Appeals to Ignorance
I felt like I needed to add an entry to my log, since I haven't
added one in so long. So, this entry is a bit of a stretch (as if
any of my entries aren't stretches ;-). But it is something I think
about regularly.
Why do we hold metaphysical beliefs? I think we've come far enough
in our exploration of the world to admit that everything we know
for sure, we learned from our sensory-motor, physiological, bodily
experience. And everything else comes with large doses of
ignorance. (Just to be clear, I accept that most people out there
don't and will never admit their ignorance... But I'm not really
talking to those people. I'm talking to rational people who admit
when they don't know something as fact.)
For example, do we know that it's safer to look both ways before
crossing the street? No, we don't know that. It's entirely possible
that it's safer to cross the street very quickly without hesitating
at all, depending on the street, the speed at which one
can cross, the efficacy of one's eyesight, etc.
This "knowledge" of the best way to cross a street, which we learn
very early on, comes with a huge swath of ignorance and, therefore,
forces us to
assume a great many things.
It's not my intention to pick apart the meanings of words like
knowledge. I'm merely pointing out that all the things we call
"knowledge" are inseparable from the context and assumptions within
which they are usable.
Examples of things we do know, that carry minimal ignorance, are
those mechanisms that constitute our body. I know how to move my
fingers and type these words. Since I learned how, I have never
even begun to forget how to wiggle my fingers, or digest my food,
or open my eyes. Likewise, I know that if I poke myself in the eye
with my finger, it hurts. These little facts come with minimal
ignorance. It's important to note, however, the presence of the
ignorance these things carry with them.
There are people who "forget" how to talk, or move their fingers.
(I'm not talking about damages to the physical mechanisms. I'm
talking about psycho-somatic or even unexplained but seemingly
psycho-somatic disorders.) And while these conditions are very
rare, they do exist, demonstrating that even though the ignorance
is small compared to other bits of "knowledge", the ignorance is
never vanishingly small.
Now, go up the scale far away from the minimal ignorance of the
knowledge we have about our bodies.... go all the way up to, say,
cosmology or the origins of the universe. Do we know that the
universe began with a big bang or by the will of some omni-* being?
No. The amount of ignorance that comes with such "knowledge" is so
huge... The ignorance that accompanies such hypotheses and
conjecture plainly dwarfs any related knowledge we might
have.
Note that I'm not saying theories grounded in physics are, in all
ways, equivalent to metaphysical beliefs about omni-* beings. I've
simply placed those two types of "knowledge" near each other on a
scale of the ignorance that accompanies them. To the scientist who
believes the one is built on facts more solid than the other, I can
only suggest they consider their commitment to the solidity of
facts, evidence, and knowledge. Likewise, to the faithful who
believe one is more fundamental to the human condition than the
other, I can only suggest they consider the methodological success
of their more skeptical brethren.
The issue I do care about is why do we make these hypotheses and
conjectures and, more importantly, why do we come to
believe them? When an intelligent design advocate
ridicules evolution by calling it "just a theory", what is she
really trying to say? Or when an atheist ridicules the modern
monotheists by talking about a "flying spaghetti monster", what is
she really trying to say?
What are these people expressing in such ham-handed, stupid, and
disrespectful ways? And why do they feel the need to be so rude and
disrespectful?
Well, I believe the answer lies in our discomfort with ignorance.
None of us are truly comfortable with ignorance, their own or
others'. When a militant atheist cruelly jabs at the heart of a
theist's beliefs, she is expressing her discomfort with
BOTH the theist's hard-headed and lazy attachment
to seemingly incredible metaphysical beliefs as well as her own
ignorance of how the universe operates.
Imagine if, when the atheist ridicules the theist, rather than
being offended, the theist treats the atheist with a brotherly
commitment to a life's work of scientific inquiry! I.e. out of love
for the atheist, the theist devotes her life to the scientific
method.
Likewise, what if, when a theist threatens to surround the atheist
with laws based on obscure words written on some ancient scroll,
the atheist, rather than lashing out in defense, committed herself
to distilling whatever truth may be found in those obscure
words?
These sorts of constructive responses to attacks do happen. But
they are rare. And I believe they are rare because we are all
uncomfortable with our own and others' ignorance.... but especially
our own.
As a result, we build up what are ultimately, logically, appeals to
ignorance as justification for our own beliefs. When one compares
their own ignorance with another's ignorance, which body of
ignorance are they going to be more inclined to ignore? Which body
of ignorance are we most likely to sweep under the rug? Which body
of ignorance are we more afraid to stare straight at and consider
in depth?
Our own, of course.
We will always minimize the scary specter of our own ignorance and
maximize the not-so-scary hobgoblin of another's ignorance. Hence,
all metaphysical arguments are rooted in appeals to ignorance. We
cannot
KNOW that your silly speculation is true;
so, it's better to go with my silly speculation. -----