On Tolerance

I was having a discussion the other day on what could be tolerated in matter of beliefs and what couldn't be. In that particular case, in a conversation held by a group of atheists, the object was faith. To what extent can an atheist tolerate a believer? Not in the sense of getting rid of it alltogether in a violent manner but rather what does an atheist do of a believer's opinion? I like to think that I'm tolerant, yet I was made feel like I was rather bland for not being strongly opinionated against believers, as an atheist. Some of my friends do believe in God, and the reason why they remain being my friends despite our divergent beliefs is because I see it as a sign of open-mindedness that I don't judge the way they apprehend the world. 

The question raised – to what extent can one tolerate a divergent opinion in the case of faith? - got me thinking about the notion of tolerance itself. I found a very interesting paragraph on the French wikipedia page on what tolerance isn't. Tolerance isn't indifference, for the latter implies that one isn't concerned, one way or another, with the subject of its (dis)interest. Tolerance isn't submission, for that would imply coercion and not a deliberate choice of accepting a divergent opinion. Tolerance isn't indulgence, because that implies a tendancy to forgive what one can't understand, while tolerance can also be a sign of condescendence. Tolerance isn't permissiveness. Contrary to indulgence, permissiveness implies a propension to forgive anything unconditionnally. Finally, tolerance isn't respect. Respect implies that one understands and shares the values of a person and judge them favorably. Tolerance, on the other hand, is the fact that one tries to accept something or someone in spite of the negative judgement one has on it/him/her.

In Early Modern times, tolerance mostly meant that a group of believers, the tenants of the catholic faith, should accept that another group, the protestants, worshiped God in another way. Thomas More emphasised tolerance in his Utopia, while not applying it in his own politics as Lord Chancellor. In Letters concerning Tolerance, John Locke, contrary to Hobbes, argues in favour of a state within which multiple religions would be tolerated, as a means to pacify society. However, this society couldn't tolerate atheists, because "those who deny the existence of a God shouldn't be tolerated, because promises, contracts, oaths, and good faith, which are the main links to civil society, couldn't force an atheist to keep his word". 

In Buddhism practices, tolerance is employed against external and negative elements. It is a means of self-protection and well-being against adversity. Tunisian philosopher Albert Memmi describes it as "a conquest on oneself". In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper evokes The Paradox of Tolerance: "Illimited tolerance shall lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend illimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we aren't ready to defend a tolerant society against the impact of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and with him tolerance. (…) we should revendicate the right to eradicate the intolerants, even by force if needed (…). Thus we should revendicate, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. (…) If one shows absolute tolerance, even towards intolerants, and if tolerant society isn't protected against their attacks, tolerants will be destroyed and, with them, tolerance." Following the same line of thought, in A Theory of Justice, John Rawls argues that one should tolerate intolerants, for it would be intolerant not to do so, but he also states that no society has the moral obligation to tolerate people or things that aim at its destruction.

All that got me thinking: where do I stand as far as tolerance is concerned? Am I a tolerant person, or do I show too much indulgence towards things that shouldn't be tolerated anymore? Faith doesn't bother me to the point that I have to actively make an effort to tolerate it in others. On the contrary, I respect it, even though I neither understand nor share it. Then if there is a notion of respect, does that also imply that of indulgence, and are those two notions really unrelated to that of tolerance? For now I will rely on Voltaire, who stated in 1767, in his Treaty on Tolerance: "Of all the surperstitions, isn't the most dangerous that which leads someone to hate its neighbour for his opinions?"