Sometimes brevity is the soul of wit; other times it is the spirit of confusion. In my recent post "Are Atheists Autistic?" I attempted to abbreviate my argument, which led to a spirited exchange over my unintentionally confusing point. Because the word count was already tipping 1000 I thought it would try the reader's patience to add more. I was hoping my readers would be able to make the connections that I wasn't making explicit.
Instead, I just made a mess of things. So now I ask your indulgence as I try to clarify what I should have said the first time around.
The main question asked in the post was, "Is there a correlation between atheism and autistic tendencies?" Most people got hung up on the terms "atheism" and "autistic tendencies." But the key term in that sentence is correlation.
Correlation is an estimate of the relationship between two variables and the degree to which they vary together. The number used to describe the correlation (r) ranges from –1 to +1. If the correlation between variables X and Y is -1 (that is r = -1) then there is a perfect negative correlation. Likewise, if the correlation is 1 (r = 1) then there is a perfect correlation. If r is close to 0, it means there is no relationship between the variables. If r is positive, it means that as one variable gets larger the other gets larger. If r is negative it means that as one gets larger, the other gets smaller.
Take, for example, the correlation between height and weight. The average weight of a people who are 6'4" tall is higher than of people who are 4'3". Therefore, the correlation would be close to 1 (something like r = .75).
My question, therefore, could be reframed as, "For the variables x (atheism) and y (autistic tendencies), is r closer to 0 or to 1?"
Missing from the original post was any explanation of what this had to do with Asperger's syndrome (AS). I worded it poorly, which lead to all kinds of confusion. I seemed to be implying that atheism was correlated with AS. That was not my intention.
To simplify the matter, let's assign the key terms variables: x (atheism), y (autistic tendencies), z (Asperger's syndrome). Obviously, there is a strong correlation between y and z. People with AS, by definition, tend to have autistic tendencies. We could say, for the sake of argument, that for y and z, r = 1. My post implied, however, that there might be a correlation between x (atheism) and z (AS). Again, that was not my intention. The question I wanted to address was whether there was a correlation between x and y. Also, while the variables y and z are correlated, they are not interchangeable.
Let's return again to the original question: Is it possible that there is a correlation between atheism and autistic tendencies? In other words, is the correlation between x and y close to 1?
Once again let's clarify that this is not implying that atheists are autistic, much less that they have AS. All it is questioning is whether, out of three broad categories of belief, atheism correlate more strongly with autistic tendencies. I also want to point out once again that--as I made clear before--we did not have enough data to adequately test this hypothesis. All that is available is intriguing anecdotal evidence that points to this being a plausible question.
Now let's examine my conjecture about the possible causes of the correlation.
My post noted a leading theory about autism and Asperger’s syndrome that concerns the ability of people with these conditions to attribute mental states to other people. A commenter, BruceA, sent me an email that added an important clarification to this point:
[Y]ou said, "Some researchers claim that the majority of individuals with autism are 'mind-blind', that they (especially as children) are unable to 'attribute mental states, such as dreaming, hoping, thinking, believing and wanting in others or in oneself.'" This, too, is true to an extent. Children with autism generally don't attain a theory of mind until much later than other children. But most autistic adults DO have a theory of mind.
Granted, some difficulties carry on into adulthood. I have a very hard time reading people's body language and facial expressions. Other people's emotions and thought processes are incomprehensible to me. That's mind-blindness. It doesn't mean I doubt that other people HAVE minds.
BruceA's explanation is an important note (particularly the point about what mind-blindness entails), and adds elements that need to be fleshed out before I apply it to the "God and Other Minds" analogy.
It appears that there may be a neurobiological cause that affects what would be considered the typical (statistically speaking) means of forming a theory of mind. Autistic children may not form the theory the way other children do, though as BruceA points out, they generally develop one before entering adulthood.
If I have a stomachache, a person with autism may be unable to discern my discomfort from the grimace on my face. For them to know that I was ill, I would likely need to tell them verbally. They have what could be called a "detection problem." While they may have no doubts that I have a mind, they have difficulties collecting certain types of data that would be used as confirming evidence. Indeed, it would not be unreasonable or irrational, for someone with autism to doubt that other people have minds based on a paucity of evidence.
The fact is that there it would be difficult for anyone to conclude that their neighbor has an actual mind (as opposed to being a zombie). It is rational to believe they do, of course, but we have to rely on fairly speculative evidence (e.g., grimaces of pain that imply a stomachache).
If there can be a neurobiological cause that limits the ability of autistic people to collect relevant data for a theory of mind, then it is possible that other autistic and non-autistic people may have a similar "detection problem" that inhibits their ability to develop beliefs (or theories of mind) about non-humans (i.e., God).
Consider, for instance, the teleological argument or argument from design. It is an argument for the existence of God based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design and/or direction in nature. Although not particularly convincing as a philosophical proof, the design argument has historically been persuasive as an emotional or psychological appeal. Those people whose noetic equipment is attuned to detecting order, purpose, and design, in nature would therefore be more likely to view such data as confirming evidence.
But what if some people have difficulties reading the "body language" of creation, as autistic people have in reading body language? What if they are wired in such a way that it is difficult (though perhaps not impossible) for them to grasp such concepts intuitively? Just as some autistic people could be "mind-blind" (as BruceA describes it), I believe it is possible for some atheists to be "God-blind." That was what I was getting at with my weak explanation.
One more note of clarification needs to be added, though. My opinion is that if this hypothesis is true (which I consider possible, though not necessarily probable) then people who are wired to be mind-blind (some autistics) and others who are wired to be "God-blind" (some atheists) may share certain tendencies that are commonly associated with or labeled as being on the "autistic spectrum." This does not mean--and I want to strongly emphasize this point--that atheists are autistic or that people with autism are more inclined to be atheists. The only thing the two groups (atheists and autistics) may possibly have in common is certain behavioral characteristics. This does not imply that there is an overlap between the two groups. There may be a correlation between being Irish and having red hair and freckles but that does not mean that everyone with red hair and freckles is Irish.
To be fair, I have to say that the atheists could use a similar inverse correlation in regards to theism. As Nick writes in the comments to the original post:
We should also consider the opposite hypothesis. If theists consistently score lower, they might be more likely to perceive mental states where none actually exist. Notice that the survey asks questions about imagination and play involving make-believe. Are theists more likely to have had imaginary friends when they were children?
Good point. That too may be a question worth exploring. Indeed, atheists ask these types of questions all the time. For instance, there are many hypotheses about how the concept of God is hard-wired into our brains. While I disagree and may personally find such questions amusing, I don’t think it is illegitimate for them to consider such possibilities. I don’t take offense, which is why I really don’t expect atheists to take offense when I ask similar questions about their own brain circuitry.
A Final Note: Although I attempted to tread carefully in my first post, many people thought I was being demeaning toward those with the condition of autism. BruceA even wrote,
"Autistic or not, I am no less a child of God than you are. The words of your post suggest that you may not believe so. Do you think Jesus loves people less if they are different?
I don’t want to be defensive but I have to say that I am rather offended by this claim. There is nothing in my post that remotely suggest that I believe autistic people are "less a child of God" than I am or that Jesus loves such people less. To make such a claim is, to put it mildly, unfair and ungracious. Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows the value I place on human dignity. (I should also point out that I don't consider most cases of autism to be a "disorder." If it is debilitating, then maybe it is cause for concern. But most people with "high functioning autism" seem to get along in the world just fine.)
I will admit, though, that I should have distanced myself from Vox's quoting of Wired magazine about "atheist being quarrelsome." Because I did not intend to equate atheists with autistics (despite my unfortunate post title), it did not occur to me that some people would think I believe autism makes people quarrelsome. I apologize for giving that impression.
While it has been my experience that the majority of atheists I've come in contact with have been quarrelsome (ever visit Digg.com?), that does not mean that I think that everyone with autistic tendencies are that way (or, once again, that atheists are all autistic). Mostly it's just selection bias; the atheists I know are often debating quarrelsome topics like religion, the Bible, or evolution. And, it should be noted, I tend to rub people the wrong way. So maybe I find them quarrelsome because they don’t like me.
1
I don't know, but this post might just win "The Best Clarifying A Previous Post" award of the year so far.
I'm waiting for your next book entitled "How To Clarify What You Meant To Say Like Jesus".
2
With no offense to either Christians or the mentally retarded, I think a good follow-up post to "Are Atheists Autistic?" would be one entitled "Are Christians Retarded?" I'm not saying that one causes the other, but I have noted a correlation.
posted on 08.17.2007 7:38 AM3
Sounds like a great post for you to write, ex-preacher. What a wonderful chance to kick-start a blog!
posted on 08.17.2007 9:58 AM4
Hi Joe, you've clarified what you meant in the first post, but now I'm confused about something else. Consider these two statements:
1 > What if they are wired in such a way that it is difficult (though perhaps not impossible) for them to grasp such concepts intuitively? [...] I believe it is possible for some atheists to be "God-blind."
2 > For instance, there are many hypotheses about how the concept of God is hard-wired into our brains. While I disagree and may personally find such questions amusing,
How is it possible to suggest that hard-wiring affects perception of God (negatively), but also suppose that hard-wiring does NOT affect the perception of God (positively)? Don't the two notions go hand-in-hand?
I don't see any problem in thinking that the human ability to perceive God (and the consequent human need to worship Him) was all part of the imago dei before the fall. So I would not be surprised at all to find evidence suggesting a genetic predisposition for belief in God. Why shouldn't there be?
posted on 08.17.2007 10:17 AM5
Kaffinator,
How is it possible to suggest that hard-wiring affects perception of God (negatively), but also suppose that hard-wiring does NOT affect the perception of God (positively)? Don't the two notions go hand-in-hand?
Yes, I think they do. I do believe that some people are more attuned (i.e., hard-wired) to recognize and appreciate the evidence for God found in nature (general revelation).
The reason I made the comment I did ("While I disagree and may personally find such questions amusing,…") is because (a) I find such evidence for design to be overwhelming and (b) I believe that most of the claims that are made by atheists in this regard attempt to be too inclusive and/or reductionist. (e.g., the idea that the only reason we believe in God is because it is hard-wired into our brains). While I have disagreements with the nature and scope of specific hypotheses, I don't mean to imply that they are totally off base in raising the question.
I don't see any problem in thinking that the human ability to perceive God (and the consequent human need to worship Him) was all part of the imago dei before the fall. So I would not be surprised at all to find evidence suggesting a genetic predisposition for belief in God. Why shouldn't there be?
I completely agree. I also don’t the noetic effects of the Fall affect everyone equally and in the same way. While the condition of original sin is universal, the way that sin manifests in our lives may vary based on the individual. An atheist, for example, may be more morally virtuous than a Christian (i.e., behave in an ethical manner) while being less epistemologically virtuous (i.e., denying the evidence for their Creator.)
6
Arguing that atheists have something "wrong" with them completely sidesteps the fact that the Western world wound up with christianity through an arbitrary, historically contingent process, much as other parts of humanity wound up with other arbitrary religions like Islam, Hinduism, etc. Children learn about the gods in their culture in the same way they learn about Harry Potter. If you grew up without exposure to Harry, as everyone did who came of age before Rowling published her first novel, then you wouldn't independently think up of a school for the magically gifted called Hogwarts. Hence adults from the pre-Potter era display "Harry-blindness," though I know of some adult "converts" to the Potter cult who like reading Rowling's novels. They resemble adults who convert to religions they hadn't grown up with, like Americans from christian backgrounds who convert to Islam despite the practical difficulties in learning to read and speak Arabic as an adult, along with falling under suspicion as a potential traitor and terrorist.
In much the same way, given the role of culture in learning these arbitrary beliefs and stories about gods, every christian displays "X-blindness" towards every god "X" in other religions, and thus reveals atheistic tendencies. The capital-A Atheists, whom selective atheists like the christian Vox Day consider a nuisance, just practice their atheism consistently.
Regarding atheism as an allegedly male phenomenon, perhaps christians should look at the internet dating sites, as I have. I've read literally hundreds of profiles by women on these sites who identify themselves as atheists.
posted on 08.17.2007 10:53 AM7
Arguing that atheists have something "wrong" with them completely sidesteps the fact that the Western world wound up with christianity through an arbitrary, historically contingent process, much as other parts of humanity wound up with other arbitrary religions like Islam, Hinduism, etc. Children learn about the gods in their culture in the same way they learn about Harry Potter. If you grew up without exposure to Harry, as everyone did who came of age before Rowling published her first novel, then you wouldn't independently think up of a school for the magically gifted called Hogwarts. Hence adults from the pre-Potter era display "Harry-blindness," though I know of some adult "converts" to the Potter cult who like reading Rowling's novels. They resemble adults who convert to religions they hadn't grown up with, like Americans from christian backgrounds who convert to Islam despite the practical difficulties in learning to read and speak Arabic as an adult, along with falling under suspicion as a potential traitor and terrorist.
In much the same way, given the role of culture in learning these arbitrary beliefs and stories about gods, every christian displays "X-blindness" towards every god "X" in other religions, and thus reveals atheistic tendencies. The capital-A Atheists, whom selective atheists like the christian Vox Day consider a nuisance, just practice their atheism consistently.
Regarding atheism as an allegedly male phenomenon, perhaps christians should look at the internet dating sites, as I have. I've read literally hundreds of profiles by women on these sites who identify themselves as atheists.
posted on 08.17.2007 10:53 AM8
Arguing that atheists have something "wrong" with them completely sidesteps the fact that the Western world wound up with christianity through an arbitrary, historically contingent process, much as other parts of humanity wound up with other arbitrary religions like Islam, Hinduism, etc. Children learn about the gods in their culture in the same way they learn about Harry Potter. If you grew up without exposure to Harry, as everyone did who came of age before Rowling published her first novel, then you wouldn't independently think up of a school for the magically gifted called Hogwarts. Hence adults from the pre-Potter era display "Harry-blindness," though I know of some adult "converts" to the Potter cult who like reading Rowling's novels. They resemble adults who convert to religions they hadn't grown up with, like Americans from christian backgrounds who convert to Islam despite the practical difficulties in learning to read and speak Arabic as an adult, along with falling under suspicion as a potential traitor and terrorist.
In much the same way, given the role of culture in learning these arbitrary beliefs and stories about gods, every christian displays "X-blindness" towards every god "X" in other religions, and thus reveals atheistic tendencies. The capital-A Atheists, whom selective atheists like the christian Vox Day consider a nuisance, just practice their atheism consistently.
Regarding atheism as an allegedly male phenomenon, perhaps christians should look at the internet dating sites, as I have. I've read literally hundreds of profiles by women on these sites who identify themselves as atheists.
posted on 08.17.2007 10:54 AM9
My First Post! Howdy.
I've spent some time on NoGodBlog.com this week and while I can't discern if there are a lot of autistic atheists or not, they are an angry bunch.
I think God said it best, "A fool says (reasons?) in his heart that there is no God"
I see Intelligent Design (ID) everywhere, yet none of them can (or admit to) see it! This strikes me as willful ignorance or just total blindness to the obvious.
Anyway, I'm happy to have found you thanks to www.bevet.com and look forward to the experience.
10
"A fool says (reasons?) in his heart that there is no God."
Christians have said that about other people's gods for centuries. You've practiced atheism all along without realizing it. What do you display such willfull blindness towards the glory and power of those other gods?
posted on 08.17.2007 11:20 AM11
Mark,
The one true God (the one who exists regardless of whether we believe he does or not) said what I quoted, I didn't say it. I have not paid attention to any other gods because they can not exist (if the one true God exists) and since I don't tend to occupy my thoughts with "nothing" I really haven't practiced atheism at all according to your premise.
That being said, my belief in the one true God is a matter of faith, however, not blind faith because I see his handiwork everywhere (ID). I understand that this doesn't define "which" God it is that exists but he didn't leave us to wonder. He sent his son (in essence, he himself became flesh) to instruct us on who God is. He proved himself to be God by mighty works, including rising from the dead, to which there were MANY witnesses. The affect of his life/death/resurrection has changed the world like none other. Jesus claimed to be God. He said "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life, no one gets to the Father but by me." He was either lying, telling the truth or was insane. If he was lying, he is no better than any other charlatan. If he was insane, pity on him. But if he was right, then the Father he spoke of is the one true God and all others take their rightful place...nowhere.
12
Let's return again to the original question: Is it possible that there is a correlation between atheism and autistic tendencies? In other words, is the correlation between y and z close to 1?Hate to correct a correction, but isn't that supposed to be x and y? posted on 08.17.2007 12:57 PM
13
Your thoughts in this post seem to run as follows.
1) Is there a correlation between X and Y?
2) *If* there is such a correlation, these might be the reasons...
While this may be an "intriguing question", without any statistical evidence of a significant correlation, any discussions about what the causes would be (IF there is a correlation) is meaningless speculation. One might as well ask "For the variables x (hair length) and y (fondness for eating cheese), is r closer to 0 or to 1?" before going on to discuss what the reasons for any correlation might be.
My question is this...why bother? You risk offending autistic people, people with aspergers and atheists and there is no possible conclusion or intelectual development to be gained.
posted on 08.17.2007 1:00 PM14
Consider, for instance, the teleological argument or argument from design. It is an argument for the existence of God based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design and/or direction in nature. Although not particularly convincing as a philosophical proof, the design argument has historically been persuasive as an emotional or psychological appeal. Those people whose noetic equipment is attuned to detecting order, purpose, and design, in nature would therefore be more likely to view such data as confirming evidence.
Perhaps but this is a two way street. Some people not pick up on you having a stomach ache because they don't read facial expressions very well. Other people go too far in the other extreme, they imagine you are mocking them or sneering at them because they pick up some innocent (and random) twitch of your mouth.
One more note of clarification needs to be added, though. My opinion is that if this hypothesis is true (which I consider possible, though not necessarily probable) then people who are wired to be mind-blind (some autistics) and others who are wired to be "God-blind" (some atheists) may share certain tendencies that are commonly associated with or labeled as being on the "autistic spectrum."
The problem here is that there's an objective reference point with people. Joe has a stomach ache. Some people pick up on it, other people don't pick up on it. We can ask Joe what he feels, then ask everyone in the room with him what they think he feels and then from that we can say some people are good at picking up non-verbal clues...others are bad and yet others pick up on too many non-verbal clues.
We lack this objective reference point with God. Why does a particular waterfall exist? One person says it's the result of various natural forces. Another person says God wanted to create a thing of beauty. Another person says God wanted to have thousands of fish per year crushed to death on the rocks at the bottom.
If we could ask God why he made that waterfall and he told us "well I needed something to keep the fish population down upthere so I figured let some of them take a 100m plunge!" we could then go back and see which of those people were accurate in picking up God's intentions. Likewise God could say "No reason at all, there I just let the natural laws do their thing and look how nice it turned out" we could see whose 'oversensitive' in seeing purposes that aren't there.
God, though, will not so easily lend himself to these surveys.
(I should also point out that I don't consider most cases of autism to be a "disorder." If it is debilitating, then maybe it is cause for concern. But most people with "high functioning autism" seem to get along in the world just fine.)
What was interesting about the previous post is just how unclear it really is whether autism or AS is really a disorder. A while ago the NY Times had an article about an autistic woman who advised slaughterhouses on their internal design. It was felt that she was able to perceive the world more like the cows that entered the slaughterhouse, she noted that animals pick up everything they see while humans often ignore huge amounts of data that flows into their perceptions. A little thing like a soda can left on the ground would be noticed by the cows and could become a point of concern. She was able to help them design the slaughterhouse so that the cows coming in would feel less anxiety and be less likely to bolt and start a stampede. I don't know if she really can see the world as animals see it but she seems to be seeing the real world but in a different way than others but not in a way that is any less valid.
Perhaps autistic people are just noticing things that others ignore. While the 'normal' person reads Joe's facial expression very well, the autistic person may notice that Joe misaligned the buttons in his shirt this morning...perhaps indicating he was in a rush. Neither side is really blind...or more likely both sides are blind to different things. The non-autistic person might be more prone to delusions because they seem to spend more time playing games with their imagination while the autistic person seems very grounded to present reality.
So if 'God-blindness' exists (meaning God exists, the evidence of him is out there and can be observed if you know what you're looking for) there's no reason to assume either autistics or non-autistics will have the edge. In other words, the autistic person might be able to notice the 'signs' while the non-autistic person is preoccupied reading facial expressions & other trivia that's useful for social interactions but in the grand scheme of the universe are irrelevant.
posted on 08.17.2007 1:12 PM15
Jim Hate to correct a correction, but isn't that supposed to be x and y?
Oops. Thanks, Jim. I can't even follow my own variables. ; )
Anon While this may be an "intriguing question", without any statistical evidence of a significant correlation, any discussions about what the causes would be (IF there is a correlation) is meaningless speculation.
I have to disagree with you on that. You seem to imply that lack of statistical evidence makes it meaningless. But while the statistical data has not been collected, there is enough anecdotal evidence based on self-reporting to make it a hypothesis worth exploring.
It is true that it might be premature to move to conclusions before we even have sufficient evidence. That is why this is merely a "what if" conjecture rather than an extended argument defending the idea.
You risk offending autistic people, people with aspergers and atheists and there is no possible conclusion or intelectual development to be gained.
I'm not sure exactly why this should be offensive to autistic people or those with AS. This post really has nothing to do with them at all, other than the fact that there are certain traits that are correlated with their condition. I just use them as an example because we have some theories about what leads to that condition.
Imagine that there were studies that found correlation between red-headed Irishmen and cold weather. My comparison would be like pointing out that Norwegians also tend to have red-hair and wondering if there is something similar to cold weather that causes the correlation. I wouldn't be saying anything that should offend Irishmen (unless they really despise Norwegians).
As for atheists, why would they find it offensive to be compared with people who exhibit autistic tendencies? Do they think there is something so wrong about being autistic that they would find such a comparison repugnant?
16
Joe Carter: I'm not sure exactly why this should be offensive to autistic people or those with AS. This post really has nothing to do with them at all...
Because you are not autistic, Mr. Carter, I'm assuming that you are unaware of the extent of prejudice and discrimination against the autistic population. Lack of theory of mind is a careless stereotype, resulting from shoddy research. As a result of this stereotype, autistic people have been dehumanized to the extent of being compared to robots and chimpanzees, as discussed by Dr. Morton Ann Gernsbacher in her article On Not Being Human:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2124
It is comparable to, and just as offensive as, the stereotype of women as weak-minded and prone to hysteria (by the way, that stereotype was also popularized by psychologists who held prejudiced views).
I'll give you a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. Let's suppose that a male blogger, who thought that the tone of some atheists' criticism of Christianity was overly emotional and shrill, wrote a post that described them as hysterical, with the title "Are Atheists Female?" As you can imagine, many women would be offended by such a post, and an explanation that "this post really has nothing to do with them at all" wouldn't make them any happier.
posted on 08.17.2007 2:22 PM17
Joe,
I appreciate your efforts on the behalf of
the truth, but think you took a wrong turn with
this comparison, or arugment, or whatever you
want to call it.
As someone who has been within the disability
"field of discourse" for ten years, I find it
raises red flags and could cause unnecessary
emotional distress to people who may already be
in pain.
You may be ok having this conversation face-to
-face with friends or colleagues. However,
broadcasting it across the blogosphere, to those
who may come across it in varying stages of
grief and/or acceptance, is likely to be hurtful
to someone.
Tired, stressed people short on time may not sit
here and work through the details of your
explanation. They just take the emotional hit.
This is my personal perspective.
posted on 08.17.2007 3:38 PM18
Hi Julana,
Are you suggesting that there is a high correlation between people who potentially have a mental disorder of some kind (x) and people who are easily offended by wide ranging discussions about that mental disorder (y) and possibly even people who are unwilling or unable to read a blog post to its conclusion (z)?
As someone who falls into x I might find you correlating me with y or z to be highly offensive. I notice that you say it's your "personal perspective" but you are broadcasting it to a very wide audience by commenting at a well read blog.
Seriously, I appreciate that you are thinking of folks but speaking as one who might very well be AS, I enjoy the flow of ideas and would want it to continue.
posted on 08.17.2007 4:09 PM19
"I see Intelligent Design (ID) everywhere, yet none of them can (or admit to) see it! This strikes me as willful ignorance or just total blindness to the obvious."
Maybe the blindness is on your part. In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dan Dennett explains very well how evolution gives the appearance of design. And while evolution allows for a certain amount of poor design, poor design is harder to explain when one assumes an intelligent designer.
Which of us is ignorant or in denial? I give more weight to the opinions of scientists than to those of theologians. Perhaps the reverse is true for you.
20
Rob,
"Which of us is ignorant or in denial? I give more weight to the opinions of scientists than to those of theologians. Perhaps the reverse is true for you."
On matters theological I listen to theologians, and matters scientific I stick with the scientists. Science by its very nature cannot answer questions about the supernatural, and theologians should stick to theology.
21
"God-blind"?
So why is that trait so closely linked to the gene that encodes intolerance for anti-gay bigotry? Coincidence? Or is that autistic people tend to marry and reproduce with people who aren't anti-gay bigots?
This is all very fascinating. But since Carter has shown his math, it must be scientific and well-reasoned.
posted on 08.17.2007 5:56 PM22
Who is Gary Ford, and why haven't I heard of him? Sock puppet!
posted on 08.17.2007 6:00 PM23
My question is this...why bother? You risk offending autistic people, people with aspergers and atheists and there is no possible conclusion or intelectual development to be gained.
Nobody said that every thought has to be conclusive or intellectually developed before it is expressed. Sometimes people say stuff just for fun or because it makes them feel superior to others. You know, stuff like "My God is the one true God and if you don't worship him you're going to hell."
Obviously that sort of thing can be terribly offensive to sensitive folks. But that's only because they don't know what's good for them.
posted on 08.17.2007 6:01 PM24
"Who is Gary Ford, and why haven't I heard of him? Sock puppet!"
Greetings, brother. I am an evangelical Christian and regular reader for some time. Or I should say I was an evangelical Christian until a few weeks ago. I am still struggling with my acceptance of atheism. It has been a rough road but I saw and heard certain things said and done by Christians that I simply could not abide. Thus, I have left the flock.
But I am willing to return and would love to bask in Jesus' glory once again. Before that, however, I must be assured that I have not erred and fallen in with a crowd whose principles are not remotely Christian, in spite of what they call themselves. This place seems as good a place as any to find my way.
posted on 08.17.2007 6:06 PM25
Gary,
Tell me a little bit more about your experience. I'm always disappointed when someone stumbles as a result of the actions of other believers. Even those in the body of Christ are still waiting to be restored.
If you'd like I could correspond with you privately
posted on 08.17.2007 6:13 PM26
Joe, the biggest problem with the argument, aside from the fact that even Vox's data, when you tally all of it, doesn't show the relationship (there's no correlation between religion and autism scores in that data) is that there's no actual empirical relationship between autism and spirituality, period, as I noted in my comment to your last post. It's a nice hypothesis, one that's been suggested, if not directly stated, in the literature, but one that has, ultimately, been falsified.
And you need to stop hanging around "new atheists." They're as evangelical as, well, Evangelicals, and that makes them come of as mean and snooty.
posted on 08.17.2007 7:16 PM27
Joe
The problem with your theory is that there are other reasons that someone would reject your intuitive feeling that the appearance of design in nature points to an intelligent creator that have nothing to do with theory of mind. I can explain it by positing that the atheist has an enhanced mental power that might be weaker in the believer who takes this intuition at face value. And that is the analyse one's own mental processing objectively.
To give an example, we know how water refracting light can give an erroneous visual image of where a fish is located below the surface. A fisherman with a spear who repeatedly tried to spear the fish by aiming it at where he sees the fish will repeatedly be unsuccessful. But after he realizes that the image is bent by the water by observing how his spear appears to bend when he puts it in the water, he will be able to take the erroneous reading that his eyes are providing his brain into account and adjust for it by aiming above the image he sees.
Thus if we come to know, through observation, that the human mind is capable of applying theory of mind to inanimante as well as animate objects, then it is logical to conclude that the mind is biased in favor of seeing agency in events and phenomenon where they may play no part. So an atheist can be someone who is capable of these theory of mind attributions but who has learned to discount for this bias in favor of creatures who are concretely and visibly intelligent living entities.
As you wonder how anyone could not recognize and appreciate the evidence for God found in nature, I wonder how someone as intelligent as you could never question whether that evidence is really the result of a mental bias at work.
posted on 08.17.2007 8:07 PM28
Just as some autistic people could be "mind-blind" (as BruceA describes it), I believe it is possible for some atheists to be "God-blind." That was what I was getting at with my weak explanation.
If this is what you mean, I think the word you are looking for is parallel, not correlation.
But in the previous post, you said:
If the belief in other minds is analogous to belief in God, then individuals who have a propensity to "mind-blindness" would likely be "God-blind" as well.
That is a correlation: Both traits occur in the same individuals. And that's why a lot of people thought you were being demeaning toward people with autism.
If you really mean "parallel", then just say so.
I should also point out that I don't consider most cases of autism to be a "disorder."
Again, that doesn't match what you said in your previous post:
Asperger's Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum
Please just be a little more careful with your words, OK?
posted on 08.17.2007 8:37 PM29
A recent question posed on a myspace group for persons on the autistic spectrum dealt with how many "out there" were atheists. The person questioning equated atheism with rationality and because persons with autism /asperger's were more rational than emotional (her statement), it seemed that it would follow that most of those on the autistic spectrum would be atheists. The comments that came back were very mixed, and at least half were actually theists and most of those Christian. In my clinical experience as a psychologist treating persons on the autistic spectrum, I find that those who are atheists are so mostly because they had a bad experience at church as a child and reacted to their negative experience by rejected religion and God. There are numerous reasons people give for being a theist or an atheist and the same reasons are given by aspies/auties and neurotypicals alike. I understand your thinking concerning atheism and autism, but it appears to lack generalizability. Actually, one can make a good argument for the opposite, as belief in God lends itself to the type of routinized and ritualistic behavior and interests found characteristic in higher functioning persons with autism. Interestingly, I actually had a New Testament professor when I was in seminary that I believe had Asperger's.
posted on 08.17.2007 8:47 PM30
Maybe with atheists, the autistic seeming traits are elective. That would tend to make the correlation deliberate rather than casual or causal.
posted on 08.17.2007 10:57 PM31
Hi Joe,
(comment posted here as well as in response to your comment in my own blog)
As I tried to make clear in my initial commentary, the problem with your supposition (and yes, I did note the disclaimers) was not that it suggested a correlation between atheism and autism, but how this correlation was asserted. The fact that I've not observed a distinct trend toward autistics generally being atheist (I haven't taken a wide enough survey to determine whether this is the case or not) is irrelevant to the real issues here -- which are those pertaining to how well autistic people are understood by nonautistic people. ABFH's comment makes this point quite clearly.
One of the things I try to do in my writing is point out when I see misconceptions and stereotypes about autistic people, and explain why these misconceptions may be false and even possibly damaging. This is not a personal attack on anyone who has such misconceptions -- just an attempt to inform them. Autism is a confusing subject, but unfortunately a rather trendy one right now as far as mass media is concerned; there's a lot of hype and hysteria surrounding it right now, and this is not benign if you actually happen to be autistic.
Your clarification doesn't seem to actually address the core of what I was trying to get to with my writing. For one thing, you seem to be conflating the ability to read typical body language and emotions (and respond typically to these things) with having "theory of mind". I can understand how you might think this because I used to think along similar lines -- when I was first diagnosed I actually described myself as lacking in theory of mind because other people's behavior and habits and responses tended to confound me to no end.
What changed my mind about this was getting to know, and interacting with, a few other autistic people. It was amazing how much I found in common with these folks, and their behavior and emotions made sense to me in ways that nobody else's ever had before. And then I was able to think back to times when I should have gotten more of a clue that this might be the case -- a particular cousin of mine is also on the spectrum, and even when we were both much younger, there was always something about this cousin that made sense to me in ways I couldn't put into words at the time.
So, in short, I've personally gone from seeing myself as lacking theory of mind to seeing myself as having a particular kind of mind that understands some other minds better than others. The communication problem goes in both directions, and has a lot more to do with people just being very perceptually/cognitively different from one another than with one type of person having an intrinsic and universal deficit.
posted on 08.18.2007 1:11 AM32
I seem to have lost a post to Joe's filter, here's the short of my problem with this:
If I have a stomachache, a person with autism may be unable to discern my discomfort from the grimace on my face. For them to know that I was ill, I would likely need to tell them verbally. They have what could be called a "detection problem." While they may have no doubts that I have a mind, they have difficulties collecting certain types of data that would be used as confirming evidence.
Joe's stomach ache can be objectively determined (or at least his perception of it). We can have Joe spend an hour in a room conversing with people. We can ask him afterwards, "How did you feel". He can tell us "not good, I had a bad stomach ache".
Then we can survey those people and ask them what they thought Joe was feeling. We can see who picked up he was in pain, who was totally unaware of it. Those who were unaware of it can be objectively shown that Joe was sending signals they failed to pick up just we can demonstrate to the color blind person that he is unable to see colors that are really there, that other people can see.
There is no such objective check with God, though. When 10 people say they can see God's design in a cloud and 10 people say they see a random mixture of water vapor....God will not make himself easily available to be surveyed to see what his true intentions were with the cloud...if any.
Keep in mind that people with autism often pick up things that we 'normal' people miss. The autistic person might (correct me if I"m wrong) miss Joe's facial grimace but pick up that his shirt buttons were misaligned...or that his shoes were loosely tied whereas he usually ties them tight. In some circumstances it may be the 'normal' person who is 'blind' to relevant information that the autistic type person easily detects. And, of course, there are other situations where the non-autistic person picks up things that are not there. A random twitch of Joe's mouth might be read as a sneer causing someone to be offended by him when Joe meant nothing by it other than trying to dislodge that annoying bit of food.
Joe's premise begins with the assumption that theists are able to see evidence that non-theists are, for whatever reason, blind too. But this presumes the evidence theists are seeing is really there. (That, BTW, is not the same as assuming God exists or doesn't exist. One can assume he exists but not believe any particular observation is proof or evidence he exists).
posted on 08.18.2007 1:23 AM33
This entire argument is nothing more than a feeble attempt to turn reality upon its head. It is keeping with the tradition of religionist who alledge that people who dont believe their wild claims are somehow at fault,either through willfull ignorance or by some design flaw. The argument falls flat on it face becaise no 2 theist can agree on exactly what that evidence for God is and how they perceive it...it is further undermined by the fact that there are literally thousands of denominations of various cult beliefs on earth,each with their own take on reality and each able to claim that everyone else is somehow at fault for not believing. once again,joe has managed the impossible...to convince me even further that religionists are inherently insane.
posted on 08.18.2007 4:34 AM34
For Kaffinator,
(I would rather respond directly than through a broadcast, but don't know your email.)
As a parent of a child with a label, I wasn't intending to imply anything about people with disabilities. I was thinking more of parents of newly diagnosed children.
I would say that there probably is a correlation between being the parent of a child with special needs and not having time to follow all the ins and outs of the lines of reasoning taken here. :-)
*********
On an unrelated note, as someone who grew up with Arminian theology, I have to wonder if speculation in this direction is more likely to be attractive to Calvinists. I also wonder if it is more likely to be attractive to those who believe in evolution.
********
And on a (perhaps) related note, I've heard from several parents that their children with Down syndrome seem to have some sort of extra spiritual perception/sensitivity.
35
Gary,
Did you "fall" because of your disapointment in Jesus or some of his so called "believers?"
I guess my question is "who is/was your faith placed in." If it was Jesus, he could not/would not fail you. If it was in anything or any person other than him...you will always be disappointed.
When some of Jesus' disciples left him after he spoke about eating his flesh, drinking his blood, he turned to the 12 and asked "Do you want to leave too?"
Their response should be your..."to whom shall we turn?? You have the words of life."
Trust in Jesus and him alone and you will enter by the straight and narrow gate.