What is your definition, and do you apply it consistently? Now, I know that Emerson thought that a foolish consistency was the hobgoblin of little minds, but I think that most of us can agree that definitions HAVE to be consistent; or they are useless.

My definition of certainty is that if all available data always points to one conclusion, then I can be CERTAIN that conclusion is a true or valid conclusion. Note; this does not assume infinite knowledge, which is never possible…



Let us look at four cases where people usually express certainty on an issue.



Case #1. The existence of god. Many if not most religious people are CERTAIN that god(s) exist, because they have evidence that they think is convincing that god does exist. You know what? I UNDERSTAND this point of view. I disagree with their evidence (their premises), but I understand how they reached their conclusions given their premises, and I know why they are certain. I even agree that they SHOULD BE certain; to them all evidence points in one direction; namely that god exists.

Case #2. The non - existence of (fill in the blank with your favorite made up creature/object/being). Have you done that? Good, let us assume that we all have (made up thing) in mind, and we agree that it is made up by people (a story). I would put it to you that most people would be CERTAIN that (made up thing) does not exist, and I would agree with them. Note again, this does not require looking under every rock in the universe. All we have to know is that it is a made up thing; therefore all available evidence points in one direction, namely that the thing in question does not exist because it was made up, and therefore not real.

Case #3. Physical laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_laws Physical laws are derived by empirical evidence over time, and are said to apply everywhere in the universe. Scientists are CERTAIN of that, and I agree. They are CERTAIN because all available evidence points to these laws being true everywhere. Did they check under every rock in the universe to make sure that these laws applied everywhere? Of course not; that is not possible. All they needed was the weight of the evidence; that it all pointed in one direction.



… and, finally, we come to the strong atheist position (at least as seen by myself; atheists are like cats, and notoriously don’t want others speaking for us, but this is how I see it).

Case #4. God(s) does not exist. I am CERTAIN of that, because all evidence points to it (there IS no evidence of god(s)), and all evidence points to gods having been made up by people as stories, just like in example #2.


Immediately there is a chorus of complaints. The theists argue that I have the evidence all wrong; that all the evidence points to god existing, and that god is not a story. I UNDERSTAND their argument; I DISAGREE with their evidence, and therefore their conclusion, but their argument makes sense and is CONSISTENT.

The second type of complaint that I have heard is “Whoa, Strong Atheist, you can’t say that god does not exist; you haven’t checked everywhere in the universe”. True, but we haven’t checked everywhere in the universe for made up things (example #2) or physical laws (example #3). All we need is for all evidence to point in one direction (which it does as far as I am concerned); not infinite knowledge (which is impossible). If we needed infinite knowledge for CERTAINTY, this would make certainty completely impossible, and destroy any common usage of the term/idea.

The last objection I have heard seems to go along the lines of that last thought; it is impossible to be certain of anything. This is fine if you are a solipsist (See: Cartesian doubt) which in practice no one is; if you can’t be certain that anything other than yourself exists why: get up, eat, obey laws, interact with other (possible non-existent) people, expect stop lights to mean the same thing everyday, etc. No one actually puts solipsism into practice; we all act like the universe is real and more or less the way that it appears as a practical matter. I would, however, like to see the people who say it is impossible for me (or the theists, for that matter) to be CERTAIN about the existence/non-existence of god be consistent and say that we can not be CERTAIN of #2 and #3, made up things and physical laws. If they can not do that, I would appreciate a good explanation of why they are being inconsistent in applying their definition of CERTAINTY.


So, what is your definition of certainty, do you apply it consistently, and if you do not, how do you justify using a different criterion for different examples?