Sean Eby

Knowing what you don't know and admitting it (as well as recognizing things you don't even know that you don't know) are central tenets in science which help progress go forward in the field. It creates the sense of new challenges and admitting things we haven't yet figured out yet as a human species. We also use "I don't know" when new information may cause previous assumptions or theories to be false until enough new evidence sets a new precedent.

This sort of thinking; admitting one is wrong or not fully knowing, is important to making one's self better and more wholesome. This just isn't true of the behavior of most of the world's popular religions and is an under-appreciated and under-popularized criticism of religion.

Because if a religious leader had to cast doubt or, worse, change their entire stance on what was previously considered fact (perhaps on the basis of it being "in faith") it causes the organization to lose credibility. So, instead of risking the prospect of looking incredulous and untrustworthy, their best bet is to admit that previous history was either misguided or misinterpreted, or worse, attempt to quietly move on and hope no one notices they were actually wrong about something.

What's funny is that it is truly a lot easier (and far more self-effacing) to either say, "I/we don't know the answer (yet)" or even better, "Turns out we were wrong about that." It seems the people most insecure about their beliefs are perhaps also the ones most afraid to admit they don't know the answer or that in fact one of their beliefs (or part of their belief) may in fact be completely false.