Science et Esprit, 68/1 (2016) 133-162 RECENSIONS ET COMPTES RENDUS PHILOSOPHIE Donald A. Ca r s o n , The Intolerance of Tolerance. Grand Rapids MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012, 15,3 X 23 cm, 196 p., ISBN 978-0-80283170-5. D. A. Carson has written numerous books. He is a research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He has in relatively recent years become heavily interested in the question of tolerance. Consequently, he has been invited to deliver a number of presentations and lectures on this subject across the U.S.A. ^is book is in part a result of these engagements. It seems as though many Christian thinkers have been unwilling and/or unable to point out the many flaws, inconsistencies and incoherencies associated with the subverted concept of tolerance, particularly as has come to be understood in Western consciousness. Carson is one such rare instance of a Christian thinker who is both willing and able to confront the number of issues associated with the corruption of the concept of tolerance. He navigates bravely into waters where others may not have the knowledge, skill or courage to do so. TCfis is the most comprehensive treatment on the subject that I have come across since Brad Stetson and Joseph Conti’s 2005 book, ! Truth about Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars. It is a much needed exploration, particularly in Canada.‫؛‬ The notion of tolerance is so deeply entrenched in Western consciousness that to question it may seem for many unthinkable or even intolerable, ^e idea of tolerance is held in very high esteem by the majority of westerners. Carson’s central thesis is that the concept of tolerance has not only been subverted but also inverted. What was once considered to be tolerant has been replaced with a radically different meaning. Although this discernment is nothing new,2 Carson’s pointed analysis is what is noteworthy. Carson begins by providing several definitions of the standard view or old version of tolerance as found in the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (pp. 2-3). Carson then notices a significant distinction between the computer-based dictionary Encarta’s definition of the verb ‫؛‬٥ tolerate which states‫؛‬ “accept existence of different views to recognize other people’s right to have different beliefs or practices without an attempt to suppress them” with the noun, tolerance, 1. In Canada the silence on pointing out the many flaws associated with current understand‫״‬ ings of tolerance is almost deafening. 2. Cf. Bob Ho s t e t l e r and Josh D. M c D o w e l l , I New Tolerance: How a cultural movement threatens to destroy you, your faith, and your children, Tyndale, Carol Stream, 1998. 134 RECENSIONS ET COMPTES RENDUS which states: “acceptance of different views the accepting of different fairness towards the people who hold these different views” (p. 3). Although this shift may be subtle to the unaware, it is actually a highly significant and dramatic difference. It is a shift from the recognition of other peoples right to have differing beliefs to the acceptance of these differing beliefs of others (p. 3). ^is shift in meaning from the verb to tolerate to the noun tolerance exemplifies a profound difference in the use of the term tolerance and its cognates which has manifested itself in contemporary NorthAmerican political and cultural practice. Carson argues that this is commonly used in contemporary 21st century North American society. Carson then explores whether there is an inconsistency with this shift in meaning of tolerance, which he terms the “new tolerance,” as he states: ٠e new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another’s position means believ- ing that position to be true or at least as true as your own. We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions‫ ؛‬we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid, ^us we slide from the old tolerance to the new (pp. 3-4). ^e problem is compounded in contemporary popular culture since both the old and the new meanings are sometimes interchangeably used. The difficulty lies in discerning which one is being used and when (p. 4). For instance, if one says that “Christians tolerate others religions” - what does one mean by this statement? Does it mean that Christians accept the existence of other religions or that they accept other religions as being equally true? What if someone declares that “Christians are so intolerant?” (p. 4) Does this mean that Christians want all dissenting positions to be eradicated or does it mean that Christians insist that Jesus is the sole way to God? In response to such a question Carson argues that: “^e former is patently untrue‫ ؛‬the latter is certainly true (at least, if Christians are trying to be feithful to the Bible): Christians do think that Jesus is the only way to God. But does that make them intolerant? In the former sense of “intolerant,” not at all‫ ؛‬the fact remains, however, that any sort of exclusive truth claim is widely viewed as a sign of gross intolerance. But the latter depends absolutely on the second meaning 0f“t01erance” (p. 4). The older view of tolerance allows for dissent even though one may disapprove of it (p. 6). On the other hand, Carson’s view of the “new tolerance” argues that no one has a claim to exclusivity since all views are equally valid. What’s more, is that anyone who disagrees with such a view is deemed to be intolerant. Now, we enter another level of complexity because under the new version of tolerance there is also a new view of intolerance. Carson observes that intolerance is no longer a refusal to allow contrary opinions to say their piece in public, but must be understood to be any questioning of contradicting the view that all opinions are equally valid (p. 12). Interestingly, along this line of thought, there is an often quoted statement, attributed to Dominican University College’s own late research professor, Leslie Armour, where he had allegedly stated: “Our idea is that to be a virtuous citizen is to be one who tolerates everything except intolerance” (p. 12). Many authors including Carson quote Professor Armour in saying this but, no primary source for this RECENSIONS ET COMPTES RENDUS ‫ل‬35 quote is provided.3 One wonders what Professor Armour meant by this quote and if it was actually given without qualifications or context. Nonetheless, Carson is attacking the central idea behind the quote that Christianity, for instance, is intolerant and it should not be tolerated since it makes absolutist claims about reality.. Essentially what is implied by this new tolerance is that "no absolutism is permitted, except for the absolute prohibition of absolutism. Tolerance rules, except that there must be no tolerance for those who disagree with this peculiar definition of tolerance (p. 13)." Hence, the inconsistency is revealed - all absolutes are discarded while inconspicuously smuggling one in. In the chapter "What Is Going On?” Carson provides an interesting example of the “eviction of pigs and their stories” which coincides with the rising number of Muslims in England (p. 24). Some schools have banned the story of the three little pigs since Muslim school children maybe offended, ^e most absurd occurrence that Carson indicates that all this in the name of toleration for the beliefs of Muslims while imposing intolerance on those who think differently about pigs (pp. 24-25). This is just one of the many examples of inconsistencies that Carson provides throughout this chapter. Carson denounces past examples of intolerance such as the inquisition. However, it is worth mentioning that Carson does not discuss current examples of intolerance within Christianity. Within Christian circles there are vociferous individuals and organizations that act to stifle dissenting voices from their own within universities, colleges, and publishing houses. Some areas of such contention which are vulnerable to suppression typically revolve around the subjects of evolution. Intelligent Design, the soul, biblical inerrancy and open theism. In order to avoid hypocrisy, differing views should be allowed to be debated without foar of being persecuted nor reproached for arguing in favour of such views, at least within an academic milieu. I am in agreement with Carson that this new view of tolerance is inconsistent and inevitably reveals a double standard since it seeks to persecute people who make truth claims, even though such a view itself makes a truth claim, namely by suggesting that all views are equally valid. TCiere is also a false assumption of this new tolerance that claiming truth necessarily involves the persecution of others. The double standard of the new “tolerance” (p. 96), is revealed further when it views itself as neutral and therefore sovereign from any ethical or religious system. If anything this new notion of tolerance creates its own incoherent ethical system. It is impossible for any position to maintain neutrality since every position makes a claim about reality, this is true of even a position such as agnosticism since one is claiming that something is unknown and even perhaps unknowable based on the evidence at hand - but that is a claim about reality just like any other, namely, that we have insufficient evidence to make an affirmation of the truth or falsity of something. What the new tolerance is doing is attempting to sneak in their own view of reality while claiming to be neutral and labelling others as intolerant for not agreeing. What compounds this double standard view is that they are imposing their view on others through their own intolerance. 3. Cf. Bob Ho s t e t l e r and Josh D. Mc D o w e l l , I New Tolerance, p. 43. 136 RECENSIONS ET COMPTES RENDUS What is also worthy of pointing out is that we tolerate other viewpoints because we essentially disagree with them. Imbedded in all of this is the notion that we are affirming a position we think is correct since we are tolerating others which we think of as being incorrect. Hence, an assumption of truth and falsity associated with tolerance. You cannot tolerate something you already agree with. The new version of tolerance, especially as represented by Carson, argues for an incoherent view that promotes relativism. So, this whole notion of the “new tolerance" is not only inconsistent but logically incoherent since tolerance itself assumes believing someone elseS position is false, otherwise you would not tolerate it. However, the “new tolerance" is contradicting this by suggesting all views are equally valid, hence nothing to disagree with. Put in another way, it argues for the equal validity of all proposed positions as being better than any singular one, but of course, such a position is self-refuting since it affirms a position that is better than others, and hence cannot sustain the claim that all positions are equally valid by in turn offering one that is superior. Moreover, if you disagree with the position that all positions are equally valid you are labeled as intolerant (p. 96) but it is a confusion to suggest that someone is intolerant because they disagree with you since it undermines what it means to tolerate, revealing another level of incoherency, ^e mere affirmation that some things should be tolerated and others should not is indicative of a level of discernment which presupposes truth, so that the relativistic position is self-referentially incoherent and shoots itself in the foot. So, once carefully thought out, arguing that a particular position is false, does not contradict any coherent notion or definition of tolerance. Carson devotes a chapter to discussing the truth claims of the church and Christianity (pp. 97-126). He suggests that Christians mould their faith way too much to secular pressures than to bearing proper witness to the gospel. In this chapter he also discusses aspects of Christian truth claims including truth which is grounded in revelation (pp. 111-114), early Christian history (pp. 114-116), addressing sin and redemption (pp. 116-121), love (pp. 121-122), evangelism (pp. 122-123), and finally tolerance (pp. 123-126). ^roughout this chapter, Carson rightfully, emphasizes the distinct truth claims Christianity makes which contrasts it with all other faith traditions. It is exactly these truth claims that sets it apart from other faiths. Christians tolerate the existence of other faiths and its followers precisely because there is an inherent belief that faith should not be coerced and freedom maintained for others. This goes contrary to the argument that Christianity is intolerant and totalitarian. Carson dispels the myth that those who hold to absolute or objective truths are the ones guilty of intolerance. Rather, intolerance is the product of the pernicious notion of relativism (p. 100). Relativism undermines all competing beliefs while elevating its own that all beliefs are equally valid. In fact tolerance is what stems from a belief in objective or absolutist truths (p. 100). Carson delves into an article written by Phil Miles titled “Of Truth, Tolerance and Tyranny” where he refutes the myth that tolerance is the product of a relativistic society.. In particular, he examines. Miles* example of Japan. Japan is used as a case study which details, according to Carson, how relativism creates: RECENSIONS ET COMPTES RENDUS ‫ا‬3 7 a kind of social tyranny that massively discounts the significance of the individual and therefore squashes individualism (...) in this sort of culture, if there were, say, unambiguous and objective moral law to which individuals could appeal, there could be a critique of ‫؛‬he unfettered deployment of social and poli‫؟؛؛‬al ppwer. It is the (pp. 101-102) Another myth that Carson seeks to bust is that God, i.e٠, Jesus is infinitely tolerant (p. 102). Carson points out that G0d»s tolerance is exemplified by his forbearance with sinners (Rom. 3:25; Acts 17:30). He points to other verses where God’s forbearance is not infinite (Ex. 34:7‫ ؛‬Rom. 2:16). Carson goes further though, to indicate that God’s kindness and love is much greater than tolerance since His loving majesty infinitely transcends any notion of tolerance we may imagine. Carson argues that although Jesus stated “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Mt 7:1), this is not meant to undermine moral distinctions (p. 103). ^lis verse occurs in the Sermon on the Mount amidst many moral distinctions (p. 103). It is not meant to prohibit others from making moral judgments since in the same chapter Jesus himself is deemed to be the supreme Judge (7:21-23) and that Christians are called to make moral pronouncements on others as well (7:6) (p. 103). Although Jesus befriended all sorts of sinners and prayed for their forgiveness, he also spoke of hell more than anyone else throughout the Scriptures (p. 103). Carson in his chapter titled “And Still .ere Is Evil” argues that even though the new tolerance has been effective in frowning upon the use of racial slurs and derogatory forms to refer to those who differ from oneself (p. 138) there is a heavy price to pay on its assault on truth and morality. Tolerance is elevated above both truth and morality (p. 138). Carson nicely captures, how the new tolerance fosters evil through a hypocritical intolerance as opposed to preventing it (ρ.139). In the eighth and final chapter, Carson provides ten suggestions that mostly apply to Christians but to “other people of good will who are more or less convinced by many of the arguments in [his] book” (p. 161). TCiese ten suggestions include: (1) expose the new tolerance’s moral epistemological bankruptcy, (2) preserve a place for truth, (3) expose the new tolerance’s condescending arrogance, (4) insist that the new tolerance is not “progress,” (5) distinguish between empirical diversity and the inherent goodness of all diversity,” (6) challenge secularism’s ostensible neutrality and superiority, (7) practice and encourage civility., (8) (Texte manquant? - YM) The first seven prescriptions are applicable to Christians and others who disagree with the new tolerance while the latter three are directed specifically towards Christians. TCiese are worthwhile directives to carry forward the discussion and raising awareness of the many problems associated with the new tolerance. Carson’s book can act as a much needed remedy to the confusion that has proliferated not only in the morass of popular culture but also in countless institutions of higher learning where intellectuals should know better. Scott Ve n t u r e y r a Graduate Studies Dominican University College Ottawa