Our results suggest that only an appreciation of difference has the potential to reduce prejudice, but we do not know how tolerance is related to other individual-level or societal-level outcomes. Thus, we do not argue that individuals and societies should strive to appreciate all forms of difference. Future research should examine the extent to which these aspects of tolerance affect behavior—political and mundane. Research should also study the societal-level consequences of different aspects of tolerance. Curry, Thomas J. (1989). Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. Oxford University Press; Reprint edition. ISBN 978-0-19-505181-0.

Finally, most previous empirical research neglects the multidimensionality of tolerance, although theoretical research on tolerance emphasizes this. Thinking about tolerance as an attitude towards diversity, Walzer ( 1997) argues that there are five types of tolerance that vary from resigned acceptance to aesthetic endorsement. Similarly, Forst ( 2013) claims that there are four types of tolerance, which range from acceptance to appreciation. Persell et al. ( 2001:208) contend that complete tolerance would entail recognition and acceptance while a lesser version would be “an unwillingness to openly express intolerance.” Despite definitions that include a number of ways that tolerance can be expressed, subsequent empirical analyses treat tolerance as a unidimensional concept (e.g., Kirchner et al. 2011). We argue that neither strategy truly captures tolerance, because in both prejudice remains fundamental to the measurement of tolerance. Footnote 2 Thus, regardless of whether dislike is assumed, as in the unpopular group strategy, or measured, as in the least liked approach, empirical findings actually reflect respondents’ attitudes towards an out-group. John, Gray (2015). Enlightenment's Wake: Politics and Culture at the Close of the Modern Age. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-17022-3. OCLC 941437450.Secondly, it assumes and eventually articulates knowledge of truth is simultaneously attainable and desirable. This it shares with premodern epistemology, but on the other hand its ground is different. In premodern epistemology, the pursuit of truth is attainable and the pursuit of it is desirable, precisely because God who exists does disclose stuff. Bowen, John (February–March 2004). "Muslims and Citizens". The Boston Review . Retrieved 25 January 2011. Gervers, Peter; Gervers, Michael; Powell, James M., eds. (2001). Tolerance and Intolerance: Social Conflict in the Age of the Crusades. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-2869-9.

Tausch, Arno (2017). "Are Practicing Catholics More Tolerant of Other Religions than the Rest of the World? Comparative Analyses Based on World Values Survey Data". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3075315. ISSN 1556-5068. You know, to boldly go where no one’s ever gone before and, thus, define the truth. Despite the splint infinitive, there’s a certain kind of modernist interest in exploring the truth. Program after program in the Voyager series was really quite different. It was designed to show that all cultures are all right; it just depends on your point of view. For Mill, people should be tolerant in the domain of religion not because this is the best way to uncover the truth, but precisely because whatever the truth there are insufficient means for uncovering it.

What Other Third Parties Can Do

Next, there is a profound suspicion of metanarrative. Metanarrative is to narrative what metaphysics is to physics. Metaphysics is the big worldview that explains the physics. It’s the frame of reference in which your physics is done. Metanarrative is the big story in which you explain all your little stories. With time, of course, that discipline may revise the methods or reanalyze the foundations. It’s not as if everything is set in concrete. Nevertheless, methodologically, epistemologically, that’s how Western thought has developed. That’s how science has, in large part, developed. There are lots of little kinks that are put in.

Diversity As A Core Value – What Does It Mean To Value Diversity?". emexmag.com . Retrieved 10 June 2016. Murphy, Andrew R. (1997). "Tolerance, Toleration, and the Liberal Tradition". Polity. The University of Chicago Press Journals. 29 (4): 593–623. doi: 10.2307/3235269. JSTOR 3235269. S2CID 155764374. Of course, the Indian has his greeting ritual, and the Japanese is bowing. So many complicated rules! How far down you go. It all depends on age and education and seniority and who’s up and who’s down and who’s president and who’s not. You sort of aim to bow in roughly the right measure. It’s complicated. Grell, Ole Peter; Roy Porter, eds. (2000). Toleration in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-65196-7. Although the three aspects of tolerance are correlated, additional analyses lead us to conclude that these results are not due to multicollinearity. First, we regress all outcome variables on factor scores to produce variance inflation factors (VIF), which indicate how much of the increased variance of a regression coefficient is due to collinearity. The VIF is approximately 1.5 or lower for all cases, indicating low levels of multicollinearity. Second, we compare the models reported in Table 6 with models where we set all (as well as combinations of) outcome variables on tolerance to be equal (see Marsh et al. 2004). This enables a test of Chi squared difference between models. In no case is the more restricted model better than the less restricted model (i.e., more freely estimated parameters), suggesting no multicollinearity issues. 5.3 Predicting Tolerance in SwedenThere is, of course, also rising secularization. That needs to be understood. This does not necessarily mean there are fewer people who go around calling themselves Christians. It just means it doesn’t matter. Secularization, as understood by sociologists, is not the process by which we abandon religion; it’s the process by which we squeeze religion to the periphery of life. Walsham, Alexandra (12 October 2017). "Toleration, Pluralism, and Coexistence: The Ambivalent Legacies of the Reformation". Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte - Archive for Reformation History. 108 (1): 181–190. doi: 10.14315/arg-2017-0121. ISSN 2198-0489. S2CID 148602448. Thirdly, it became profoundly foundational. That is, it sought certain foundations on which to build, foundations which were judged to be self-evident. That is, axiomatic. He set himself to doubt things until he could doubt no more, and his foundation was cogito ergo sum, but in many disciplines that sort of approach had already been established. In America, the drive came much more through the social sciences: cultural anthropology, sociology, psychology, and so forth. I’ve long told students in this country the most dangerous departments for their faith in current Western universities are not science departments. Science departments have far, far more Christians in them than the arts departments.

What I said to him was, “Look, there are some things to work through, but your first step of homework, which I hereby cheerfully assign, is to go home and look up every single passage in the Bible, write it out, where it says ‘that you may know [a proposition].’ Not so we know God, but know a proposition.Furthermore, while modernism says knowledge of the truth is both desirable and attainable, postmodernism says it is not attainable and it is not even desirable. That is to say, it’s not attainable precisely because we are so finite we can’t cross those barriers. It’s become more sophisticated. We’ll put contexts in which we can know truths in simple ways and simple formulas and how to build airplanes or something like, but in terms of the large structures of thought that enable you to give a metaphysical undertaking of reality, you just can’t do it. Laursen, John Christian; Nederman, Cary, eds. (1997). Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-3331-5. Supposing he writes in and he says, “I’d really like to do astronomy, but quite frankly, I think the earth is flat.” Again, he’s not going to be admitted, because there are certain things that are now givens in those disciplines, and people who don’t fall in with the givens are excluded. The reason why a lot of Christians, for example, were excluded from university education was exactly the same that you would exclude someone from university education in a science faculty in the West. If despite spectacular GPAs and spectacular test scores and all the rest, he said, “I do have to tell you, I don’t believe in the atomic theory of matter” he’s not going to get into a chemistry course in the Western world. It’s not going to happen. You’re going to wonder what sort of kook this is.