The Ignorance of the Arrogance Argument

Have you ever seen a public debate, be it political or otherwise, where the two parties involved come to a critical disagreement on some very hot button topic? Often they will banter back and forth giving reasons for their intellectual position, but sometimes one of the parties will offer a claim to exclusivity. They are right and the opposition is wrong. End of story. Of course this doesn't sit well with the second party, and they stand up and exclaim what has become the kill shot in any discussion or debate, "What an incredibly arrogant statement! How arrogant of you to say such a thing!" Often times, that is all that needs to be said to send the offending party home with their tail between their legs.

Today we live in a culture where the only universally accepted truth is that of tolerance. This is not the same tolerance that was defined during past decades. That "old tolerance" allowed one to acknowledge that their position was better than the opposition. To put up with the opposition while holding the view that you were superior in some way was to tolerate them. You tolerate the annoying kid incessantly clicking his pen in the waiting room. You tolerate your in-laws. You don't have to like them, but you do have to learn to live with them. Unfortunately this tolerance often branched out to ethnic groups and other sectors of society. To tolerate another race or ethnic group necessarily meant that you perceived your race to be superior to theirs. This is why our culture today will often say the "old tolerance" is vastly intolerant.

The new tolerance makes a modified claim. One is no longer able to assume that their position is an any way superior to another. All views are equal in truth and validity, whether they be mere opinions or objective truth claims. The inclusion of objective truth claims in this new tolerance is of supreme importance. One would have a hard time arguing that if two people thought differently on the taste of a certain cookie that they would be right in making rash judgements about each others decision without being intolerant (according to the new definition), and indeed, arrogant. Matters of opinion are one thing, but in the realm of objective truth claims (claims that refer to the external reality and the truth "out there") this is a very damaging view. Logically, this way of thinking is fatally flawed, for it fails the law of non-contradiction. Jim can not claim that his view that the pyramids were built by Egyptian slaves is right nor that Bill's belief that aliens built them is wrong. According to our culture, that may be perceived as an arrogant thing to claim since Jim can't actually "prove" that the pyramids were built by Egyptian slaves. But unlike subjective statements of taste or opinion, these statements are objective truth claims. It may be that Jim and Bill are both wrong, but objectively they can not both be correct.

There are very few things that we can know with absolute certitude. Some basic laws of logic and mathematics may be taken to be certainly true without argument. The law of non-contradiction, 2+2=4 and other basic principles can be known with absolute certainty. However, there is a vast world of knowledge out there that the human mind can never know with 100% certainty. History, Chemistry, Physics, Psychology, and many other fields of science that study the universe around us can not offer us absolute certainty. What they do offer us is a method and a reason to venture to identify the most probable explanation for the world around us. This is why scientific theories are so often ammended to best fit the latest findings. Did we really land on the moon, or was it some elaborate conspiracy to fool the American people into believing that we did? We can never know for sure. We can only look at the evidence and decide what is most probable.

At this point many people will throw up their hands and claim that we can't know anything for sure! To which one should respond "are you sure about that?". The truth is we absolutely must be sure about some things. For example, there is truth. How do we know that for sure? Claim the opposite, "there is no truth". Is that true? If it is, then there is truth after all... but if it's not, then there must be truth somewhere. Thus we know for certain there is truth. And all objective truth claims suppose they contain some truth. Our goal is only to see which claim is most probable. And we do this by weighing the evidence and using our cognitive abilities to come to a conclusion.

If I were to stand up in a lecture hall on a campus at an American University and claim that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, that would be an objective truth claim. Either Jesus is the only way to Heaven, or He is not. That's the truth of the matter. There are certainly arguments for and against such a position, some good and some bad. But I can garauntee you that the vast majority of the time I would not hear a valid argument in response to such a statement. I would instead hear, "How terribly arrogant of you to make such a claim". Notice that this attack on my character has absolutely NOTHING to do with the statement I would have just made. In fact, the responding person may be right in their assesment of my character. I may indeed be a very arrogant person, but that is a totally different topic of conversation. The usual attack against Christianity is that it is for the intellectually inept person. But to think that a personal attack of arrogance is somehow a valid rebuttal to an objective claim is indeed very intellectually irresponsible.

As Christians, we should always strive to show the truth with love and compassion, with gentleness and respect. Arrogance is not a characteristic of Christ. The truth can and will be offensive to many, but that is the nature of truth. If you are living in accordance with Christ's will, and someone accuses you of being arrogant, recognize that we are fallen people, and reply that you may indeed have been acting arrogantly, but do not let that disuade you from delivering the truth that you bring.