I read a study that said atheists tend to rate disproportionately higher on tests for autism or something like that.'
While obviously not all atheists are what medical science would deem autistic (to say nothing of 4chan's understanding of the term), this did make me wonder if famous atheists or agnostics in history display any behavior that we'd consider legitimately autistic in their lives or writing.
I never understood why not attributing life and the universe to a higher spiritual being automatically made one joyless/without morals/bitter etc.?
Why can't I instead appreciate the idea that you and I are here due to the infintesimally small chance of a perfect series of events? I'm much more awed at the odds of all this happening randomly than it all being a product of design. I can still appreciate the beauty of everything, maybe even moreso due to everything's rare and fragile state of existance.
>life was random
Nah. Did god come down to earth to specifically create us? Nah. Is life equivalent to your alphabet soup spontaneously organizing itself into the first act of Hamlet? Fuck no
Obviously one thing lead to another, a chin of events. I'm not talking about a pile of scrap metal turning into a jet randomly one day. There is definitely causality. It's just the conditions for that chain of events to occur, and continue occuring, in exactly the way it has, that defies the odds and becomes a ''miracle'' of chance.
It has something to do with the inability of autistic children to think teleologically.
A normal functioning child looks at a house for example and is usually able to register in his brain that the house bears the marks of human activity.
An autistic child may have trouble understanding that a house doesn't just grow out of the ground, but is built.
In that way, it would make sense if more autists are atheists, because if a child is disconnected enough from other humans that they can't recognize the imprints of human activity, then it is less likely they'll recognize divine activity in nature, of which human activity is a paler reflection or manifestation. They may also be unable to project human qualities unto a divine entity simply because they have trouble projecting human qualities onto other human beings as well.
This had me think that perhaps famous atheist or agnostic philosophers may have been high functioning autists.
>I never understood why not attributing life and the universe to a higher spiritual being automatically made one joyless/without morals/bitter etc.?
On the issue of morality, the problem I don't think has ever been that atheists are necessarily immoral. In fact, atheists are often more zealously "moral" than their religious counterparts, who may be more open to forgiving the immorality of others. Case in point would be the atheist left, whose zealotry for social justice and equality and a society based on reason and utility far exceeded the puritanical zeal of most religious fundamentalists for a society free of alcohol or sexual debauchery.
The problem is a two fold problem of extremities in the atheist moral compass; the axis upon which atheist morality sits can either be much more fragile or much more hardline. Most atheists you meet in the West, speaking from my own personal experiences, are either proud moral relativists or are simply trying to be as moral as possible according to the cultural standards around them. I have met many atheists from whom I get the sense that they try to be moral for the sake of proving that "atheists can be moral too," usually by following the inherited religious morality of their enviornment (there are many secular Muslims who don't believe in Allah, but still don't eat pork or drink) which begs the question whether they'd be as moral were it not for a religious population that could easily blame them and atheism for not being moral. On the other end of the spectrum, the hardline atheist morality manifested most strongly in the Communist East,
Typically, religious societies were often diverse in their morals because of two reasons: the absolute sovereignty of kings which itself was divinely ordained and religious ideas of divine forgiveness and penance, both of which allowed a certain amount of indulgence provided it did not upset the social order.