on the souls of animals, this cannot be because they see God’s image in each other, right? Then, why do they help each other? Why do they tend not to harm those around them to their own immediate advantage?