The language of tolerance.

Tolerance begins with a neutral value. It is a concept. It has in normal use a commonly accepted definition, as a first entry on Dictionary.com.

–noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.


The concept of tolerance will be important to new atheists. It will be the weight we will carry, and the weapon wielded against us.

If you accept the premise that there is a new expression of atheism and an old expression of atheism you will either weild this concept as a weapon or defend yourself against it.

As a New Atheist, I welcome challenges to my application of tolerance or intolerance. It is an opportunity to oppose decades of argument by cliche and ad hominem.

I would suggest that new atheists give this very complicated concept at least twenty or thirty minutes of uninterupted thought.

We can start by finding the common elements according to context.

In the first 2 contexts this is an easy task.

They are fairness, objectivity, and a permissive attitude.

In the first context we are talking about the expression of thought and behavior, race, nationality, and religion.

I offer the following in pursuit of a consesus view among new atheists as to tolerance for verbal or written expression of thought.

A New Atheist should not support intolerance of verbal or written expression of thought.

I offer the following in pursuit of a consensus view among new atheists as to tolerance for a physical act or practice.

The tolerance for a physical act or practice should be based on an individual decision that includes an objective analysis of the act or practice, and any result of that action, and it must be arguably fair in application, without regard to race, nationality, or religion.

An objective analysis of a physical act or practice that ought to be tolerated would include common consensus weighed according to the individuals sense of fairness.

Permitting the physical act or practice, does not mean preventing the vigorous verbal expression of argument against the physical act or practice. It is only permitting the physical act or practice.

New Atheists will find the concept of tolerance used as a weapon in an attack against their expressions of belief. The best defense against this attack is to create a consensus view that separates expression of thought through verbal or written means and physical action or practice, tolerating all expressions of thought through verbal and written means, permiting physical action and practice according to a fair, and objective analysis of the act or practice, and the result.

The expression of ideas that are in opposition to an individual or consensus view through verbal and written means should always be tolerated. Expressing opposition to a particular physical act or practice by verbal or written means should always be tolerated.
Intolerance for an act or practice based on a fair, and objective analysis should be applied equally regardless of race, nationality, or religion.

In summary, tolerance and intolerance are complicated concepts that shouldn't be used lightly. New Atheists should be prepared to argue for the application of both without embarrassment according to circumstance. New Atheists should not allow their arguments to be countered by cliche or oversimplified accusations of intolerance. What is tolerated should alway be subject to challenge.

The common application of the concept of tolerance or intolerance as an ad hominem attack has had a devastating effect on the expression of ideas. Creating a consensus view among new atheists as to the method of defense will greatly decrease the effectiveness of this form of attack.