Religion (or lack thereof) and Autism/Asperger's?

Post Reply New Topic

Thank you for the wise words. I have since reached many of the same conclusions as you mentioned above. I think after devoting so much effort towards defending faith against attack and producing sound and logical arguments, I somehow lost sight of the big picture. I still feel very discouraged (I think it's just wounded pride that all my efforts were ultimately not appreciated) but at the same time have the belief that God does these things for the better and for the spiritual development of ourselves and those around us.

Any time, and always feel free to PM me if you feel the need.

Yes, it is disappointing that our accomplishments are not always recognized, or SELDOM recognized and appreciated. I live in a tight-knit religious community and even hold a part-time church job. So, yeah, I probably do make my family miserable because nearly every waking moment revolves around church life. But, then again, if I didn't enjoy it so much I wouldn't obligate myself to it. I'm the de facto lead musician in our church at the moment and will shortly be extending my reach to the youth ministry in small ways. There are so few people where I live that haven't been reached by one church or another, so defending faith just simply doesn't happen around here. If I'm itching for a fight, I have to get on the internet to do it. Believe me, there are places within the WP forums full of people ready to "bring it" when it comes to things they see as "delusional." While it is valuable to witness to skeptics, one must understand that you can't MAKE someone believe, therefore don't even think about "winning" an argument. Bear in mind, too, that there is always the possibility that someone who is non-participating in discussion is reading your defenses and what you say might just be the one thing they need to make a personal decision.

I tend to keep an open mind about most things in life, so I chose agnostic. I feel like it is a possibility, science can't answer everything, I was atheist for a long time, I will just keep an open mind, plus it gives me a little more to believe in.

To the dismay of some, I view agnosticism and atheism as predominantly the same thing, where the point in difference is defined by the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism. That is to say, if you are truly agnostic and do not claim knowledge in metaphysical/existential concepts, then you inherently do not believe in a god and are also an atheist. But it does not imply strong atheism, where you explicitly deny the possibility of a god/gods. Some agnostics become outraged when I imply that they are also atheists, or say that they are agnostics who believe in god (which is an entire contradiction through my logic).

I tend to use "agnostic atheist" when referring to my beliefs-or-lack-thereof to better affirm my position: that I don't know what's going on, and yes, that does mean I do not believe in a god. I have no reason to believe science cannot explain something given time, because as far as I can see it always has. I will wait until those times come before I believe in what has no empirical evidence. I don't believe we can't know certain things just because we might not know them right now.

Agnosticism is taking a "we can't know either way, there is no evidence for either side" position - a position that may have been warranted in in the days before modern science (see: Hume, Huxley), but takes a herculean effort to walk this razor's edge in a modernized society. I find it to be more of a "I don't believe in religion but am too lazy to put the effort forth to figure out why" type of position - it feels like a cop-out. This should not be confused with proper "Atheism", which is the lack of belief in a god or religion.

Your strong vs weak argument feels like you are attempting to contrast atheism with theism, in which there is a large section of the population that has so much belief that they have zero question about the validity of their faith, it is all-encompassing. I'd be surprised if you found many atheists with this same dogmatic approach. (if any...)

Then we have differing views on what agnosticism is. Agnosticism to me is simply "I cannot know right now". It does not imply that I would not search for answers or that I am at all "lazy". We do not know how the universe came to be, those who believe we do are fooling themselves, theistic or atheistic; hotly debated scientific theories are the closest things we have; I find it incredibly easy to side with nobody until it is worked out and a scientific consensus is reached. To refer to it as a cop-out implies that there is some kind of universal law dictating I must be on one side of a binary fence, which is just as pressuring and dogmatic as the rules of the ancient books written by people with minimal scientific understanding that still dictate much in society today. I accept the current truth, and the current truth is that we don't know yet, there is no consensus even in the scientific community, superstring theories and M-theory are all still very much a theories; I would be fooling myself if I take any position that suggests we do know how everything works or where everything came from, and I'm not particularly good at fooling myself.

We do not know the cause of everything, therefor it is impossible for us to claim that we know how it all works (which is effectively why the knowledge we seek is often referred to as the Theory of Everything).

Weak and strong / implicit and explicit atheism are not terms I invented, therefor I cannot be the only one ascribing to their meanings. There are atheists who do not believe in god because they don't see enough compelling evidence but don't deny that they could exist, and atheists who outwardly deny any gods could exist because of whatever logic that is beyond my ability to see. I have seen more than a few from both sides.

You are completely misunderstanding the atheist vs agnostic argument. You have obviously put some thought into it, and like I said before, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single scientist or non-crazy atheist that would assign any sort of certainty to any particular theory. With that said - you don't seem to be giving equal time to both a religious side and a scientific side. It is the playing of both sides that is lazy. Take a solid position and stand behind it, flip-flopping is the cop out.

Nobody said science had the answer to everything, quite the contrary. It provides tangible arguments for the things we do know, and has a system in place to discover what we don't. This is far beyond anything religion can offer. I don't see a valid position in the middle - you either have faith in what you believe in, or you follow reality. Do you see a valid spot in between faith and reason? They are opposite sides of the coin.

Interesting; Mother Theresa lost her faith in God at some point, but she continued to do good for other people through the church. I noticed in another thread that you volunteer to bring religious services to shut-ins and you stated they just really wanted someone to talk to. I"ve met many people that are like this, that do not have or have lost their belief/faith in God, but yet would give someone else the shirt off their back, and/or attend religious services and continue to help others.

Isn't faith in the giving nature of others and the fellowhip that comes with it, a real type of faith that people may gain by going to religious services; I see that as the most important type of faith. When a person volunteers as you do, that keeps the faith alive in others that there are others who care. I can't think of a more valuable type of faith. That's the clear value of what I see in religious services. From what I've observed it's the core reason why people participate.

I went to the Catholic church for ten years straight and sang in the choir, ten years after I quit going as a child. Raised as a catholic, I kept my personal belief that wasn't in agreement of the teachings of the Catholic religion to myself. I was looking for connection and found it in the people in the choir; it had a huge impact on my life. I'm glad I could separate my beliefs from the fellowship to participate as long as I did. I'm somewhat of a shut-in now. I remember the prayers every Sunday for the shut-ins, not imagining anything much worse.

The visits to the shut-ins, prisoners etc. through religious services, I see as a benefit for people that give and receive that I'm not sure that the number of opportunities for this would exist if it wasn't for religious services in the US. Regardless of individual beliefs, I don't think one can put a price on the value of human connection that come from the individuals that participate in the activity of religious services.

Connection with others is the "magic or faith in life", when one loses it. It's hard to fully understand until one is truly lost without connection and/or no longer feels it. As long as you continue to desire to help others you are a giver of the only faith I have truly ever known; a faith in/and connection with others.

I find the English language a little "fnord" at times, if you don't mind if I use the word as it is commonly understood (wiki). Live spelled backwards as evil. Lived spelled backwards as devil. Stresed spelled backwards as desserts. Perhaps the most interesting one is God spelled backwards as Dog. The social canine friend that we can have faith in, perhaps over most human beings.

I only had one in middle school when I was picked on by the rest of the world, I can honestly say, beyond my immediate family, the dog was the only other living being I felt connected to that I had faith in. During that period of my life the dog saved my humanity and at the later period of time it was the choir that served the same purpose.

You are correct Fnord, faith proves nothing by itself, it only has meaning when it is part of our existence. I have faith in dogs and people like you who help those in need.

As far as I know my dog wasn't religious either.

By wiki definition you couldn't have picked a better nickname here. You contend that faith proves nothing by itself but you continue to provide others IRL, through the religious services you attend, the kind of faith in others that I think we can all agree is real when it is part of one's existence.

Last edited by aghogday on 24 Jul 2011, 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

I wonder if dogs will develop a religion as they evolve? I can imagine them collectively ,harmoniously barking at something and deriving a lot of pleasure from doing so. Perhaps there will be a sacred stick ceromony and they'll have to get it out of the river. Whatever, I'm sure they will be very happy doing it and being dogs.

I can't conceive of a more definitive way to define my position than I already have, as outlined in my first post:

When there is a definite answer with empirical evidence, I will accept that as the truth. I have not flip-flopped with anything since the day I dropped my acceptance of Christianity due to insufficient evidence, nor do I understand how you could jump to the conclusions that I have when your entire understanding of me is two posts. I accept that the truth of things may be a combination of what science discovers and what religion has already hypothesized. This means that I am technically on both sides of your 'coin' from what I understand in your logic, which is only possible because the coin does not exist; it is not a matter of taking a side to flip or flop between. I am entirely open to the idea that we may discover, scientifically, that there is in fact something sentient that created the universe, which would effectively be a god. There is no clearer way for me to state my logic than that I will believe in something when we have found it, and until then I am not accepting answers that cannot be explained, nor am I denying potentials that cannot be dismissed.

This leads me back to my original differentiation from strong atheism, which explicitly declares that gods cannot exist, but cannot yet prove that gods do not exist, because in order to do so one would need to know the origin of the universe, which we do not know.

I just found this looking for something for another thread-

"Do not bring that one , the one with the pointed ears," might be a sublimainal refence to the skeptical nature traits of some AS.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UxBjmuxh2Y&feature=related[/youtube]

Warning: some semi-naked ancient greek type woman writhing on floor for about three seconds in god-angry storm as she is being punished, or maybe cast out , or both . I dunno.

I would imagine they feel similiar pleasures and emotions, although not as complex, that humans do, perhaps even enhanced. I see that as necessary for most social animals, although I'm sure some might disagree. I would imagine they live a more present life than we do, without our cultural symbols associated with emotion.

The connection they feel with the world, may far surpass some of the connection we may have lost through our internal and external cultural devices. They may already have what we continuously seek as human beings, particularly through some of the Eastern religions, simply being.

They might be lucky if they never are in a position where they need to place sacred importance on abstract symbols, to understand their existence. Meanwhile being dogs is all they they need to know. And for the well adjusted dogs with dog companionship and masters they can trust, I see some of them as more content than most humans, I observe.

I can only imagine this though, through human bias.

I loved that show as a child. I wanted to be like Jim because he got all the women, but knew deep down I was more like Spock and was going to have some problems in that area.

I think you are correct, back in the 60's there were plenty of Spock like people without a diagnosis; interestingly the scientists that may have had spock like qualities that sent us to the moon, were part of the driving force that led to the TV show, that was such a deeply enlightening study of the human condition seen amplified with alien examples of it.

Now that I think about it, it was my only "wrong planet" resource to better understand the difference between people that thought more logically and those that thought more emotionally. I remember seeing examples of the kids I thought were like Spock in classes, not fully understanding that people probably saw me the same way.

In the video clip, I feel quite sure the message there was one of Spock excluded as a subject of the mythical God, because of his struggle with emotion as half vulcan and perceived inability to believe in a mythical God; the skeptic that was part of the Scientist nature of Spock.

Ahogaday- we must not let this thread degenerate into Star Trek. It annoys some of the other posters. I think as a sociological/broader tool ST is probably a very good shorthand for expressing complex ideas and we don't get caught up in logic loops and endless arguments. It makes it fun as well.

Regarding dogs, I love dogs. I think they have sacred objects . The most sacred object of for my dog is this spikey squeaky rubber ball . It is so sacred it is kept on a shelf and only comes down on special occasions. On special days it descends to earth there is great excitemement and very long walks. On other days minor symbols are collected like tennis balls and sticks and broght home for arrangement
in sacred places.

The high shelf is a kind of forgetting space, once there the sacred ball disapears out of view but my dog knows its up there and safe. It is present in the dog's world, but not visable or tangiable all the time. In its own way my dog understands a very complex religious concept here, I think.


Dogs are better at explaing this stuff to us than humans . We argue too much because we are not, as you noted, completely in step with the immediacy of the world.


I think dogs will have their own AS as well.

Meme.

No, it isn't. That's one version of Christianity, and in my opinion a twisted, distorted version. But, regardless of any debate about which version of Christianity is correct, what you cite hear is merely one version of Christianity, not the bottom line on Christianity.

(I do realize that the poll is not all that accurate; I made it a year ago when I was 14 and into such things but not as much as I am now.)