Atheists often criticize theists for holding to their beliefs in a manner that is impervious to evidence against it. They criticize this type of faith as irrational, close-minded, and the source of so many of the world’s problems. However, there are good reasons to believe that atheists often have this same type of “faith.” This comes out when they are asked what would convince them they are wrong. In some instances, they pay lip service to evidence but in other instances, they acknowledge that nothing would convince them. So, it’s worth asking, how is this really any different from the "blind faith" of believers that they criticize as irrational and close-minded?
An example of this type of atheist "blind faith" occurred when Richard Dawkins was asked by Peter Boghossian what it would take for him to believe in God. Here is his response.
Well, I used to say it would be very simple. It would be the Second Coming of Jesus or a great, big, deep, booming … voice saying ‘I am God and I created.’ But I was persuaded … that even if there was this booming voice in the Second Coming in clouds of glory, the probable explanation is that it is a hallucination or a conjuring trick by David Copperfield … a supernatural explanation for anything is incoherent. It doesn’t add up to an explanation for anything. A non-supernatural Second Coming could be aliens from outer space…
After some more discussion, Boghossian then asked him again, “So what would persuade you?” He responded,
Well, I’m starting to think nothing would, which, in a way, goes against the grain, because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming.
Short Blog: New Atheist Attempts to Redefine Word "Atheism"
Budo Geek, "Richard Dawkins in conversation with Peter Boghossian," October 24, 2013. YouTube video, 53:12, https://youtu.be/qNcC866sm7s?t=750.