Atheism and autism

Via Vox:

The study, from University of Boston, speculates that common autistic spectrum behaviours such as ‘a preference for logical beliefs’ and a distrust of metaphor and figures of speech, could be responsible.

His comment:

What is described as a “preference for logical beliefs” should actually be phrased as a “preference for beliefs that appear to be logical”. For, as we have repeatedly seen, socially dysfunctional atheists tend to be extraordinarily illogical, to such an extent that they will deny the existence of straightforward dictionary definitions in use for hundreds of years in order to cling to their pseudo-logic

I couldn’t possibly comment.  😉   Meanwhile, here is the first cause argument:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause
The universe has a beginning
Therefore the Universe has a cause

Here are objections to that argument and answers to those objections.

12 comments for “Atheism and autism

  1. September 28, 2011 at 08:07

    Personally I get suspicious when someone asks me to trust them and can’t offer nice logical explanations for stuff for why I should.

    I like to imagine that is not a sign of some mental issue, more plain old common sense.

    I do know that there are people who don’t like to double check what they think/believe…

    People who believe in things strongly enough to imagine that if they blow themselves up to kill a bunch of people, basically just because they think differently, then they will get a ticket to some hick 13 year old boys idea of paradise full of hot available girls.

    If you ask me that’s pretty nutty.

    Or they could just go to Vegas.

    I do agree, probably something caused the universe to happen.

  2. September 28, 2011 at 08:59

    I was looking forward to arguing in a logically illogical fashion, or at least to clarifying the ideas of ‘start’ and ’cause’, but I can’t get the link to work.

  3. September 28, 2011 at 09:56

    a ticket to some hick 13 year old boys idea of paradise full of hot available girls

    72 of them?

    I can’t get the link to work

    Let me work on it.

    Try that now.

  4. September 28, 2011 at 11:32

    No link. But I checked some stuff out. (Sources Muhammad al-Bukhari (810 – 870), Al-Tirmidhi (824 – 892), Chapter (Surah) Al-Waqi’a (The Event)(56):34-36][)

    It sounds like Houries are all X or Y clones of Adam. There is a question if they have souls, or maybe free will or not.

    They are apparently 60 cubits tall!! (Over 90 foot tall? That can’t be right… they must have dropped a decimal point or something while watching their boobies maybe)

    They all look like movie stars. See-thru ones, with the marrow of their bones showing like strings of pearls and rubies, or like red wine in a clear glass.

    That sounds a bit creepy to me, but maybe it would look ok once you got used to it? They also spend a bit of time combing their hair with gold combs, apparently.

    Oh and they don’t go to the bathroom, spit, have runy noses, or periods but they do sweat and that smells horney and musky.

    I guess they would have to sweat or they would swell up and explode if they drank anything. I wonder if they are allowed to cry? Oh and (I guess only the girl ones) have hot pointy boobies.

    Added bonus! Everyone who gets into paradise gets (probably) 72 of them of the opposite sex and they are officially husbands/wives, along with all their original husbands and wives (Err well I guess putting up with an ex or two is a small price to pay for etarnal youth?).

    Yes anyone making it into heaven also gets rebuilt into an eternally young virginal movie star body everyone exactly the same age. There seemed to be some talk of facelights also.. did these guys ever visit second life?

    Looks like there is some pretty serious real estate thrown in too., plenty of booze and food.

    And get this.. no actual need to blow yourself up of kill anyone to get it either… apparently.

  5. JD
    September 28, 2011 at 15:54
  6. September 28, 2011 at 17:18

    Moggsy, link works now.

    He’s not a good example, JD because the man is plain ignorant. I saw a debunking on him by an academic which list 12 crimes against scholarship in the god Delusion. He avoids debate too – prefers to just assert or put $100 000 price tags on himself to agree to debate. What a charlatan.

  7. September 28, 2011 at 19:25

    I find Agnosticism much more logical than Atheism.

  8. September 28, 2011 at 22:17

    So what about socially functional atheists, where do they fit in…

    This brings back a memory which may or may not be relevant to the post…

  9. September 29, 2011 at 08:40

    I don’t know anything to suggest Dawkins is Autistic.

    I read Dawkins and he did make some telling points against organised religion. I got the impression his big bugbear was organised religion and the the use it makes of people. Also the way beople believe stuff that does not really make sense and is not necessary either way.

    I do wonder if in olden days he might have been a Quaker.

    As for Autism. I think that is a red herring really. I have had some dealings with autism and to me it seems that social rules are important to autistic people, better if they are self consistent and logical, but the rules are the important thing.

    I think the reason for that is they find it difficult to figure out how to behave to work out the rules for themselves, and they know they mess up and that makes them feel bad and insecure.

    So what they do cos they cant figure how to behave on the fly is to have a big set of rules in their heads and follow them, trouble is they often need a new rule for new situations.

    So basically I think the whole Autism/religion argument the Univertity of Boston thing brings up is badly thought out, or even maybe dishonest/irrelivant.

  10. September 29, 2011 at 12:47

    As for Autism. I think that is a red herring really.

    My thoughts too. It’s something but autism? Not so sure about that.

  11. Tim
    October 6, 2011 at 00:03

    What I have found amongst those that have HFA is that the younger ones tend towards atheism/agnosticism more than older people and there could be several reasons for this.

    1. I could simply be wrong and it is only those in my experience that tend to be younger.

    2. Their youth and inexperience tend to outweigh any other considerations and they simply have not spent enough time accessing certain other types of information which could lead them to alternative conclusions.

    3. It is, and I am not going out on a limb here when I say this, a fact that there is a certain ‘fashion’ today towards being an atheist, wanting to be a part of the ‘in’ crowd that think they have all the answers.

    4. As well as science subjects from a very early age other of my obsessions included ancient history and ancient documents. That obsession led me towards a wealth of information which, and this is definitely in my experience of talking to people for more than thirty years, completely unknown by the vast majority of people no matter who they are.

    The first question I asked myself, when I was about seventeen, was “Am I a Christian because I live in a Christian country and am therefore culturally conditioned to be a Christian, or am I a Christian because our ancestors knew it to be the truth?” That set me upon a huge long quest examining all sorts of subjects and religions, and you would be amazed how easy it is to spot the charlatan/fraud where religious movements are concerned.

    Not a lot of people obsess about those subjects, instead tending towards subjects such as engineering or particular subjects where the predominant view is atheistic (via their tutors). I came to university after I had already formed my own mind on the matter and knew the facts and the theories and pretty much most of the evidence either way.

    In fact I remember as a first year first term undergrad having a huge argument with a professor about Luke’s Gospel and the Book of Acts, and I won the argument. I am not saying this to boast as I should not have been able to do that. I point this out to show the very low understanding of this subject some people have even amongst those that teach it.

  12. October 6, 2011 at 00:07

    Thanks Tim for that. There is indeed a low understanding. It’s one thing to have read the material, as many claim to have but another to see what it’s getting at.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *