Autism and atheism link??

Post Reply New Topic

What makes things rough for me philosophically is that finding true or real accountability for actions made is a very iffy endeavor. Trying to then draw, from what to the best of my ability appears to be a fully deterministic universe, a set of motives for a deity who'd be grading us or trying to put us through something for some purpose - the logic seems to just collapse on itself. I grew up with religion, many in my family are deeply religious, and I suppose the only reason I'm not anti-theistic is my own bias that I know they're good people, that they mean well, and I don't get the notion that they're in any way meaningful disingenuous.

I think what can be incredibly diffult though is the realisation that with atheism you don't get fixes to problems so much as a rearrangement and things like nihilism and the sort of slow-grating that life delivers can turn fatal for a lot of people if they aren't on their toes and actively watching out for that danger.

Just getting rid of the quote pyramid. The issues with determinism and Christianity are many, if god always has a plan and our paths are determined by him, then we do not have free will. If we do not have free will then belief is not a choice, if belief is not a choice it follows that he has condemned those of us who are born in such a way that we cannot believe to eternal torture. If we have free will and belief is a choice, then the choice is between eternal damnation and eternal euphoria and I don't think it gets more "cake or death" than that.

I'm anti-theistic because of the people in my family and because I'm aware of the danger of credulity.

Some Classical Pantheists describe their Omniverse, etc. as God, while others choose not to use the Word God at all. However the common element is that what is described is not restricted to the constructs of human personality, as anthropomorphized in Abrahamic religions.

http://www.pantheismtoday.com/tag/classical-pantheism



So whether or not a Classical Pantheist refers to themself as Atheist depends on how they define theism, per their personal preference.

Before one can define atheist, one must define theism, in context of the culture, or individual whom they are speaking with, because there is more than one definition of theism, acceptable in the modern English Language.

So per just the one example of Classical Pantheism, of which there are many other analogies among human cultures, past and present the statement that you make here:



is correct within the parameters of some definitions of theism, but not correct within other acceptable parameters the definition of theism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism




The Abrahamic Religions anthropomorphize and restrict God as a "personal" God. Classical Pantheism by definition does not do this. Therefore while some of those that understand the Abrahamic religious definition of God and theism, might refer to Classical Pantheists as atheists, and some Classical Pantheists may refer to themselves as atheists; the general definition of theism includes both the Abrahamic God and the "Omniverse", "Oneness", or whatever a Classical Pantheist choses to describe their definition of what is.

So the answer for is a Classical Pantheist an Atheist, depends on a Classical Pantheists definition of theism. A positive belief in God or Gods is not necessary for the general definition of theism.

The belief in a diety is required but per the definition of diety, it does not have to be a supernatural deity, it can be a preternatural deity described as something as simple as a reverance for what IS, as is the case for some Classical Pantheists.

Per that simplified acceptable version of theism, within the parameters of the acceptable general definition of theism, I feel confident that my cat can qualify as a theist, per that human definition, in the sense that the cat possesses mammalian emotions, feline intelligence, perception, and an obvious reverance for what is, whether it is the human whom it receives its subsistence from, or a sunny warm day as opposed to a stormy cold one.

While some might say no, that is just natural behavior for the cat, my response would be it is evidence of a reverence for what "IS", that I too, share with the cat and experience as classical pantheism. The perceptions are filtered through the eyes and minds of different species, but we share a similiar connectedness.

So, per the parameters of this simple definition of theism, there are no atheists; we all revere what is, some more than others, but it is impossible to survive without reverence for what is, to some degree.

And in reference to the parameters you present for the definition of theism, your suggestion for whom is an atheist that does not meet those parameters of theism is logical, but only within the parameters of that acceptable definition of theism, that you present.

So, we are both correct in our varied opinions as evidenced by third party sources, within the parameters of the acceptable cultural definitions that we have chosen.

As one moves away from our shared culture, the language and definitions vary, in resulting interpretations of what is or what is not what we describe as theism and atheism.

In discussing God, Theism, Atheism or Dieties a pre-requisite of the definition of God,Theism, Atheism, and dieties is beneficial, because there is no one universal accepted definition for God, Theism, Atheism, or Deism within our culture, or many others.

Wiki illustrates the parameters of the definition of Atheism.

.

God is only one type of diety that is revered as one, and the Abrahamic God is only one type of God that is revered as one.

In Classical Pantheism the diety is the natural Universe that is revered as one.

A lack of a positive belief in God or Gods or a concept of God, is a general description of God, but only a subset of what is acceptable as a definition for a diety.

It is no wonder that a discussion of any of this can result in much confusion and disagreement.

The differences among definitions of each of the terms discussed are highly complex, and specific to one's history and exposure to these terms and the different acceptable cultural definitions associated with each term.

At the time when the Greek word "atheos" was coined to describe the lack of god belief, most people used to believe in gods. That is still the case on a global scale. Theism is the norm, atheism is the exception. Without any qualifier such as "strong" or "gnostic", atheism simply means absence of theistic belief.

A rock can't have any belief whatsoever, so it doesn't make much sense to describe its lack of belief. Besides, your rock argument would also work for asexuality and apathy, two other labels that simply mean "without [something]". A rock is asexual because it doesn't have or desire sex, and apathetic because it can't feel passion or excitement. That doesn't make these words nonsensical.

If you assign any form of conscience or agency to your entire environment or non-living parts thereof, you are anthropomorphizing. And if you don't do that, what is the point of calling yourself a Pantheist?

If you don't believe in theos, whatever that means for you personally, you aren't a theist. I happen to believe in the omniverse (the multiverse in string theory), but that doesn't make me a Pantheist.

In Classical Pantheism the omniverse has no consciousness or agency, other than what is. All that is required is a reverence for what is.

I found myself seeing the patterns of oneness in all that was around me from the time I was very young, with reverance for the totality of it as my first perceptions of a child who could not put sentences together to communicate with others.

I was lucky to live near a desolated beach and to be able to walk those beaches for years as a youth and young adult. I was fortunate to have been raised as a child on a river bank without any TV or radio or other manmade interference until I entered school.

The similarities in the structural patterns of a Hurricane, a spiral galaxy, a Nautilus Shell, and a fetus, fascinated me as a youth. There was no question of separation for me and no need to assign personality or reason for it. As my knowledge of science increased my understanding of that oneness was only reinforced.

Now through science I not only understand the oneness of what is but I also understand that I am connected through biological and inanimate material in a solid string of linkages through my ancestors and beyond, where if any of those linkages had been broken, would not have led to this opportunity for awareness.

My empirical knowledge has changed but the reverence for the totality of what is, could be no stronger that that first perception of the memory of my life. I was no blank slate, I was the result of a totality of an amazing string of events that had lasted at least14 billion years.

In effect, I was born a pantheist and lived the life of a pantheist, with no understanding of what it was until just recently; and with no idea I would find a website with the symbols of the nautilus shell, hurricane, and spiral galaxy patterns that had fascinated me in those early years that symbolize the reverence for oneness that reflected my first experience of life.

There was never a need for me to call myself a Pantheist, it was both an inherent part of my nature, and part of my natural response to the environment.

I didn't create a God, I just took notice and reverance for what is. That meets the general definition of theism. I am an objective minded person. So, by definition, my beliefs reflect Pantheism, and Theism.

I think your view makes a lot of sense (I won't quote it because it is directly above my post). The only point that I disagree with is that this meets the definition of theism.

The broadest definition of theism that I have come across is "the belief that at least one deity exists". Your appreciation and reverence of nature and the universe (or the omniverse even) is not belief in and worship of a deity, imho. It only confuses matters if you use the word god to describe nature.

And it certainly doesn't help naturalists and rational skeptics who oppose superstitious influences in politics and the school system when our fellow rational thinkers, who happen to call themselves Pantheists, stand up and shout "how can you say that religion is superstition! I also believe in god!" I mean, it's counter-productive. I imagine that neither of us wants to live in a semi-theocracy where creationism is taught in classrooms, so I don't understand why rationalists would lump themselves in with theists.

My definition of the Word God is Oneness, which is a common definition of the word among many cultures in the world that speak different languages and have a different word for God and/or Oneness, and many other terms that fit under the broad category of dieties.

I've used the word God as a synonym for that Oneness as a youth, however I try to avoid the word now, because I have seen it used as a weapon, enough where the associations of the word in my mind are tarnished.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/worship



I don't care for the word Worship either, because it brings to mind those same tarnished associations. However, Reverance does not have tarnished associations for me, so I use it instead.

I agree with the general definition of Theism you present, it appears that the only place we may have a difference of opinion is on the definition of the word diety.

God, Gods are terms that fall within the broad category of dieties among the cultures of the world. Oneness for me describes all that is. Some people call it the Universe. Some people call it the Omniverse, Some people call it God. I choose not to limit it with those specific terms, in part because of my view on preternatural phenomenon described below, that some might argue is not possible based on the current knowledge of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity





I don't believe in the supernatural so my definition of oneness as diety fits within the preternatural. For example, I believe that a significant level of pre-cognition in some human beings has been reliably established to exist, through the recent research of the reputable scientist, Bem.

My belief is that it has a rational natural explanation, that is not yet fully understood, and may never be understood, if it is beyond human capacity, to determine with the scientific method. That might not fit within the parameters of what most currently consider as the Omniverse, or the Universe, per strict scientific definition. So, I attempt to use the most inclusive words I think of such as "what is", "all that is", "oneness", etc.



Rational thought is an interesting process, it prevents us from gaining false beliefs, but it also can trap us, from seeing a larger picture. About 80 to 90% of the world population participates in some type of religious activity.

Theism has become a tarnished word for some, like the word religion, because of the negative activities associated with the practices of some religions. I agree, the words are tarnished for me.

However, it would be irrational for me to determine that 80 to 90% of the world population engages in a fully irrational activity, and has done it for thousands of years, without thorough analysis of the activity.

What I know from science is that human connections are vital to both human happiness and human health. The rituals associated with organized Religions, regardless of belief systems, provides that connectedness, for many whom otherwise might not have the opportunity for it. Particularly, in the heterogenous society of the US, where it is one of the few avenues left in society, where traditions are still commonly shared.

Some people, particularly older folks in the US, would be completely isolated from others if it were not for religion. For some it is literally a life or death situation to have those connections from organized religions.

The US is not a particularly friendly nation to those whom come upon misfortune in life, through the loss of a job, etc. Religion in the US, plays a huge part in the Social Welfare of it's citizenary, from Pre-School through assistance in old age.

Interestingly, on average, western developed countries that are homogenous, and have full social welfare benefits, have the lowest participation among the citizenary in religious activity.

So, It appears that there is survival value for people to participate in religious activity in the majority of the world, where social welfare systems, are weak to non-existent.



Back to the original topic. A major issue with religious activity, in the US, is that one has to meet an unspoken norm in some organized religions to be accepted.

This is tough for some autistic individuals to navigate. Some, likely, whom have attempted the experience, have not gained the benefit of social connectedness, that keep others involved in the experience for decades.

I don't think it is unusual that many people that didn't feel accepted in the early church environments, might go on to their own personal belief systems beyond that of abrahamic religions. Many likely steer clear of everything with a religious connotation.

With the available criteria from Google on Religion, Theism, and Deities and an honest assessment, I was able to "self diagnose" myself as a Pantheist, a Theist, and a Deist.

The labels mean no more to me now, that they did before I heard of them as a child. They haven't changed me anymore than having the Autism label assigned to me, much later in life.


Culture though, is a special interest, of which religion is an integral part.

Organized Church attendance appears to be losing it's appeal in the US since the early 2000's; many theories have been proposed as to why, but interestingly attendance steadily increased through the nineties, and the decrease actually started after 9/11. Apparently other activities, are taking it's place.

There was a 300 percent drop off of serial Killers per that decade also.


The rise of Broadband Internet Access is providing a plethora of new online activities that weren't available in the 90's.

Activities that may be presenting opportunities for Church Attendees and Serial Killers, in the home environment, that weren't available before. Virtual social connections for potential Church Attendees and a variety of sordid activities available to potential Serial Killers, that they didn't have a great deal of access to before the 2000's.

And, Bowling Leagues in the US decreased by 100% during that decade as well.


Real life social opportunities don't appear to hold the same appeal as they use to. Even Serial killing.

I was visiting Luray Caverns in Va. and while the guide was telling us that the stalagmites form at a rate of 1 cu. in. per every 120 years, I noticed the 10 in. tall stalagmite at my left foot (!) which was sitting on top of a very new looking smooth red brick, one of hundreds lining the path in the cavern, clearly placed their very recently. I have learned to ask myself whenever I hear something new, "Who wants me to believe this and why?"

On the first piece of your statement, from my understanding of evolution an eye wouldn't have started out as an eye. It may have started out as light-sensitive cells IE letting the creature tell the difference between light and dark and evolved from there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7E is a fairly clear explanation by professor Richard Dawkins. Evolution is a series of small mutations that cumulatively create large changes in an organism.

DNA and RNA does in fact look like program code but then again DNA and RNA is in fact a highly advanced form of biological code but that doesn't mean there has to be an intelligent creator behind it. I've used the quote before, but again "It works perfectly well without that assumption".

On the second note on the time scales, it has been conclusively proven using carbon-14 dating. Furthermore, fossils and similar objects are only created under a small set of circumstances and also requires certain characteristics in the creature.

The "Intelligent design" perspective is ruined by what I like to call the "Bill Hicks" argument, which goes "And the apostles said "Dear Lord what a huge f*****g lizard in front of us" It's also ruined by things like Chinese culture, which unlike the goat herders of the bronze age middle east were advanced enough to write things down and examine evidence at about the time when creationists claim the world came into existence. So, in other words the Chinese predate the existence of Earth according to creationists. If you want to know how evolution works, do a google search for "Syphilis resistent to antibiotics" and see how quickly the syphilis bacteria evolved into being resistant to penicillin shortly after its invention. Seeing as you don't believe in evolution, you can't believe in HIV/AIDS, Swine-flu or a myriad of other illnesses because evolution is the only way viruses and bacteria can adapt to affect a different species that they did originally.

I feel like a Bill Maher quote is apt for this line of inquiry, "You know, its funny how people can fly on a plane, write a sermon on a laptop, listen to gospel on an Ipod, touch down via radar, walk through automatic doors into an air-conditioned megachurch, stand on a hydraulic stage under 1000 electric lights and give a speech skeptical of science"

I'm fine with people doubting science, but be consistent, don't let your children get penicillin, give birth at home in the tub, die at about 35 years old from tooth inflammation spreading because dentistry is technically science too! I wish we could take everyone who "doesn't believe in science" and ship them off to their own country without science and we'll see which country does best the one based on science or the one based on faith.

I think autistic people are quite a bit more likely to reject religion yes. Though then again, autistic people also have a higher tendency to be extremely religious imo. It can go both ways, but on average I would say yes, there are a higher proportion of non-religious Aspies than of the rest of the human population, most of which is at least formally religious.

There was one individual that reported themselves as a Catholic Priest, diagnosed with Aspergers on this site, that I have come across. I suppose there could be more.

I was raised as a Catholic, and from the perspective of a rigid structure and routine, that rarely changes as opposed to the format of protestant religions, it seems like a vocation, that at least might have a good proportion of individuals on the Broader Autism Phenotype.

Not to mention the celibacy factor, which could also play a role, if some of the reports from this site, are reflective of the general population of individuals that might come close to meeting the criteria for Aspergers.

The same could apply for Nuns, Monks, and a number of individuals that might gain religion as their "special" interest, and live a life, largely absorbed in it.

And, this area might have drawn greater interest on an historical basis, when there were not as many opportunities to direct ones focus toward.

My Grandfather was a Catholic Priest, in Europe, who moved to the states and was ex-communicated, because he chose to get married in his middle thirties.

He spent the rest of his life trying to convert catholics to protestants because he felt like the Catholocism was so complex, that the basic message was lost. He did it through writing, though, instead of an evangelical approach. Analysis rather than emotion.

Ironic that my mother attempted to raise me as a Catholic. I enjoyed singing in the Choir and playing the piano, but fell away from the complexity of the teachings of that religion, early on.

In reverance for my perception of all that I observed that is, I took it a step further, than my Grandfather did. The fact that I was alive was miracle enough for me, and I owed the most recent of events that led to my existence, to countless ancestors, that had one thing in common. A will to survive and reproduce.

The choice my Grandfather made as a Catholic priest, is one of millions of choices and struggles that result in all of our existences.

The main thing, early on, that I couldn't reconcile about the Abrahamic religions, was that there was this wonderful reward available from an omnipresent being, for a select few, from all those countless ancestors, whose efforts led to my existence.

Obviously my struggles could not, remotely be compared, to those of my distant ancestors of thousands of years ago.

If they, and others in the world, including the creatures of the planet, many of which are likely superior to me, in ways I cannot imagine, were excluded because they were not exposed to a book; it was not a reward I deserved.

I deserved no more than what was possible for the others, including the almost infinite number of potential creatures that exist, beyond the atmosphere of our planet.

My wife gets mad if I suggest to her that she is an animal not that different from others. That to me is the most amazing illusion provided by culture, an escape from the reality that we are all animals.

While structured religious activities seem to be losing their appeal in western developed countries, that illusion of disconnection from the rest of nature, appears to be getting stronger in the same countries.

There was priviledge to have been closely connected to nature, most of life.

However, no matter how close that feeling was, the positive feelings from etheral beliefs that others experience, may be just as real or more for them. One similarity is, that it has enhanced the chances for survival for some.

Atheist is a fine word for those whom wish to label themselves as separate from theists, however, as science currently suggests we were all connected at some point, and have taken different paths. I choose to respect the paths of others, no matter how different they may have been than mine.

The most compelling of human reverences that we share with ancestors and likely many creatures here and everywhere in the Universe, is a reverence for survival. Whether it is limited to the one that is self or extended to the one that is all.

And one of the most amazing things that I can imagine, is that some creature, somewhere else, far away on another planet, may hold reverence for us, as part of the one that is all.