The Credo of Our Age

James V. Schall made an insightful observation in an essay I read this morning on G.K. Chesterton that was originally presented at the Meeting of the American Chesterton Society, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota, in June 2005.

Schall notes that it is characteristic of our more recent times that we do not really debate anything, especially the truth of anything. He says that we avoid real debate for fear that something actually might be true and therefore put demands on our minds, polities, and morals to change our ways. Thus, we only "tolerate" things.

Schall goes on to say that debate that presupposes that truth exists and is worthy of pursuit is itself a dangerous proposition, particularly politically. Therefore, our "debates" are power struggles and number countings, not attentive and logical examinations of evidence to arrive at true conclusions and reject the untrue propositions. We don't want to actually change people's minds. We only want to understand them and let them remain as they are. To change them is to undermine the very premise of respect and tolerance.

In contrast to this recent view, Schall presents the older notion of "respect" for ideas that meant doing a person the honor of seeking to correct him if he was wrong. This came from the belief that the greatest service one man could give another was to lead him to the truth--by the route in which truth is known, that is, through argument and evidence, in courtesy and conversation.

In its original sense, tolerance meant allowing other opinions to be accurately heard without intimidation, threats, or interference. Today it means the intolerable idea of not allowing them to be heard on the basis of the evidence for them. Today tolerance means that nothing is intolerable but the truth.