Pearls ...

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. -----