I shall argue that although a few things can be said in its favor, the notion of tolerance has changed, and the contemporary tolerance is intrinsically intolerant and is blind to its own shortcomings because it erroneously thinks it holds the moral high ground. It does not. Worse, this tolerance is, perhaps, socially dangerous and is certainly intellectually debilitating. There are better structures of thought for achieving the desired ends. First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion is an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion is not only true but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. Not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience. [13] : 95 Renan [ edit ] Renan Tolerance is often invoked as something to which individuals and societies should aspire, especially given diversity, in all its forms, is increasingly a feature of contemporary democracies. When tensions arise, some leaders call for a “greater tolerance” of particular groups or encourage general efforts to become “a more tolerant society.” For example, in 2004, then Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan said, “Tolerance, inter-cultural dialogue and respect for diversity are more essential than ever in a world where peoples are becoming more and more closely interconnected” (United Nations 2004). According to UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay, “Tolerance is an act of humanity, which we must nurture and enact each in our own lives every day, to rejoice in the diversity that makes us strong and the values that bring us together” (UNESCO 1996). Yet, what does this mean in practice? That those who hold prejudicial attitudes should fight against their dislike of particular out-groups? That everyone should respect others’ values or attitudes even when they are contrary to their own? That society should always value or embrace diversity? Leaders rarely give answers to these questions. Unfortunately, science does not provide much guidance either. Oberdiek, Hans (2001). Tolerance: between forbearance and acceptance. Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-8476-8785-5.

Political scientist Andrew R. Murphy explains that "We can improve our understanding by defining 'toleration' as a set of social or political practices and 'tolerance' as a set of attitudes." [1] Random House Dictionary defines tolerance as "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own". [2] There are also some correlatives to this postmodernism. Let me list a few. By correlatives, I mean things that have neither caused it nor been caused by it but both. That is, they have contributed to the development of postmodernism, and they are strengthened by post-modernism, but it’s not a one-to-one relationship. It’s messy. We’ll call them the correlatives of postmodernism. Let me mention three or four.Once you’ve moved to “I” being the beginning point, then it’s no longer quite so sure how you get there. You’re no longer appealing to revelation. There was equal certainty that in fact human beings can know the truth, can know it truly, and thus, the pursuit of truth is still held up as a desideratum, as a summum bonum.… It’s something to pursue. Truth is both desirable and attainable. We argue that neither strategy truly captures tolerance, because in both prejudice remains fundamental to the measurement of tolerance. Footnote 2 Thus, regardless of whether dislike is assumed, as in the unpopular group strategy, or measured, as in the least liked approach, empirical findings actually reflect respondents’ attitudes towards an out-group. Dworkin Explores Secular, Religious Models for Society". Virginia Law School News and Events. 18 April 2008. Archived from the original on 18 January 2012 . Retrieved 21 March 2011. Considering our three expressions of tolerance are correlated, it is possible that a one-factor model actually describes the data better or at least as well as the three-factor model. However, results indicate that this is not the case (CFI: 0.85, RMSEA: 0.13). We also ran analyses using a third item for respect (“It bothers me that some people have different traditions and lifestyles”) but its inclusion leads to slightly worse fit in the Swedish sample (CFI: 0.958, RMSEA: 0.068) and poor fit in the cross-national sample. Thus, we choose the most parsimonious 8-item model. I always do expository preaching in university missions and provide the text complete with chapter and verses. I have to begin by explaining the big numbers and little numbers. They don’t know the Bible has two Testaments. In many parts of our society, that’s where it is. If you are in a conservative part of the country, God bless you. Go in peace, but that’s not what’s going on on the East Coast or the West Coast, and it’s not what’s going on in our universities.

From quite a different tradition, Michel Foucault, one of the founders of modern postmodernism, developed this perspective at length. All claims to explanation or understanding always entail what he calls totalization, and totalization is invariably manipulative and destructive. Foucault was shrewd enough to recognize that if his explanation is true, it is true even of his own explanation. Now you begin with the “I,” but far from being assured that this “I” grants an access to truth, we recognize the very subjectivity of the “I” means we have no easy access to truth. That is the shift in postmodernism. It doesn’t deny you begin with the “I,” or in some forms of postmodernism the communal “we,” but at the end of the day it says that unnecessarily limits our perspective and, therefore, any access to truth. Coffey, John (2000). Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689. Longman Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-582-30465-9. That means the reason for being tolerant is not that we cannot know which ring is magic, nor the best way to find out which ring is magic is by free discussion, but rather since all the rings are equally magic or non-magic, it is irresponsible to suggest any of the rings is merely imitation and without magical power. We must be tolerant not because we cannot distinguish the right path from the wrong path but because each path is equally right.

But hermeneutics is basically the discipline in which I, the subject, establish rules.… That’s part of the methodological rigor … granted the foundation of the truthfulness of the text, there’s the foundation and the methodological rigor. I develop the rules to understand it. The new hermeneutic people (1930s and on) started saying, “Yes, but don’t forget the person asking the questions is not himself or herself neutral. We carry our own baggage. We are open to hearing only certain kinds of things.”

Bobo, L., & Licari, F. C. (1989). Education a A second approach to analyzing tolerance does not begin with dislike of groups and instead focuses on subjective reactions to the existence of diverse values, behaviors, and lifestyles. Kirchner et al. ( 2011:205) define tolerance as “the willingness to tolerate or accept persons or certain groups as well as their underlying values and behavior by means of a co-existence (even if they are completely different from one’s own).” Norris ( 2002:158) defines tolerance as “the willingness to live and let live, to tolerate diverse lifestyles and political perspectives.” Dunn et al. ( 2009:284) define tolerance “as a non-negative general orientation toward groups outside of one’s own.”Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice: Original Edition. Harvard University Press. p. 216. ISBN 978-0-674-01772-6.

Write it out. Either that you do know it, or you should know it, or shame on you if you don’t know it. Then look up all the words that talk about certainty along the same lines. Write them all out, too. Read them all through and feel very uncomfortable, and then ask yourself, ‘What’s the matter with my epistemology that I’m feeling uncomfortable when I read the Bible?’” Next, there is a profound suspicion of metanarrative. Metanarrative is to narrative what metaphysics is to physics. Metaphysics is the big worldview that explains the physics. It’s the frame of reference in which your physics is done. Metanarrative is the big story in which you explain all your little stories.Postmodernism either overturns or modifies all six of those parameters. It’s impossible, in my view, to get a very good grasp of postmodern epistemology without seeing that sort of thing, whether it’s cast in these terms or otherwise. The reasons for it are complex. Some of them turn on the intrinsic weakness of the system itself. That’s why there are some very reputable thinkers who treat postmodernism not as a new epistemology but merely modernism gone to seed. It’s just the extrapolation of it. Though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or has influenced many national constitutions since 1948. It also serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national, and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights, including the freedom of religion. The reason why a lot of Christians, for example, were excluded from university education was exactly the same that you would exclude someone from university education in a science faculty in the West. If despite spectacular GPAs and spectacular test scores and all the rest, he said, “I do have to tell you, I don’t believe in the atomic theory of matter” he’s not going to get into a chemistry course in the Western world. It’s not going to happen. You’re going to wonder what sort of kook this is. a b Walzer, Michael (1997). On Toleration. The Castle lectures in ethics, politics, and economics. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300070195. OCLC 47008086. In America, the drive came much more through the social sciences: cultural anthropology, sociology, psychology, and so forth. I’ve long told students in this country the most dangerous departments for their faith in current Western universities are not science departments. Science departments have far, far more Christians in them than the arts departments.