The Scientific American last month made an interesting comparison between atheism and Asperger’s syndrome:
Why do we often attribute events in our lives to a higher power or supernatural force? Some psychologists believe this kind of thinking, called teleological thinking, is a by-product of social cognition. As our ancestors evolved, we developed the ability to understand one anothers’ ideas and intentions. 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. A new study presented here in a poster at the 22nd annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science supports this idea, showing that people who may have an impaired theory of mind are less likely to think in a teleological way.
Bethany T. Heywood, a graduate student at Queens University Belfast, asked 27 people with Asperger’s syndrome, a mild type of autism that involves impaired social cognition, about significant events in their lives. Working with experimental psychologist Jesse M. Bering (author of the “Bering in Mind” blog and a frequent contributor to Scientific American MIND), she asked them to speculate about why these important events happened—for instance, why they had gone through an illness or why they met a significant other. As compared with 34 neurotypical people, those with Asperger’s syndrome were significantly less likely to invoke a teleological response—for example, saying the event was meant to unfold in a particular way or explaining that God had a hand in it. They were more likely to invoke a natural cause (such as blaming an illness on a virus they thought they were exposed to) or to give a descriptive response, explaining the event again in a different way.
In a second experiment, Heywood and Bering compared 27 people with Asperger’s with 34 neurotypical people who are atheists. The atheists, as expected, often invoked anti-teleological responses such as “there is no reason why; things just happen.” The people with Asperger’s were significantly less likely to offer such anti-teleological explanations than the atheists, indicating they were not engaged in teleological thinking at all. (The atheists, in contrast, revealed themselves to be reasoning teleologically, but then they rejected those thoughts.) [Emphasis mine]
These results support the idea that seeing purpose behind life events is a result of our mind’s focus on social thinking. People whose social cognition is impaired—those with Asperger’s, in this case—are less likely to see the events in their lives as having happened for a reason.
Thoughts?
Well, the really important lines are these:
That last line I quoted is particularly fascinating for NT atheists. I would anticipate someone making an argument, “Deep down you secretly believe this; your passions/wills are just disordered” (:3)
on the other hand, the thought that Aspies (I hope that’s not pejorative?) do not engage in teleological thinking at all can be pretty interesting, if we go in certain directions.
For example, is Asperger’s necessarily a defect, deficiency, or disability? If not, then couldn’t we consider the implications?
P.S. you guys seriously need to get a subscribe by email to comments feature.
“P.S. you guys seriously need to get a subscribe by email to comments feature.”
How do I? I’m still new to this blogging stuff.
I think you can subscribe by email to the comments now. Try it out and let me know if it works. Thanks.
Asperger’s is most definitely not a defect or disorder, and doesn’t need to be “cured”. It’s simply another way a mind can operate.
And holy crap all caps.
You can use the Subscribe to Comments plugin for WordPress.
http://txfx.net/wordpress-plugins/subscribe-to-comments/
As a gay ex-Mormon atheist with Asperger’s I find this interesting. While I was Mormon, I would always try to logically figure out the reasons behind doctrines, as well as trying to logically prove the “only true church” claims. Even after coming out of the closet, and deciding that I was going to pursue relationships with men, I didn’t leave the church until I had found sufficient evidence to prove to myself that it wasn’t true.
The only times I relied on teleological reasoning (“faith”) was when I was attracted to the guy whose beliefs I was copying. By copying the beliefs of guys I found attractive, I was attempting to appease my sexual desires for them by becoming more like them (didn’t work by the way).
I just find it interesting the way the discussion is framed. Aristotle would be surprised to hear that teleological reasoning is rooted in the supernatural, since he thinks final cause (teleology) is a natural cause in natural things. He thought that these causes were pretty much just there in the natural world. While they are not directly observable, they an be known in retrospect (looking at a fully developed organism and then looking back at its stages of development). Anyway, Aristotle does not think they derive from anything supernatural at all. While Aristotle does have an Unmoved Mover, he gets to it by efficient cause rather than final cause (teleology).
Note, Aquinas and other medieval philosophers modified this view, and they do ultimately explain teleology in terms of the Divine Mind. And Aquinas argues for God both from efficient cause (like Aristotle) but also from final cause or teleology (the 5th way).
But even the Scholastics like Aquinas would deny that teleological reasoning is a kind of faith. They would consider it knowledge derived from empirical experience. It is frankly about impossible to talk about any natural object (particularly living things) without using teleological reasoning, taken in this empirical sense.
I agree with Kleiner, teleology is an artifact of how we attempt to apprehend the world, and even scientific naturalism is probably never going to abandon it for a more accurate consideration. A total description of cause and effect is way beyond our ability to conceive our world, however the complex description, which is beyond us, is how the world really works.
“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face”
I’m afraid the only way we are going to know the universe “face to face” is when we have supercomputers implanted in our heads.
Just to be clear, I did not intend to say that “teleology is an artifact”. In fact, my view is quite the opposite (I am something of an Aristotelian). I don’t think teleology springs from our minds as an “artifact” (I am not a Kantian!). I am an epistemological realist.
“even scientific naturalism is probably never going to abandon it for a more accurate consideration.”
LOL, QUE?
I think you’re a philosophical illiterate. Google “Metaphysical Naturalism”. In order for anybody to engage in scientific analysis they have to drop teleology.
I think you are wrong, Ben B. Read the book I oft refer students to – Ric Machuga’s In Defense of the Soul: Why Aristotle Still Matters. While scientific analysis need not take up teleology per se (and instead just study efficient cause), anytime you want to say much of anything of interest about something (say, sea turtles or butterflies) you have to assume teleology and it always sneaks in the back door. In fact, in order for you to speak with intentionality at all you have to presume teleology.
“I think you’re a philosophical illiterate. Google “Metaphysical Naturalism”. In order for anybody to engage in scientific analysis they have to drop teleology.”
–Ben B.
You’re correct in that science professes to be non-teleological, but in practice all forms of hierarchical thinking, most forms of cause-and effect, and just about every common conversation about one thing “driving another” or one event being required by another event are subtly teleological. So my view is perhaps different than Kleiner’s in that I don’t believe the teleological crutch has any basis in reality; however, it is, as I say, an artifact that enables us to comprehend the world. There’s a great difference in what science declares itself to be and how people actually go about doing it.
And btw, I don’t presume to be a philosophical scholar.
I think Hunt is right on here. Listen to a scientist for 5 minutes and he’ll make any number of teleological claims (the turtle came ashore in order to lay eggs, the whale migrated south in order to breed). The debate is going to be between done kind of an epistemological realist (like Aristotle) or an epistemological idealist (like
Kant). I go for the former. Hunt goes a more Kantian route, arguing that this mode of thinking is just a “transcendental artifact” of the human mind (sorry to force Kantian jargon on you, Hunt).