The Old Tolerance and the Defeater Belief: Carson Style!

A Closer Look at the Old Tolerance

Under the older view of tolerance, a person might be judged tolerant if, while holding strong views, he or she insisted that others had the right to dissent from those views and argue their own cases. This view of tolerance is in line with the famous utterance often (if erroneously) assigned to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This older view of tolerance makes three assumptions: (1) there is objective truth out there, and it is our duty to pursue that truth; (2) the various parties in a dispute think that they know what the truth of the matter is, even though they disagree sharply, each party thinking the other is wrong; (3) nevertheless they hold that the best chance of uncovering the truth of the matter, or the best chance of persuading most people with reason and not with coercion, is by the unhindered exchange of ideas, no matter how wrongheaded some of those ideas seem. This third assumption demands that all sides insist that their opponents must not be silenced or crushed. Free inquiry may eventually bring the truth out; it is likely to convince the greatest number of people.

The “Defeater Belief”

The fact that the new tolerance is most prone to label all of its opponents intolerant leads to a second reflection. The charge of intolerance has come to wield enormous power in much of Western culture – at least as much as the charge of “communist” during the McCarthy years. It functions as a “defeater belief.” A defeater belief is a belief that defeats other beliefs – i.e., if you hold a defeater belief to be true (whether it is true or not is irrelevant), you cannot possibly hold certain other beliefs to be true: the defeater belief rules certain other beliefs out of court and thus defeats them. For instance, if you believe that there is no one way to salvation and that those who think there is only one way to salvation are ignorant and intolerant, then voices that insist Islam is the only way, or that Jesus is the only way, will not be credible to you: you will dismiss their beliefs as ignorant and intolerant, nicely defeated by your own belief that there cannot possibly be only one way to salvation. Your belief has defeated theirs.

So if a Christian articulates a well-thought-out exposition of who Jesus is and what he has done, including how his cross and resurrection constitute the only way by which human beings can be reconciled to God, the person who holds the defeater belief I’ve just described may listen with some intellectual interest but readily dismiss everything you say without much thought. Put together several such defeater beliefs and make them widely popular, and you have created an implausibility structure: opposing beliefs are thought so implausible as to be scarcely worth listening to, let alone compelling or convincing. Put these last two reflections together and the scope of the challenge becomes daunting and alarming. The new tolerance tends to avoid serious engagement over difficult moral issues, analyzing almost every issue on the one axis tolerant/intolerant, excluding all others from the pantheon of the virtuous who do not align with this axis.

D. A. Carson. The Intolerance of Tolerance, 6-7, 15.

Here is a current example of the defeater belief in action!

4 thoughts on “The Old Tolerance and the Defeater Belief: Carson Style!

  1. Pingback: Christ and Culture Update: Class Session 4, Order | The Christ and Culture Update

  2. ChrisCQC

    For goodness’ sake, Fowler, mutual exclusivity is a thing. The fact is that to convince someone of your argument, you must both agree that the premises are true. This is now the third time I’ve told you this.
    If you want to debate biblical principles, I can do that. I can probably call in advice from the Haverford religion department, too. Tell me what translation. The translation of Greek words in passages said to pertain to homosexuality is highly debatable; and I should point out that the active/passive split and gender roles in sex were considered much more important than the physical sex of one’s partner till about the 18th century. “Sodomy” was also considered by the Church to be any kind of non-procreative sex–no matter the sex of one’s partner
    I could go on, but this is starting to be a really long comment and it’s 1 am where I live.

    1. cscottfowler Post author

      Sometimes, Chris, the language is clear and we are left with the philosophical questions that require us to examine why we believe what we believe. Unfortunately, most of your comment didn’t rise too far above the gay slang dictionary.

  3. Pingback: “Oh, THAT Chestnut!” Gay Christian Logic | ccithink

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s