What do you think is religious tolerance?

"We need to have tolerance for those religions which are different from our own." I quite agree with this line. But how to we define 'tolerance' here? Is it saying 'yours is different from mine, but both of us are equally right' or 'yours is different from mine but I still respect you though I can't agree with yours'. My point is this: Suppose a Hindu says that she is tolerant in the former kind. My question then is why should then she have problem when everybody else is becoming Christian or Muslim, after all according to her all are valid and she is supposed to be tolerant? I agree that 'mine is right, others' are wrong' can be unhealthy and cause violence. But if we look at Islam, they don't say among themselves 'mine is right, your is wrong'. Yet it's much more bloody among themselves than with others. If we apply the law of logic, I think we can't help saying 'mine is right, yours is wrong'; either it's God exists or not. It can't be both. I think violence is rather caused by external factors like social-political reasons etc. I think religion per se, how much ever different, does not cause violence.

Well, there are some words cannot be defined. For ex, 'silence'. How will you define silence? We can say it is the absence of noise, but this is not a clear-cut, satisfactory definition. We could also say that tolerance is the absence of intolerance, but here also, the definition is not clear-cut. There is many a time when we have to go beyond words. Words do not always make sense; we only have to use them for convenience. In my view, tolerance comes on its own when you do not consider other religions as wrong, just as silence comes on its own when there is no noise around you. A hindu, as any other religious person, surely loves his religion, desires to preserve it. He may say that other religions are equally valid, but he is not saying that other religions are not different from his own. It is natural for him to feel the pain if everybody in his country converts to christianity or Islam. However, how he reacts in this situation is a point to be considered. Does he react with violence or is he cool, calm and tries to preserve his religion using his wisdom and tact. It is in such cases that man is put to the test. Another thing is that it is very suspicious that suddenly everybody in hindu society should convert to other religions. That does not make real sense to me. Are they getting converted willingly or is there some forcible conversion going on? When it comes to Islam, many points are to be considered. Why muslims in muslim countries fight amongst themselves? First point is, not all muslim countries are having bloodshed. The muslims in gulf countries, Turkey, Malaysia, Maldives etc.. are not having bloodshed amongst themselves. These are peaceful muslims. It is the muslims in poor countries that are fighting. This is not caused by religious intolerance. Not all fighting is caused by religious fanaticism. In some cases, it may just be bloody riots, political causes or whatever. Right. Either God is or God is not. But who can come to a definite conclusion? That is why people say 'I believe in God'. Well, why do you believe? Do you believe in the existence of the sun, moon, stars, plants, mountains, ocean or are yu sure these exist? But when it comes to god, people say 'I believe' which means they are not sure that God exists. However strong the faith in God may be, it is faith and faith alone. So, how can you say 'I am right and the atheist is wrong'? If you are right, then why do you call yourself a believer? If you are sure, then you are not a believer. Same is the case with atheist. He says 'I do not believe in God'. Again, the word 'believe' has entered. Violence is, many a time, caused by social or political. But religion also causes violence. However, speaking from the broadest point of view, nothing causes violence. Man himself is violent. Social, political, religious- all are tools in the hands of cruel mankind. However, until man heals himself, we have to consider the external factors including religion, that 'cause' violence.

I still maintain my claim that faith and logic do not necessarily go hand in hand. For instance, 'faith' in God is what constitutes the base of most religions. Now when I apply simple non-theoretical logic to the assumption of the existence of God we end up with numerous absurdities. A starter would be like, "If God is omnipotent, why is the world in such a mess?" No personal God-religion can answer this convincingly. And which religion would directly say that it has got nothing to do with logic? Whereas in all actuality they ask you to blindly believe in god, despite the claim that He's omnipotent and thus he can present himself in his actual form to us. Real logic can never let the doors be shut for future queries. I mean, if you're able to answer a particular query, a new one would crop up in no time. My point is that if some postulates make sense for some people, it does not for a significant other even if the other is neutral in approach. Now you can replace 'postulates' with religion. Every religion makes sense to its followers. An important point however to be noted is that the majority is not necessarily always right. Whenever we use 'logic' as the touchstone, all religions fall apart like packs of cards. Referring to your interesting point of empirical adequacy, I reckon in this case we ought to use science as the deciding factor. Again all religions fail in this aspect. But the blame is to be shared equally by science too; since science is inadequate and does contain its share of superstitions too. Besides science is shaky; today's law may be a discarded theory tomorrow. For instance if we totally discard a particular religion because of a few scientific irregularities (and ironically every religion; including non-God ones have them) it would be risky since may be those scientific considerations might really be wrong! Experiential relevance, I agree with you. Basically we also ought to use our common sense. Regarding the case of the Buddha, the sad fact remains that none of the personalities: Ram, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, (to some extent)Moses etc. are historical figures and nothing can be affirmed about them with certainty. However, some critiques of the orient do say that Buddhism and others consider life as impure and a kind of punishment. I may agree to an extent with them. The same applies to Hinduism with the concepts of Maya and Karma. Buddha (assuming he existed) did leave his wife and child but it was for a bigger service to humanity. During his times the Vedic religion had become crass ritualistic and he did the job of illustrating the Vedantic principles in his own way. This obviously was a bigger healing than serving his royal family. More than Buddha, it is Buddhism which is alleged to be life-denying. So in a nutshell I agree with some points with you and in some I don't. Subjectivity

Thanks for the cordial response. You have been kind in your response even when you disagree with me. And I reapply respect that. You cited "If God is omnipotent, why is the world in such a mess?" as an example which may lead to absurdities if we assume logic to be an essential element in discussing religion. I think the answer given to that may not be convincing, but I don't think we need to abandon logic to answer that because the answer is not logically contradictory. Some atheists have raised the problem of evil to stump theist, but I think theists have throughout centuries given answer using 'free will' as the way out. Since 'omnipotence' does not mean being able to do self-contradictory things therefore the problem does not lead to absurdities. For example, God cannot make triangle have four sides or God cannot exist and not exist simultaneously etc. Therefore when we talk of 'free will' being given to human being we mean that God will not operate human life like robots are operated. God's answer to evil therefore is to use human being, who've caused it, to address it. And Christians' answer is that look at Jesus to know how's it's being done. Even arguments for God's existence is not illogical. At least for Christians the use of the term 'faith' is not opposed to logic or reason. They are complementary. In fact, even in scientific methodology faith is used in similar way it is used in religion. Regarding empirical adequacy I think there is an area where Science has to do. But there are also areas where History or Geography etc has to do. Even a religion makes scientific claims then Science has to verify it. If it makes historical claims then Historiographical method has to do it. And so on and so on. About the historicity of Jesus, Buddha or Mohammad if we employ historical method like we do for Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great and others then we get the same result. I am not sure for Krishna or Ram though I am pretty sure for Ved Vyasa or Valmiki. Of course, history by its nature cannot be proved with 100% certainty, unlike mathematics, but we have fairly good historiographical methodology to ascertain that.

I'm quite glad that you've reciprocated well. Otherwise you know well how heated religious discussions can get. Thanks for your controlled and sensible responses. I too appreciate that. 'Free will', I personally feel is a cop out from the tougher questions. I could well extend my logic to "Why then did god give us the free will? Why couldn't he instead create perfect beings?" This is exactly an instance of what I said in my previous post, that if one question is answered another ushers in. Even before you answer the above question I have the next ready here. "Since 'omnipotence' does not mean being able to do self-contradictory things thertoefore the problem does not lead to absurdities." I think I don't agree here. (If I've got your point well) Omnipotence would mean ability to do absolutely anything and defying the laws of nature hereby ought to be a cakewalk. And you can imagine the potential of the being who's supposed to have created such a magnetic and gigantic universe. "God will not operate human life like robots are operated" May I respectfully ask why? Is he not concerned about us? Again omnipotence and the general assumption that "Everything happens according to the will of God' imply that god actually is supposed to control us and our minds, souls and every single entity in and out. "God's answer to evil....." Again, how can evil even exist given the omnipotence of god? With regards to the historicity aspect: Yes, Jesus, Buddha and even Ram and Krishna can be considered to have existed. There can't be smoke without fire. However, my point was/is that it is difficult to conclude whether they were the same persons as described in the NT, Pali literature, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Hadiths et al. Besides, the question of existence of Caesar and Alexander isn't as crucial as that of the above personalities. If I don't believe in Caesar it won't land me in hell. I'm not trying to pick on your beliefs but my contention is that all these people who are supposed to be believed have their existence so vague. It's so risky and quite honestly absurd to me. Such questions can not be raised on Christianity alone. All God based religions/paths owe an answer, which hitherto is nowhere in sight.

Thanks cloudwatcher for your comment.

Thanks for the comment. I largely agree with your comment. I am, however, little puzzled by one of your lines. You said, " The greatest test of tolerance is developing the humility that our/my religion is just one path and not the best or the greatest religion". If my/our religion is valid a path as others or if my/or religion is as correct as others what do I have to be tolerant about? I think tolerance is required or it makes sense when I believe that mine is right yet choose to respect others' even when others are wrong. So that even when mine is the only right one, I shall not desecrate others' places of worship or deliberately make fun of the belief system etc. For example, in this case, you disagree with me yet choose to respect my view. This does not mean that you agree with my view, but gives me space to articulate my view. I think this is real tolerance. I think all religions are valid path is like saying that all views are equally right. So that your view, which is different from mine, is as right as mine. I think such view is okay at certain level of life. But in religions I have my doubt. I think it's either God exists or not; So if God exists then those religions that deny God's existence are false. The questions, however, whether God exists or not is not an easy one. Cheers!

What I meant by saying, having the 'humility', is that I somehow love my point of view, I am, say, head over heals obsessed with it. But I retain just enough gumption that after all this[the fact that my religion is the best or the right one] is not something that can be established using only the principles of logic of discourse as [B]the only truth.[/B]It is a different thing however that my religious principles say that this is verily the truth and all others are hopelessly deluded. Do you think any religion doesn't say this? Perhaps there is none- that tolerant. I remember reading in a book on summaries of Indian Religious Philosophies that Jainism is the only religion(Godless!) that enshrines what I may like to call the principle of humility. But I must admit I haven't seen it in one of their own Scriptural texts.This aspect of Jainism really impressed me. To be honest even Hinduism doesn't enshrine the Jainism-kind of humility(if it is really true that is.) But in every other way Hinduism is tolerant, in that we are asked not to demean any form of God-concept or worship. And as for your point that there at least is one difference, a place that would be very difficult to be tolerant to. Those that do not accept the existence of God. Well, you have me with you. The two religions that I know of that don't posit a God are Buddhism and Jainism.Of these Buddhism is silent on God and Jainism explicitly denies His existence. But look at the compensation! Both have a very dificult path set to tread to achieve enlightenment.A very hard way. But if a person really lives by the Principles of Jainism and Buddhism, he will truly be a very lovable character. Isn't that more important? And above all a person who exudes, or radiates peace by whatever means: submitting his will to the Will of God[H,J,C,M,Sikhsand others]; being the extremely non-violent person that B & J require one to be --- is the tribe which needs to increase now, in our own troubled times, our own times where overtly and covertly materialistic and heartless pursuit of personal grandeur are the order of the day!?! Thus in my opinion tolerance is needed to see good beyond the confines of our own predilections, beyond our concrete-hard convictions that ours is the best way.

I am not sure if I understood you correctly. Did you mean to say that religious truth cannot be established by using principles of logic? I have admiration for both Buddhism and Jainism. Jainism, however, is little too small in number to make tangible impact, either negatively or positively, in society and it's difficult to judge them through experience. Buddhism, however, has sizable number and one can make some conclusions. For example, Buddhism has large number of followers in Sri Lanka, but we all know that it's not a peaceful place. If we study the historical genesis of LTTE, Buddhist Sinhalese are not innocent; they are also responsible for the messy affair in Sri Lanka. So when we say that Buddhism is a peaceful religion, it is not always peaceful. We also say that Islam is a 'violent' religion. But again Islam dominated state like Maldive is relatively more peaceful than Christian dominated Ireland or Buddhist dominated Sri Lanka or Hindu India. My point is that radiating peace has to do with social-political reasons too. I have my liking for Jainism but I also have my reservation. The reservation is that Jaina monks 'retreat' from the world. Rather than bringing healing to this world, they go off and live an other worldly life. Contrast this with Christians way; they engage themselves, or are supposed to engage, with the world to bring healing and peace to this world instead of retreating from this world. Of course not all Christians have been faithful to this, but that is the teaching and many practise that. My point, however, is that good religion must be true at the level of logic and at the same time bring peace and healing to this world, or at least supposed to bring peace and healing if adherents follow it faithfully.