Unreasonable Tolerance
Unreasonable Tolerance
-by Eric Matthew Vestrup
Perhaps the saddest remnant that the 20th century popular culture will
leave for future men and women is the denial of truth in the matters of
religion and metaphysics. This legacy has consisted of and currently
consists of psychologizing religion, viewing it strictly through
utilitarian and humanitarian eyes. As one who lives and experiences this
growing contribution of 20th century culture and
"enlightenment", I would like to make a few statements as a
layman who reads and thinks about these matters quite often. These
statements consist of my grievances and found faults with the prevailing
mentality of our age. They are simple, and yet in my discussions with
friends and those I am social with, they seem ignored or long since
forgotten. I would like to state my grievances for the purposes of
sharing with the readers one student's perspective on matters religious.
1. I do not believe in the Christian faith because it makes me
feel good. This is something that I find many people tacitly assume
regarding me. And it is quite hard to dispel this notion from those that
I talk to. Feelings should be irrelevant when a student examines
metaphysical claims. Whether I like karma does not affect whether the
principle of karma is a true on or not. Whether I like the nature of
Allah does not affect the truth of the existence of Allah or the
non-existence of Allah. Whether I like the idea of hell does not make
hell any more real or any less real. The honest student must put his or
her feelings aside and not ask how it makes him or her feel, but the
student must ask whether the concept is true. And the student can
determine the strength of a concept by applying rigorously the rules of
logic and reasoned argumentation, employing evidence fairly and
acknowledging the guiding presuppositions in the quest for knowledge. At
least the student should. As metaphysics and religion deal with the
truths of reality, we should approach things in a reasoned manner. As
the physicist does not let feelings [or should not] affect the empirical
research, neither must the philosopher and student let personal feelings
affect the reasonableness of a dogmatic claim. This should be clear to
our scientific age, yet I do not see it very often if at all.
Applying this to Christianity in particular, the student must always
ask himself whether the evidence points to Jesus being God incarnate,
whether the evidence points to the historical faithfulness of the
canonical Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic writings, whether the evidence
allows one to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead, et cetera. This is
what must be studied if one wants to claim intellectual honesty.
Anything less is a fruitless and tangential search that will miss the
core of the dogmas that make this metaphysical system have the name
"Christianity". As a student of apologetics, I find many
things about the orthodox Christian faith that repulse me and terrify me
-- hell in particular. This concept scares me, frightens me, and creates
many questions which I do not know the answers to. But I cannot let my
dislike and loathing of hell influence me one way or the other.
Similarly, the orthodox Christian faith makes the claim that all men are
ontologically sinful, preferring to spurn communion with the Triune God.
Is this not quite the slap in the face to we people who contend that
there is some good in all men? I would much rather have it to where I am
allowed some measure of intrinsic goodness in me. I do not like the fact
that I am a sinner. Yet, the fact that I do not like this cannot affect
the evidence for or against the faith. It is true that there are many
things about the faith that I do not like. And if I went by feelings. I
would not be Christian, for these doctrines are terrifying and
repulsive. Yet there has never been shown to be a connection between
personal likes and dislikes and the truth of set of claims. So I humbly
request the imbiber of 20th century tolerance to not think that the
basis of my faith is the set of "good" and
"pleasing" doctrines that make me feel good. There is much to
Christianity that is not tolerant. I do not enjoy being patronized by
those who discount my studies in apologetics with the words "I am
glad it makes you feel good." There are other religions that could
make me feel good all of the time, and if feeling good makes an
objective claim true, we should be members of those religions that do
make us feel good about ourselves. Christianity is emphatically not such
a religion.
2. I do not believe in the Christian faith because that is my
culture. I often see religion viewed by the popular culture as
merely an extension of one's ethnic culture. This is a logical fallacy.
One can live out a truth in several ways that are consistent with the
truth, but one cannot determine whether a statement is true based on
comparing it with one's culture. Theism is not true because most
cultures believe in some form of deity. Theism is true or false as the
logical arguments for or against it make compelling patterns of reason.
Whether my ancestors and culture were/are atheistic, polytheistic,
monotheistic, et cetera, is completely irrelevant to the student of
religion. God exists or God does not exist, and this tautological
statement is true independently of culture or a way of life. Culture is
a human construct and is not intrinsic to reality. Metaphysical claims,
which all religions make, are intrinsic to reality. It is a category
fallacy to apply standards that are not intrinsic to reality to claims
that are intrinsic to reality.
And yet, this fact is missing in the promulgation of
multiculturalism. Somehow, being raised in a culture is considered
rational justification of the religion(s) of that culture. To ask for
justification of a culture's religion that is independent of the given
culture is something that I do not see much of. I grew up in a theistic
culture, most likely a Unitarian culture. But this does not justify my
being a Unitarian. The Jew grows up in a Jewish culture. He cannot point
to his traditions and way of life as a defense of the veracity of the
specific claims of Judaism. The Native American cannot point to his
culture as a rational argument for the various beliefs of his beliefs.
The Christian cannot point to his nice parish buildings and tradition
for the rational defense of his beliefs.
The problem I see of equating the truth with a religion with the
tolerance or recognition of one's culture is that the ethos which
dictates that we accept all cultures is then used to imply that I must
accept all systems of religious thought. And when I do not accept those
systems of religious thought as being as consistent and rational as
Christianity, there will be those who label me as intolerant, bigoted,
et cetera. And this ad hominem fallacy by those who visibly align
themselves under the banner of enlightenment and tolerance is supposed
to excuse people from actually examining the claims of the religion. My
friend is a Jew. He believes that Jesus was not God-Incarnate, the
saviour of the world. I am Christian. I believe that Jesus was
God-Incarnate, the saviour of the world. Is it too much for academia and
intelligentsia to recognize that the aforementioned claims of Judaism
and the aforementioned claims of Christianity are not compatible
logically? He cannot be right at the same time as I am, nor can we both
be wrong at the same time. As his claims are the negations of mine [and
mine his], exactly one of us is correct in a theistic framework. I am
not denigrating his culture to say that I consider the New Testament
sufficient testimony to make his claims in error, nor is he denigrating
mine to make the reverse claim. I might enjoy his culture or intensely
dislike it, but this makes him no more right nor any more incorrect. My
perception is that academia does not grasp this fact.
The consequences of equating religious thought and culture is that
the drive to accept all cultures necessitates the acceptance of all
religions generated, contained, or intrinsic to all cultures. And since
a fair study of religions will find that they make exclusive claims
about reality, the problem remains for the tolerant multiculturalist who
must therefore accept all religions. From my perspective as an observer,
there appear to be two ways to avoid this unpleasant consequence that
the multiculturalist and the person who is tolerant have created: (1)
Deny the objective propositional nature of religious language, and/or
(2) Base the truth of a religion on purely utilitarian principles.
The problem that I see with (1) is that the propositions of most
religions are no less objective than those of our ordinary language. For
me to say that Jesus rose bodily from the dead seems quite objective,
for it seems clear that either this statement or its negation is true.
For me to say that Jesus is not the incarnate God-man seems quite
objective as well, for again either this statement or its negation is
true. What I see as an observer is the denial of the objective nature of
these statements. And, I have yet to see [in my limited studies
admittedly] a way of deconstructing the objectivity of the
aforementioned statements that keeps our "ordinary" language
objective. That is, I have yet to see a way of denying the objectivity
of Christianity's claims as meaningful statements that does not also
deny the objectivity of any statement we human beings might make. If I
am wrong or ill-informed about the absence of any meaningful
deconstruction of religious language that does not also deconstruct the
rest of language, then I shall have to seriously grapple with this. One
final note: I often find that those who deconstruct language still have
a curious desire to themselves be spiritual. Yet after deconstructing
religious language, all that one can do is base one's faith on
existential principles, which have no apologetic value.
The fallacy of (2) is quite clear, however. Utilitarian concerns are
quite arbitrary and are based on relative standards. Basing one's belief
on the results that such beliefs achieve does not affect the intrinsic
truth of the religion that one holds. Christianity is not any more true
or any more false because the hopes of eternal communion with God give
me a purpose or joy in life. Islam is not any more or less true because
it gives its adherents a strict and unambiguous moral code to live by.
In fact, utilitarianism seems to be self-defeating as a criteria for
determining religious truth, for it must be first determined whose
definition of utility will be used, and the only way of determining
whose definition of utility is most worthy of being employed is to
compare all definitions of utility. But to compare all definitions of
utility requires a non-utilitarian and absolute standard to measure the
definitions by, else one engages in the fallacy of special pleading in
holding that his or her own measure of utility is superior. And those
systems of thought that we consider evil [Nazism for example] which make
metaphysical claims about reality were indeed quite reasonable under the
utilitarian auspices of those who promulgated them. In short,
utilitarianism cannot be used as a measure of truth. It must be added
that two people, one of whom follows the claim "Materialism is
true." while the second follows the claim "Materialism is not
true." can both lead full and meaningful [at least to themselves]
lives that measure high on their scales of utility. Yet in reality,
either materialism is true or it is not. The law of the excluded middle
holds irrespective of whether one's definition of utility is satisfied
or not. Christianity stands and falls on the evidence and not on how
well it meshes with my culture or the culture of others. Let the
academic cries of tolerance not overstep their place by dictating that
all religions are equally true. This is false to any honest student and
patronizes those who truly care about whether something is true or not.
3. Please do not think that providing a psychological motive for
my beliefs excuses one from examining the evidence. I find this
quite commonly and it again misses the point of honest inquiry. Whatever
be the motives one has for asserting the truth of a statement, the
truth-value of the statement must be ascertained by evaluating the
statement objectively. The fact that, say, Christianity provides an
objective basis for morality [as Christian morality derives its
existence from God and not from utilitarian concerns] and it gives its
adherents an objective reason for claiming that their existence is truly
meaningful, but these facts cannot be used as arguments for the faith in
the strictly logical sense. Nor can telling me that my beliefs are
acceptable because they make me psychologically whole, healthy,
well-adjusted, et cetera, really do anything other than patronize me.
How a faith makes me feel has nothing to do whether it is true or not.
In talking with skeptics I have often heard the claim that a religion
[such as Christianity] which teaches that men are intrinsically evil and
are repulsive to God's presence holds people back and lowers their
self-esteem. The assertion that the Christian faith cannot be true on
this basis is then made. Yet, this is a logical fallacy, for one's
psyche does not establish metaphysical truth. A religion that makes one
feel good cannot be given any a priori favour over one that does
not make a person feel good.
This student has seen in the Christian church a remarkable apostasy
from the historic teachings of Scripture based on the assertion that
such teachings are repressive and cause people to not have self-worth
and personal pride. Yet the question of whether the teachings are true
is brushed aside for the psychological arguments. Telling me that I
believe in the Christian faith because the idea of a saviour is
comforting is not a logical argument against the faith. My telling the
Jew that he is afraid to leave his Jewish modes of worship does nothing
to establish the truth of Christianity. The Scientologist who tells me
stories of how people are happy after becoming Scientologists is not
being rational when he expects this to convince me that the claims of
Scientology are true. All of these stories are examples of
psychologizing away the need to study whether the claims of a religious
system are true. It is patronizing to me to have my faith justified or
attacked on psychological principles.
It is important to note that pointing out those who do not comport
themselves according to a religion while claiming adherence to that
religion cannot be used as an argument against that religion. I often
hear that believing Christianity allows one to feel self-righteous and
the Christian faith is often pushed aside because it opens the door for
feeling better than one's neighbour. These things do happen but again
these are psychological considerations and not things that have to do
with the intrinsic truth of the claims of the faith. For example, Jesus
was the saviour of the world or he wasn't. It doesn't matter how Tom
acts. It does not matter that Dick was a hypocrite last night. It
doesn't matter that Harry acted in a most God-displeasing manner. It
does not matter that your Christian friends might [mistakenly] have an
inflated sense of self-righteousness. What does matter is that Jesus
either is saviour of the world in the Biblical sense or Jesus is not the
saviour of the world in the Biblical sense. How you or I or our friends
or our neighbors act is not germane to the issue. Psychologizing as
justification for one's claims is a fallacy both ways. One can not use
it to deny or establish a religion.
4. Please do not tell me that all religions are meaningfully
similar or that all are correct. The simple fact is that an
examination of the major world religions will reveal stark metaphysical
differences. The Muslim Qur'an mocks the idea of one God consisting in
three Persons. Pantheistic religions teach that all of the universe is
God, while Christianity teaches a God that is ontologically separate
from creation. Christian Scientists deny the existence of sin, Jews
acknowledge the existence of sin. Jehovah's Witnesses deny the tri-unity
of God, Christians uphold the tri-unity of God. And so on. All religions
are different. To say that they are equal or that they are all the same
is a statement that is ignorant as well as patronizing. Let us at least
be honest and acknowledge that the religions found among mankind make
very different claims. Often these claims are exclusive with respect to
the claims of other religions. To brush past this truth and to preach
tolerance in the sense that considering another religion to have false
metaphysical beliefs is wrong and not enlightened is to deny the truth
of the law of the excluded middle.
What I thus ultimately contend should be done is to drop this talk of
tolerance and to get to the bottom of these things. Put the finest
apologists for each religion in debates and educational seminars and let
us rationally evaluate the claims of each faith. Let us examine each
faith under the lens of logical scrutiny and see if the claims follow.
Let the presuppositions be clearly stated and defined. If this cannot be
done, and I do not know if the academic worship of tolerance and
multiculturalism allows this, at least do not patronize the members of
each faith with the idea that their religion is some arbitrary system of
thought that they hold for arbitrary and subjective reasons. I can only
speak for myself here of course, but given the fact that various
religions make propositional and exclusive claims about reality, I would
think that one is bypassing the issue of whether a religion's claims are
true by the continued promotion of a most unreasonable tolerance.