Autism, Rationality and Religious Belief
KarlLB
Shipmate
in Epiphanies
I have, I am aware, a tendency to bring my long running problems with rationality and religious belief into discussions.
It's been suggested that All Saints is the appropriate forum for that, and probably would be for a bit of a feelings dump, but I have concluded that Epiphanies is actually a suitable place for examining some underlying factors, because I'm becoming fairly convinced that there is an interplay between my autism and the way I approach these matters. It is indeed virtually impossible for this not to be the case; I prefer identity first language for neurodiversity because I very much feel I am an Autistic Person, not a person with Autism as a sort of baggage I could put down and still be me. Autism pervades everything that happens inside the confines of my meninges.
As part of the scene setting, I have to make it clear that I acknowledge two related truths:
1. If you've met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person;
2. Everyone's autism presents differently and therefore phenomena that arise from autism in me do not necessarily arise in other autistic people, and that doesn't mean they aren't rooted in my autism. To put it another way, you cannot simply say "well my cousin is autistic and they don't so it's not an autism thing" - it doesn't work that way.
I'm not trying to create a structured essay here; I'm presenting thoughts that come my way when I'm trying to navigate Faith as an autistic person. I'm hoping to stimulate other people - NT but especially ND - to share their perspectives as well. I say especially ND because (a) I think ND voices are under-represented in religious thought and discussion, and (b) I think ND people are more likely to find other ND perspectives useful, especially if they're struggling as I do with mainstream NT perspectives.
Firstly, a bit of an online literature search (ok, Google) tells me that most studies find two correlations between autism and religious belief:
1. Autistic people are considerably more likely to be atheists;
2. Autistic people are considerably more likely to have a self-constructed religious belief system as opposed to following an organised religion.
I have a lot of sympathy with atheism. The "strong" form - the definite statement that there is no God - is harder to defend; he could be hiding. However, very few atheists actually hold to that. They simply assign a sufficiently low probability to God existing that they provisionally conclude he doesn't. Now, here's an interesting thing. Some years ago, I posed the question on SoF "How sure, as a percentage, are you that God exists?" To me, that's a perfectly reasonable question. What surprised me in the replies was not how hard people found it to put a number to it (that's fair enough), but how many people thought it was a totally bizarre question and questioned how I could even ask it.
I'll add, by the way, that the people who say "Exist isn't really the right word to use for God" do my nut in. They know exactly what the question means and that reply seems like a deflection to me.
To me, an objective claim has at least a qualitative certainty attached to it. I am much more certain that matter is composed of atoms, for example, than I am that T. rex was homeothermic. The evidence for the one is much stronger than the evidence for the other. "God exists" is a statement just like "matter is made of atoms" and "T. rex was homeothermic", and it has at least a qualitative level of certainty to it. It's not definite (atheists are not delusional) and it's not effectively impossible (nor are religious believers).
I am struck that in some languages - Latin, French, some dialects of Welsh, the words for "think" and "believe" are the same. That mirrors pretty much how they exist semantically in my mind. "I think T. rex was homeothermic" and "I believe T. rex was homeothermic" are equivalent statements, as are "I think God exists" and "I believe God exists".
And this is where the problem comes in, and I think the explanation for correlation 1 above - the degree of certainty for a statement depends on the weight we put on the evidence - and my requests for evidence when it comes to God always result in an accusation that I want peer-reviewed scientific evidence. This is not true. I do however need objective evidence, of which peer-reviewed scientific is but a subset. Subjective evidence has the problem that it is contradictory and doesn't provide the correction mechanism - such as repeatability - that objective evidence has.
I am aware that some people get exasperated by my need for objective bases for belief. I find their exasperation as bewildering and, well, exasperating, as they find that need within me. It's there; it's how my mind works and I don't think it will change. Indeed, it's the uncomprehending response I get to this, and the question about certainty of believe in God's existence, that makes me feel like an outlier, and that this is indeed a manifestation of my Autistic modes of thinking.
I think that the believe/think equivalence may underlie the second correlation listed above as well - one looks out on the many, many religious belief systems out there, none of which can actually provide an objective reason to pick them over any other - and the conclusion is easily drawn that either none of them is actually the One True Way, or one of them is but God doesn't care much about us getting it right or he'd give us a bit more of a clue. Of course, all the belief systems claiming to be the One True Way claim that God has told us, but since they all disagree about what he's told us this only pushes the problem back a stage - it's still "OK, so which of you is right because you can't all be!"
In the face of this, and given this think/believe equivalence, we end up believing what Seems Reasonable. Provisionally.
The other way, I think, that autistic people can go (and I know because I found this attractive at one point) is Fundamentalism. Everything's cut and dried. Once you accept a single axiom - the Bible Is The Inerrant Literal Word Of God, The Pope Is Infallible, whatever, then everything else follows, as long as you can avoid looking at the contradictions or questioning the axiom. I mentioned above about my strong need for objective evidence for statements; it was that need that forced me to abandon Fundamentalist approaches pretty soon after I came across them in University Christian Unions.
Anyway, I've whiffled on for long enough. Invitation for contributions open.
It's been suggested that All Saints is the appropriate forum for that, and probably would be for a bit of a feelings dump, but I have concluded that Epiphanies is actually a suitable place for examining some underlying factors, because I'm becoming fairly convinced that there is an interplay between my autism and the way I approach these matters. It is indeed virtually impossible for this not to be the case; I prefer identity first language for neurodiversity because I very much feel I am an Autistic Person, not a person with Autism as a sort of baggage I could put down and still be me. Autism pervades everything that happens inside the confines of my meninges.
As part of the scene setting, I have to make it clear that I acknowledge two related truths:
1. If you've met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person;
2. Everyone's autism presents differently and therefore phenomena that arise from autism in me do not necessarily arise in other autistic people, and that doesn't mean they aren't rooted in my autism. To put it another way, you cannot simply say "well my cousin is autistic and they don't so it's not an autism thing" - it doesn't work that way.
I'm not trying to create a structured essay here; I'm presenting thoughts that come my way when I'm trying to navigate Faith as an autistic person. I'm hoping to stimulate other people - NT but especially ND - to share their perspectives as well. I say especially ND because (a) I think ND voices are under-represented in religious thought and discussion, and (b) I think ND people are more likely to find other ND perspectives useful, especially if they're struggling as I do with mainstream NT perspectives.
Firstly, a bit of an online literature search (ok, Google) tells me that most studies find two correlations between autism and religious belief:
1. Autistic people are considerably more likely to be atheists;
2. Autistic people are considerably more likely to have a self-constructed religious belief system as opposed to following an organised religion.
I have a lot of sympathy with atheism. The "strong" form - the definite statement that there is no God - is harder to defend; he could be hiding. However, very few atheists actually hold to that. They simply assign a sufficiently low probability to God existing that they provisionally conclude he doesn't. Now, here's an interesting thing. Some years ago, I posed the question on SoF "How sure, as a percentage, are you that God exists?" To me, that's a perfectly reasonable question. What surprised me in the replies was not how hard people found it to put a number to it (that's fair enough), but how many people thought it was a totally bizarre question and questioned how I could even ask it.
I'll add, by the way, that the people who say "Exist isn't really the right word to use for God" do my nut in. They know exactly what the question means and that reply seems like a deflection to me.
To me, an objective claim has at least a qualitative certainty attached to it. I am much more certain that matter is composed of atoms, for example, than I am that T. rex was homeothermic. The evidence for the one is much stronger than the evidence for the other. "God exists" is a statement just like "matter is made of atoms" and "T. rex was homeothermic", and it has at least a qualitative level of certainty to it. It's not definite (atheists are not delusional) and it's not effectively impossible (nor are religious believers).
I am struck that in some languages - Latin, French, some dialects of Welsh, the words for "think" and "believe" are the same. That mirrors pretty much how they exist semantically in my mind. "I think T. rex was homeothermic" and "I believe T. rex was homeothermic" are equivalent statements, as are "I think God exists" and "I believe God exists".
And this is where the problem comes in, and I think the explanation for correlation 1 above - the degree of certainty for a statement depends on the weight we put on the evidence - and my requests for evidence when it comes to God always result in an accusation that I want peer-reviewed scientific evidence. This is not true. I do however need objective evidence, of which peer-reviewed scientific is but a subset. Subjective evidence has the problem that it is contradictory and doesn't provide the correction mechanism - such as repeatability - that objective evidence has.
I am aware that some people get exasperated by my need for objective bases for belief. I find their exasperation as bewildering and, well, exasperating, as they find that need within me. It's there; it's how my mind works and I don't think it will change. Indeed, it's the uncomprehending response I get to this, and the question about certainty of believe in God's existence, that makes me feel like an outlier, and that this is indeed a manifestation of my Autistic modes of thinking.
I think that the believe/think equivalence may underlie the second correlation listed above as well - one looks out on the many, many religious belief systems out there, none of which can actually provide an objective reason to pick them over any other - and the conclusion is easily drawn that either none of them is actually the One True Way, or one of them is but God doesn't care much about us getting it right or he'd give us a bit more of a clue. Of course, all the belief systems claiming to be the One True Way claim that God has told us, but since they all disagree about what he's told us this only pushes the problem back a stage - it's still "OK, so which of you is right because you can't all be!"
In the face of this, and given this think/believe equivalence, we end up believing what Seems Reasonable. Provisionally.
The other way, I think, that autistic people can go (and I know because I found this attractive at one point) is Fundamentalism. Everything's cut and dried. Once you accept a single axiom - the Bible Is The Inerrant Literal Word Of God, The Pope Is Infallible, whatever, then everything else follows, as long as you can avoid looking at the contradictions or questioning the axiom. I mentioned above about my strong need for objective evidence for statements; it was that need that forced me to abandon Fundamentalist approaches pretty soon after I came across them in University Christian Unions.
Anyway, I've whiffled on for long enough. Invitation for contributions open.
Comments
This is odd because, like @KarlLB I have a strong need for evidence, I'm autistic with a maths/physics background, and a prime candidate for atheism. But, no matter the winds of doubt that roar about it, my faith pops up again unchanged, like one of those birthday candles that keeps relighting. Even when I'm not "feeling" God, when I'm struggling to pray, it just sits there like an old tree stump that nothing short of C4 or a herd of elephants can uproot.
I often wish I could give that solid nub of faith to others, but of its nature it's inexplicable, not something that comes from being convinced, or even necessarily from experience, it's just there, "fastened to the rock which cannot move".
So to take one commonly expressed symptom which is to assert truth with no (or very reduced) regard for what other people think. Which is why it is commonly believed that autists are over-represented as whistle blowers. And I did one bit of whistle blowing which saved someone from child sexual abuse. Is that supposed to be bad? OK I do take a bit of a delight is raising issues which others find embarrassing. Maybe to shock? But maybe because the prudish refusal to talk about issues which exists in many Churches pisses me off.
But, and this is a counter-argument to an autistic diagnosis, I'm a joiner, not a loner at all. And that is why we have had an ongoing debate about faith, where I know longer see any reason to believe that I will get certainty so have stopped bothering to attain it. And I now see it as more or a community thing.
That's about right in my view and I don't see it as a problem. Obviously I could not identify with any group that believes that anyone who doesn't share there agenda cannot be close to God, but it's not too difficult to find places to belong. I'd be surprised if you were only interested in a religion unless it is the One True Path.
I'll shut up. I'm not sure if any of that is worth saying. It's a pity there's no more ship-meets, as a longer chat would be something I would really like.
Yes, but there is a cluster of traits that neurotypicals share and which society tends to treat as normative. Those of us who are neurodivergent don't conform to many of those traits, but how we diverge will not necessarily be the same.
Don't take this the wrong way but it's made me feel bad - or rather, even worse - for winding him up and provoking him at times. Of course, I shouldn't do that to people anyway, autism or no autism.
I've always admired KarlLB's honesty and the unflinching way he writes about doubts, fears and uncertainties.
There's no 'mask' there and I always get the impression that we are dealing with the real guy as it were.
I didn't know that Arethosemyfeet is 'neurodivergent' either.
One of the Gamalielettes has ADHD - which I know is different - and the Gamaliel Frere is certainly neuro-divergent in all manner of ways.
So I really ought to be more aware of how I post and how I engage with Shipmates.
Coming back to the OP.
Good opening batting from both KarlLB and Arethosemyfeet. I'm not sure what to say in response other than to clap politely as leather thwacks on willow and the ball heads past the fielders and towards the boundary.
Quite.
I think of it being like a three (or more) dimensional normal distribution. The NTs are the ones in the big hump in the middle. NDs are the ones further away, in whatever direction. We're often very far from each other, but the distinguishing feature is we're more than a few standard deviations from the middle of the big hump.
People in the hump are surrounded by other people in the hump. They don't have to go far to find people they can relate to. They don't have to try hard to relate to others. Out in the rarified tails it's different. If we depended on finding people we relate to easily, we'd struggle to find them. The internet actually makes that easier, and I can also do it by wandering down to the local table-top gaming group. But a lot of the time you're trying - with greater or lesser success - to get on with people you struggle to understand.
I actually think that can make ND people more tolerant of diversity - we have to be - and anyway nearly everyone seems a bit weird and inexplicable to us. Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow and YMMV.
I definitely find some people are so normal that my very existence freaks them out and causes hostility. It's better as an adult. Don't talk about school.
But we're getting away from the Autism/Spirituality interface which is what this thread was meant to be about. All the above does, however, apply also to the church community, as a microcosm of society, and the ND person's place in and experience of it.
I am only at the beginning of the journey of reflecting on how this has affected my own faith journey, but recognising it has had a significant impact.
I listened to an interview on Nomad podcast with Erin Burnett, who has written a short book from her perspective of being an autistic Christian., "With all your mind; Autism and the church". I found her thought- provoking, especially when she talked about her difficulties relating to the supernatural elements of her faith, describing herself as 'religious, not spiritual!'. Some of her thoughts are outlined in her blog here. http://erinburnettauthor.co.uk/ramblings-autistic-christian/
A lot of that resonates with me. Especially the "religious, not spiritual" thing. I've always struggled to understand what people mean by "spiritual", at least in any way that distinguishes it from "emotional" and "mental"; 'mind', 'spirit' and 'soul' all seem to be the same thing to me.
Far more times than I care to remember I stood in the pew at a Charismatic service while people fell over, spoke in tongues, gave prophecies, had "words" and shared "pictures".
Me, I saw nothing, heard nothing, felt nothing.
That is me at Charismatic services too. I have in the past been the musician at them, and know how music is used specifically to whip up the emotions during them to get the required effect.
I find the whole thing of rationality vs faith fascinating. My "take away" is that some people are born with a religious "muscle" (for the lack of a better word. I think it is something like being born with an aptitude for art/music/sport/science. Some have it, some don't. Those who have it find rational explanations for religion totally convincing as they align with their basic world view. Those without the religious muscle are totally unconvinced by any sort of rational explanation. They either reject religion out of hand or rely totally on faith and hope.
I went to a "proper" hypnotherapist when I finally decided to give up smoking after 35 years as a 30 a day man.
He achieved a 100% success rate with me!
He noticed that the 3 people with evident mental health issues in his congregation didn't go in for all the falling over and shaking, laughing and what have you that others did.
He concluded that they were less susceptible and inclined to 'put on an act.'
Confession time.
I was more susceptible and also inclined to show off. I like to think I'm a fairly bright bloke - Shipmates may disagree - but I'm also very 'affective' and according to a personality test, far more 'sentimental' than most people who attain upper-middle or senior management positions (I was on the fringe of the latter before it all collapsed).
I used to do all the charismatic stuff expected in such circles and could induce others to do likewise.
My wife, on the other hand, didn't respond in the same way which led some to think there was something 'wrong' with her spiritually.
Yeah, right ...
I've probably shared this before but it was the 'boiling over' of the revivalism of the '90s that led me to explore older and more 'traditional' forms of 'spirituality' (I have an issue with the term but will use it nevertheless).
I'm still 'affective' in my responses insofar as I warm to certain forms of chant, iconography, versions of scripture and prayer books, forms of ecclesial architecture etc.
I've seen people with autism online describe how they were drawn to more 'formal' styles of worship - be it Orthodox Liturgy or dignified forms of Reformed Protestantism - rather than Pentecostal or charismatic varieties.
It also certainly seems that some people have a more 'obvious' or 'realised' religious muscle than others - at least when it comes to external responses and appearances.
The RC writer Ronald Knox said that he'd never had a 'religious experience' - in the 'affective' sense I presume- in his life.
I wouldn't draw firm conclusions but I think we can 'stretch' these observations beyond the formally religious or spiritual. I run a small poetry group and there are several very able writers there from scientific or medical backgrounds. Their response to poetry is often very different to mine. One reacted very strongly against Coleridge's 'Kubla Khan' for instance whereas I find the intense Romanticism rather amusing - and indeed 'affecting'.
I'm not saying my response is any more valid than theirs - far from it - but it does illustrate how our responses will differ according to a wide range of factors and influences.
Whether that helps, I don't know but I think it does serve as a warming not to take outward responses as some kind of indication of people's 'spiritual state' or sanctity.
It may be relevant here that I Don't Dance. I feel no drive to do so. People talk a about infectious rhythms that they simply cannot help but move to but it's entirely alien to me. Rhythm is generally the least appealing element of any piece of music to me.
I can't really hold two contradictory ideas. The intuitive and rational have to come to an accommodation.
I can't know rationally that a bee isn't God, but I can't know rationally that it isn't either. If intuition insists it is then there's not a conflict there. Rationality will however remind me that it's not an evidence supported statement, so it's more tentative and provisional than one that is.
As it happens, intuition doesn't tell me bees are God either, but that's by the bye.
I am however somewhat drawn to what I am given to understand is Spinoza's argument for Pantheism - if God is separate from creation, then there is something bigger than God - namely (God + Creation). I find Panentheism a variant easier to square with Christianity however.
I seem to be ludicrously affective. Particularly when music is involved.
I blubbed at the end of the movie of Les Miz, Puccini does it for me every single bloody time! I got to sing in Bach's St Matthew Passion - I was in such a state that I couldn't sing a note of the final chorus. I can listen stony-faced to the reading of the Passion on Good Friday, but one verse of When I Survey the Wond'rous Cross and I'm a goner!
I also don't dance - I'm 6 foot three and tower over other people and am rubbish at it. I can also FEEL the eyes of everyone else in the room staring in disbelief at my awkwardness. It doesnt help that my wife who is a foot shorter than me went to the Royal Ballet School and naturally dances with supernatural grace.
Yeah, Les Mis is like that. But it's more I Dreamed a Dream that does for me than the ending. Generally I'm not one for musicals but I'll go for Les Mis, Jesus Christ Superstar and The Rocky Horror show any time.
I think part of the barriers to learning to dance can be the awkwardness, but on the other hand it's not unusual for musicians from certain cultures to be unable to dance - because they end up feeling rhythm in a different part of their bodies than their limbs.
That ought to learn me.
I completely 'get' the not dancing thing though and don't attribute it to shyness or self-consciousness in the case of anyone else.
I think we've had discussions here before about 'personality types' and forms of spirituality.
That's not the same as what we are discussing here of course but another indicator of the very varied factors and influences in all of this.
On the 'affective' thing, your responses sound quite 'affective' to me @KarlLB and I imagine we'd share much in common in terms of what 'gets' to us, although as with everything and everyone else one man's fish is another man's poisson.
In the olden days, when "autism" was mainly (exclusively in my experience) used to refer to what we would now call severe autism, it was simpler, but that's a long time ago. Now that it is also used of people who live fruitful lives, it no longer is.
So I view it as a personality trait which in the extreme can prevent normal functioning.
Note: Because I believe my views might be viewed more sympathetically if I had a diagnosis, I did a self test, with little confidence as to it's quality, and got a "mild indication" of adult autism, mainly I suspect based on the eye contact thing, which I've always put down to a habit of lip reading. But most people who know me think I'm a bit odd. So what? Being thought thoroughly normal has never been my highest goal.
I'd say rather it's a collection of ways of thinking that give rise to a heterogeneous range of personality traits - some directly, and some indirectly as a secondary result of life experiences related to the primary traits in the particular individual.
Cf. ITYFIABMCTT*
*I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
Let me also second what Karl and Arethosemyfeet say.
For all the emphasis church congregations (at least in my branch of it in the U.S.) put on things like personality tests, birth order and what not, one would think that better understanding autism and other forms of neurodivergence would be at the top of the list. Simply understanding better the challenges to faith that are built into a person seems important to me, and understanding that some things are simply not a matter of the will.
@KarlLB , thanks for this tread. It’s really valuable.
This thread is a significant contribution I think and @KarlLB has helped me gain more understanding than I had previously.
Who gets to define what is typical?
I would refer you back to my talk of normal distributions a few posts ago.
The people in the middle of the hump get to define normal because they're the majority. To take a more trivial example, if most people like MoR rock like Foreigner and Supertramp, then the people into Cradle of Filth and Cannibal Corpse are the ones with the unusual tastes. The problem with "normal" is that it carries a sense of moral correctness about it somehow. Perhaps this is because societies have often used its opposite - abnormal - to imply moral or physical sickness.
Like many things, a significant part of any impairment is social. I'd go so far as to say that for most autistic people, the impairment is almost entirely social - you're living in a world that's not designed around how you function.
So I'd say the distinction is only simplistic and silly if you make it simplistic. It gives rise to difficulties that the majority of people, in that hump, simply do not have. At what point you call it a "condition", to be honest, depends on how far from the norm "normal" people let you be before creating difficulties for you - often totally unconsciously.
For example, let's take two schools. In School 1, everyone must take:
English Language
Maths
English Literature
Double Award Science*
At least one Modern Language.
In school 2, everyone takes:
English Language
Maths
However, English Literature is optional, as are modern languages, and students can choose between single, double and separate (i.e. triple) science.
In both schools, students can take the same total number of subjects. However, less academic students in School 2 can take fewer in order to concentrate on the two compulsory subjects.
Most NT students have a fairly flat attainment across subjects. They tend to be somewhere on a scale from Very Academic to Not Very Academic and most of their grades will reflect their position on the scale.
ND students may have particular talents in particular areas - often science and maths, but not infrequently art and music. They can be the sort of people who can get a top grade maths GCSE two years early at the same time as taking grade 8 bassoon, while finding making any sense whatsoever of The Merchant of Venice utterly impossible, and getting utterly lost trying to see the imagery in Charge of the Light Brigade.
In which of these two schools do you think a given Austistic student is likely to have the most problems coping with the curriculum?
*To explain science in English (and I think Welsh) GCSEs - most students take a combined science course which is equivalent to two regular GCSEs - so instead of getting a Grade 4 or 3 you'd get a 44 or a 33. The option exists to take a reduced curriculum still involving all three traditional sciences which gives rise to a single GCSE. There also exists the option to take three separate GCSEs in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Schools differ in which options they offer.
The other thing I don't appear to be able to do with any talent is acquire languages. I can grasp grammar really easily, but vocab is just arbitrary assignments of meaning to groups of letters which I really struggle with. I can usually speak, write and read after a fashion but understanding what people are saying in the target language generally eludes me. My French O Level oral (somehow I scraped a C overall) was mostly me saying "pardon?", "Je ne comprends pas" and "Pouvez-vous le repétez, s'il vous plait? Plus lentement, peut-etre?"*
Eta - language rule
*"Pardon", "I don't understand", "could you repeat that please? More slowly, perhaps?"
Sounds very familiar to me, though you may attribute my B at GCSE French to grade inflation!
My suspicion is a co-morbid auditory processing difficulty. I learned to talk late and I'm forever saying "pardon?" to people only for my brain to finally catch up and tell me what they just said a second later.
I'd like to read the thread, but I can't find the SEARCH facility anymore, and anyhow it may not still be there. I fear I may be one of those that did your head in. Sorry. But . . . there is a point being made here. Taking your case: I think there is a valid distinction to be drawn between statements relating to entities within the physical universe, and those that don't, like God. I do realise that many Theists do locate God in the physical universe, and the Bible does all the time, along with all his bodily parts and passions. But no serious Christian thinkers take this literally, it belongs to the world of popular piety, which is no more (or less) condescending than saying people have a naive version of science.
The obvious corollary is that there is no objective proof of God, period. Can you accept why I think it overwhelmingly likely that you know this perfectly well? If so the only fruitful line of enquiry is about the legitimacy of believing without objective evidence. For many years of my life havig been enlightened by A J Ayer's Language Truth and Logic (a book I still recommend to any) I viewed statement about God, and metaphysics in general as quite literally devoid of meaning. Just word games that people play, the philosophical equivalent of the Emperor's New Clothes.
But I am no longer of that view, and I believe that there are good arguments for belief in God, just not good objectives ones. Plenty of weak "objective" ones, but you can probably recite most of them.
My numbers BTW: Belief in God near 100%. Belief in the basic Christian faith is Balance of Probability. Belief in conevo/chari Christianity: 0, but I doubt you need to ask that. If I replied to your original thread with totally different figures, it just shows I'm adaptable!
Put another way, if I pray, is there a person who can hear? Or indeed three of them? Or are they solely imaginary?
You might think these questions are meaningless, but they are not. For example, whether there is any chance of any kind of resurrection from the grave rather depends on whether there is an entity who can perform such a miracle.
They may be unanswerable, but that's not the same thing as meaningless.
I don't "want" atheism, or a belief without theism. I want to know the truth. I want to know if God exists, according to my definition of "exist" as above.
If you're right that it's nearly 100% likely that God is an objective reality, then why would I want to be a non-theist?
What I do need to know is *why* you think it's nearly 100% likely. How did you draw that conclusion? What was the thought process, the line of reasoning? How were alternative explanations for whatever led you to that conclusion eliminated? If your reasons are as you say only weakly objective, how the blazes do they support near 100% certainly? That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
I'm not sure that resurrection presupposes a conscious divine being. A universe with a "spirit" world with laws that ultimately result in physical resurrection can be hypothesised (and indeed other traditions, like Buddhism, describe such a world, albeit with laws that drive reincarnation rather than resurrection).
As for objectivity and certainty, I would refer back to my previous answer - the certainty of my belief, I have discovered, is largely decoupled my ability to "prove" it. And that's not in the sense of "I can believe 6 impossible things before breakfast"; a decision or an application of willpower. It just is, as much to my own surprise as anyone's.
I didn't really post the OP to open a debate about evidence and the meaning of existence. I did it rather to put out some thoughts about how I as an autistic person - with full knowledge that it is very specifically me-as-an-autistic-person.
I felt I had to respond though, and I've been analysing why, and why I was irritated. It wasn't that it wasn't what I'd started the thread for per se. It was rather that I felt that in the light of what I've posted you have effectively invalidated it - unintentionally perhaps - by effectively saying "You're asking the wrong questions."
Thing is, these are my questions. They're the ones that matter to me. You don't really get, especially here, to tell me what questions I should be asking. The problem with "You're asking the wrong questions", when those questions are of foundational importance to the person asking them's search for meaning, is that you are effectively invalidating that individual's way of being. You're essentially saying "you do thinking wrong".
Now this is a problem for the autistic person who's been told this over and over for years. It is the root of many of the co-morbid autistic issues - anxiety, low self esteem, insecurity and crippling self-doubt. It isn't hard to draw the dots from "You're doing thinking wrong" to "you're an idiot".
I'm sure you intend nothing of this, and I'm not about to give up on life based on a post on here, but given what this thread is about, I thought all this needed saying. You need to understand how social interactions can be damaging to us, reinforcing a lifetime of negative reaction.
Of course Christians would claim that evidence for God can be obtained, but not in a way that would qualify as objective. It is my personal belief that such objective testing can only be done for things within the physical universe but I suspect you don't have that view. Now if I'm totally wrong about what qualifies as an objective test for you, then I can see that my post is wide of the mark.
I doubt that I have an answer that will fit the bill, because it's more that I cannot my head around the idea that reality as we see and experience it is a mindless physical-chemical random process.
It seems built into my brain, which is no good as an argument. I've never had any overwhelming experience "of God". Early indoctrination and planting of memes might also be part of it. So it's a combination of all the arguments about evidence of intelligence built into reality, the nature of consciousness and (do I need to say "To be honest") a good dose of personal preference.
However, from the standpoint of what really matters in life and death (and resurrection) it leaves me still a way off. The lifelong atheist Anthony Flew whose writings influenced me a lot when I was young, came round to the view that some sort of guiding intelligence was at work, but it never made him religious, and he didn't evidence any desire to take it further.
As regards the life and death issues most people want to know about, it's down to the Balance of Proof, i.e. more likely than not. I never expect to have a deep down assurance that on death I will go to heaven. I don't see how I can, but I suspect it could be a plan of God to make assurance of these things depending on a life of great devotion to Christ and our fellow man. Although even that isn't guaranteed (e.g. M Theresa).
I do feel sympathy with those who were infected with a fear of hell, which is why my Christian tolerance stops at this point. But it's pretty clear that a far from certain belief works ok for me, though not for all.
Not at all - @Anteater
Ah, I thought that was probably the case but, as you will know, inadvertently pissing people off is not an uncommon autistic experience.
Innit just?
I might be sorry for venturing here, and hope you'll forgive me if I fuck up.
The reason I don't generally lay out the evidence for my personal faith is that so much of the evidence is, well, personal. To lay it out would involve explaining why living to the age of 20 was so unlikely for me; would involve explaining issues about my family of origin that I don't feel comfortable discussing in public; would involve describing other extremely unlikely (statistically speaking) events which would break the confidentiality and privacy of people I love; and in the end, would be unlikely to convince you, because you don't know me personally, and it would be so easy to say "She's deluding herself."
If I knew you well in real life I would give it to you. As it is, my existing experiences of trying to tell it to others says to me that I would be breaking a lot of confidences and getting you no further in your own investigations.
Which is why I mostly shut up.
There may be people who have less personal evidence. But given that God is a person, and relates like a person (in my experience, any way--at least more like a person than like anything else I know of); the evidence for him, it seems to me, is more likely to resemble the evidence for other persons (evidence of life, character, actions, history) and less like the evidence for a chemical reaction. I mean, I cannot prove to you that my husband exists, not beyond a doubt, or even a pretty reasonable doubt. I can give you his birth certificate (actually I can't; documentarily, he comes into existence at the age of 35 or so, given the bombs in Vietnam). I can introduce you to someone who claims to be him, but we could both be lying. And given that we've not got the money to travel to you, he is effectively as invisible as God is; photos can be faked; voices too, and what would you compare it with? so forth and so on. And why the hell would you trust my word?
maybe someone else can do better.
Yes I'd say that this is also where I land, much to my surprise, and at variance with my approach to much of the rest of my life. Although I feel while it's decoupled from my ability to 'prove it', it's always open to being 'disproved' at some future date.
So, from that angle, while I am always full of questions and curiosity, I'm also quite at peace with the idea that I will never understand God - God's ways, God's mind. I observe that it is very common to try to imagine God to be like ourselves - kind of like a better, nicer version of ourselves, a nice parent figure, a fair authority figure - and of course we do, because we have no other frame of reference, and we feel safe with a frame of reference. But I see it that if we truly want to explore God, this takes us totally out of our comfort zone, our rational explanations, our need to have some control and understanding, into something way beyond, and it is therefore very humbling, and people truly seeking God will therefore be very humble. But of course people often do cling to their own understanding and comfort zone and control, and egos often get in the way.
That is how I see God and religion, and also I have an actual sort of spiritual sense inside me, that I am aware from reading that some people have and others don't, and it is not the same as my logical sense, though equally coexists with it quite peaceably, doesn't contradict it, but is like a different dimension. This is a deep awareness I experience, and a sense of God, whatever/whoever God may be. And when I allow myself to be myself, without trying to cling onto logic and control, I feel a faith, a peace, a sense of God. But when I get frenzied, overwhelmed, clinging to control and logic, then I logically tell myself that I have no way to know that God exists, that this is me clinging to what I want to be true, and I wonder if I am being dishonest with myself. But when I am able to be at peace and be myself, and let go of the frenzy, I can still consider this question, but it's not a frenzied question, and it's okay, it's okay to ask.
I have no idea how/if this relates to autism, but in more general terms, I find a lot of autistic people have very strong feelings about religion. Many hate it, and are strong atheists. There was an autistic guy I knew in an autism group whose only positive aspect of sense of self was his high IQ - he'd done the test to join Mensa, and he said it was so he could have something in his life to be proud of. And he connected with me because I have a high IQ too - I'm not even sure how this came up, as it's not something I particularly care about, but we had our IQs tested, the whole autism group, as part of some research study, and mine was the same as his, and this was important to him. And he would express confusion as to why I have a religious faith when I have a high IQ. There were others in the group who were religious, but he saw them as less intelligent than himself and rationalised their faith in that way. Because he was a strong atheist, he felt all intelligent autistic people should be atheists, and he would often strongly criticise and make fun of religion, because he didn't understand it at all, and it really bothered him that people believed in something that to him was obviously untrue. I've met a few autistic people like this - very strong atheists, and often they want to express very firmly that God does not exist, and that everyone who believes in God is wrong and stupid. And equally I've met autistic people whose faith is very important to them, and this could be evangelical, 'happy clappy' faith, or more traditional C of E faith, with lots of liturgy, or Catholic church. And I find each person can often relate their faith to their autism - 'Oh, I like this style because of being autistic.' And as a huge generalisation, religion (or atheism) can often be a special interest, so the person may take more of an intense interest in it than NT people might. And often have more black and white feelings that they are right and others are wrong, but not necessarily, because I also know an autistic Catholic priest who is very philosophical and probably the least black and white priest I know in his interpretations of the Bible (though very black and white in other aspects of his life).
I do also know plenty of autistic people who don't care about religion or atheism - it holds no interest for them whatsoever. In practical terms, looking at what brain studies have shown about autistic brains, mono-processing seems to be a common way we think, rather than multitasking. For myself, when I'm focused on something, that is my entire focus, and everything else vanishes from my awareness. When I'm focused on my faith, that is everything, so I could potentially seem like a bit of a fanatic. When I have lots of different things that require my attention, I tend to malfunction because my brain can't cope. But if I am in a position to focus on one thing, then that thing is my whole world at the time. It's not always religion - it can be all sorts of things. Right now it's trying to express myself in words on the Ship of Fools, and thinking about the Ship of Fools, where it's going, what sort of contribution to it is helpful, how healthy communities are built, how they survive change, whether this is going to happen here, is there something I can add or do to help, etc. That is what I am thinking about today. I can't give half attention.
I suspect that being drawn into very simplistic styles of fundamentalism, then losing faith and becoming an atheist may be a common autistic trajectory.
My style of thinking is naturally very all or nothing so retaining my grip on compromise in anything is a bit of a struggle, but I persist.
Uncompromisingly.
^ This
I think this is helpful for those of us NT types, too, even outside of CofE. Sounds like it has been particularly important to you and @HelenEva, and maybe @KarlLB as well.