Swimming the Sacred River

In general terms,  tolerance can be defined as acceptance (even if grudging) of people who look, act, or believe differently than you do. This is a fine principle that falls under the Third Virtue, Beneficence. If Nature tells us anything, it is that variety is a fundamental property of a healthy system, and so even on a pragmatic level it makes sense to promote tolerance of difference. Homogeneity might be easier, but it would be static and, well, boring. Far better to celebrate diversity, no?

On the whole, I think it is better to err on the side of tolerance when faced with an uncomfortable difference. After all, who are we to say what is the right way to live? Religious Naturalists don’t have a holy rule book, and so we are forced to use reason and empathy to determine which things are acceptable and which aren’t.

But let’s be clear here—not all things are acceptable. Suicide bombing, female castration, slavery, pedophilia, torture—these actions all represent clear moral failings, and as a humanist, I am not only intolerant of such things, I am also willing to fight for their eradication. Progressive humanism does not have an ethic of “perfect tolerance” in this regard.

Of course, the real trick is dealing with the stuff in the grey middle. There are no clear ethical standards when it comes to complicated issues that involve multiple variables; abortion is a good example. Dealing with such things will always require the messy push-and-pull process of articulating values, examining prevailing conditions, predicting outcomes, and trying to persuade people to accept new points of view.

This is what makes the spiritual journey so challenging. On the one hand, it is good to expand one’s ability to see from multiple perspectives, to labor for the well-being of others, and to promote a patchwork culture that is fair, rich, and harmonious. On the other hand, it is also good to explore what things in society might need changing, and then to be willing to do something about it.

I understand this is a tough one for those postmodernists who want to protect anything that falls under the rubric of “cultural norm” or “religious belief”. But norms and beliefs are not isolated specimens in a zoo—they have real-world consequences. As such, nothing should be off limits for critical examination.

Tolerance does not mean “anything goes as long as it’s part of an established culture or population”. As a progressive, my aim is to see increased fairness, opportunity, prosperity, and freedom in the world. If cultural norms or religious beliefs significantly inhibit any of these four, I consider it my right, and even my duty as a human, to try to counter them. Of course, persuasion and inspiration are my preferred tools, but vigorous debate, legal action, and peaceful demonstration are all legitimate options when called for.

Social transformation is an ancient religious tradition, and there is no reason for Sacred River, or Religious Naturalism in general, to be any different. The fact is, there are beliefs and norms out there (including some of our own as individuals, no doubt) that run counter to social justice and human flourishing that have too long been safe behind the wall of political correctness. If we want to see a more equitable and thriving world, then we must understand that tolerance does not require complacency or silence.

To be clear, what I’m talking about is not black and white. Human beliefs and behaviors are often messy, contrary, confusing, and horrible. But they can also be beautiful, magnificent, inspiring, and transformative. Often, which is which depends on the perspective one brings to a situation; there are few absolutes in life.

Tolerance is that which inhibits our natural drive to demonize difference by stepping out of one’s personal perspective and empathizing with others. In this sense, tolerance is an approach to human interaction which tries to look for fundamental similarities behind the differences. In this way, we can fight those things that prevent a better world, accept benign if conflicting differences, and celebrate our shared heritage as humans, all at the same time.

This is not an easy path. As Naturalists, we do not see a simple world of right and wrong, good and bad. We must choose instead to get in the muck and really engage with the sticky issues of a complex world. We have some wonderful tools to do this with, including reason, empirical inquiry, compassion, and pragmatism. And when we are weary we can lean on history, which shows that the naturalist perspective, on the whole, consistently leads to more veridical, functional, and beneficial solutions. Our mandate does not come from God or any prophet, but from the realization that we alone are responsible for ourselves and if a better world is indeed possible, then it is up to us to get it there, together.

All Posts, Praxis, Religious Naturalism, Theology