Sometimes brevity is the soul of wit; other times it is the spirit of confusion. In my recent post "Are Atheists Autistic?" I attempted to abbreviate my argument, which led to a spirited exchange over my unintentionally confusing point. Because the word count was already tipping 1000 I thought it would try the reader's patience to add more. I was hoping my readers would be able to make the connections that I wasn't making explicit.
Instead, I just made a mess of things. So now I ask your indulgence as I try to clarify what I should have said the first time around.
The main question asked in the post was, "Is there a correlation between atheism and autistic tendencies?" Most people got hung up on the terms "atheism" and "autistic tendencies." But the key term in that sentence is correlation.
Correlation is an estimate of the relationship between two variables and the degree to which they vary together. The number used to describe the correlation (r) ranges from –1 to +1. If the correlation between variables X and Y is -1 (that is r = -1) then there is a perfect negative correlation. Likewise, if the correlation is 1 (r = 1) then there is a perfect correlation. If r is close to 0, it means there is no relationship between the variables. If r is positive, it means that as one variable gets larger the other gets larger. If r is negative it means that as one gets larger, the other gets smaller.
Take, for example, the correlation between height and weight. The average weight of a people who are 6'4" tall is higher than of people who are 4'3". Therefore, the correlation would be close to 1 (something like r = .75).
My question, therefore, could be reframed as, "For the variables x (atheism) and y (autistic tendencies), is r closer to 0 or to 1?"
Missing from the original post was any explanation of what this had to do with Asperger's syndrome (AS). I worded it poorly, which lead to all kinds of confusion. I seemed to be implying that atheism was correlated with AS. That was not my intention.
To simplify the matter, let's assign the key terms variables: x (atheism), y (autistic tendencies), z (Asperger's syndrome). Obviously, there is a strong correlation between y and z. People with AS, by definition, tend to have autistic tendencies. We could say, for the sake of argument, that for y and z, r = 1. My post implied, however, that there might be a correlation between x (atheism) and z (AS). Again, that was not my intention. The question I wanted to address was whether there was a correlation between x and y. Also, while the variables y and z are correlated, they are not interchangeable.
Let's return again to the original question: Is it possible that there is a correlation between atheism and autistic tendencies? In other words, is the correlation between x and y close to 1?
Once again let's clarify that this is not implying that atheists are autistic, much less that they have AS. All it is questioning is whether, out of three broad categories of belief, atheism correlate more strongly with autistic tendencies. I also want to point out once again that--as I made clear before--we did not have enough data to adequately test this hypothesis. All that is available is intriguing anecdotal evidence that points to this being a plausible question.
Now let's examine my conjecture about the possible causes of the correlation.
My post noted a leading theory about autism and Asperger’s syndrome that concerns the ability of people with these conditions to attribute mental states to other people. A commenter, BruceA, sent me an email that added an important clarification to this point:
[Y]ou said, "Some researchers claim that the majority of individuals with autism are 'mind-blind', that they (especially as children) are unable to 'attribute mental states, such as dreaming, hoping, thinking, believing and wanting in others or in oneself.'" This, too, is true to an extent. Children with autism generally don't attain a theory of mind until much later than other children. But most autistic adults DO have a theory of mind.
Granted, some difficulties carry on into adulthood. I have a very hard time reading people's body language and facial expressions. Other people's emotions and thought processes are incomprehensible to me. That's mind-blindness. It doesn't mean I doubt that other people HAVE minds.
BruceA's explanation is an important note (particularly the point about what mind-blindness entails), and adds elements that need to be fleshed out before I apply it to the "God and Other Minds" analogy.
It appears that there may be a neurobiological cause that affects what would be considered the typical (statistically speaking) means of forming a theory of mind. Autistic children may not form the theory the way other children do, though as BruceA points out, they generally develop one before entering adulthood.
If I have a stomachache, a person with autism may be unable to discern my discomfort from the grimace on my face. For them to know that I was ill, I would likely need to tell them verbally. They have what could be called a "detection problem." While they may have no doubts that I have a mind, they have difficulties collecting certain types of data that would be used as confirming evidence. Indeed, it would not be unreasonable or irrational, for someone with autism to doubt that other people have minds based on a paucity of evidence.
The fact is that there it would be difficult for anyone to conclude that their neighbor has an actual mind (as opposed to being a zombie). It is rational to believe they do, of course, but we have to rely on fairly speculative evidence (e.g., grimaces of pain that imply a stomachache).
If there can be a neurobiological cause that limits the ability of autistic people to collect relevant data for a theory of mind, then it is possible that other autistic and non-autistic people may have a similar "detection problem" that inhibits their ability to develop beliefs (or theories of mind) about non-humans (i.e., God).
Consider, for instance, the teleological argument or argument from design. It is an argument for the existence of God based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design and/or direction in nature. Although not particularly convincing as a philosophical proof, the design argument has historically been persuasive as an emotional or psychological appeal. Those people whose noetic equipment is attuned to detecting order, purpose, and design, in nature would therefore be more likely to view such data as confirming evidence.
But what if some people have difficulties reading the "body language" of creation, as autistic people have in reading body language? What if they are wired in such a way that it is difficult (though perhaps not impossible) for them to grasp such concepts intuitively? Just as some autistic people could be "mind-blind" (as BruceA describes it), I believe it is possible for some atheists to be "God-blind." That was what I was getting at with my weak explanation.
One more note of clarification needs to be added, though. My opinion is that if this hypothesis is true (which I consider possible, though not necessarily probable) then people who are wired to be mind-blind (some autistics) and others who are wired to be "God-blind" (some atheists) may share certain tendencies that are commonly associated with or labeled as being on the "autistic spectrum." This does not mean--and I want to strongly emphasize this point--that atheists are autistic or that people with autism are more inclined to be atheists. The only thing the two groups (atheists and autistics) may possibly have in common is certain behavioral characteristics. This does not imply that there is an overlap between the two groups. There may be a correlation between being Irish and having red hair and freckles but that does not mean that everyone with red hair and freckles is Irish.
To be fair, I have to say that the atheists could use a similar inverse correlation in regards to theism. As Nick writes in the comments to the original post:
We should also consider the opposite hypothesis. If theists consistently score lower, they might be more likely to perceive mental states where none actually exist. Notice that the survey asks questions about imagination and play involving make-believe. Are theists more likely to have had imaginary friends when they were children?
Good point. That too may be a question worth exploring. Indeed, atheists ask these types of questions all the time. For instance, there are many hypotheses about how the concept of God is hard-wired into our brains. While I disagree and may personally find such questions amusing, I don’t think it is illegitimate for them to consider such possibilities. I don’t take offense, which is why I really don’t expect atheists to take offense when I ask similar questions about their own brain circuitry.
A Final Note: Although I attempted to tread carefully in my first post, many people thought I was being demeaning toward those with the condition of autism. BruceA even wrote,
"Autistic or not, I am no less a child of God than you are. The words of your post suggest that you may not believe so. Do you think Jesus loves people less if they are different?
I don’t want to be defensive but I have to say that I am rather offended by this claim. There is nothing in my post that remotely suggest that I believe autistic people are "less a child of God" than I am or that Jesus loves such people less. To make such a claim is, to put it mildly, unfair and ungracious. Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows the value I place on human dignity. (I should also point out that I don't consider most cases of autism to be a "disorder." If it is debilitating, then maybe it is cause for concern. But most people with "high functioning autism" seem to get along in the world just fine.)
I will admit, though, that I should have distanced myself from Vox's quoting of Wired magazine about "atheist being quarrelsome." Because I did not intend to equate atheists with autistics (despite my unfortunate post title), it did not occur to me that some people would think I believe autism makes people quarrelsome. I apologize for giving that impression.
While it has been my experience that the majority of atheists I've come in contact with have been quarrelsome (ever visit Digg.com?), that does not mean that I think that everyone with autistic tendencies are that way (or, once again, that atheists are all autistic). Mostly it's just selection bias; the atheists I know are often debating quarrelsome topics like religion, the Bible, or evolution. And, it should be noted, I tend to rub people the wrong way. So maybe I find them quarrelsome because they don’t like me.
Article Source: http://www.articleated.com
The author writes at www.evangelicaloutpost.com
