[lbo-talk] Appeal to Ignorance

[Shane Mage]

Yoshie wrote (in response to our resident Menshevik sympathizer
with the cult of Saint Nicholas The Bloody):
>>
>>The end result of not accepting _some form_ of NT (broadly 
>>understood as the acknowledgement that part of the universe may not 
>>be knowable) is subjective or absolute idealism.
>
>"The idea that "part of the universe may not be knowable" in itself 
>can't amount to any theology, negative or positive.  To get a 
>theology out of it, we would have to follow syllogism like this:
>
>1. God = unknowable.
>2. Some part of the universe may not be knowable.
>3. Since I believe that some part of the universe may not be 
>knowable, I believe in God.
>
If we don't accept the major premise, we don't proceed from the minor 
premise to the conclusion.  Is there any reason why we should be 
compelled to accept the major premise?  None at all."

But the major premise is a definitional postulate and, as such,
unchallengable (and the minor premise and conclusion should
state "is unknowable" instead of "may not be knowable).

I would point to a different syllogism:

1.  God=unknowable
2.  What is unknowable must also be unknown.
3.  God totally lacks self-knowledge.

Thus "God" stands lower on the scale of consciousness than
the most humble paramecium.

Shane Mage

"When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all 
things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even 
downright silly.

When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that all 
things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true."  (N. 
Weiner)