I would like to preface this by saying that I am not tarring all of the Left with one brush. I am sure that I am far from unique in my views. Ironically in a piece discussing uncertainty, I can be certain that there are people of both Right and Left who are at least, or even more, thoughtful and impartial than myself. I’d also like to add that those I perceive to be dogmatic may not be so all of the time, and perhaps in some instances I myself can be the same – we are merely human. More than anything, this is food for thought about something I feel strongly on. It is not my intent to be disdainful or to accuse. So with that, let us continue.

“To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.”

-Attributed to Socrates

As children, we are taught in black and white. This is right, this is wrong. This is how what happened in 1066. This is how chemicals react. This is how plants work. This is what an atom looks like.

So too we saw adults as secure sources of certainty; Mum and Dad always know what to do. The teacher always knows the answer. The doctor always knows exactly what they are doing.

In academia, the higher one progresses, the more uncertain things become. At GCSE and A-Level you are told what is right and what is wrong. At Bachelors level, those chemical reactions you were taught about in Year 10? Throw that away. Atoms? Well they certainly don’t look like that. Masters, you find out that you know very little. PhD, you find out that nobody knows all that much. Most of Science involves the use of simplified models that allow us to get some idea of how the world is working, but it is almost always unfeasible, or outright impossible, to model the whole reality of what is going on. It is important for a Scientist to understand this, that much of what they are looking at is not real, but rather an interpretation of what we can so far understand – a model that is “fit for purpose”, but has limitations and assumptions that must be adhered to in order to produce reliable results.

My point is this: A child views Science almost as some sort of force in the world; a light that provides objective truths. An informed Scientist knows that in reality, Science is simply a methodology by which we study the world, and in truth we don’t even fully understand what is going on in our own back yard. Do you see the trend? The foolish child believes he knows much about the world, whilst the wise Scientist can see the truth of things; that he knows very little about the world. This is not isolated to Science, but can be applied to life in general.

As we get older we see that our parents do not know everything. Indeed, we begin to see their flaws. We begin to see that people are incredibly complex, that what we perceive as wrong they may perceive as right from their perspective, and that a person may not even fully understand themselves, let alone others.

In “The Apology of Socrates”, by Plato, Socrates is quoted as saying “Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.”

Socrates is quite right, for what can we say that we know about the world around us, about our fellow man, and about our very selves? Perceptions, assumptions; models that are “fit for purpose”, but that is all.

This truth has been at the forefront of my mind for the past few months – both because of doing a PhD and thus experiencing what I have just discussed, but also because of the nature of our current political climate. Whether it be the EU referendum or the current US Presidential campaign, never before have I seen so much misinformation and so much outright ignorance from both sides of the argument. But there is one side that I am particularly disappointed with, because this is the side that most of my social circle, most of my age bracket, has taken. Pro-EU, Anti-Trump. Let’s discuss.

Pro-EU / Anti-Trump is basically synonymous, at least it is for those whom I wish to challenge. This is the side of the argument that is so vehemently against the “ignorant hoi polloi” who apparently spread hate and cause division. It is the side that sees itself as the enlightened viewpoint, and the side that has by far the highest proportion of university-educated individuals. The other side may bear the crime of ignorance, but this side bears much more. Ignorance, hypocrisy, and a complete misuse of the education they have been privileged to receive.

I find it quite extraordinary that educated, grown men and women have been so quick to take up this inane culture of “tolerance” pushed by the Media and Establishment. This is a culture that paints Donald Trump – who is by all accounts boorish but otherwise dare I say a much better man than most politicians; a much better man than David Cameron in my eyes – paints him as the next Hitler who will lead us into Armageddon. Let me be clear, as a Christian I sincerely believe in equality and love of one another. Yet I loathe this “tolerance” culture. Why? Because it is utterly devoid of love. It is devoid of reason, and logic. It is an utterly hollow, self-righteous dogma that does not promote any greater affection to one’s fellow man. To tolerate is not to love, but rather to ignore. This belief system is happy to be self-absorbed, awakened only when it encounters a person that does not agree with it – let’s say, someone who voted Leave, or someone who supports Trump. And when awoken, what is the fruit? Dismissal, anger, accusation, aggression. Rarely will you see a Remainer Millennial open to discuss UKIP without throwing around terms like “racist”, “ignorant”, “bigot”. They are so sure that their view is the righteous one, the other is the ignorant and hateful one. I return us to my previous point; the fool believes they are certain and the wise embrace uncertainty.

You may argue, such things as Leave, Trump and UKIP are dismissed because they are absurd, destructive, regressive. To which I ask, have you actually investigated any of these for yourself? Have you compared them to the alternative? You say Trump is terrible because he was recorded bragging and saying stupid things to his friends, okay; so what about Hillary being recorded bragging that she got a child rapist off on all charges, that he passed a lie detector and as a result she would “never trust a polygraph again”? You might not get quite so many social brownie points for sharing that one. A few UKIP members have been cherry picked saying inappropriate things, such as an inane non-PC thing like “going to the chinky”. Goodness me, well let’s just brand it the fall of Rome right now and call it a day shall we. Here is something that the morally zealous of the Left must understand: Saying something stupid does not put you on par with thugs and murderers, yet you would be hard pressed to get a stronger reaction from some of the Left for such crimes.

What about the more important things such as the many examples of corruption within the conservative party? Nay, absurdity is not what these three have in common, because our entire political system is absurd and full of liars, snakes and hypocrites. We simply don’t talk about them unless they are apparently being “racist”. The commonality of these three is that they are anti-Establishment. This does not absolve any of them of their wrongdoing, but it should make an informed person sceptical of claims made against them. You see, when the most powerful people in the world are very interested in seeing these movements not succeed, perhaps you should not take things said about these movements at face value.

So now we seem to be in a time that I find very alarming; a time where we have a higher ratio of well-educated individuals than ever before, yet seemingly as little or even less critical thinking and rationale than ever before, because we have been exposed to an emotively driven, reactionary cultural ideology. A culture in which all the media must do is shout “racist” or “sexist” or any other “-ist” and people quickly and unquestioningly condemn. At the same time, partly due to this increasing hostility and disdain from the Left, many are being driven to support the far Right – because extremes breed extremes.

I began by saying that children have a false view of a certain world, and that those who grow in wisdom come to see that in this world there is far more uncertainty than there is certainty. My friends, this is my challenge: if you are close to my age, you won’t be far off 30. We have no more excuses and can no longer afford to act like children – we can’t dogmatically assume that our view is correct, we must acknowledge that this world we live in is full of complexity; the headlines we read have their own motives, the causes that we oppose likely have some merit to them, the people we disagree with probably have reasons they see as good. Maybe Brexit isn’t the end of the world, and maybe Trump is not a monster. We need to examine our belief systems, our values, our actions – because we are not children anymore who’s doings are inconsequential; we now hold the power to bring change.

How much better off would we be if all of us were open to dialogue, if we did not take sides as soon as the now insipid terms such as “racist” got thrown around, if we truly thought for ourselves? Perhaps then Brexit would not have been so toxic, perhaps the USA would not be lumped with two of the most unpopular candidates ever seen in an election.

Perhaps you think me very hypocritical, discussing impartiality whilst solely challenging one side of the argument. I challenge this side of the argument because as I have said, it possesses the most people in my age bracket, and the most educated people, and yet appears to be the more dogmatic, more anti-intellectual, more self-righteous.

I myself voted Leave after weighing up the options, and I very much am hoping that Mr. Trump wins the election, and I can back these opinions up with reasoned argument. I also know people whom I respect intellectually who share such opinions – but we are already getting far too long with this ramble. I do not assume that I am right, but can be satisfied that I, a man who knows nothing, weighed up his options and did as he thought best in spite of prevailing opinion and social pressure, and so when I look at those of you who would condemn me for taking the stance I have, I reflect with Socrates in saying:

“Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.”

For the sake of our futures and our culture, I hope that I do not hold this advantage for much longer.