Finding a cure for religion

General Academics Religion and Philosophy
41

Some of the articles you link are paywalled. However I have a problem with the way asperger’s is defined in the first place - “Different from the rest? YOU’RE BROKEN!” - and it’s very touch and go to distinguish an “aspie” from someone in the NT personality type range (MBTI). BOTH however, are very vague definitions to begin with. However, in an article you linked I could read (sciam), this quote seems to already invalidate the entire assumption:

As a result of this “theory of mind,” some experts figure, we also tend to see intention or purpose—a conscious mind—behind random or naturally occurring events.

So, the “defect” an aspergers patient has is NOT having the defect of thinking that an agent is behind random events? It would seem by this very sentence that it’s the asperger’s patient that is well and the majority that are deficient. Unfortunately this is not how psychology works, it tries to establish a “base line” and anything out of the norm is deemed a “disorder”. It never questions whether anything within the norm could also be a mental illness.

How is having a less hyper-sensitive agent-detection mechanism a bad thing? It’s well known that human “agent detection” is over active to prevent errors in the wild. One can easily mistake a shadow in peripheral view for a person, but if there’s a person standing there, there’s no doubt and you immediately recognize it. The point is this is just a side-effect of evolution. It’s easy to see why an animal with more a more sensitive agent-detection alarm can survive better in the wild. But it also makes that animal see spooks where there is nothing. In this case, I’d rather rely on the judgement of someone who does not have that bias, but looks more towards facts.

As for the accusation of inadequate fatherhood, I’m unsure if my single point of reference is of any value… My dad is great and in my case, this is definitely not a factor. Am I an aspie then? Well, no, I spend way too much time with friends hanging out and being sociable. I guess my worst “symptom” would be introversion and a penchant for science and technology. However if I get to know you, you’ll soon realise I am quite boisterous and my introversion is short lived.

In the end, what you’re saying is, atheists are different to the norm, Yes we are, that’s stating the obvious. If aspergers can give atheists a clearer picture of the presence of agents, then I’d list that as a positive side-effect. However it’s quite obvious to me that asperger’s or mental disorder is not a prerequisite for atheism.

Being different from the norm doesn’t make you wrong. Being wrong makes you wrong. We atheists view believing in god as a delusion, one reason can be found above, but as you know there are many, and as most of us have switched it’s clear that we had to at some stage objectively review our OWN beliefs. This is why we’re so sure. It then follows that we’d discuss ways of liberating the world from this delusion that we have rid ourselves of.

42

A person who is content with the status quo would have little motivation to question it. In a religious society, it may sometimes require some or other disillusionment to trigger a change in individual theistic views. In a Christian society, where God is portrayed as a father figure, it is therefore conceivable that a “defective” father could be such an agent. The article postulating it as a source of atheism does unfortunately not give us a background of the religious status quo in the society where the research was undertaken. It would be interesting to see if a similar correlation exists in, say, a Hindu environment, where God is not portrayed as a father figure. To portray the alleged correlation between “defective” father and atheism as a curable psychological disorder is fallacious.

43

Not likely, all the studies I’ve read say that atheists are generally more psychologically healthy on average.

44

Further information: A cure for religion?

45

Interesting links. ;D

How about seeing things and hearing voices? I can definitely see how that could predispose one to religion. Of course, if you actually believe they are real it might be just enough to send you over the edge and drive you completely crazy. I like my hallucinations and wouldn’t trade them for anything, but I think atheism as cushioned my psyche somewhat.

46

Cure for religion? I had to get up at 07H30 on a Sunday in the middle of the Western Cape winter as a kid to catch the early show at the local branch of the Dutch Reformed. That kinda did it for me. :stuck_out_tongue:

Mintaka

47

I went to a CSV camp once, which also turned out to be a potent remedy. Unfortunately some viral infections seem to be immune.

48

Indeed, the point of course being atheism may be a curable psychological disorder with underlying causes with “defective fathers” being one possibility, just like malfunctioning genetics as a possible and curable underlying cause for Asperger’s.

49

“May be” is rather clutching at straws here, rather different from unsubstantiated delusions about imaginary deities.

50

I am not saying atheists are different to the norm or atheism is abnormal whatever you think normal is. In fact, in many European as well as eastern countries it is the norm.

I am saying that certain psychological (or neurotypical of you will) conditions will result in a person being more likely to be an atheist than not. And if those psychological syndromes negatively impact a person to function normally and can be treated, then that person is less likely to be an atheist.

That sounds very similar to a person who switched his belief from atheism to theism or polytheism or some other belief and now all of a sudden wants the world to see the same light he has. Very evangelical and can ultimately become intolerant and fundamentalist. Why, this seems to be the very essence of evangelical and fundamentalist new atheism.

51

Much like the claim that all religious beliefs are delusional.

52

You are quote mining - a despicable practice. My response was:

The following extract from Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World nicely illustrates the difference.

Suppose I seriously make the assertion that a fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage.
“Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle - but no dragon.
“Where’s the dragon?” you ask.
“Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprint.
“Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”
Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
“Good idea,” I say, “but the invisible fire is also heatless.”
You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
“Good idea, except she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.”
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.
Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?
[…]
The only thing that you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head.

The principle illustrated here is that an assertion must, at least theoretically, be falsifiable. Asserting that something exists without any verifiable evidence to support the assertion should indeed be regarded as delusional and hopefully curable.

The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan is published by Ballantine Books, New York.

53

Forgive me for deleting your bad generalisation.

Apply Sagan’s example to God so that we can see what you think “God” means to you as you understand it.

54

Your request is clearly insincere. Forgiveness denied. By referring to a bad generalisation, you imply that some religious beliefs are delusional and others are not. Those who hold religious beliefs that differ from yours, will of course view yours as delusional. The only objective conclusion that verifiable evidence can lead to, is that all religious beliefs are delusions. I therefore fail to see any bad generalization.

Why, surely the analogy between a dragon and a god that are both undetectable must be strikingly clear? How can alledged entities, which I am convinced do not exist, have anything more than fictional meaning to me?

55

Your “objective conclusion” is bad logic.
If every person thinks other people are delusional, it does not logically follow that everyone is delusional. Unless of course you are a naturalist.
If religious people think non-religious people are delusional and visa versa it does not imply that both groups are delusional. The same goes for religious groups vs religious groups.

Why, surely the analogy between a dragon and a god that are both undetectable must be strikingly clear? How can alledged entities, which I am convinced do not exist, have anything more than fictional meaning to me?
[/quote]
Please apply the example to your understanding of the term “God”. Surely you don’t think God is the same as some incorporeal fire breathing (lol) entity.

56

I quite agree that what people think or believe is not necessarily factual. That is why I base my argument on verifiable evidence.

It is not quite clear which of the gods you are referring to here. Could you be more specific?

57
It is not quite clear which of the gods you are referring to here. Could you be more specific?

I’m sure everyone else got the metaphor first time round, Hermes. :wink:

Mintaka

58

I would have hoped so, thanks, but as Langenhoven said: “'n Halwe begryper het 'n goeie woord nodig!”

59

Ah yes, Sagmoedige Neelsie!

“Maak staat op die raad van die man wat twyfel of dit reg is: die man wat nie twyfel nie het die saak maar van één kant af beskou.”

Mintaka

60

Hy’t ook geseg: Verdra die teestander. Al het hy nie reg met sy verskil nie, hy het die reg om te verskil. Klink amper religieus!