Wednesday 10 February 2021

The Paradox of Tolerance for the Faithful

A devout believer of a specific religion, given the strength of her devotion, is likely to hold that the doctrines of her religion are the monolithic truth, and that her gods are the true gods. Since there are many religions, they cannot all be true, if her religion is the true one. Therefore, she must conclude that the other religions must be false. There hence exists a tension between tolerance, pluralism and truth, with religious ideologies as a potential source of intolerance.

Johan De Tavernier examines this tension at the institutional, cultural and theological levels, explaining how our understanding of tolerance has evolved and can be justified. However, there is a paradox between a staunch religious belief and a tolerance for the belief of others. This paradox can be resolved if we understand that in tolerance, justice and love for others is more important than judging whose version of truth is right. I propose some practical measures that believers can take in the face of the challenge from tolerance, in line with De Tavernier’s belief that believers should avoid fanaticism, and instead adopt a quiet conviction. 

Types of Reasoning According to Averroes

People have different levels of ability, according to Averroes (d. 1198). They belong broadly to the demonstrative class, the dialectical class and the rhetorical class. These 3 classes correspond to the 3 types of reasoning, demonstrative, dialectical and rhetorical. 



 

 

 

Ockham’s Connectedness of Virtues

William of Ockham (d. 1347) posits that moral virtue is an ethically-charged habit caused by moral acts that inclines or disposes us to perform similar acts. It is a feedback loop of acts leading to habits leading to further acts which then further reinforces the habit. This is contrary to the Independence of Act-Opportunity Principle where even if we have the opportunity to have one virtue, say temperance, it does not mean we will have the opportunity for other virtues such as justice. The act-opportunities are independent of one another. Since habits come from doing an act, if we never have the chance to act justly, then according to this principle, we will not be able to develop the virtue of justice, since no opportunities to act justly will mean no acts of justice. No acts of justice mean we do not form the habit of being just, leading to not acquiring the virtue of being just.

How We Learn, According to Augustine

According to Augustine (d. 430), we do not learn about the things themselves through words, since if we did not already know what words like green, room and cabinet mean, the word will not teach it to us. However, words do have a function – they prompt us by directing our attention to “remind us to look for things.” (The Teacher, p. 137, l. 170) We have to be prompted, to compare what we have been told, to consult our “inner light” (p. 140, l. 31), that is, God, to make the judgement if what is told is true.