God and a theory of Mind

[pancreasman]

As we develop as children, there comes a crucial point where we begin to intuit that other people have minds and feelings of their own. We begin to feel empathy. We recognize others as persons. For some people this development is a little more problematic. They find it more difficult to attribute 'mind' and to understand how and why other people behave the way they do. People with Autism can experience this. When you think about it, belief in a personal God is attributing mind to the big picture at quite an abstract level. Consequently you might expect people with high functioning autism to be more likely atheistic in outlook. New research does indeed seem to confirm this.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0036880

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...m-lead-atheism

It turns out that even controlling for other variables you are more likely to be an atheist if you have features of high functioning autism.

Let's be clear here. There are several things I'm NOT saying.

I'm NOT saying that if you are an atheist you must have something wrong with you. The authors of the study are explicitly cautious and mention several other possibilities.

I'm NOT saying belief in a personal God is a default or 'normal' position.

I'm interested in how this might tie in with pareidolia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

We look for patterns and connections and we seem to be so good at this we can return false positives, finding meaningful patterns where none actually exist.

Some questions that might come from this are:

1. If our propensity for belief is in even a small way determined by physical brain structure, how much of a 'level playing field' do we really have in accepting a personal God, let alone anyone's particular version of that God?

General comments are welcome.

[pancreasman]

Hmmm. I seem to be having a run of totally uninteresting threads. It's hard being boring.

[Jedidiah]

I did reply to this thread, but my response seems to have been lost.

Our brains are clearly inclined to seek to organize what we see. Some more so than others. I think this may be less so for our other senses. We hear scary sounds in the night because we are afraid of the dark, but beyond that I doubt it.

Your Psychology Today article casually discards millions of religious folks who are not theistic.

There might be another explanation as to why we picture God as a person. Perhaps we got that idea from our ancestors who knew Him as a person.

[Jedidiah]

Whoops. We have the same moods. You better change yours.

[Soyeong]

1. If our propensity for belief is in even a small way determined by physical brain structure, how much of a 'level playing field' do we really have in accepting a personal God, let alone anyone's particular version of that God?

Who said anything about a level playing field?

[pancreasman]

Who said anything about a level playing field?

I was just thinking along the lines of a Christian point of view that I imagine would consider that God gives everybody the same 'evidence' and that they have equal opportunity to respond.

[Soyeong]

I was just thinking along the lines of a Christian point of view that I imagine would consider that God gives everybody the same 'evidence' and that they have equal opportunity to respond.

With everyone having their own unique experience, I don't see how everyone could have an equal opportunity. For instance, many Muslims are converting to Christianity after having dreams and visions. However, not all Muslims have been given this same opportunity.

[pancreasman]

With everyone having their own unique experience, I don't see how everyone could have an equal opportunity. For instance, many Muslims are converting to Christianity after having dreams and visions. However, not all Muslims have been given this same opportunity.

That seems to take us into squirly theological directions of predestination, election, free will and so on. That always hurts my brain.

[Soyeong]

I don't think everyone will be judged by the same standard, but on what they do with what they had, which in another sense, is the same standard, if that makes any sense. I also think by the commonality of religion, that there is something in us the predisposes us to it.

[onnabugeisha]

I don't think everyone will be judged by the same standard, but on what they do with what they had, which in another sense, is the same standard, if that makes any sense. I also think by the commonality of religion, that there is something in us the predisposes us to it.

I believe Rawls argues that the propensity to do well "with what they had" is a natural good, determined by your genes and the context into which you are born. (One lecturer at Harvard gave the example that first born children were over-represented in the class he was teaching.) I would tend to agree with Rawls that our inclination to achieve this or that is the result of factors outside our control. I was born in the United States to an upper middle class family. This critically determined the background of my efforts, including things like a Puritan work ethic. I was also the younger sister of a pair of twins who were four years my senior. They were adored. I was not. I couldn't compete with them for my parents affections on equal terms, as that was a battle I couldn't hope to win. So I specialized in negative attention, always being sick and always underachieving. How am I to be judged? By having done the best I could do by becoming someone who doesn't do the best she can do? Ai, ai, the circles make my brain hurt.

[Soyeong]

I believe Rawls argues that the propensity to do well "with what they had" is a natural good, determined by your genes and the context into which you are born. (One lecturer at Harvard gave the example that first born children were over-represented in the class he was teaching.) I would tend to agree with Rawls that our inclination to achieve this or that is the result of factors outside our control. I was born in the United States to an upper middle class family. This critically determined the background of my efforts, including things like a Puritan work ethic. I was also the younger sister of a pair of twins who were four years my senior. They were adored. I was not. I couldn't compete with them for my parents affections on equal terms, as that was a battle I couldn't hope to win. So I specialized in negative attention, always being sick and always underachieving. How am I to be judged? By having done the best I could do by becoming someone who doesn't do the best she can do? Ai, ai, the circles make my brain hurt.

If you try to fail and succeed at it, which have you done?

[onnabugeisha]

If you try to fail and succeed at it, which have you done?

Now you're just playing word games. I continue to fail even now that the circumstance I learned under no longer exists. And I didn't say I tried to fail. Nor do I now. I'm just a failure, whether I try or not.

But by all means, define your words so there is no way for them to be false. Succeeding is success. But so is failing too! Everybody goes to heaven! Everybody good at something!