Tolerance vs. Validation

5stringJeff

Senior Member
Sep 15, 2003
9,990
544
48
Puyallup, WA
There's a real difference between tolerance and validation, and I think the line is confused in many cases, but especially when talking about religion.

Tolerance is definied as :the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. (www.dictionary.com) In America, the government is instructed to tolerate the religious beliefs of all its citizens. As Americans, we regularly practice toleration of different religious beliefs; we understand that not everyone believes the same as we do, but we are under obligation to allow them to believe that way.
Not all countries are like this. Saudi Arabia, for example, regularly jails people for speaking about Christianity, or even for possessing Bibles. North Korea jails people for just about everything, but on their list of official no-nos is professing faith in religion. Sri Lanka and Myanmar are two other countries that come to mind in which toleration is not practiced. In essence, toleration is the freedom of religion that Americans enjoy because of the First Amendment.

Validation, on the other hand, is something different. It is defined as: the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of something. But many today confuse the meaning of these two words. Many people say that we should "tolerate" all religions, when what they mean is that we should validate all religions. We can - and do - tolerate all religions; however, because different religions have mutually exclusive tenets, we cannot validate the truth of all of them equally. For example, either there is one personal Creator God, as Judaism, Chrsitianity, and Islam teach, or there is not, as Hinduism, Buddhism, and humanism teach. Either it is right to kill in the name of your faith, as Islam teaches, or it is wrong, as Christianity teaches. By testing religions in this way, we can get to a point where we can validate the truth about each religion and ascertain which (if any) is correct.
 
Nicely said, Jeff! As Rush Limbaugh so eloquently observed, "Words mean things". The term, "tolerance", is routinely abused by those who, in reality, are grossly INtolerant.
 
Jeff, thank you. That was very concise and on the mark! :thup:
 
gop_jeff said:
For example, either there is one personal Creator God, as Judaism, Chrsitianity, and Islam teach, or there is not, as Hinduism, Buddhism, and humanism teach. Either it is right to kill in the name of your faith, as Islam teaches, or it is wrong, as Christianity teaches. By testing religions in this way, we can get to a point where we can validate the truth about each religion and ascertain which (if any) is correct.

I dig your post. However, I find the phrase "truth about each religion" to be perilously ambiguous.

Let me explain.. in citing monotheism vs multiple manifestations of deities, creator etc, as well as citing whether or not killing is permissible, you say that one can determine "the truth about a particular religion". By this I infer, and agree with, that passing judgement on a religion based on its dogmatic principles, you can determine whether or not a religion has 'moral truth'. That is to say, you can pass judgement on a religion's "truth" vis-a-vis your own moral worldview. I think this is, to an extent, a feasible task.

However, "the truth about each religion", as I read what you have written, is analous to "the true religion". In other words, the only "correct" religion. In this regard, examining dogmatic precepts can and will never reveal a "true" religion.

In other words, the philisophical framework behind your idea includes (but is by no means limited to) that a "true religion" does exist, regardless of whether it has been 'discovered' or 'practiced' in its "true" form. I don't agree with you that contrasting and comparing religions under any criterian will reveal the answer to this question, which is why to this day religions are called "faiths"; their truths are self-evident to the believer and require no empircial foundation, nor could an empirical foundation or 'proof' ever logically be constructed for it.
 
nakedemperor said:
I dig your post. However, I find the phrase "truth about each religion" to be perilously ambiguous.

Let me explain.. in citing monotheism vs multiple manifestations of deities, creator etc, as well as citing whether or not killing is permissible, you say that one can determine "the truth about a particular religion". By this I infer, and agree with, that passing judgement on a religion based on its dogmatic principles, you can determine whether or not a religion has 'moral truth'. That is to say, you can pass judgement on a religion's "truth" vis-a-vis your own moral worldview. I think this is, to an extent, a feasible task.

However, "the truth about each religion", as I read what you have written, is analous to "the true religion". In other words, the only "correct" religion. In this regard, examining dogmatic precepts can and will never reveal a "true" religion.

In other words, the philisophical framework behind your idea includes (but is by no means limited to) that a "true religion" does exist, regardless of whether it has been 'discovered' or 'practiced' in its "true" form. I don't agree with you that contrasting and comparing religions under any criterian will reveal the answer to this question, which is why to this day religions are called "faiths"; their truths are self-evident to the believer and require no empircial foundation, nor could an empirical foundation or 'proof' ever logically be constructed for it.

I think I understand what you are saying. Let me rephrase my point. By examining the tenets of various religions (or moral/ethical system) and comparing them to historical facts, sociological studies, etc. etc., we should be able to determine the truthfulness of a religion's (system's) claims.
For example, let's say that religion X claims that the world is currently rotating on an infinite stack of turtles. However, we have seen pictures from space that clearly show that there are no such turtles. We understand that religion X is wrong about that claim, and can infer that other claims by religion X may also be wrong, or at the very least, should be held to greater scrutiny.
Using such a method, I believe one can verify (or discredit) the claims of any belief system, arriving at the one which is most truthful/correct.
 
BUMP - since we are talking about the "toleration" of homosexuality again, I thought the original post might be of value.
 
musicman said:
Nicely said, Jeff! As Rush Limbaugh so eloquently observed, "Words mean things". The term, "tolerance", is routinely abused by those who, in reality, are grossly INtolerant.

Rush Limbaugh, the beacon of intelligence.
 
"Tolerate" and "tolerant" are frequently used as positives. They really aren't. It means that something is wrong or unpleasant but we put up with it anyway. Such as tolerating a stench.

Christianity doesn't advocate war? Then why are so many of the Christians on this board pro-war?

The world isn't on top of a stack of turtles? That would invalidate a religion that makes such a claim? But a religion that claims two of every animal could fit on a boat is valid? I don't get it.

Some inconsistencies here.
 
Nuc said:
Christianity doesn't advocate war? Then why are so many of the Christians on this board pro-war?

Is your comment directed towards a different topic? Maybe start a 'Isn't it hypocritical for Christians to be pro-war?' thread.

You are confusing things. Christians and others 'tolerate' war, because we know sometimes people just need to die.

But a religion that claims two of every animal could fit on a boat is valid? I don't get it.

Is your comment directed towards a different topic? Maybe start a 'Is the story of Noah plausible?' thread.

It was a very LARGE boat. :)
 
dmp said:
Is your comment directed towards a different topic? Maybe start a 'Isn't it hypocritical for Christians to be pro-war?' thread.

You are confusing things. Christians and others 'tolerate' war, because we know sometimes people just need to die.



Is your comment directed towards a different topic? Maybe start a 'Is the story of Noah plausible?' thread.

It was a very LARGE boat. :)

I'm not starting something here, just responding to things GopJeff said. Some of his points are good but he seems to contradict himself a bit.

I'm not Powerman. I don't start threads to provoke people (anymore


:) )
 
dmp said:
The ClayTaurus: The beacon of avoiding the truth of a message because he doesn't like the messenger.

;)

:D

No avoidance of the truth, or even disagreeance of the message.

Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrit, however.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
No avoidance of the truth, or even disagreeance of the message.

Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrit, however.

...but your opinion of him is irrelevant in this discussion - what he said is 'true'.

Maybe a "Rush Limbaugh is a Hypocrit" thread? :)
 

Forum List

Back
Top