Ex 8-4: Tolerance and Truth
This exercise explores the tension between tolerance (respecting the right of others to hold different views) and truth (the commitment to accurate, evidence-based, and ethical dialogue) in civil discourse. It is designed to move participants beyond mere politeness toward constructive, truth-seeking conversation, even when dealing with difficult or opposing viewpoints. [1, 2, 3]
We’re just going to review the framework of this important potential exercise.(10-15 minutes).
Exercise: The “Truth-Seeking Tolerance” Workshop
Objective: To practice engaging in robust, respectful dialogue that maintains tolerance for diverse opinions while pursuing truth and resisting the normalization of falsehoods or harm.
Time: 60-90 minutes
Materials: Case studies, whiteboard/flipchart [4, 5]
Part 1: Defining the Tension (15 mins)
- The Paradox: Introduce Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance: “If a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate”.
- Discussion: Ask participants to define the difference between “respecting a person” and “respecting an idea.”
- Core Principle: True tolerance applies to how we treat people, not how we treat ideas. We can be civil to people while robustly challenging their ideas, especially if those ideas are false or dangerous. [4, 5]
Part 2: Scenario Analysis – “The Threshold of Tolerance” (30 mins)
Divide participants into small groups and provide them with a scenario representing a contentious, high-stakes topic.
- Scenario A: A school board meeting where a speaker is presenting conspiracy theories that directly contradict established, life-saving public health data.
- Scenario B: A university seminar where a student argues for the removal of rights from a specific minority group in the name of “freedom of speech.”
Groups must answer:
- Where is the line? At what point does an opinion become harmful enough that it should not be tolerated in polite, civil discourse?.
- How do you respond? How can you disagree agreeably, using evidence, without dehumanizing the other person?.
- What is the goal? Is the goal persuasion, understanding, or setting a boundary?. [2, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Part 3: Practicing “Truthful Civility” (25 mins)
Have participants role-play the scenarios, applying the following techniques for “truth-seeking tolerance”:
- Attack Ideas, Not People: Focus on challenging the statement, not insulting the speaker.
- The “Yes, And” Approach: Instead of simply saying “No,” try: “I understand that is your perspective; however, the evidence I have seen suggests…”.
- Clarifying Questions: Ask, “What evidence led you to that conclusion?” to shift the conversation from emotion to truth.
- Maintaining Boundaries: If an opinion threatens the safety or dignity of others, the boundary is: “I will not engage in a conversation that denies the humanity of another person.”. [7, 8, 9, 10]
Part 4: Reflection (10 mins)
- What was difficult? Was it harder to be tolerant or to pursue the truth?
- How does it feel to disagree with someone respectfully without letting them dominate the space?.
- Conclusion: Tolerance is not the same as apathy or accepting everything as true. Civil discourse requires us to stand up for the truth while respecting the dignity of our opponents. [1, 5, 10, 11, 12]
Core Principles for Participants
- Be Polite, Not Passive: Civility does not mean avoiding difficult topics.
- Listen to Understand: Don’t just wait for your turn to talk; listen to what they mean, not just what they say.
- Look for Common Ground: Even in intense disagreements, look for shared values, such as the desire for safety or community. [2, 10, 13, 14]
[1] https://www.everydayactivismnetwork.org/archive/tolerance-and-civility
[2] https://truth.alachuacounty.us/files/tools/FHAO-Fostering-Civil-Discourse.pdf
[3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354067X20984356
[4] https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/student-experience-engagement/deliberative-discourse
[5] https://www.str.org/w/the-intolerance-of-tolerance
[6] https://www.reaganfoundation.org/cms/assets/1773424429-civil-discourse-project-lesson.pdf
[7] https://www.uscourts.gov/practicing-language-civility-civil-discourse-and-difficult-decisions
[8] https://www.sphere-ed.org/lesson/civil-discourse-activity
[9] https://www.phillipscollaborative.com/the-guise-of-civil-discourse-and-the-limits-of-tolerance
[11] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WQs4-AxBfeQ
[13] https://braverangels.org/the-value-and-importance-of-civil-discourse/
[14] https://fullfocus.co/turning-violent-disagreements-into-civil-discourse/
Background for this difficult topic
Modern philosophy and politics contrast logic and data, individual and community, today and history, material and spiritual, objective and subjective.
Modern society and religion reflect the more practical responses to these ideas. Fundamentalism arises in 1910. US rejection of cultural conformity in 1965.
From Descartes through Luther (unintentionally) and many modern philosophers there is an embrace of the ancient Greek approach of radical skepticism which undermines the idea of “truth”.
Philosophy has generally given up on finding an objective metaphysics that explains everything. Some philosophers, social scientists and theologians have taken a pragmatic approach and searched for objective truth based on its repeated appearance.
The Civility approach assumes that there are objective values and uses them as the foundation for the Civility behaviors.
We live in “A Secular Age” where absolute proof of any worldview cannot be offered. This background leads many people to adopt a subjective, skeptical, secular, materialistic worldview. Civility does not take a stance on this unfounded assertion.
The Civility approach tries to dodge specific political issues or views but generally rejects the postmodernist view that everything is subjective except the insights of the few intellectuals who see that power is everything, requiring leadership by them of the oppressed masses (pseudo-Marxism).
Post-Darwinian “progressive” views of the 1880’s to 1920’s drove “Mainline” Protestant churches to adopt the “social gospel” approach of prioritizing social policies and social services while diluting theological convictions. Historical experience drove many Protestant leaders to adopt a more balanced approach that more firmly embraced the idea of objective truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Niebuhr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/tim-keller-decline-renewal-american-church/
https://cehv.osu.edu/civil-discourse-citizenship-0/what-civil-discourse
Good News 
[…] Tolerance and Truth (8-4) – Good News […]