Myth:
Atheists insist on answers, and if the answer appeals in any way to mystery, then the answer must be wrong. But practical human experience shows us that mystery is all around us, and that answers to even the simplest questions often cannot be found or must bow, at least somewhat, to mystery - not as a cop-out or a catch-all explanation, but as a humble acceptance of the limitations of human understanding and the possibility that the answers are more than we can know.
Response:
The claim that atheists are not humble enough to accept that there are limitations on human understanding, and that we may never get answers to all our questions, is basically the same as saying that atheists believe that nothing is beyond human knowledge. I've debunked that myth in detail already, but here we see the popular move to claim that religious theists demonstrate their humility — and superiority over atheists — by labeling unanswered questions "mystery."
It's not just any mystery, though. It's not a mystery in the sense of "gee, that's a tough problem" but rather in the sense of "awe and humility before truths and experiences greater than we are and deeper than we can grasp." The vagueness of this definition is not a mistake: by being vague, it's always possible to construct post hoc redefinitions that ensure theists are always more humble and reasonable than atheists. Apparently, "true seekers" (who are always religious theists, never irreligious atheists) demonstrate their superiority over atheists (and some theists) by embracing such mysteries. Atheists, in contrast, are supposed to be "allergic" to mysteries.
There is nothing about atheism or science which is contrary to appreciating or enjoying beauty in the universe around us, however. On the contrary, an appreciation of beauty in the universe is often an important impetus behind people becoming scientists and, in some cases, atheists. Science explains things which people don't understand and atheists who insist on using science are insisting on learning how things work; but an understanding of how things work cannot eliminate beauty from the world around us. It can, in fact, lead to a better appreciation of that beauty because now you know where it comes from.
It may be that, in at least some cases, the myth that atheists are "allergic" to mysteries is based on the fact that they (and scientists) try to solve them — and, even worse, try to offer naturalistic, materialistic explanations for the religious beliefs, claims, and "mysteries" which theists cling to. Many religions require the truth of mysterious events and other supernatural claims, so the existence of alternative explanations effectively undermines the ability to believers to insist that their positions are necessarily true. Instead of directly addressing and trying to refute those explanations, however, believers here focus on alleged motives or qualities of atheists in order to encourage others to dismiss what atheists have to say.
It is furthermore not correct to claim that atheists withhold belief in gods or miracles because they insist on absolute, final answers to questions about what happened. Instead, they are withholding acceptance of the alleged explanations being offered by religious theists because those explanations don't appear to be justified, valid, or appropriate. Atheists are thus not refusing to accept "mystery," but rather are refusing to accept religious theists' explanations for what this "mystery" really is.
So, there's no basis for the claims that atheists refuse to acknowledge that there are limitations to human knowledge, that atheists cannot appreciate mystery, or that atheists shy away from mysteries. Everything stated in the myth is completely false — if we're feeling generous, we may attribute this to just a colossal ignorance on the part of the speaker rather than to a deliberate effort to deceive people in order to promote anti-atheist suspicion and distrust. That's not the end of the problems with the myth, though, because what is being claimed about atheists can, far too often, be attributed to religious theists.
Why this is so can already be seen above: religious theists aren't really acting with humility and awe before some "mystery" which they accept that they cannot explain. On the contrary, they usually have a ready-made answer for anyone who asks: God did it. When it comes to the question of why there is something at all rather than nothing at all, religious theists will often provide a final, absolute answer to this "mystery" — their God caused it to be that way. Why do we exist? God wanted it. Why is there evil? It fulfills God's purpose. Why do we love? God wants it that way.
So on the one hand we have atheists who accept that we may not know the answers to some questions and may or may not call them "mysteries," but on the other we have religious theists who claim that they humbly accept the existence of mysteries even while insisting that any unanswered questions (like about the origin of the universe) can in fact be answered by saying their god did it. Is there really much difference between the two? If so, how can we say that the religious, theistic position is really superior?
