On Being Certain
Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not, Inspired By Science-Based Medicine’s Harriet Hall
I came upon this wonderful post over at Science-Based Medicine:
Neurologist Robert A. Burton, MD has written a gem of a book: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not. His thesis is that “Certainty and similar states of ‘knowing what we know’ arise out of involuntary brain mechanisms that, like love or anger, function independently of reason.” Your certainty that you are right has nothing to do with how right you are.
Within 24 hours of the Challenger explosion, psychologist Ulric Neisser had 106 students write down how they’d heard about the disaster, where they were, what they were doing at the time, etc. Two and a half years later he asked them the same questions. 25% gave strikingly different accounts, more than half were significantly different, and only 10% had all the details correct. Even after re-reading their original accounts, most of them were confident that their false memories were true. One student commented, “That’s my handwriting, but that’s not what happened.”
As Salon.com puts it, “We all seem convinced we’re right about politics, religion or science these days. What makes us so sure of ourselves?” Michael Shermer has also mentioned this concept in his books. The human brain is not perfect and often recalls false memories that we believe.
Science-Based Medicine author Harriet Hall suggests that the ability to recall ‘vivid’ memories could be an advantage to be so sure of something, so we conversely act on it with confidence instead of hesitation. One could also make the argument that humans are story-telling animals by nature and we pass memories on to others, no matter how accurate they are.
But my point is this: human memory is not perfect, despite an individual’s confidence that it is. We must take this into account when dealing with concepts that we cannot prove or disprove beyond all doubt (such as the existence of God). In other words, we could always be wrong.
Applying This To Religion
…many people, especially religious fundamentalists, can’t deal with uncertainty. They demand absolute answers and cling to their certainties even in the face of contrary evidence. Why are people so different in their need for certainty? We know there is a gene associated with risk-taking and novelty-seeking. Burton makes an intriguing suggestion: could genetic differences make individuals get different degrees of pleasure out of the feeling of knowing?
This is where devout belief falls apart for both theists and atheists alike. Sometimes blind faith and emotion take over (sometimes tragically). Sometimes false justifications cloud the conclusion. Perhaps alternative answers are not sought out. Sometimes the feeling of comfort silences the voice of reason. Irrational belief prevails and unfortunately, often makes its way into schools, governments, even movies.
Jimmy Bee at Relijournal points out that we’re all agnostic, even if our faith dictates otherwise. This is not to say that all agnostics understand that their brain might be leading them to the wrong conclusions, but they admit to not having the answers to questions like ‘How was the universe created?’ or ‘What happens to us when we die?’.
No leap of faith here. And is that really so bad?
Bridging The Gap
If science and religion could both accept that all our facts are really provisional, absolutism could be dethroned and a dialog might become possible. What if religious fundamentalists acknowledged even a 0.0000000001% possibility that their beliefs were false? Biology teaches us that absolutism is an untenable stance of ignorance.
Whether you believe or don’t believe in God, it’s tough to create a dialog with someone who’s 100% sure they have the answer and won’t listen to another viewpoint. Are we doomed to gnostic atheist vs. gnostic theist battles forever?
Perhaps a more humble approach should be considered? An approach that realizes we don’t know everything and should continue to explore the possibilities? Continually?
All block-quotes taken from Harriet Hall’s On Being Certain.
Speaking as a former evangelical believer, I suspect that the battles will continue as long as conservative religion continues. It’s not merely tough to create a dialog with a 100%er, it’s impossible. Someone with that degree of certitude has nothing to gain by engaging in dialog and listening to other viewpoints. And how can you honestly expect someone who is 100% certain about his or her position to be humble? One may be more or less courteous, but it’s hard not to be at least a little bit patronizing when one is absolutely certain that one is right and the other is wrong. Notwithstanding religious talk about the virtue of humility, religious certitude can’t help but engender arrogance.
Written by the chaplain on May 27th, 2008You know Chap, I don’t disagree with you…
Written by Ted Goas on May 27th, 2008“Where did the universe come from?” is a question I am often asked by Christians as if this is some kind of trump card that I must have an answer to in order to justify my atheism. When I say that “I don’t know” they often seem somewhat surprised - as if they never really considered agnosticism in this case as a reasonable answer!
Written by James Tracy on May 28th, 2008James, I’ve heard similar arguments. During my time on this site, I’ve encountered several theists who don’t necessarily believe in Genesis word for word. Some are OK with not knowing the answers to some of these large mysteries. Some Christians are more humble than others.
I’m realizing more and more that it’s the fundamentalist-type Christians that give all of Christianity a bad rap. As the Chaplain notes above, most evangelicals simply cannot be reasoned with, so a constructive dialog is all but impossible to create.
Written by Ted Goas on May 28th, 2008Very good points. It needs a certain level of confidence in your own ability to think to accept uncertainty. Maybe some people just haven’t developed that capacity as far as others.
Written by heather on May 29th, 2008There was an article in New Scientist in February that suggested that there was some genetic component to our political beliefs. In research carried out by David Amodio, liberal attitudes correlated with a better capacity to handle conflicting sources of information. (This isn’t totally convincing but does bear examining as an idea.)
Great post! I think too (having had this experience today at work) that a couple of other factors play in that I can think of - one being the sort of alpha dog stuff that goes on in many situations - “right”ness or being “smarter” is one way that grown-ups have of trying to one-up another person. And also that not being right in many circumstances means you are, or appear to be, wrong - there’s no grey area permitted inside that situation. So there’s a lot of pressure to be right, to not admit not knowing - especially, imo, when it’s between two people with an audience watching.
(Can you tell I got humiliated today? lol, I still think I’m right and my ego wants to prove it, but I’m trying to just let it go. It ultimately doesn’t matter, I hope, but I found that I was really uncomfortable being perceived to be wrong - even if I trusted the correctness of my work. Funny things, our egos.)
Written by fluorophore on May 29th, 2008Heather, I’ve heard this too. Michael Shermer writes about the psychology behind the human mind, genetics, and why people act irrationally.
fluorophore, I know what you mean! Naturally it feels good ‘to be right’ or to have more knowledge then the next guy. But if one truly doesn’t know the answer or cannot be 100% certain, where does one draw the line? I’d be interested to hear what happened to you at work!
Written by Ted Goas on May 29th, 2008Oh - not so exciting. It’s nice to have a day’s hindsight (not to mention talk to a few people and realize that I’m not the only one who’s had this sort of rundown with this fellow).
Basically a visiting scientist (self described hotshot) comes in, takes over some of my equipment and then proceeds to tell everyone that it was set up incorrectly (with the HUGE implication that I don’t know what I’m doing). Had the pleasure of using the system myself and him bringing a class of med students around (who don’t know one way or the other) to watch me and then proceed to tell me, in front of them, how he’d “fixed” it for me and how I’d been doing it all wrong.
I actually talked to the company to confirm that I was doing it right - and I am. I then talked to him today (repeat of previous conversation, this time minus the audience, on a different usage point) and as he walked away I realized that he’d gotten the impression he had because he hadn’t bothered to ask my help in the initial set-up for his log in.
So basically we’re both right - it IS screwed up when he uses it but it isn’t when I do. Our lack of having a real conversation about it kept us from discovering that. And of course in the process my reputation took a beating (and he disappeared before I could tell him what I realized).
Which all serves as an interesting (to me) extension of your post - two people too close-minded to consider all of the possibilities of the situation. Like, bizarre as it may seem, two seemingly opposing things can in fact both be true.
Written by fluorophore on May 30th, 2008OK, we know fundies are impossible to sway and even moderates can be hard to engage. The big question is why. Some people have proposed some good ideas in these comments and we need to take them into account. For me there is no mystery.
There are clearly different outcomes for children raised to enjoy intellectual autonomy (personal independence) and those burdened with intellectual heteronomy (the condition of being under the domination of an outside authority, either human or divine). In many churches, homes, and faith schools, children are relentlessly taught intellectual heteronomy.
If you take a small toddler into your faith group and begin indoctrinating them when their brains are still just getting organized, and if you challenge and scold them anytime they show signs of intellectual autonomy, then you are going to get a person that has been essentially ruined as a thinking, questioning adult. Donald Capps puts it this way in his book, “The Children’s Song, The Religious Abuse of Children”.
“What is at stake here is the freedom of children to think for themselves and to feel secure in the knowledge that adults will not hold their expressions of intellectual autonomy against them. Especially where biblical literalism is taught and practiced, and where punitive attitudes towards sinners are voiced and countenanced, children are unlikely to experience such freedom to think and reason for themselves. Rather, they are likely to feel that it is wrong for them to think for themselves and that, if they do, they are likely to incur the disapproval, if not the wrath, of precisely those adults who have power over them. Fearing the negative consequences of their exercise of intellectual autonomy, they are likely to overreact, to place even greater strictures on their own freedom of thought than these adults may have required of them.” (p. 59)
Parents who promote intellectual heteronomy likely grew up in such a stifling environment themselves and simply cannot imagine any other way of thinking or being. This is a key argument for ending childhood indoctrination. The chain must be severed once and for all. Every parent who contemplates imposing their religion on their children should study Donald Capps’ book before they do that.
Donald Capps has passed away, but he is one of the most respected authorities on the psychology of religion and was memorialized by the Indiana Senate just to mention one among a lifetime of awards and achievements. The unfortunate thing is, his academic credentials, life achievements and contributions will not mean anything to many people who have joined this discussion [Amazon.com Parenting Forum, where I originally posted this]. They will dismiss his reasoned arguments as merely opinions. For them, there is no hope. For their children, and even their grandchildren, what can I say?
“Donald Capps, Princeton Theological Seminary’s William Harte Felmeth Professor of Pastoral Theology, earned his B.D. and S.T.M. from Yale Divinity School, and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the Divinity School of the University of Chicago. He draws on his training as a psychologist of religion in both his teaching and his writing. His research interests include pastoral care, psychobiography, and the psychology of religion, art, and poetry. His courses cover pastoral counseling, poetry and the care of souls, pastoral care of the life cycle, and people with chronic psychological disorders. In 1989, he was awarded an honorary doctorate in sacred theology from the University of Uppsala, Sweden, in recognition of his publications in the psychology of religion and pastoral care, and of his leadership role in the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, which he served as editor of its professional journal from 1983 to 1988 and as president from 1990 to 1992. He is ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”
Written by Rich Collins on August 18th, 2008