Well, this would be a matter of semantics, wouldn't it. As how "near to absolutely ignorant" would one have to be to be "profoundly" ignorant? I suspect not all that near. (And I do appreciate your clarification, here.)
Evidence is ultimately subjective. So it's as relevant or irrelevant as we choose, relative to the paradigm through which we're choosing it. This is why language is so 'pliable'.
Or you could go to literature, where it appears to happen rather often. See what I mean about evidence being subjective?
But there can be no "objective evidence", because objectivity is an intellectual impossibility.
What you are continuing to overlook is that "what we know" is subjective, biased, limited, speculative, and very likely wrong. And it's only through our own faith in ourselves that we can act on it often enough to see if it 'works' for us well enough to "believe in" it.
I am trying to do no such thing. I am trying to interject some honesty and humility into the faith process by which we humans must inevitably live. I understand that we have to trust in our presumptions (informed opinions) because we lack logical certainty. But I also can see that many of us fall into the delusional habit of pretending that our 'informed opinions' about the nature of reality are in fact 'the truth of reality'. It's one thing to trust in our own judgment, act on it, and see what happens. But it's something else to pretend our judgments are reality, itself. And yet we do this all the time, very often to our own great misfortune and suffering.
My position is that we have no right to be making claims on the truth of a reality that we have little access to, limited experience with, and a very poor understanding of. And that goes as much for the theists as the atheists. Posing possibilities is fine, fun, and sometimes informative. But we need to keep in mind that what is reasonably possible is also quite possibly wrong. And given our severe lack of information, quite probably wrong.
Thank you again. I must say you are truly the "poster child" for this post. I was almost hyperventilating with all the tortuous, convoluted, logical gymnastics you needed to employ, to validate your preconceived narrative. You have no idea of the ramifications of your remarks. You can't see how your remarks can affect any inquisitive mind that wants to learn and aspire towards greater knowledge. I encourage people to learn and believe in themselves, not discourage them. Knowledge is accumulative. We learn more and more from each generation. I'm sure you don't agree that parents should keep telling their children that they will always be "profoundly ignorant". Or, that they will never amount to anything? Or, that they have no right to make claims on the truth of reality. Of course you don't.
I stated that you could go to the zoo or an aquarium and test if even one animal would talk to you. You responded with, "..you could go to literature, where it appears to happen rather often.". I assume that you weren't in the children's section. I will also assume that the animals did not speak to you from the pages. This is not even an explanation, let alone evidence.
Scientific evidence
is objective. Objective evidence is evidence that we can prove by direct/indirect methods(measurements, observation, analysis, experimentation, etc.). I, or anyone else can easily prove that animals don't talk to humans, or that the dead don't return to work the next day. And, no matter how much subjective evidence you have, you still won't be able to fly. Subject evidence is evidence that can't be proven directly by the scientific method(the devil made me do it, testimonials, visions, beliefs, etc.). I have no idea how obtaining evidence, objectively, is an intellectual impossibility. It is done in research everyday.
Your worldview stunts intellectual creativity, discourages learning, and perpetuates the very ignorance that you claim is the human condition. You may have accepted this defeatist and cynical worldview, but most inquiring minds haven't. So, unless you have some comments on the rest of my post, belabouring what is clearly and intuitively obvious, will only result in an exercise in futility. It will also demonstrate just how far intelligent people will go to rationalize irrational beliefs. Remember, this is not about what we don't know, it's about what we do know. Maybe you can offer your ideas on why intelligent people can believe and defend irrational things?