"It's very simple," says Vox Day, in his typical controversial style, "Agnosticism is a belief in the lack of evidence for God's existence. Atheism is a symptom of a personality disorder which inordinately affects developmentally challenged young men. Watch and learn. Science will confirm this in the relatively near future."
Buried within the goading hyperbole is an interesting question: Is there a correlation between atheism and autism?
In earlier post Vox raised that as a possible hypothesis:
It's not just a figment of my imagination, it seems atheists truly are socially autistic by their own report. Asperger's Syndrome is a disorder described as "autistic psychopathy" by its discoverer, Dr. Hans Asperger. Those with the disorder tend to be intelligent, socially awkward and difficult to converse with. They are also likely to be male.
Based on Wired Magazine's observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men, to say nothing of the unpleasant personalities of leading public atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Michel Onfray, one could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Asperger's and atheism.
Asperger's Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum (some even claim it is merely High Functioning Autism). AS differs from typical cases of autism in that non-social aspects of intellectual development generally proceed at a normal or accelerated rate. Persons with AS show marked deficiencies in social skills and have a difficulty reading nonverbal cues (i.e., body language). Some positive characteristics, however, include things such as "enhanced mental focus, excellent memory abilities, superior spatial skills, and an intuitive understanding of logical systems. These characteristics can often lead to fulfilling careers in mathematics, engineering, the sciences, music, art, or language."
Are atheists more likely to have AS? To test this hypothesis, Vox compared the scores of 232 blog readers (both on his site and on PZ Myer's blog Pharyngula) who took the Asperger Quotient Test.
A score of 32 or more is generally taken to indicate Asperger's Syndrome or high-functioning autism (34 is considered a high score). The average man scores 18 and the average woman a 15. The average results of Vox's analysis, broken down by religion belief, were:
27.2 Atheist
20.0 Agnostic
19.0 Theist
By comparison I scored a 15 (average woman and average male/female biologist) and atheist PZ Myers (an actual biologist) scored a 24 (average math contest winner).
Vox is right that the "sampling is too subjective and self-selected to be meaningful." It does, however, hint that there may be a pattern. While there is only a slight variation between theist and agnostics, there is a wide divergence between those groups and atheists, who tend to fall higher up on the autism spectrum. Is there a correlation between atheism and autistic tendencies?*
I don’t have enough evidence to argue on way or the other. But for the sake of argument let's assume that it is a plausible hypothesis. What could be the connection?
For atheists, the explanation could be a simply matter of evolution. If theistic beliefs can be explained by appeals to "evolutionary advantage" then atheism should also be explained the process. Perhaps atheism is just a mental maladaption on the autism spectrum.
However, the majority of theists (and more than a few atheists) would probably want a more robust explanation. My own theory is that the correlation has to do with "mind detection." There is a theory that individuals with autism or Asperger’s syndrome are unable to theorize about other minds. 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."
So how would that relate to atheism? In his book "God and Other Minds", philosopher Alvin Plantinga presents an argument that one reviewer summarized as follows:
The novel feature of this book, however, is Plantinga's claim that although the arguments for God's existence fail, the grounds offered for our belief in other minds are also inadequate. Their inability to establish belief in other minds is similar to the inadequacy of the teleological argument for God's existence. Yet despite the weakness of the grounds one can offer, we believe in other minds and we hold that such a belief is rational. From this Plantinga makes the bold suggestion that ". . . if my belief in other minds is rational, so is my belief in God" (p. 271).
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. With effort, high functioning autistics may be able to overcome their inability to attribute mental states to other physical beings. But while they may be able to learn to accept the rationality of other minds, they may find it more difficult to develop a belief in a Being who is both non-physical.
If this is true and there is a correlation between autism and atheism, what would be the implications? Would it change the apologetic approach that Christians take in dealing with such unbelievers? Should it affect how we respond, knowing that the anti-social behavior is connected with their atheism?
Of course, this entire hypothesis may be nothing more than silly speculation. But if its not, if there is a kernel of truth, then it might mean we Christians need to rethink how we approach our atheist neighbors. Are we willing to be that open about other people's minds?
For the commenters: If you have the time, please take the Asperger Quotient Test and report your scores in the comment box, along with whether you are a theist, atheist, or agnostic.
*To prevent any misunderstandings, let me be clear what I am not saying:
1. No, I'm not saying that all atheists are autistic. (The evidence seems to show that is not true.)
2. No, I'm not saying that autistic people tend to be atheists. (I have no idea whether they are or not.)
3. No, I don’t think that autism causes atheism or vice versa. (I think there is a correlation, not a causal relationship between the two.)
4. No, I'm not trying to offer an argument. I'm merely raising what I think is an intriguing question.
5. Yes, the title of this post is intentionally provocative and ultimately answered by an empathic "no."
UPDATE: I've added a clarification (Atheism, Autism, and Other Minds) to addresses some of the problems I left unresolved in this post.
Yawn, yet another post where Joe tries to be 'edgy' by accusing atheists of some type of mental defect, moral defect or whatnot.
Based on Wired Magazine's observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men, to say nothing of the unpleasant personalities of leading public atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Michel Onfray,
I don't know much about Onfray or Dawkins but I suspect Hitchens is probably excellent company in person. If the meeting place was a bar or pub I'm sure he would be the center of attention all night long.
Joe,
What is the point of this post? Whether an Intriguing question or a intentionally provocative post, it is a waste of time and counter-productive.
Why create more of a us vs. them? Isn't this counter to your faith in Jesus, who throughout Luke set example after example not creating or living in an us vs. them world?
Do you have some psychopathic problem because you have a need to post about others in a way that they are greater sinners than you are? or least have a greater separation from the truth (which is a sin in our society)?
I know that your ultimate answer is no, and I know that you care for the people that frequent your blog whether they believe you or not but I have to agree with boonton regarding the yawn! And you know I don't agree with him very often (or at least it seems that way)
BTW, I scored a 15.
Christian!
atheist, physicist and I scored a 10.
For the record, I have to say the test was silly, many of the questions were loaded and poorly worded.
Ultimately, Joe, raising the question based on such a flawed instrument isn't interesting at all, it's pointless.
I scored a 23.
37; theist and mathematician
I scored 20..sorta geeky I guess...nothing to worry about.
I scored a 17. I'm a theist. More interesting, though, is my sister. She's in some grey area where she refuses to think about God, though she'd probably admit He exists, if pressed.
She scored a 34, and she's much, much more socially apt than I am. Not remotely Aspergers-like. Seems like a pretty poor test to me.
23 which seems to be fairly accurate based on the descriptions. I was good in math but wouldn't have been the math contest winner.
Ok I'm 17.
17.
And I recently purchased a Barry Manilow CD.
I scored 30, I'm a theist (and Christian Bible teacher) and a frequent public speaker.
I have to say that I question the value of this approach and discussion. While worded academically, it looks more polarizing than helpful to me.
The test has a number of questionable points, though I would expect a fairly high score in any case.
I'm 14.
Henry I have to say that I question the value of this approach and discussion. While worded academically, it looks more polarizing than helpful to me.
More polarizing than telling atheists they are going to hell. ; )
No doubt many atheists will be offended by the suggestion that a psychological dysfunction may be correlated with their belief system. Why I don’t know, since if their belief is true, it is likely that they have no free will (being the product of purely naturalistic forces) and so can't really help it. (Then again they couldn’t help being offended either, so maybe I should cut them some slack.)
The reason I think it is worth asking the question is because if my hypothesis is true, then it should affect how Christians approach apologetics and evangelism when dealing with atheists.
About 95% of the atheists I have met seem to be "quarrelsome, socially challenged men." If there is a correlation, and the problem is a type of "mind-blindness" then it should not be surprising to find that reason-based arguments are ineffective when trying to change their opinion of God. We Christians tend to treat atheism as if it was some form of Enlightenment-era rationalism and provide arguments that appeal to their reason.
But as Dawkins and Co. have shown, their views on God have little to do with reason and rationality. In fact, they are almost pathologically unable to recognize just how weak their arguments are – and therefore find it hard to understand why "bright" people don’t accept them too.
I've always thought atheism was mostly psychological rather than epistemological. This potential correlation only strengthens that opinion, which is why I think it is worth exploring.
The test has a number of questionable points, though I would expect a fairly high score in any case.
Of course the test is flawed and should not be treated as a serious diagnostic tool. The reason I link to it is not so that we can get a scientific measurement but rather to see what type of anecdotal evidence we can collect. If most theists scored high and most atheists score low then it would be reason to conclude that my hypothesis is completely without merit.
16. Theist. Biologist.
So, my score is about where one would expect for a male biologist and shows no downward skewing due to my theism.
Scored 36, female, and a Christian. I will be seeing a psychologist for formal testing/diagnosis next week.
I encourage others to read from others on the internet about autistics and "aspies" or those with Asperger's Syndrome. We are not so easily pigeonholed.
~Anna
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. With effort, high functioning autistics may be able to overcome their inability to attribute mental states to other physical beings. But while they may be able to learn to accept the rationality of other minds, they may find it more difficult to develop a belief in a Being who is both non-physical.
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?
Scored 17, skeptic leaning towards Christianity.
Worded differently, I could be up to a 25. I suspect If I'd taken this test 5 to 10 years ago, I'd be considered socially autistic.
I scored 37 - Christian, computer programmer
I don't know much about Onfray or Dawkins but I suspect Hitchens is probably excellent company in person. If the meeting place was a bar or pub I'm sure he would be the center of attention all night long.
I've only encountered Dawkins once, at a book signing, but from what I saw, he seemed to enjoy the public interaction and could utilize all the niceties of social etiquette. I doubt that his pugnacious style in interviews or writing tells us much about tendencies towards Aspergers or lack thereof.
Scored 31.
Christian (and a Republican fundamental religious-right anti-evolution Christian, at that)
The atheist as jerk correlation is often in evidence here at EO. Think of people like Ludwig, Larry Lord (ah, the old timey times) ex-preacher, Boonton, tgrish, the gay guy (can't remember his name right now). the list goes on and on.
I've been pondering a similar question since I read Dawkins' God Delusion. He makes the case (as others have) that humans are wired by evolution to believe in a god. This raises the question: If this is true, why don't atheists believe in God? Is this some kind of disorder? Is it a mutation or brain damage?
I scored a 28 on this test. That puts me near Asperger's level but not within it. Other tests give similar results (including the so-called mind-reading test that indicates how well you guess people's emotions when all you can see is their eyes, although I tested about halfway between normal male and Asperger's on that one, so I did a little better). Suffice it to say that I know something about what Asperger's condition might be like, and since autism is likely a more extreme condition on the same spectrum, I have some idea of what that condition might be like internally if I extend my own experiences into a more extreme version. My experiences trying to understand what life is like for my two autistic sons fits with what I would expect when doing that.
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that autistic people cannot form thoughts of what other people are thinking. The only evidence I know of for why people have proposed such a ridiculous notion is that autistic kids have delays in when they can give the right result in cognitive tests that require them to imagine what someone else is thinking. If they can't do that, the idiots who published the research on this conclude that they must not be able to form thoughts of what other people are thinking rather than the much more obvious explanation (which we already know to be true) that autistic people have screwed up connections in their brain and have a hard time processing certain signals in the first place. That leads to great efficiency in certain cognitive processes but serious delays and difficulties in other ones, and different autistic people manifest it differently.
If we used the reasoning of these researchers, we'd also have to conclude that my son who barely talks doesn't understand what anyone is saying to him because he can't answer "yes" when they ask him if he can. The fact that certain output is nonexistent, barely present, or wrong does not indicate a lack of understanding. It indicates that something between the input and the output didn't work right. One explanation (the most reasonable one with people who aren't autistic) is that understanding isn't present, which is why these tests with normal kids do show something. But with autism, the information can get in and lead to understanding but with no ability to produce the right output or for the understanding to affect what the output is, which might come from the two parts of the brain not communicating properly.
So I would rest almost nothing on this sort of view of what autism is. I have seen Asperger and autism books claiming that autistic people don't have emotions or don't understand that other people have emotions. What's more accurate, at least judging by my own experience, is that they're not aware of their own emotions fully. They experience them, and they affect them greatly, but they don't think about them or about what effect they have on them. Some autistic people claim not to experience a transcendent wonder when they see the beauty of creation. I think they're probably just not aware of that effect on them. Autistic people certainly do have a deep wonder, curiosity, and appreciation for lots of things, including things most of us find boring. They just lack a cognitive appreciation of that emotion and thus find it harder to recognize the handiwork of God that is more evident to many people.
I do wonder if some people's atheism is because of things like this. I think Christians who have autistic leanings will tend to have a harder time with the emotional aspects of faith, by the same token. But I don't think it's remotely helpful to rely on the ridiculous notion that autism has to do with not understanding other people's mental lives, at least not if that's what autism is taken to be and if that's taken to be typical of every autistic person. To the extent that that even might happen, it would be only one of a number of different effects of a much more general condition involving cognitive processing that connects different parts of the brain, including what we would call faith, reason, and emotion.
Diagnosed autistic, scored a 37, and decidedly religious. :P
I think this post is needlessly polarizing, scientifically unsound, and frankly, more than a bit ableist.
As for "mind blindness", I'd say that in my experience it's far more of a two-way deficit than the researchers are willing to admit. There's a tremendous bias on the part of many of the people involved in autism-related science towards assuming that minds that don't look like their own don't exist; when someone does not show the same signs they do of thinking or feeling or empathy, they assume that said thoughts and feelings and compassion don't exist.
It's difficult for us to "read" non-autistics correctly, but they don't even seem to realize how equally inept they are at reading or understanding US.
I can see why this would be rather offensive to atheists. It reminds me of the way I felt when Dawkins' foundation proposed to support studies on the environmental and biological causes of un-reason (aka, Christian faith).
But I think there may be a grain of truth to some of Joe's thesis - that while some atheists are (otherwise) perfectly normal people, there are some whose atheism is an expression of what looks like a mild form of autism. No doubt you could say the same about some crazy Christians and some other disorder. The question of how to minister to those sorts of atheists is indeed an interesting one.
I believe the article above is merely supposition.
I run an online forum for Aspie Christians. There are 49 members in the group at present. You will find that those who participate their are quite devoted to God, and much more so than those without autism in some instances.
My forum has connections to other online religious sites for people with autism as well, all of which are active, and all of which have enthusiastic members.
"The atheist as jerk correlation is often in evidence here at EO. Think of people like Ludwig, Larry Lord (ah, the old timey times) ex-preacher, Boonton, tgrish, the gay guy (can't remember his name right now). the list goes on and on."
hahahah you silly twit...i never said i was an athiest...my position is and has always been "weather religion is true or not is irrelevent until proven otherwise"
Ludwig,
So you're just a jerk then?
Amalthea,
If you don't mind sharing, I've always been curious about how people with autism experience the world and deal with relationships.
In your interactions with others are you aware of your autism, and do you make an effort to modify your behavior to counteract it? What is the most difficult thing you struggle with in dealing with other people? Has your relationship with Christ changed some of the ways you deal with aspects of your autism.
Thanks
My score: 24
Definitely an Evangelical Christian, but with rebel/revolutionary tendencies. It's like I'm a believer when it comes to Jesus, but a skeptic when the Bible doesn't back something up (like Christians being required to tithe). =D
Very interesting...
24, atheist
And now, a little math. According to the wikipedia article, the incidence of Asperger's Syndrome is 2 or 3 per 10,000. The percentage of atheists is very difficult to establish as it varies tremendously depending on the country and the way the question is formulated. In Europe, it is estimated that 19% of the population is atheist.
For ease of computation, let's say that 10% of country A's population are atheists. Out of country A's total population of 100 million, that means 10 million atheists. With 100 million people, country A would have 20,000 to 30,000 people with AS. We'll take the higher number, 30,000. Let us also say that people with AS are five times more likely to be atheists that people without AS. That would make 15,000 atheists with AS.
If I've done the math correctly, for every 10,000 atheists in country A, 15 have AS. Put another way, .15% of atheists in country A have AS.
Joe's post is a form of ad hominem. He says that 95% of the atheists he encounters are "quarrelsome, socially challenged men." I would suspect this is because he is engaging them in debate. I have engaged many Christians in debate and I would say that 95% of them came across as "quarrelsome, socially challenged men." Women don't seem that interested in this sort of debate (quick, name the ten highest profile female Christian apologists; in fact, name one). And, in debate, your opponent nearly always comes across as quarrelsome (He's arguing with me!) and "socially challenged" (nice strangers shouldn't argue with me).
I scored a 24. Evangelical Christian. Converted as a young adult. Always a theist, though.
About 95% of the atheists I have met seem to be "quarrelsome, socially challenged men." If there is a correlation, and the problem is a type of "mind-blindness" then it should not be surprising to find that reason-based arguments are ineffective when trying to change their opinion of God.
Could it be that you meet many other atheists who are not this way, but you just don't know that they are atheists because the topic never came up? You don't expect every atheist to self-identify as such on first meeting you, do you?
You might also ask yourself the context under which you met these atheists. Was it in the context of witnessing to them? Do you think that could explain some of the quarrelsomeness? Were you quarrelling with them? Do you think they may have gotten the impression that you are quarrelsome?
Also, how did you make the determination that they were socially challenged?
Just some thoughts.
I've been commenting as an atheist on VoxDay's blog lately, and I'd have to say that he attracts one quarrelsome, nasty group of Christians.
This seems to square with the old story about the t-shirt maker who decided he was going to make money from diverse segments of society.
For the Christians, he printed shirts that said "I'm a Christian because I believe Jesus is God". For agnostics, the shirt said, "I'm an Agnostic because I haven't seen enough evidence for the existence of God". For the atheists, "I'm an Atheist because I'm an asshole".
Joe
About 95% of the atheists I have met seem to be "quarrelsome, socially challenged men."....But as Dawkins and Co. have shown, their views on God have little to do with reason and rationality. In fact, they are almost pathologically unable to recognize just how weak their arguments are – and therefore find it hard to understand why "bright" people don’t accept them too.
It's kind of strange to call these people 'socially challenged' when they are all best sellers, highly popular and eagerly sought after in intellectual circles. What DC socialite wouldn't want to have a dinner party with Christopher Hitchens as a guest? Ditto for Dawkins and others. Can we say the same for, ohhh, well you? Or if that's too close to home how about the late Jerry Falwell or intelligent design's Behe?
Dude, if that is what you call socially challenged I'm willing to give it a shot!
Ironically the fact that you hold these guys have made bad arguments undercuts your theory. A.S. or highly functioning autism would more likely manifest itself as someone who makes excellent arguments but is socially inept at communicating them.
On Monday I listened to someone with AS being interviewed on the radio. Throughout his life he was always praised for 'thinking outside the box' and seeing connections that others missed but he couldn't understand why he had such a tough time doing 'normal' things like...chatting with someone at a party.
validog
The atheist as jerk correlation is often in evidence here at EO. Think of people like Ludwig, Larry Lord (ah, the old timey times) ex-preacher, Boonton, tgrish, the gay guy (can't remember his name right now). the list goes on and on.
I would suggest you have a biased sample. People that go against the grain are going to be perceived as jerks by the clique. So people here who buck the evangelical culture of this blog are going to be seen as jerks. I don't doubt that somewhere there are atheist blogs that have their resident 'jerk theist' getting the commentors all hot and bothered. It does take a special kind to be a public athiest in this society. While there are niches where theists are a minority overall this culture pays lip service to mushy theism making the main debate between serious theists and mushy theists.
If you're going to be a successful, vocal atheist you better get pretty good at countering the numerous attacks that will be made on you. In fact, you are probably going to get so good that you're going to be seen as a jerk. But if you're a theist you can be pretty stupid and it will be once in a blue moon you'll really get called ont he carpet for it. Speaking of which anyone see Hitchens vs. Hannity on YOuTube?
Speaking of which what do you guys think most of you are on this board? Witty Christopher Hitchens's of the evangelical world? Don't get too puffed up. Somebody here has to be a pin in this bubble factory!
Ludwig
hahahah you silly twit...i never said i was an athiest...my position is and has always been "weather religion is true or not is irrelevent until proven otherwise"
Just for the record I've never said I was an athiest either.
Let me turn the tables and ask what psychological ailement can account for this post by Joe and many of the commentators here. This posts asks why atheists are 'socially inept'. These are some things said by people asking this question:
J.J.
For the atheists, "I'm an Atheist because I'm an asshole".
validog
So you're just a jerk then?
Joe
In fact, they are almost pathologically unable to recognize just how weak their arguments are – and therefore find it hard to understand why "bright" people don’t accept them too....I've always thought atheism was mostly psychological rather than epistemological. This potential correlation only strengthens that opinion, which is why I think it is worth exploring.
Now while some of you may feel this represents cutting edge argumentation by brilliant writers/logicians, in RealityZone this is all pretty third rate stuff. Over on the 33 things (v24) thread another regular here, smmtheory, has been pounding me with such brilliant arguments as "birth control was banned for married couples because society wanted to prevented children out of wedlock" and if a woman's life is threatened by a pregnancy it's because her body is defective therefore she should just die.
Of course Joe is our host and he does do a better job than many of the commentators on this blog. But let's be honest here, has Joe ever rejected an argument for God as being logically flawed? It seems to me there is no faulty argument dug out from the bottom of the intellectual junk yard that Joe won't try to pull out, polish and try to sell to us as a new cadaliac if its conclusion is one he likes.
While Dawkins and Dennett are targets, let's remind ourselves of some of the 'brillant' arguments Joe has tried to hawk here whenever the topic of evolution came up. One favorite that comes to mind was computer simulations of unintelligent systems are really intelligent because...well humans make computers and program them. And those here who encouraged Gordon with his 'thermodynamics' posts need to shut up now before they write anything about Larry.
Anyway, be happy that you got a few people here who are willing to point out your silliness. We ask for no thanks or gifts but if you get too ungrateful we may just up and leave and then where will you guys be with no voices of reason? Why the word might possibly begin with a c and end with a t. :)
Oclarki-
One of the best things to come from getting diagnosed was the discovery that the way I think and percieve isn't crazy, just different- that there's a central reason for why my inclinations are so different from everyone else's. Knowing where my difficulties are and where they're coming from makes it easier to find workarounds. I make an effort to modify my behavior for the sake of getting by in the world, so long as doing so isn't damaging to me. There are some things which I won't or can't change; I'm always going to be more honest and direct than most non-autistics, and while I can fake eye contact well enough, I can't actually look someone directly in the eyes and simultaneously be able to process what they're saying. I can respect that society judges people on appearance and dress accordingly, but there's some garments and fabrics that I just can't wear, period.
The biggest difficulty for me probably comes from the fact that for EVERYONE in the world, relating to minds that work like yours is always easier than relating to unlike minds. I have very little social difficulties around other autistics, even those whose communication and praxis are much worse or much better than my own. Around non-autistics I constantly have to expend mental energy "translating" nonverbal communication and remembering social rules that are countierintuitive to the way my mind works- and since they're used to only encountering people who think the way they do, they assume I'm thinking "their language" and often make all kinds of missasumptions about me. Put a non-autistic person in an autistic gathering such as Autreat, and they may find that suddenly THEY'RE the one who can't relate socially.
And.. It'd probably be more accurate to say that my being autistic has affected how I relate to God than the other way around. Church dogma often was alien and alienating because no one bothered to explain the reasons behind it and I actually came very close to agnosticism for a while because the way that a lot of Christians I know relate to Him isn't how I do. I felt pressured to reject my personal religious experiences because they weren't the kind society told me I was "supposed" to be having. I'm closest to God when I'm in Nature or in motion, not when I'm kneeling in a building or in a loud, overstimulating, stress-inducing church gathering... It wasn't until I started listening to a Buddhist friend talk about HIS faith that I was able to let myself listen to my own again.
Amalthea,
Thanks for sharing that. It is really fascinating. The way the brain works and what makes us conscious are really intriuging to me. It's also a little scary to realize that so much of our experience and personality is subjective.
Yes, we are all of us so thankful to Boonton for keeping us in what he calls "RealityZone." I believe this is the same Boonton who has not only argued that the education system in the US is actually quite good, but has also argued that yes, Bill Clinton was "too honest." Thanks, Boonton. We can always count on you to descend into the fever swamp and clarify the issues for us.
Live long and prosper. May the force be with you.
I scored a 24.
Vox makes the same mistake so many theists do by dividing atheists into agnostics and atheists. I would fall into the category most theists would call "agnostic", but I consider myself an atheist (I prefer the OED definition to that of most American dictionaries). I don't have enough knowledge to say "There is no god". However, I think the likelihood of one is vanishingly small. I think the Christian idea of an intelligent, involved, personal creator is absolutely preposterous. So, as you can see, "agnostic" is hardly useful in describing my position.
I've known several persons with Asperger's, and I'm quite certain I am not among them. I am occasionally solitary and brooding, but just as often I am a gregarious, back-slapping (O.K., more of a side-man-hug) sort of fellow. Most often I fall between the two. I tell lots of jokes and enjoy the jokes of others. I'm an irrepressible hugger of friends and family. That isn't true of the Asperger's folks I have known.
I suspect there is a stronger correlation between intelligence and atheism than autism and atheism.
I think the idea is interesting, in a way, but maybe Vox is just full of crap. Who knows?
Vaildog, if you have been around since the Larry Lord days, why is it that I have only just now noticed what an unpleasant person you are?
Joe, I have two comments, on two separate issues, so I'll do them separately. The first is on your theoretical speculations.
Despite the protestations in the comment section, your hypothesis is, in fact, not implausible. A speculative paper by Jesse Bering published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences last year suggests a similar, though slightly more sophisticated theory-of-mind argument for dualism, a fundamental component of most religious beliefs (psychologically, probably the grounding belief). An implication of the view is that children with autism will be less likely to be dualists, in large part because theory-of-mind deficits make it difficult for them to believe in things like souls.
A second potential theory-of-mind explanation is that autistic children simply have a harder time understanding and accepting testimony (of any sort) from adults, and are thus less likely to believe in cultural narratives, including religious ones.
However, there's no empirical evidence in favor of either hypothesis, and there is, in fact, evidence that autistic children (I don't know of any studies on autistic adults) are just as likely to hold dualistic religious beliefs (after life, God, etc.) as non-autistic children, so long as the autistic children have sufficient language abilities (anyone writing or reading blogs would have sufficient language abilities) to understand the language used to convey these beliefs. The basic point is that if you can't understand what people are telling you about religion, you're unlikely to be religious, but that's not surprisng.
So, if it is the case that adults within the autism spectrum do have a higher incidence of atheism (and no one knows that they do, so it seems pointless to speculate, but since you and Vox have already done that...), any explanation would have to account for why their beliefs changed from childhood to adulthood in ways that non-autistic childrens' beliefs didn't.
The second comment is on Vox's data. Unfortunately, the numbers Vox reports, from Marks' analysis, are wrong. Excluding Pharyngula's data, because religious beliefs are not reported there (one person actually shows up in Vox's comments who had put her score in the Pharyngula comments, and is a theist), here are the actual means and standard deviations:
Theists (n = 172), m = 19.13, SD = 7.90
Agnostics (n = 16), m = 18.56, SD = 7.82
Atheists (n=10), m = 20.9, SD = 10.27
None of the differences are statistically significant (using independent sample t-tests), though that's not surpring given the variance and small n's for agnostics and atheists. Given that agnostics actually score lower than theists, the original hypothesis itself is called into question.
Of course, the difference between the Pharyngula folk (who seemed to treat the test as a sort of pissing contest), with a mean of 26.20, and the Vox folk, with a mean of 19.17, was statistically significant (t(280) = 6.06, p
Wow...I got a 4. Am I in the running for lowest score? I am a Christian.
BTW: I find this test odd. What does this have to do with mathematical ability? I am decent at quant (it isn't just a learned skill -- I was a math team guy as far back as elementary school). Is mathematical ability really related to social functioning (which seems the focus of this quiz)?
Joe,
You said, About 95% of the atheists I have met seem to be "quarrelsome, socially challenged men."
Well, your experience is different than mine. A number of atheists I know didn't even inform me of the fact for some time because they felt no need to lead with their atheism.
Rob Ryan
I agree with you with regards to the difference between atheists and agnostics. I really don't see much of a difference. I consider myself both, the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
I've been having a discussion on this very topic on the Voxday blog. The Christians get very agitated at the very notion that the difference isn't glaringly obvious and as wide as the Grand Canyon. They seem to have an emotional need to make the population of true unbelievers look as small and insignificant as possible.
For a group of people that are as seemingly insignificant as us, the Christians sure do spill a lot of ink attempting to discredit us.
I also don't see how theory of mind difficulties would explain atheism. I'd say that people who can attribute mental activity to beings that obviously have minds, like other people and intelligent animals, but not attribute mental activity to storms and trees and celestial bodies, or invisible beings, is demonstrating a very functional mental process. I'd say that it is the inability to draw proper boundaries between people and non-intelligent natural phenomena when applying theory of mind concepts is a truer sign of a mental defect.
And while we're about making comparisons between metaphysical categories and mental health issues, I'd like to posit a theory that religious behavior demonstrates symptoms in common with obsessive compulsive disorder:
"Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a psychiatric disorder (more specifically, it is an anxiety disorder) most commonly characterized by a subject's obsessive, distressing, intrusive thoughts and related compulsions (tasks or "rituals") which attempt to neutralize the obsessions."
Score was 24. I am a Theist
Score was 24. I am a Theist
My score was 19. Atheist.
24, Christian, and not so good in math.
"Based on Wired Magazine's observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men, to say nothing of the unpleasant personalities of leading public atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Michel Onfray ...."
The other night I listened to Hitchens contend with Hugh Hewitt. Maybe Hewitt is the atheist?
Tim L wrote: "What is the point of this post? Whether an Intriguing question or a intentionally provocative post, it is a waste of time and counter-productive."
Well, of course it's a waste of time. But entertaining.
re jd in post 40
I fail to see what the US educational system or Clinton's administration has to do with the quality of jd's posts or how he demonstrates social aptness by calling people assholes.
Thanks again, Boonton, for showing us one of your favorite argument techniques: defending against accusations that were never made. I never called you a name and never used the word you use in your post above.
Typical Boonton tactic.
Point taken jd, it was jj who used the word in post 35. As it should be pretty clear, that wasn't a 'tactic' so much as a simple mistake. Sometimes the sillier elements here all start to look alike :)
Speaking of tactics, again with the the education system and Clinton admin? Don't you come up with new material ever?
Boonton wrote:
Anyway, be happy that you got a few people here who are willing to point out your silliness. We ask for no thanks or gifts but if you get too ungrateful we may just up and leave and then where will you guys be with no voices of reason? Why the word might possibly begin with a c and end with a t. :)
I simply believe that when you claim to be smarter than the rest of us, I should use your own words to raise some doubts about that claim. Your belief that Clinton was "too honest" works pretty well.
Actually I don't think it's so much about being smarter as it is about being alone here (well not entirely alone but in a minority). Many of you here exist in a mini-echo chamber. You don't get called on some of the stupid things you write or, worse, you get a pat on the back. As a result you say lots of stupid things. Those of us in the minority here have to be more on guard because if we make a mistake we're liable to have half a dozen salivating at the chance to call us out on it.
I think all of us make mistakes and say stupid things, though. I don't doubt that somewhere there's a atheist outpost where 90% of the commentors are atheist and a few sharp theists play a devils advocate role. That's the value of being a contrarian.
Keep in mind this thread began with a post by Joe alleging that theists are basically nice people and atheists are socially inept. During the course of this debate, though, the usual assortment of Joe-ites here have demonstrated a lot of social ineptness (including you)...not including our host who seems to have needlessly insulted people with AS and autism. For the most part the anti-Joe-ites (for want of a better term since we are not all atheists) have tended to present better arguments and have generally been nicer than many here. Seriously, look at the passages I called out (forget about the confusion between jd and jj) and honestly say where the "jerk correlation" from post 22 really lays.
Thanks jd for answering my question in post 54 in post 55. At least you're prompt!
Ohhh, BTW, after 8 years of Bush it's really way too late to try to get any laughs by talking about Clinton's honesty.
Ohhh, BTW, after 8 years of Bush it's really way too late to try to get any laughs by talking about Clinton's honesty.
I know it seems longer to you, but it has been only 6.5 years of Bush (unless you were a resident of Texas prior to 2000). Regarding Clinton's honesty (or lack thereof), both Clintons have enough of a reputation that they will be comedy fodder for years to come.
The difference is not in time but in degree. Bush's dishonesty compared to Clinton's is like comparing the special effects in the last Star Wars movie to the old Flash Gordon tv series.
Amen to what Amalthea said! I'm a Christian who has all the symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome but I've never sought a formal diagnosis. I scored 39 on the Wired test.
I think this post misses the mark in trying to establish a correlation between Asperger's and atheism based on nothing more than "Wired Magazine's observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men, to say nothing of the unpleasant personalities of leading public atheists". First of all, the implication is that autistic people are quarrelsome. I don't think that's fair or accurate. In fact, it borders on slander. Second, I don't agree that all atheists are quarrelsome. Most of the atheists I know are not.
I think, too, that you misunderstand "mind-blindness." I am unable to determine a person's emotional state by looking at their face, and I have trouble picking up clues from their body language, but that doesn't mean I doubt that their minds exist. I'm certainly aware that other people have minds, but their thought processes -- and moreso their emotions -- are a mystery to me. Jeremy Pierce had some good insights about this in his comment.
he difference is not in time but in degree. Bush's dishonesty compared to Clinton's is like comparing the special effects in the last Star Wars movie to the old Flash Gordon tv series.
The problem with you and your leftist compatriots is that you seem to think that you are uniquely possessed of the "truth", and that it is so evident that anybody who disagrees with you is not just wrong, but is intentionally telling a falsehood. With Bush, you can't prove that he has lied about anything (i.e. intentionally said something that he knew to be wrong), the most you can prove is that he disagrees with you or, that with the benefit of hindsight, he appears to be wrong. With the Clinton's, we know he lied (and not just about his dalliance with Ms. Lewinsky) and we can make a pretty good assumption that she, at the very least, knew about it.
Indeed ucfengr, Bush has never lied. He is infallible and perfect. I guess we are all suffering from mental illness. Good thing you're here to help us.
leftist compatriots is that you seem to think that you are uniquely possessed of the "truth",
This is an interesting statement because it nicely illustrates the jerk element here. Ucfengr or jd can pontificate about Clinton's dishonesty but if one of us says Bush is dishonest (or, heavens forbid, even more dishonest)...why that means we must be claiming to have some unique access to the "truth".
This thread is not about Clinton or Bush, though, it is about social ineptness and whether atheists suffer from it more than the non-atheist crowd here. The usual suspects here, though, demonstrate much more social ineptness than the non-theist commentors here or even the famoous atheists mentioned by Joe (Hitchens, Dawkins etc.).
Notice the pattern here? Whose trying to articulate their position with petty name calling? Whose trying to argue with red herrings (jd's entire post diverting us into this seperate argument about Clinton.v.Bush's dishonesty is just one big logical fallacy. His argument is of the form of "Boonton says X. Boonton once said Y. If Y is false then X must be false". In sum who here is really socially inept? And those that are socially inept here do not have autism or A.S. but are just intellectually lazy and arrogant.
This is an interesting statement because it nicely illustrates the jerk element here. Ucfengr or jd can pontificate about Clinton's dishonesty but if one of us says Bush is dishonest (or, heavens forbid, even more dishonest)...why that means we must be claiming to have some unique access to the "truth".
When someone on the right (or the left, for that matter) says that Clinton lied, we mean that Clinton (Bill or Hillary) made a claim that they knew to be false. When someone on the left (or right) says that Bush lied, the only thing they can prove was the Bush may have been wrong about something or that Bush disagrees with them. In the latter case, what that says is that you are the exclusive possessors of the "truth" and that it is so evident that anybody who disagrees is intentionally saying something they know to be false. With Bush, The best example is the Iraq War, where he is accused of going to war, not for legitimate national security concerns in the wake of 9/11, but to benefit his friends at Haliburton. We see something similar in the global warming debate, where scientists who disagree with the "consensus" are accused of being "bought and paid for lackeys of Big Oil" or some other concern. There is no allowance for disagreement; you either agree with the Left or you are lying, because no sane person could disagree with them.
Regarding the "jerk element", I think your comment (really, just about any of your comments) is a much better example than the one you cite. It is also a better example of intellectual laziness and arrogance. You can't cite any examples of Bush lies, you can only cites examples of where he A) disagrees with leftist consensus, B) was shown to be wrong in hindsight. In other words, Bush lies because he makes mistakes or because he disagrees with you, because what you say is so self-evidently truthful, that nobody can honestly disagree with it.
Regarding the "jerk element", I think your comment (really, just about any of your comments) is a much better example than the one you cite. It is also a better example of intellectual laziness and arrogance. You can't cite any examples of Bush lies,...
You seem intent on distracting us with a long winded digression where we start debating all the various cases of charges that Bush lied. We have already done that on this blog and no doubt will continue to do it again. But this thread is kind of special in that it's more of a meta-analysis of how we behave here in general.
You've made claims that are false. I never claimed nor implied to have special knowledge of 'the truth'. I only asserted a judgement that Bush was dishonest as you asserted one that Bush was honest and Clinton dishonest.
The jerk element, though, is not whether or not we can have an honest disagreement over dishonesty. It is over your behavior here (and other people's behavior). I stand by my assertion, many theists on this blog (including Joe) often act like jerks and the few non-theists and atheists who show up here do not. Now I've been very conservative in this assertion. I haven't claimed any moral superiority on the part of the non-theists here. I haven't claimed this dichotomy exists outside this little niche (except to note that in general an public atheist in a theist society, like Hitchens, has to be on his toes much more than your typical mushy theist friendly intellectual). Nor have I tried to claim the theists here are suffering from a mental illness (which, remember, is the whole basis of this post which illustrates how even Joe can act like a jerk here...(although it was good for people like Amalthea and BruceA to give us some insight on Asperger's Syndrome is really like so I guess we can overlook the fact that Joe was just exploiting it to take a cheap shot).
You seem intent on distracting us with a long winded digression where we start debating all the various cases of charges that Bush lied.
I think my post is really a lot more on topic than your's, Boonton. If you read my post, you will find that what I am really talking about is a tendency of left to be unable to conceive of people honestly disagreeing with them. In other words, a form of the "mind blindness" that Joe referenced. The debate over whether Bush lied or not is really irrelevant, what I think is relevant is that much of the Left seems to have an inability to even conceive of the possibility that Bush and his defenders are acting in good faith. This is why, in addition to Bush, I also referenced the global warming debate; another instance in which proponents are unable to accept that dissenter are acting in good faith; rather they call them "oil industry stooges" or otherwise try to discredit their motives.
It is over your behavior here (and other people's behavior). I stand by my assertion, many theists on this blog (including Joe) often act like jerks and the few non-theists and atheists who show up here do not.
This is one of the funniest things I've read all week. I am almost in tears.
I haven't claimed any moral superiority on the part of the non-theists here.
Stop; you're killing me.
Oh I can clearly see this mindset contribute to a brewing, festering and pretty soon exploding civil war between left and right in the US. I will be watching events unfold with great glee and sending weapons and financial aid to any leftist in the conflict.
These kinds of article are to me a declaration of WAR.
ucfengr, since I didn't go into detail about the specifics of why I believe Bush to be dishonest you have no basis to assert it is simply because I consider disgreement with me to be dishonesty. Nor did I assert that Bush was dishonest because the 'real reason' for the Iraq war was to make Halliburton rich.
If I had laid out a bunch of examples and they really did boil down to "I disagree with Bush on X therefore he is dishonest" your post would have some relevance to this thread. I didn't, though, but it's interesting to see how good the echo chamber is for people like you here. You don't even need others to echo your assertions to feel reinforced by them.
I haven't claimed any moral superiority on the part of the non-theists here.
Stop; you're killing me.
Perhaps you should reread post 56. I attributed the 'jerk problem' here not to atheists being morally better but to the fact that this is mostly a collection of like minded people. When you write things like the above are you actually trying to make a point or just score a laugh or two?
Dagon
I will be watching events unfold with great glee and sending weapons and financial aid to any leftist in the conflict.
If you send me $50 a month I promise to keep the fight going here!
14, and I'm a theist with agnostic leanings.
I think there is a good likelihood was created by a superior being. However, I also recognize that myself and the rest of the human race are so greatly ignorant when it comes to the origins or meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Being ignorant, I refuse to commit myself to any codified belief system, and I refuse to talk about metaphysical things as if I know The Truth Of It All. It's all really just conjecture on our part; great fun to argue playfully over, but silly to let it go any farther.
I imagine Muslims wonder why so many Westerners display "Allah-blindness."
BTW, regarding Plantinga's skepticism regarding other minds: How does he account for the existence of languages he doesn't speak and would have to learn with great difficulty as an adult? If these languages didn't originate from other minds, where does he think they come from?
I don't know if Vox Day has looked into internet dating lately, but I've noticed literally hundreds of women with personals ads online who identify themselves as atheists.
I've added a new post to clarify some of the points raised in this comment section.
"If you send me $50 a month I promise to keep the fight going here!"
What a rip-off, Boonton; we all know you'd do it for free! ;-)
Blahh, ok then just send me those weapons.
24, athiest i don't particulary think im autistic just don't like small talk or awkward social situations. I do think there is a link between autism and atheism as if someone is less likely to follow a crowd and more likely to have a higher mental capacity surely they would not accept dogmatic and irrational beliefs as readily as "normal" people. Any comments?
I scored 47; I'm diagnosed autistic, and I'm male, a software engineer, and an atheist.
I find your "God-blind" theory interesting, and I somewhat agree with it, but I would express it the opposite way round. I have made a study of non-autistic people, what I call "allistic" people (from the Greek, "autos" and "allos" are antonymous). Allistic people tend to think about the world in terms of other minds, and will often see mind where really there is none. People's reactions to the Geminoid robot created by Professor Hiroshi Ishiguro or the old chatbot Eliza are among the clearer examples of this, and show how little evidence it takes for allistic people to perceive a mind. So when dealing with random coincidences, it is not surprising that an allistic person would see a pattern in them and perceive a controlling mind that isn't really there. Autistic people do not suffer from this self-deceiving cognitive blind spot, or at least not so much, so they are less likely to be religious.
A few years ago I wrote a psychopathological analysis of allism. In one section I consider the apparent correlation between allism and religion. I had a very different theory behind it: I suggest that organised religion, and especially collective worship, satisfies the social addiction of the allistic. I also suggest that the essentially unquestioning nature of religious belief provides a comforting and unchallenging worldview, which is naturally very satisfactory to someone with a general disregard for factual accuracy, as allistic people tend to exhibit. See my essay for details on these theories.
Re the Asperger Quotient Test: I think the test is a poor way to judge the degree to which one is autistic, but probably good to judge the likelihood of one being autistic (to an unspecified degree). I'm very definitely autistic, but I don't have the extreme difficulty with everyday life that the severe Kanner-style autistics have. I live independently and have a regular job. I have been able to mitigate my social difficulties to a significant degree by conscious study of the things that are not natural to me (such as body language).
Wow, what a train wreck. And the irony is, of course, Vox Day, who happens to be one of the nastiest, least sociable and most undeservedly arrogant people on the internet projecting his own personality traits onto others.
I'm an Atheist and I scored
36. I've already been told that I don't have Asperger's Syndrome but, also, that the world would be a sorry place if there were no "sufferers" of this condition. If that were the case we would all just stand around empathising and not achieving anything. Incidentally, I've met Richard Dawkins and he is pleasant and charming.
The most amusing thing about this whole charade, is that the vast majority of those claiming to be Christian's, only believe in God, because there misguided parent told them that he exists.
My parents told me that Santa and the Toothfairy existed. Do I still believe in either of them? No. Do I think there is any less of a chance of their existance than "God"? No.
Just because somebody tells you it's true doesn't make it so.
The most amusing thing about this whole charade, is that the vast majority of those claiming to be Christian's, only believe in God, because there misguided parent told them that he exists.
My parents told me that Santa and the Toothfairy existed. Do I still believe in either of them? No. Do I think there is any less of a chance of their existance than "God"? No.
Just because somebody tells you it's true doesn't make it so.
I am a graduate in mathematics and theoretical physics, a member of the National Secular Society, the Richard Dawkins Foundation forum and a Bright. I would not just describe myself as an atheist, but as an anti-theist (i.e. someone who not only does not believe in God, but who believes that those who do pose a danger to the rest of us, in varying degrees, from the mere hinderance of human progress through their opposition to scientific rationality, to the vicious, bigoted intolerance they display to people who don't live by their narrow religious morality, to the psychotic extremes of Dominion Christianity and Wahhabist Islamism).
My AQ score? 15!
And looking at posts of other respondents to the article, it seems that I am not the only scientifically educated atheist with a low AQ, and that there are several religious respondents who scored a high AQ.
I therefore think we can safely conclude that the entire premise of the article is complete nonsense, and rather than supporting a supposed positive correlation between atheism and AQ, it actually provides - unfortunately for the author - yet more evidence for the (widely reported and more statistically convincing) negative correlation between religiosity and IQ!
I suggest you leave statistical inference and psychological theorizing to the professionals from now on.
And the same goes for Vox Day.
Steve Denton
I am a graduate in mathematics and theoretical physics, a member of the National Secular Society, the Richard Dawkins Foundation forum and a Bright. I would not just describe myself as an atheist, but as an anti-theist (i.e. someone who not only does not believe in God, but who believes that those who do pose a danger to the rest of us, in varying degrees, from the mere hindrance of human progress through their opposition to scientific rationality, to the vicious, bigoted intolerance they display to people who don't live by their narrow religious morality, to the psychotic extremes of Dominion Christianity and Wahhabist Islamism).
My AQ score? 15!
And looking at posts of other respondents to the article, it seems that I am not the only scientifically educated atheist with a low AQ, and that there are several religious respondents who scored a high AQ.
I therefore think we can safely conclude that the entire premise of the article is complete nonsense, and rather than supporting a supposed positive correlation between atheism and AQ, it actually provides - unfortunately for the author - yet more evidence for the (widely reported and more statistically convincing) negative correlation between religiosity and IQ!
I suggest you leave statistical inference and psychological theorizing to the professionals from now on.
And the same goes for Vox Day.
Apologies for the double post :o) Slow response from the blog server made me think the post had failed.
Heh heh! He said I'm an atheist.
To the poster of this blog entry:
I actually have been diagnosed with
Asperger's Syndrome and I only
scored 26, which proves that test
was just a hunk of baloney.
I am a theist, but I follow the exact
opposite of some evangelical god, but
what I don't get is why you feel that
just because someone has a mental
disorder that they are atheists and
why you feel that atheists are bad
people. Alot of atheists, freethinkers
and most defiantly Buddhists have
happy and healthy lives.
Just because we are brilliant people
you say we're atheists? Well I will
be an atheist if it means I can be
smarter than you are and if I can
have a better career and a happier
life.
If you want to make a fool out of
yourself, then go right ahead.
Female teacher atheist. My score was extremely low -a mere 6. Which I suppose makes sense because I've always enjoyed social situations. So much for the "atheists are quarrelsome socially challenged men" theory.
We can't generalize that all autistics are atheists, but I know some who are and am myself an autistic who doesn't believe in God. I am a concrete thinker and have trouble making sense of some abstract ideas like a supreme being. I find it impossible to feel loved by something whose existence I can't prove or detect with my senses.
Belief aside, religion is also used to foster social connectedness. That aspect makes no more sense to me than the idea of a supreme being. My family and relatives, who are Jewish, don't necessarily believe in the spiritual teachings but adhere rigidly to all the customs and see them as social activities.
Religion is just one of the many trappings of sociality that make no sense to me emotionally. I have no interest it all in clothes, cosmetics, home decor, milestones like births, or stories that involve human relationships. The love stories that others can lose themselves in for hours bore me to death. I also loathe the love ballads that gained popularity starting in the nineties. To me they sound like funeral dirges. I am also totally humorless and find jokes irritating.
Marla Comm
Montreal, Canada
My score was 24. I'm an atheist.
Personally, I think that we neurotypicals (those who don't have autism or Asperger's Syndrome) place entirely too much faith in our ability to interpret other people accurately. I've seen that do a lot of harm. Seeing things that aren't there-- whether it be false accusations about someone's intentions, or an insistence in the benevolence of a loved one who is obviously up to no good, or a claim of the paranormal-- is no less a mental impairment than failing to see them when they really are there. The difference is that the former person thinks he or she is more sensitive and caring, and other people tend to believe that about them, thus they become more popular and no one wants to call them impaired. That's why only one side of the overbalance gets labeled as an impairment.
These are two completely uncorrelated states. First and foremost Atheism is, in the majority of modern culture a learned state, based on evidence or the failure of current models one adapts a “title” for beliefs. Faith in it’s predominate form is a learned behavior, one is not “born” understanding religion or atheism, these are terms that are taught. Considering that children are taught about god, faith could easily be seen as, a psychological alteration, a brainwashing that occurs based on a persons environment.
Autism is at best guess, a chemical or psychological state. It must be noted that this is not something that is learned or influenced by environmental experience (environmental factors can contribute as they possess the ability to alter chemicals).
Most observations have found that EVERYONE on some level or another possesses autistic traits, implying that every human brain is capable of this altered brain function, but due to mostly unknown factors it is repressed in the standard human model.
Using the flimsy standards of the initial article another practical correlation to postulate would be in the consideration of Autistic savants. In these cases of autism we find the difference in brain function far exceeds the norm, yet displays no discernable genetic difference. Correlating this enhance intelligence to the loose observation that the majority of "great minds" tend to favor agnosticism and atheism then perhaps you should postulate that the similarities are simply present because both Atheists and Autistic's are smarter than the standard human. That seems to be just as an absurd prediction.
As a final note Agnostics tend to state that there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. It is a stance of moderation.
The belief that there isn't enough evidence to prove god's existence implies he most likely doesn't exist, which is a stance that falls under Atheism. There are degrees of Atheism, just as there are degrees of Christianity.
S.M.
Awesome site! Design is great! Please visit my homepage: http://idisk.mac.com/dadada4/Public/best/childrens-halloween-masks.html >childrens halloween masks
khf3hbx42
I am an atheist and scored 24.
I am actually quite gifted when it comes to math and sciences that require more complex thinking which constitutes the 24.
This test is inherently flawed. You can only agree or disagree, there were several questions which had absolutely no opinion on. There needs to be a "no opinion/don't care either way" column. Without such a column the test has very limited validity. The scoring shouldn't be 1 or 0. It needs to be changed it the a 1 to 5 scale.
pedion bangboard dispiritedly necking radiometer archknave unattractively unsusceptibility
http://www.fineartct.com >Fine Art of Connecticut
http://www.therecipebox.com/members/box/fish/fis0137.htm
Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues
Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues
Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues
Contrary to popular belief, the end of the year is one of the best times to look for, awesome descion
aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf
Sorry, but what is mariburjeka?
Jane.