The Path to Tolerance begins with Eliminating Certitude

The nub of this essay is that all our certitudes are illusory. But first, let
me explain certitude, an uncommon word. It means holding absolute
certainty about a notion, which, though one may believe that conviction
to be the result of an intellectual process, is actually a feeling generated
by our subjectivities – our formative and environmental circumstances –
consistent with and reinforced by them. For instance, if we are financially
secure, we may believe utterly that stealing is wrong, a moral consistent
with the preservation of our wealth and comfort; whereas those who are
starving may be less convinced. In short, certitude is a rigid sense that
no other view is arguable. Certainty is also a firm conviction about an
issue, but may be reached after logical reasoning, without any
involvement of emotion. For example, once we accept the premises that
All men are mortal and Charles is a man, we conclude with certainty that
Charles is mortal; but we probably aren’t emotionally invested in that
result. The availability of certainty in any enquiry depends much on the
subject-matter and the methodology employed. Closed systems, like law
and engineering, where accepted definitions and principles abound and
deductive logic can be readily applied, offer a degree of certainty of
conclusion on issues within the field. But with open topics, such as ethics,
human rights, social behavior, politics and culture, both certainty and
certitude about conclusions are unavailable. (The one exception is when
those conclusions are dictated by religious belief, a situation which
stands outside this discussion.) To say that certainty is unavailable is not
to suggest that we should not hold firm opinions; merely that we should
recognise that others may have contrary views for reasons no less
arguable than our own.