"Are atheists mentally ill?"

[afleitch]

The problem is those who endow god with properties that both evade empirical detection and transcend the laws of physics are us. We are the observers of this ‘god’ and indeed are the only observers of it which explains why we have a variety of different explanations and accounts of it. There is no outside sentient being who can corroborate our experience. Therefore David Hume’s law on miracles (a miracle is a violation of the natural law usually in favour of the observer therefore by reduction something miraculous is more than likely to be a misunderstanding of a natural event by the observer) applies not only to an individual person but also to humanity as humans cannot divorce their observations from their material self which is biased. Therefore the human understanding of god is inherently biased and biased understandings may be false.

What I mean by this is that humans have a great difficulty in juggling between intuition and empirical reality. While reality is ‘truer’ from a neutral perspective, intuition can ‘feel true’ For example, I live my day intuitively knowing that the sun rises in the morning and sets at night. It’s there and then it’s not. Of course, it’s always there and the ‘actor’ in the cycle isn’t the sun but the Earth. My intuition is wrong but it is of immense help for me to perceive it as true and to ground myself in the concept of a rising and setting sun. The belief in god or the supernatural as external actors is for some, rhetorically effective in that it fits well with that persons intuition and gives them grounding. For many however, that intuition is proven to their satisfaction to be false and it does not

Man makes gods because gods help man order the world. If you lived several thousand years ago and you’ve grown crops to feed your family, then your neighbour comes along and in a fit of callousness your neighbour destroys the crops then as your intuition tells you that your neighbour did it to hurt you. The next effect of the action on you is detrimental. What makes this assertion straightforward is that the actor in this event is another human. Now imagine you grow crops again the following year except this time there’s a severe storm. Now bearing in mind you don’t know anything about the weather; what reasons are you going to give for this destruction given that the effect of this destruction is going to be to your detriment? To humans, from effect comes cause, from cause comes intent so you may feel that the weather did this specifically to you. Let me explain. In these examples both explanations are informed by our intuition. In the first example the neighbour is an actor and he made a sentient decision. This was informed by our intuition but is confirmed by talking to the neighbour or at the very least understanding the emotive actions of others as being similar to yours. In the second example however while the weather is an agent it is a passive agent; it did not damage your crops to specifically hurt you. In this example (if we assume it occurred at a time before our understanding of weather) our intuition will be proven false in time but until then the weather to us is a sentient actor; a powerful and perhaps unappeasable one (though we may try). So it is natural for people to think the physical and mental realm is full of agents with our minds constantly attempting to infer their actions. In our day to day lives our interactions with others of our kind or predators or prey has ensured that evolution has tuned the brain to either spot agents or suspect them if they cannot be directly observed. (see Todd Tremlin) So for example, your day to day wanderings will present you with ‘false positives’ and ‘false negatives.’ False positives are fairly harmless. If you think the ‘coiled thing’ in the distance is a snake when it’s actually a piece of rope then the cost of making this mistake is relatively low. If however you suspect the coiled thing in the distance to be just a piece of rope when it’s a snake, then you may pay a price.

However if you are faced with trying to make sense of an event that has no natural sentient agent (man or animal) or has no understandable natural non sentient explanation, such as weather or bushfire or supernova (because we now understand those things) then in our observations we retain the inference of an agent at work but modify the type of agent involved. Non natural agents are therefore ‘supernatural’ agents (and it is not surprising that religious texts often invoke the supernatural in events which can now be explain naturally and in turn seem curious to us today) However it goes much deeper than this as the hierarchy of concepts that we as human beings concern ourselves with are immense. We have basic concerns such as ‘why does it rain?’ which we now understand (though the temptation is there for some to infer an agent at work) and we have far more complex and unclassifiable concepts such as ‘why are we here?’ and ‘why do have free will?’ So again we may infer supernatural agents if we cannot personally accept or internalise a non supernatural explanation that meets the standards of satisfaction that we ourselves set. I will return to this in a minute.

So what of gods? They are essentially the ultimate agents; they are supernatural, spiritual, personal and can encapsulate everything that can ever be ascertained but not proven. For those who believe in god/s, their intuition tells them that there has to be a higher agent; a god to explain what they themselves need to understand. This can become self perpetuating. For example if someone has a problem in accepting something basic; say that the hurricane came because of the weather cycle and not because of divine retribution, the fact that we can empirically prove that the weather cycle caused the hurricane is of no consequence to that persons beliefs because that person has already established a supernatural agent that accounts for such actions. Accepting that they may be wrong violates their sense of intuition which as we have seen is very difficult to override even when presented with external evidence to the contrary. It is only when the person internalises the external evidence so that it replaces their natural intuition that they can then accept it. So the first thought of hurricane damage becomes ‘it is just a hurricane, what a terrible event’ rather than ‘it was sent deliberately to damage.’ This sort of internal re-organisation happens subconsciously all the time and is particularly evident in child development.

Now of course most of us, theists included, are more progressive in our understanding than the previous analogy would suggest (though it is important to note that many people still function at that level of attributability) But what about less tangible concepts such as free will? For people whose deity has moved beyond being a natural actor (the explanation for famine, earthquakes etc) and has instead receded as an actor through others; prayers, healing etc or merely become the representative of the unknowable, these deities are now broadly distinctive from natural agents. So what can we define them as? These gods fall into the classification of the ‘minimally counterintuitive’ (see Justin Barrett) Minimally counterintuitive concepts are those which violate intuitive presumptions. Barrett’s example is this; take something we can all agree on such as a tree. We all know what a tree looks like. We all know what trees do and what trees don’t do. The next step it to violate one of the assumptions. Say that you have an ‘invisible tree’ and you have a minimal counterintuitive. And that’s very supportive in sustaining religious faith. Now if I said I had a tree that could talk, turn into the Grand Canyon and grow televisions instead of apples then what I am saying is incredulous and the proponent would also be considered so. But violate just one assumption; say that the tree can grant you wishes and it is more likely to convince, especially as the tree is still essentially a tree. Ideas that are flatly counterintuitive are not useful to humans to either believe in or propagate.  The usefulness of a minimal counterintuitive is very important too so for example, if I said there was a god that ate dirt and excreted gold, even if I said he gave you some of the gold, then that’s too incredulous an idea for most people to be comfortable with. Likewise if we have a god being an relatively ordinary person except being able to fly then that’s both relatively mundane to be godlike and furthermore his flying abilities aren’t really useful to you. So instead successful gods tend utilise an anthropomorphic template and then violate it in a strategic way, like being everlasting or omnipotent.

So the idea of the omnipotent god has a powerful draw on the curious mind. Because we see ‘actors’ everywhere and in our example of the neighbour and the crops, assume these actors are thinking and planning, it is to our advantage to second guess their intention. For some that omnipotent god is seen to be the actor in say thunderstorms and the complexities of the big bang. For others he manifests himself purely in the former and not the latter (as the person has internalised the empirical reality) This makes both the defence of and arguments against the minimally counterintuitive construct particularly difficult. If the god violates one assumption and then it is argued/proven that the no violation has actually occurred (and our tree is in fact just a tree) then the constructed god if he is to be sustained, has to either violate a second assumption or an argument has to be made that the initial violation is still valid because the god is capable of ‘escaping’ empirical methods of detection. It’s the ‘dragon in the garage’ analogy. If you say there is a dragon in your garage and your friend goes to the garage and it isn’t there, then your dragon in order to exist has to be invisible to him. If other methods of detection are invoked that do not rely on sight, then for the dragon to be there he has to evade all those too. However at the same time as the dragon is evading everyone else’s method of detection, then if pressed, you have to outline precisely why you know or believe there is a dragon and why you can sense it and others cannot. Today, magic trees and volcano gods simply don’t stand up to scrutiny, but the more complex you make your deity the more sustainable it is even when the basis for the original belief (for example, the books of the Old Testament and New Testament) contains very basic minimally counterintuitive constructs that not only are demonstratably false, but the believers of the religion itself would consider to be allegorical rather than true.

[afleitch]

As an atheist, I am often charged by people of faith of setting out to ‘ruin’ their world view. I get people telling me how helpful their faith has been for them and how important it is for them in order to structure their life and I understand that. It’s no different from people who check their horoscope before signing a business deal. The problem I have with that is twofold. The first is if that belief system becomes externalised and begins to affect my own liberties (but that’s not what I need to discuss) and secondly that people with faith can often think less of people without faith. The reason for this is an inability to grapple with what to them is intuitive and should reside as an intuition in others like them. That’s why you end up with the sort of fluff article in the original post. For those raised outside of faith, a recourse to the supernatural has never been part of their world view and has never formed part of their own rhetoric at least since their cognitive abilities were sufficiently developed as a child. It’s worth a slight digression on that for a second. Children in the early stages of development have an extraordinary self awareness to the point they see themselves as the pivot around which the entire world known to them is bound. They lack an understanding of death as an event that will happen to them and often display an inability to deal with the concept of time and existence happening before them or events happening away from them. Such is the power of intuition. Now for those raised in faith but leave it, those intuitions have been replaced by the absorption of empirical evidence or personal experience which have been have internalised and replaced the need for the supernatural. As someone with a world view clouded by residing somewhere on the autistic spectrum (and those who score higher on the AQ seem to be more inclined to be less religious) I have grappled with the obsessive-compulsive offshoot of the spectrum at times. It’s very much under control but I do remember the feelings of dread that should I not do something or complete a pattern, then I would face a horrible consequence. The only way to get out of that was to will myself not to do it then realise that nothing bad actually occurred. If something did happen, then I learned to not equate the result with my action or inaction but understand why the event was caused. For me, moving away from religious belief followed a similar pattern because on reflection, I was always a doubting and curious child and my religious belief was a combination of social expectation and comfort found in patterns and ritual. I am consciously aware since I was about seven that I never thought I was praying right because I got nothing from the experience but enjoyed the ritualistic comfort of prayer.  I am of course equating the two from a personal perspective only.

My understanding of the world is one that doesn’t resort to the supernatural. It sits completely in counter to the views expressed by many on this thread. I could argue that it is correct and that it is ‘right’. I could also argue (though of course I don’t) that homosexuality is ‘right’ because (and I’ll distil some queer theory here for a second) as a form of sexual expression divorced from the need for or end result of procreation, I am able to reach levels of sexual intimacy and the complete physical and emotional unity with one other person without any inference of the ‘third’ (the potential for the creation of a third person) Therefore the sex I have is more ‘pure.’ To many of you that is complete nonsense and completely at odds with and insulting to your world view. I can absolutely concur with that as it isn’t something I subscribe to. But could you prove me wrong if I did? 

Indeed, if it is ascertained that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both valid expressions of human sexual desire and sexual activity with none inherently more right or wrong than the other (in the same manner in which male and female is neutral) then why can’t belief and non-belief, or empiricism and intuition, be considered along similar lines? Of course if this was the case and holding a belief or refusing to hold belief were neutral positions, then if it turns out there is a god, then this status quo benefits disproportionately the non-believer who has nothing to loose in his non-belief (if non-belief is naturally ‘ordained’ by the god as one of two possible outcomes of human development). However the believer is not only investing energy in a belief that in the end won’t curry additional favour with the creator, but may be actively believing something that is contrary to the will of the creator which may in turn be detrimental if that creator is capricious. That in part influences my own position; I feel that my position of non belief is not detrimental to me, or more accurately is the least detrimental to me should a variety of different theological arguments turn out to be correct.

(In fact the last paragraph I've wrote is the first time I've given that dichotomy much thought. I should perhaps return to it)

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Indeed, if it is ascertained that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both valid expressions of human sexual desire and sexual activity with none inherently more right or wrong than the other (in the same manner in which male and female is neutral) then why can’t belief and non-belief, or empiricism and intuition, be considered along similar lines? Of course if this was the case and holding a belief or refusing to hold belief were neutral positions, then if it turns out there is a god, then this status quo benefits disproportionately the non-believer who has nothing to loose in his non-belief (if non-belief is naturally ‘ordained’ by the god as one of two possible outcomes of human development). However the believer is not only investing energy in a belief that in the end won’t curry additional favour with the creator, but may be actively believing something that is contrary to the will of the creator which may in turn be detrimental if that creator is capricious. That in part influences my own position; I feel that my position of non belief is not detrimental to me, or more accurately is the least detrimental to me should a variety of different theological arguments turn out to be correct.

(In fact the last paragraph I've wrote is the first time I've given that dichotomy much thought. I should perhaps return to it)

I think you should. That's a very interesting line of thought and one I for one would like to hear more of your take on.

[afleitch]

Indeed, if it is ascertained that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both valid expressions of human sexual desire and sexual activity with none inherently more right or wrong than the other (in the same manner in which male and female is neutral) then why can’t belief and non-belief, or empiricism and intuition, be considered along similar lines? Of course if this was the case and holding a belief or refusing to hold belief were neutral positions, then if it turns out there is a god, then this status quo benefits disproportionately the non-believer who has nothing to loose in his non-belief (if non-belief is naturally ‘ordained’ by the god as one of two possible outcomes of human development). However the believer is not only investing energy in a belief that in the end won’t curry additional favour with the creator, but may be actively believing something that is contrary to the will of the creator which may in turn be detrimental if that creator is capricious. That in part influences my own position; I feel that my position of non belief is not detrimental to me, or more accurately is the least detrimental to me should a variety of different theological arguments turn out to be correct.

(In fact the last paragraph I've wrote is the first time I've given that dichotomy much thought. I should perhaps return to it)

I think you should. That's a very interesting line of thought and one I for one would like to hear more of your take on.

I think it's along the lines of people simply having an inbuilt preference for one outlook over the other. This is borne out by some studies (like the AQ stuff I mentioned) which I'd have to look at. For both sides, it's always been a 'right' v 'wrong' outlook to the world; rational and empirical vs superstitious and intuitive, religious v non-religious, spiritual v non spiritual. If it's merely just an extension of left brain/right brain then it means that both outlooks are neutral and are 'true' to the person who experiences it. If they are neutral, then if there is a creator neither position is inherently wrong (unless he's purposely creating people who find him incredulous just to punish them).

If the creator is a judge in the Christian mold then someone who is wired to simply not believe isn't erring or isn't accountable. However someone who is wired to be aware of the spiritual could, if god is capricious, do things contrary to that gods will and jeopardise themselves. Theologically speaking it means that those who are religious while having a taste of the divine are burdened by not being able to ever comprehend it. However if what is empirical and scientific is also the will and nature of god, then given that what is empirical is easier to observe and measure, those who are skeptical and inclined to pursue the empiric over the spiritual are inclined to understand nature/god more and if favour is to be had with god, then perhaps ignorance is the way to achieve it.

All just thoughts of course.

[DemPGH]

I'm just not sure if one's ideology, useful or harmful, politics or rational / irrational, can be compared to such a basic personality trait as one's sexuality. There are many, many ideologies, especially through the ages, and they are arrived at by choice. They're human institutions, or extensions of them. I don't see that as being like or comparable to sexuality, although I'm certainly open to the argument. But I'm also a social-constructivist in about as limited a way as one can be. I don't think gender is socially constructed, e.g. Many of the roles that come with it are, but not a biological, hormonal, chemical function in a male or female body (yes, I'm aware that there is androgyny).

The other thing is that I think it's a human trait to be irrational and certainly intuitive - that kind of comes with social and emotional knowledge. We're all irrational and intuitive. Now some folks are more adept in tapping into it than others, but the real issue it how that intuition and irrationality are used.

If they are used to construct textbook knowledge, then we have a big, big, obvious problem. We need a better, wiser standard. That's where intuition and irrationality lose their validity - on their own. I mean, scientists intuit things constantly, but the validity comes in whether or not that intuition can be confirmed. Some folks don't bother with the confirmation / testing process, or model process, which means you can just make up any old thing, and therein is where it's not valid. It's just another whim.

And of course I am always amazed at how quickly people are willing to divorce religion from its awful, inhumane, bloody history in order to make a terrible argument that extols its virtues. I don't think we do that with literally anything else - religion gets another free pass.

Actually, we do it with many things: money, governments, sex, science, speech - the list goes on and on.  Each of these are "good" things that have been exploited in various fashions to serve the selfish interests of individuals.  That doesn't mean we simply dismiss them as inherently bad.  Doing so would be impractical.  There is value in everything, but its virtues can only be embraced if the potential for exploitation is suppressed.

Well, religion is more overtly ideological, though, and was once used to order knowledge. I'm kind of just complaining that people often take the view that religion should be immune to criticism or immune to contempt because of a bunch of illogical reasons.

You are very right, Scott, though, that the conversation around it needs to change, and if there is anyone here who can appeal to any benevolence that religion / faith may possess, someone like you could. I would encourage you to try.

Too many folks grant themselves the authority to judge and determine others' behavior because of it, and that needs to change too.

[afleitch]

It’s not a matter of ‘anything goes’ with ideology. You can hold views that you can demonstrate are false. That position doesn’t really change.

To continue with what I was arguing earlier. It could be argued that because belief is an expression at all, then it must stand to reason that there has to be an element of ‘truth’ in it, otherwise it wouldn’t present itself as an option. The problem with that argument is that it in practice, it is not as selective as people would like. For the Christian it may affirm their belief, but it can also affirm the belief of someone who believes in Zeus, Xenu, elves or a talking fridge. So it may leave open the possibility that belief in something is true, but it does not define any further what that may be and still leaves the believer open to the pitfalls of pursuing the ‘wrong belief’ as expressed earlier. Furthermore such an argument by extension can be applied to any facet of human thought, physicality and ability; labelling one or more as ‘true’ merely because they are presented options.

For some people who are religious, their belief in a god in order to secure their own salvation (whether they consider salvation by faith alone, by works, or by both) requires that the dichotomy of belief v unbelief is not neutral. In order to be theologically consistent, they require their position to be correct (and by extension people who are classified by themselves as believers, but are not believers in his god are therefore also classified as ‘unbelievers.’) So the idea of both positions being neutral is contrary to that person’s belief and therefore cannot be true. However the issue here is not the premise of neutrality being wrong, but a person’s belief dictating to them that it has to be wrong in order to confirm their own belief. This again is something that is not unusual if we look at arguments utilised to suggest a ‘wrongness’ or a ‘disorder’ in someone who exhibits a trait which is merely an expression or extension of their humanity. While the tendency to view nature as a system open to the spiritual, paranormal, religious and intuitive is ‘neutral’ the conclusions reached can still be demonstrably false (and likewise for those who view nature as closed to such views)

On what basis can the argument for tendencies to belief and non-belief to be merely neutral positions be made? Belief in god is interlinked with social cognition (see my discussion in the ‘Is Atheism a mental illness’ thread); our ability and our propensity to think about minds other than our own. The study that piqued my interest was published in 2011 by Boston University on those who scored highly on the AQ, a standard test designed to measure people against the autistic spectrum which suggested those that scored higher on the spectrum tended to have both higher levels of atheist/agnostic levels of belief, but also higher levels of ‘internal’ belief systems; systems of morality based on an individuals perception of the world without recourse to other methods of perception. Jesse Bering in 2002 noted that in autobiographical accounts written by people with high functioning autism (such as Asperger’s Syndrome), god is seen more as a principle; a notion, rather than as a person. Given that he is a notion, then any discussion of god trends towards the deistic on the basis that the concept of ‘god the person’ is not tangible (i.e a god possessing human characteristics and concerned with human affairs) Those who are religious with high functioning autism (see Simon Baron Cohen) tend to be religious because of the order, system and sense of ritual that it brings rather than any form of anthropomorphising by the believer.

People on the autistic spectrum often lack the ability to see the purpose in objects or events. As mentioned earlier this is not necessarily disadvantageous except on an immediate level (the snake in the grass) as humans have a tendency to over see, or over think purpose in events that are natural or explainable. Humans have an inbuilt bias towards intuition and seeking a teleological connection in all events. Bering and Bethany Heywood found that while even atheists tend to say that some things happened to them ‘for a reason’, subjects with Aspergers gave ‘fewer teleological responses than the control group.’ Indeed, some even expressed confusion over why teleological responses to some questions could ever be given by anyone at all. A 2012 study from the University of British Columbia also concluded that those who scored more highly on the AQ had a weaker belief in a personal god. The same was true of people who scored lowly on the AQ but highly on the EQ (Empathy Quotient). The third conclusion was that men were much less likely than women to say they strongly believed in a personal god even controlling for autism (which has higher incidences of diagnoses in men)

If you are disposed to thinking that being on the autistic spectrum is a ‘deficiency’ as opposed to simply a quirk of post natal development that even predisposes those who suffer from it to some particular advantages, then you could conclude that ‘non belief’ is somehow a deficit in itself. The counter argument to this is of course, is that people who are on the autistic spectrum have a tendency to not over analyse the ‘purpose’ in mundane events and may be able to reach a more nuanced and more accurate view as to their cause (if any)

It has been established for a longer period (and to a greater degree of controversy) that schizophrenia and religious belief have an intrinsic link. Those who suffer from schizophrenic or schizotypal episodes can suffer from aural and visual hallucinations that to the sufferer are unambiguously real. An external observer may conclude that these hallucinations were not there (external to the sufferer) but may not be able to disprove or explain them to the satisfaction of the person who experiences them. Those who suffer from such episodes find it difficult to think in a clear and logical manner. Studies have shown that up to 21% of patients in Germany admitted to hospital have experienced delusions of a religious nature; that is to say delusions connected with specific religious beliefs as opposed to general feelings of spirituality, 21% in Austria and 36% in the USA. By contrast the figure for Japan is only 7% and Pakistan 6%. Studies have shows a cultural link in how sufferers interpret psychotic episodes. In the case of paranoid delusions, the assumed persecutor was more likely to be a supernatural being amongst those who were Christian, or culturally Christian than those who were Muslim or Buddhist (Stompe, Friedman, Ortwein et al) The difficulty for psychiatrists if of course that religiosity and dalliances with the supernatural are not in themselves psychotic episodes. This makes the treatment of those with mental and psychological health problems who are religious and may manifest delusions of a religious nature somewhat difficult. Saying that ‘god told me to feed the poor’ is of course consequentially different from someone saying that ‘god told me to kill prostitutes’ or ‘the bible says to pluck out my eye’ (see Feld and Waldfogel)

These examples are of course two extremes. The caveats (which in as sensitive a forum as this probably have to be stated despite being obvious) are of course ‘being atheist does not mean you are autistic and being religious doesn’t mean your schizotypal.’ However they do feed into how people’s inbuilt perception (both conditions have a genetic predisposition to them) or internal orientation make them susceptible to strong positions of belief and non belief. Most people of course lie between the two, with men being more inclined to non-belief than women for example. It would heavily suggest that neither position is ultimately ‘correct’ in comparison to the other.

If true, then that has wider repercussions for theologians more than for the non religious.

[Gustaf]

I thought it was pretty clear from the context that the article is a bit tongue-in-cheek because a lot of people have been spreading the idea that atheists are smarter based on some study.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

No.  Whether or not someone believes in a god or not has nothing to do with mental illness.  I've come to realize it has everything to do with upbringing, experiences, and how life is perceived by the individual. 

[afleitch]

Sigh (and that wasn't directed at the last poster)

[pbrower2a]

Religion can be a positive force in the lives of the dim-witted. It is best that such people learn rigid rules of conduct because they are gullible and can be tricked into doing criminal acts.

With the mentally-ill, religion is dangerous.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

...I've...never seen a Christian theology that concedes the notion that God is complex before.

With the Trinity there is both unity and diversity, and in that sense one could say God has aspects of both simplicity and complexity.  Theology that focuses just on the simplicity and risks abstracting God into a concept and ignoring God's relational and personal nature.  If God is relating to his complex creation and all of us in our complexity, it would seem to me God has, at least in some sense, the full measure of reality's complexity within himself.

afleitch, I found that concept of the "minimally counterintuitive" very interesting.  I would relate it to the process of revelation: God reveals himself to people in ways that build on their existing concepts, even while changing and challenging them.  Changes in views of divine agency is part of this, but that is just one aspect of belief, and even of teleology. There is also the question of relation of God and those receiving the revelation, to the wider world. Thus there is a continual transformation and shift from the tribal deity to the more universal throughout the Old Testament - though due to human limitations and the recurrence of social prejudices it may not be a straight line chronologically.

The difference in susceptibility or openness to belief between a person high on the autism spectrum and someone with schizophrenia, is I suspect more or less depending on how religious experience is conceived or approached in any given place and time.   Even the emphasis on belief as the most salient aspect of religion is significant as arising out of a certain kind of religion.  Evangelicalism tends toward emphasizing emotive experiences and insistence on having enough or the right kind of "faith" in ways that - as you suggested from your experience and I can relate as well - are going to be confusing from autistic spectrum individuals even more than it is for others.  Are there other approaches to faith (in the broadest sense) that would be more conducive to a meaningful religious life for the autistic?  I believe it is the challenge of the faith community to discover this, to relate to people where they are.  Unique strengths and experiences can be appreciated, though growth and sometimes balance is encouraged as well.  You mention your experience practicing doing the things your obsessive scrupulosity tells you not to do. This is exactly the course many spiritual guides have suggested even long before cognitive behavioral psychology.  My point being basically that religion can be much more relevant when it works with individual psychological variety than it is against it in some drive toward conformity.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

...I've...never seen a Christian theology that concedes the notion that God is complex before.

With the Trinity there is both unity and diversity, and in that sense one could say God has aspects of both simplicity and complexity.  Theology that focuses just on the simplicity and risks abstracting God into a concept and ignoring God's relational and personal nature.  If God is relating to his complex creation and all of us in our complexity, it would seem to me God has, at least in some sense, the full measure of reality's complexity within himself.

Good point. This is something I hadn't fully considered before.

[afleitch]

Thank you shua, for responding.

[Gustaf]

Sigh (and that wasn't directed at the last poster)

Was it directed at me? Because I obviously wasn't responding to your very long post but just in general to the thread's premise.

[afleitch]

Sigh (and that wasn't directed at the last poster)

Was it directed at me? Because I obviously wasn't responding to your very long post but just in general to the thread's premise.

No It was directed generally at the fact that no one ever seems to respond to my posts (and a response to this one took 18 days!) despite the fact I think I'm courteous in responding to other peoples. This board seems to be increasingly no more than a liberal Christian echo chamber (look at anvi's topic) so if questions posed, or responses given don't fit within that domain they tend not to go anywhere, which is a great shame.

[Gustaf]

Sigh (and that wasn't directed at the last poster)

Was it directed at me? Because I obviously wasn't responding to your very long post but just in general to the thread's premise.

No It was directed generally at the fact that no one ever seems to respond to my posts (and a response to this one took 18 days!) despite the fact I think I'm courteous in responding to other peoples. This board seems to be increasingly no more than a liberal Christian echo chamber (look at anvi's topic) so if questions posed, or responses given don't fit within that domain they tend not to go anywhere, which is a great shame.

Ah, I don't have time to follow discussion enough to notice this pattern.

My only excuse was that your post was long and I didn't have time.

[afleitch]

afleitch, I found that concept of the "minimally counterintuitive" very interesting.  I would relate it to the process of revelation: God reveals himself to people in ways that build on their existing concepts, even while changing and challenging them.  Changes in views of divine agency is part of this, but that is just one aspect of belief, and even of teleology. There is also the question of relation of God and those receiving the revelation, to the wider world. Thus there is a continual transformation and shift from the tribal deity to the more universal throughout the Old Testament - though due to human limitations and the recurrence of social prejudices it may not be a straight line chronologically.

The difference in susceptibility or openness to belief between a person high on the autism spectrum and someone with schizophrenia, is I suspect more or less depending on how religious experience is conceived or approached in any given place and time.   Even the emphasis on belief as the most salient aspect of religion is significant as arising out of a certain kind of religion.  Evangelicalism tends toward emphasizing emotive experiences and insistence on having enough or the right kind of "faith" in ways that - as you suggested from your experience and I can relate as well - are going to be confusing from autistic spectrum individuals even more than it is for others.  Are there other approaches to faith (in the broadest sense) that would be more conducive to a meaningful religious life for the autistic?  I believe it is the challenge of the faith community to discover this, to relate to people where they are.  Unique strengths and experiences can be appreciated, though growth and sometimes balance is encouraged as well.  You mention your experience practicing doing the things your obsessive scrupulosity tells you not to do. This is exactly the course many spiritual guides have suggested even long before cognitive behavioral psychology.  My point being basically that religion can be much more relevant when it works with individual psychological variety than it is against it in some drive toward conformity.

I think you are in danger making an assumption that there is something ‘missing’ in a person who has an inbuilt rationale that orders him towards the conclusion that there isn’t a god and that faith communities have to bridge this. My argument was very much to the contrary. There are many facets of humanity that we understand to be neutral. Being male is undoubtedly more advantageous than being female but there is no rightness or wrongness in being male or female. The same is true of being left handed or right handed, dark skinned or light skinned, gay or straight. It has taken us some time to reach these conclusions as there is an inherent inclination for humans to categorise individuals as part of an ‘in’ or ‘out’ group and to see difference before we see similarity. Likewise in a purely conscious sense an individual’s knowledge or perception may have different advantages or disadvantages to them or values placed on them by society, but we cannot argue that say the painter is ‘wrong’ and the physicist is ‘right.’

Why therefore on the issue of belief vs. non belief, spirituality vs. reason and intuition vs. empiricism do we assume that one side is right and the other wrong? Can both positions not merely be neutral in respect to one another? If there is a god and that this god is in the Christian mould, then if a tendency towards non-belief is simply a neutral trait, then the person who does not believe in god is not in error. However if non belief is the surest way to damnation in whatever literal and metaphorical sense that may be, then if that assumption is correct then non believers have been created simply to be damned. This is not a new philosophical problem by any means. Contrary to this, if holding a position of belief is also neutral then this position wouldn’t necessarily curry additional favour with god. So what is the believer to do? The believer simply not bothering to seek out god through prayer, meditation, worship etc is contrary to how they were ‘made’ and could be contrary to the will of god. However an over eagerness towards understanding god could lead the believer to believe things or do things also contrary to god. So the pursuit of god by the believer seems to be set with potential pitfalls despite the believers being endowed with the potential to ‘taste’ the divine. For the non-believer, passivity towards god is also a neutral position. Should the non believer seek knowledge of the world; of the empiric and measurable, then if these are also defined by god to his standards then a non believer who is observing the empirically definable (as opposed to the believer observing the empirically indefinable) is more likely to pursue the ‘correct’ path towards god.

So trying to hammer home the divine to someone who is made with an inclination to find the whole concept implausible and impersonal could turn out to be along the same vein as trying to force someone to be who they are not.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Afleitch, first of all, it has never been my intention to prove that someone is "wrong" on the issue of God's existence.  As I've stated before, being "right" is a very slender part of my philosophy, and I think that if there is a God, He or She shows compassion toward those who who had wrong belief or no belief.  I can only speak for myself on that, of course.

That being said, I don't see how having belief in God vs. not having belief in God is the same as being left-handed or right-handed.  Being right-handed is not a position one can take.  You cannot rationally defend your being right-handed, unlike your belief in God or non-belief in God.

[Person Man]

Yikes.  Add religion to the list of things this forum isn't mature enough to discuss.

Indeed. There are many reasons out in the world why there may be many that don't agree with you. The entire communism thing and Christian Fundamentalism thing both probably turn off many normal and productive would be believers and nonbelievers.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Being male is undoubtedly more advantageous than being female but there is no rightness or wrongness in being male or female.

Undoubted?  That depends on what one uses to measure "advantage".  While it is certainly true that in a materialistic sense our society is currently more favorable to males, it is not inevitable that will always be the case.  Nor is materialstic well-being the only measure of relative advantage.

[afleitch]

Afleitch, first of all, it has never been my intention to prove that someone is "wrong" on the issue of God's existence.  As I've stated before, being "right" is a very slender part of my philosophy, and I think that if there is a God, He or She shows compassion toward those who who had wrong belief or no belief.  I can only speak for myself on that, of course.

That being said, I don't see how having belief in God vs. not having belief in God is the same as being left-handed or right-handed.  Being right-handed is not a position one can take.  You cannot rationally defend your being right-handed, unlike your belief in God or non-belief in God.

Scott, that long winded series of posts wasn’t directed at you or anyone specifically

On the matter of religion being a ‘choice’, yes it is. There is after all a veritable smorgasbord of beliefs to choose from. However the studies I highlighted among others suggested that the inclination towards a spiritualistic or empirical view of the world could be very much hard wired. If some people more than others are inclined towards an inbuilt ‘disbelief’ if you will, whether to God or Zeus or the zodiac or whatever then that may simply be who they are. If there isn’t a god, then of course it doesn’t matter. If there is, then it presents a challenge to theists.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

However the studies I highlighted among others suggested that the inclination towards a spiritualistic or empirical view of the world could be very much hard wired. If some people more than others are inclined towards an inbuilt ‘disbelief’ if you will, whether to God or Zeus or the zodiac or whatever then that may simply be who they are. If there isn’t a god, then of course it doesn’t matter. If there is, then it presents a challenge to theists.

Not really. A Calvinist could point to those studies as an indicator of the validity of the doctrine of unconditional election.   While it does provide a challenge to some religious theologies, just as it does to some secular philosophical schools, to say it provides a challenge to theists in general is definitely overstating the case. At most, maybe it challenges those theists whose theology you tend to dislike least.

[afleitch]

However the studies I highlighted among others suggested that the inclination towards a spiritualistic or empirical view of the world could be very much hard wired. If some people more than others are inclined towards an inbuilt ‘disbelief’ if you will, whether to God or Zeus or the zodiac or whatever then that may simply be who they are. If there isn’t a god, then of course it doesn’t matter. If there is, then it presents a challenge to theists.

Not really. A Calvinist could point to those studies as an indicator of the validity of the doctrine of unconditional election.   While it does provide a challenge to some religious theologies, just as it does to some secular philosophical schools, to say it provides a challenge to theists in general is definitely overstating the case. At most, maybe it challenges those theists whose theology you tend to dislike least.

Well I identified the specific theological positions, or at the very least an example earlier in the thread. The last post was a summary.