Myths About Atheism, Part One: The Myth of Certainty

Disclaimer: I use the word "certainty" a lot in this article, and I want to make one thing clear right away.  I am intentionally referring to a sort of straw man conception of "certainty" - the kind that says, "I know for sure I am right and you can't convince me otherwise!"  I am doing this because this is the type of "certainty" that many theists accuse atheists of using, and it is that specific misconception I am trying to address.  I know that, typically, a person who is 95% sure of something would consider themselves "certain," but for the sake of this argument I am excluding this, and pretty much every other shade of gray, as being applicable.  I am well aware that the kind of "certainty" I am addressing here probably does not even exist in reality.

So, stop me if you've heard this one before:

If you've listened to a discussion about atheism in the past, I dunno, ten years or so, you have probably heard something like this.  The reasoning goes: religious fundamentalists have lots of conviction in their beliefs - but that is only because they cling to their beliefs blindly and dogmatically, refusing to consider contrary evidence or even admit the possibility that they are wrong.  Likewise atheists, on the opposite end of the spectrum, appear to have the same sort of conviction in their (lack of) beliefs - surely that means atheists also cling to their beliefs blindly and dogmatically.  

I would say that this is one of the most prominent tropes that christians and theists have thrown around concerning atheists (especially those darn "new atheists"!)  It is almost certainly the most common misconception about atheism that I have heard personally.  And let me tell you, it is getting really, really, old.  

Just to throw out a couple of examples: this was one of the central arguments of Alister McGrath's book The Dawkins Delusion, the entirety of which is a rebuttal against Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.  This mess of a book (I'm talking about McGrath's book, not Dawkins') has been thoroughly examined and criticized in other blogs, so I'm only going to quote a quick line that's relevant here:

"The total dogmatic conviction of correctness which pervades some sections of Western atheism today - wonderfully illustrated in The God Delusion - immediately aligns it with a religious fundamentalism that refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged. Dawkins is resistant to the calibration of his own certainties, seeing them as being luminously true, requiring no defense."

This book was published six years ago - and from what I've gathered from various responses, even then atheists were rolling their eyes at this sort of assertion and saying, "seriously?  Again?"  I'll get back to talking about Richard Dawkins in a minute, but first I want to give one more quote, this one from a column by Leonard Pitts from a couple of years ago.  I remember feeling massively disappointed when I read this, since I normally really like Leonard Pitts and generally agree with his views, but I thought he completely missed the mark here:

"Indeed, I find myself struck by the similarity between certain atheists and fundamentalists… There is a certain hubris in [fundamentalists] that is mirrored in the declaration that God does not exist because our telescopes cannot see Him nor our equations prove Him. It was only a minute ago, as the universe measures time, that our kind was scared of fire, so our faith in our tools to now definitively disprove God is as arrogant as it is amusing."

I'll grant him that there is a lot that us humans still don't know, and that our current understanding of concepts such as the big bang and the unfathomable size of the universe is a relatively recent phenomenon that is constantly being revised and updated.  A thousand years ago, it would have been totally irrational to think we were all made of tiny units of matter called atoms, since none of the scientific evidence at the time would have indicated such a thing - and yet now we all know that atoms exist.  So, yes, it is possible that a thousand years from now, our knowledge of some sort of god will be just as commonplace and as our current knowledge of atoms.

I get this.  Every atheist I know gets this.  Yet many theists, for some bizarre reason, continue to assert that the "new atheist" movement is driven by rigid dogma and blind certainty, and that we have an unwavering and impenetrable "faith" in some sort of holy book of scientific consensus.  

This is, quite simply, not the case.

Here's where I'll get back to talking about Richard Dawkins.  About a year ago, a lot of christians were suddenly shocked and delighted when they found out that Dawkins wasn't certain that god did not exist.  People were treating this news like it was some sort of irrefutable "gotcha!" towards the atheists.  Even the most famous and prominent spokesperson for atheism had some amount of doubt!  Oh noes! Where's our atheist god now?

Clearly, none of those theists had ever read The God Delusion, because this was nothing new for Dawkins.  This had always been his stance: not "I know for sure there is no god and you can't convince me otherwise," but simply, "based on what evidence we have, the probability that god exists seems very low - low enough that it seems safe to assume it is not the case."  This has always been the stance of not only Dawkins, but every atheist I've ever met.  (And, believe me, having been to enough conferences and organizations and whatnot, I've met me a lot of atheists.)

Yet I've also met many theists who insist that they have met plenty of these so-called "atheist fundamentalists," who will proudly and passionately proclaim that their disbelief is absolute and could not be altered or challenged.  Which makes me wonder: where have all these atheist fundamentalists been hiding?  Why haven't I seen them?  

There seem to be two possibilities here.  The first possibility is that I am mistaken about what atheists really believe, that nearly every atheist I've ever met has lied to me, pretending to be scientific and reasonable while secretly worshipping at the alter of Atheismo when I'm not around.  I will admit this is possible.  But this scenario (much like the existence of god!) seems so incredibly unlikely that I am going to assume for the remainder of this article that this is not the case.

Here's another possibility which I think is much more likely: many theists have been led to the assumption that atheists are like this due to severe misunderstandings of some very fundamental concepts.  There are, put simply, certain terms for which atheists and theists generally have entirely different definitions and frameworks.  Which is why I am now going to break down some common misunderstandings which, I think, often lead the religious to perceive atheists as being unwavering, uncompromising, and overly certain in their nonbelief.

1. A misunderstanding of "agnosticism"

I'm not gonna lie - I am sick to death of talking about this word, but I'm going to do it anyway right now, once again, because I care.

As you may have guessed, the word "agnostic" really annoys me.  Largely because most people's definition of "agnostic" leads them to have a very warped and inaccurate idea of what "atheist" means.  I can see how "agnostic" may be a useful label if you are just not sure where you stand on the whole "does god exist?" question, and feel uncomfortable leaning even slightly towards a "yes" or a "no" (though I think the number of people who don't have some preference towards one or the other is very, very slim).  I can also see it being an appropriate label for someone who prefers to dismiss the question entirely and say that the existence of god is inherently unknowable - the "I don't know, and neither do you!" argument (though I find this annoying as well, since the idea of being certain in your uncertainty seems, you know, just a little hypocritical.)

But putting all that aside, these definitions are not what most people think of when they hear the word.  For most people, from what I have gathered, "agnostic" is a sort of reasonable middle ground between theism and atheism.  Theists generally understand that "agnostic" means "not sure."  The mistake comes when they say, "if 'agnostic' means 'not sure', then 'atheist' must mean you are sure, and certainty is unreasonable!  That sounds just like those religious fundamentalists."

There are a few things wrong with this.  First of all, it seems safe to say that most religious people of any faith don't claim to be one hundred percent certain in their belief, all the time.  Most religious people experience some doubt; many religious people are faced with frequent doubts.  Yet they still identify as christian or jewish or hindu or muslim.  People very rarely point to a religious person with a trace of doubt and say, "that's an agnostic."  So why in the world would you apply this standard to people who don't believe in god?

You wouldn't and you shouldn't, because agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to theism or atheism.  They address two completely different questions - theism and atheism represent differing answers to the question, "do you believe in god?"  Agnosticism answers the question, "how sure are you in your belief?", or similarly, "how certain do you think one can be regarding this particular belief?"

Which means you can be an "agnostic theist" - every theist I've ever met is agnostic to some degree.  Every atheist I've ever met is agnostic to some degree as well.  You know why you never hear about "gnosticism" (meaning the opposite of "agnosticism," not the ancient religious philosophy of the same name)?  Because it is a stance that applies to practically no one.  Which is why I honestly find the word "agnostic" to be mostly useless.  If you use any coherent definition of the word, then virtually everybody is an "agnostic."  Yet many people still think of it as being a more reasonable, open-minded, middle-of-the-road version of atheism.  If you honestly think that, then of course you're going to have some very big misconceptions about what "atheists" actually believe, and how certain they are in those beliefs.

(One slightly related thought - my attitude towards agnosticism is actually a little similar to a pansexual's attitude towards the overly simplistic "bi" label.  Meaning, many people - me included - don't think there is any such thing as being one hundred percent "straight" or "gay."  Everyone, it could be argued, is bisexual in varying degrees, which makes the term "bi" just a little bit inadequate and misleading.  Same thing with "agnostic.")

Whew!  Okay then.  Here's another common misunderstanding that often plays out between theists and atheists...

2. Confusing "my personal experience" with "scientific proof"

I actually can't tell you the number of times I've seen some sort of exchange like this take place.  An atheist will say that he or she would believe in god if there was legitimate scientific evidence.  The theist will say, "Aha!  I have evidence for you!  It was enough to convince me that god's existence was real, so if you're not convinced, you must be more close-minded than I am!  You sound just like those religious fundamentalists."

And this "evidence," of course, is never truly scientific or even remotely convincing.  Yet the theist will walk away from the discussion thinking that the atheist is operating with the same close-minded certainty of religious fundamentalists.  Simply because he/she had different standards for evaluating evidence.

I'm not going to take up space explaining what should constitute adequate standards for scientific evidence, but I'll go ahead an reiterate that this is not a good reason to conclude that atheists are being unreasonable.  Far from it, actually.

Moving on (don't worry, there's just one more)...


3. Mistaking conviction for certainty

I think this is a pretty big one, and I've never seen it talked about before.  But here's the gist of it.  I think that many theists look at the recent wave of outspoken activist atheists, who publish books, who give speeches, who write shitty blogs like this one, all with the intent of spreading a reasonable, scientific, evidence-based worldview - and some theists think to themselves, "these atheists must think that they are certain.  Why would anyone devote this much time and work to spreading an idea if they weren't absolutely certain that their idea was true?"  (This line of thinking, really, is a devious sort of trap.  If atheists aren't vocal and active, then why should anyone listen to us?  And if we are vocal and active, we must be irrationally certain in our views, so why should anyone listen to us?  It's like we can't win.)

But, as I've said over and over, I don't think that atheists have certainty in their nonbelief (and, again, I am intentionally using the straw man definition of "certainty" that the theists keep insisting applies to us).  However, I think it is definitely accurate to say that many atheists, especially some of the more famous and visible ones, have conviction in their nonbelief.  They have conviction in spades.  And I can see how this can be confusing and misleading, because the difference between being "convinced" and being "certain" is a very, very subtle one.  But I think it is important.

And here's what I think the distinction is: "certainty" is a state of being certain; "conviction" literally means a state of being convinced - implying that there was something that convinced you in the first place.  And you can be convinced there is no god without claiming that you are certain.  You can, of course, claim to be both.  But I think the important difference is that someone is convinced by evidence.  If you have "conviction" - meaning, if you have been convinced of something - then you were presented with an argument, shown the evidence, and it was persuasive enough to change your mind.  There is nothing about "certainty" that inherently implies that you are basing your belief on any sort of evidence or logic.

If this distinction still seems a little abstract, let me bring up an example.  Think of the political climate about ten years ago, when the war in Iraq was just starting.  Think of the growing movement of anti-war protesters.  Now, think of the rationale behind the anti-war movement.  Granted, not everyone who participated in the anti-war movement had the most solid (or any) rationale for doing so, but there were plenty of legitimate reasons to be opposed to the war.  Even in 2003, the supposed link between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaeda was, to many people, unconvincing.  Even in 2003, the actual existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was, to many people, highly doubtful.

But how many of the anti-war protesters do you think would have claimed they were certain about their stance?  How many (besides actual UN weapon inspectors) had actually been to Iraq personally and based their criticism and skepticism on what they had actually seen (or not seen)?  Even if every anti-war protester had paid a personal visit to Iraq to investigate these claims themselves, would that have been enough to make them certain?

You wouldn't expect that level of certainty, because you don't need to be certain.  All you need is conviction.  The anti-war protesters were convinced that, judging from the available evidence, the basis for the Iraq war was inadequate, and that was enough to launch a movement.  Atheists aren't certain there is no god… but they are convinced, by overwhelming historical and scientific evidence, that god's existence is highly unlikely.  And yes, this evidence is enough to justify the existence of an atheist movement.

I should also add that an important part of conviction is acknowledging that you could be convinced otherwise.  If sufficient evidence is provided that proves your current convictions wrong, you will change your mind.   It is not unusual to say, "I was convinced of something, but I was proven wrong"; it feels a little more strange to say, "I knew something, but I was proven wrong," since the fact that you were proven wrong implies that you didn't really know.

And that's the difference.  The "certainty" that is associated with religious fundamentalists bears little resemblance to the evidence-based conviction of the new atheist movement, and I'm sick of hearing about how they are the same thing.  They're not.


A couple of links for further reading:

What Would Convince This Atheist To Believe?  by Greta Christina

Atheism is Based on Faith? by Austin Cline