Big Questions Online
 
 
Is Atheism Irrational?

 
 
 
 
By _Kelly J. Clark_ 
(https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/users/kelly-j-clark)  


 
January 28, 2014 


 
 
 
 
 
We know well atheistic attempts to explain religion away. Marx, for 
example,  claims that religion is the opiate of the people. Religion, Nietzsche 
contends,  is weakness lying itself into power. According to Freud religion is 
a defensive  illusion created in the face of “the crushingly superior force 
of nature.” As  influential as these ideas are, they are little more than 
guesses based on utter  speculation. 
Times have changed. From the _Agency  Detection Device (ADD)_ 
(http://www.icea.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/CAM/HADD.pdf)  to _Theory of Mind (ToM)_ 
(http://www.iep.utm.edu/theomind/) , the cognitive faculties involved in the  
production 
and sustenance of religious belief are now well known. ADD and ToM,  when 
taken together, are sometimes called “the god-faculty.” The god-faculty  
produces belief in kin, predators, mates, and enemies, and it produces  
manifestly false beliefs in such things as ghosts, goblins, and even gods.  
According to philosopher Daniel Dennett, the god-faculty is a “fiction  
generating 
contraption.” 
The new science of religious belief inclines some scientists to put on 
their  philosopher caps and opine. Psychologist Paul Bloom contends that 
religious  belief is “an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone 
awry.”
  Biologist Richard Dawkins claims that “the irrationality of religion is a 
 by-product of a particular built-in irrationality mechanism in the brain.” 
The  psychological impulses that drive belief in God, according to Dennett 
and  Dawkins, reveal God to be an illusion or a delusion. 
Atheism, however, has not received much attention. I suspect this is due to 
 the following: the vast majority of those who work on these topics are 
atheists  or agnostics who view religious belief as false and even bizarre. 
Given this  assumption, the project of psychological explanations of religion 
is to explain  how otherwise rational people could hold obviously false 
beliefs. Unlike  religious belief, their own beliefs (agnosticism or atheism), 
so 
the narrative  goes, are products of coolly rational reflection—the triumph 
of reason over  superstition. The project then is to seek out the 
malfunction that produces  religious belief; atheism gets a free pass.   
But if there are primal urges, neuronal impulses, or psychological drives  
that influence and even cause belief in God, couldn’t there be similar 
causes of  unbelief? Or are only theists neurotic? 
While it would be nice to be able to settle the rationality or 
irrationality  of belief in God in one fell swoop, Dawkins and Dennett have not 
done so. 
The  god-faculty is not, for the most part, fiction-generating. ADD and ToM 
are both  perfectly ordinary and truth-conducive. Every time you walk 
through the mall and  see a person and make a judgment about them, you are 
using 
those faculties. More  often than not, ADD and ToM produce true beliefs. ADD 
and ToM have occasionally  produced false beliefs—we see, as Stewart 
Guthrie argues, faces in clouds and  sometimes turn clouds into gods. But 
unless 
we wish to proclaim that we are all  irrational for thinking there are other 
people, then we shouldn’t think the  faculties involved are fiction 
generators. 
If atheism, on the other hand, were the product of a fiction generating  
mechanism and one were made aware of this fact, one would be irrational in  
maintaining one’s atheism. Interestingly, recent studies suggest just such an  
irrationality contraption. Consider the curious case of famed neurologist,  
Oliver Sacks. 
Sacks was once hiking alone in the mountains of Norway when he happened 
upon  an enormous and cantankerous bull. The bull startled him, and as he fled, 
he  fell down a steep cliff landing with his leg twisted beneath him. In  
excruciating pain, he fashioned a splint for his dislocated knee and began 
his  lonely and painful descent. On the way, believing himself to be near 
death he  began to feel increasingly desperate. His body was screaming, “Give 
up,
” and his  mind was beginning to agree. He was just about to stop when he 
heard “a strong,  clear, commanding voice, which said, ‘You can't rest here —
 you can’t rest  anywhere. You’ve got to go on. Find a pace you can keep 
up and go on steadily.’”  Yielding to the voice, he found the strength to 
carry on in spite of the  crippling pain in his useless leg. He later wrote, “
This good voice, this Life  voice, braced and resolved me. I stopped 
trembling and did not falter  again.” 
Where some might have come to believe they had heard the still, small voice 
 of God, Sacks, instead, claims the voice was an hallucination. He 
attributes his  hallucination to perfectly ordinary and not uncommon cognitive 
processes. 
But suppose it wasn’t an hallucination. 
If there is a God, one who occasionally speaks to people, then in at least  
some cases of unbelief, there may be a plausible scientific explanation.  
Autistic individuals lack, to varying degrees, the ability to impute 
thoughts,  feelings, and desires to personal agents. This undergirds their lack 
of 
empathy,  which hinders, to varying degrees, their ability to enter into 
normal  interpersonal relationships. The loving parent may speak to them, reach 
out to  them, and embrace them, but the autistic child may be incapable of 
recognizing  and responding to them. 
In short, some autistic individuals may be incapable of cognizing a 
personal  God (if there is a God): some are as constitutionally incapable of 
recognizing a  personal God as they are of recognizing a friend. 
Recent studies demonstrate a correlation between atheism and autism—one is  
vastly more likely to be an atheist or agnostic if one is autistic. The 
higher  up one is on the Autism Spectrum, the more likely one is to be an 
atheist. 
Psychologists _Ara Norenzayan, Will Gervais and Kali Trzeniewski contend 
that  “mentalizing deficits_ 
(http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0036880) ”—the 
inability to “see” the beliefs, feelings and  
desires of other persons--incline autistic individuals towards atheism. 
Since  people with higher scores on the Autism Spectrum Quotient had a reduced 
ability  to mentalize, they claim that mentalizing deficits mediated 
increased tendencies  towards atheism and agnosticism. As noted, recent work in 
cognitive science of  religion shows the centrality of mentalizing (which we 
called above “ToM”) to  typical religious beliefs. If God is personal, then a 
properly functioning ToM  may be necessary for belief in God; mentalizing 
deficits, therefore, may hinder  or even prevent belief in God. 
According to a culturally influential narrative, religious beliefs are  
irrational because they are caused by unreliable cognitive mechanisms, whereas  
atheism is rational because it is the product of rational reflection on 
true  beliefs. We have debunked a portion of the narrative: atheism, at least 
in some  cases, is correlated with and mediated by a cognitive deficit. 
We should agree, I think, that if one’s atheism were indeed mediated by a  
mentalizing deficit, then one’s belief would be irrational (if one were 
apprised  of the cause of one’s belief). But we simply have no idea whether or 
not any  particular person’s belief was produced by a malfunctioning ToM; we 
can’t peer  into another person’s mind to determine if they had been 
prevented from  believing something true by virtue of a malfunctioning 
cognitive 
faculty. And if  we can’t know if a particular person’s belief was mediated 
by a cognitive defect  or by, for example, deep reflection on the problem of 
evil, we cannot know if  any particular person’s atheism is rational or 
irrational. 
Even if the atheism-autism connection were  indisputably established, we 
simply cannot know, in any particular case  involving any particular 
individual, the cognitive processes involved. After  all, the studies would 
show 
general tendencies of groups of people, tendencies  which tell us nothing at 
all 
about any particular member of the group. Here’s  another way of putting 
it: not all men are from Mars, not all women are from  Venus. And another way: 
not all women are bad at math and not all men are good  at math. Related 
Questions _Are  We Born Believing in God?_ 
(https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/are-we-born-believing-god)  _Do We 
Have  Souls?_ 
(https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/do-we-have-souls)   
Consider an analogy. We know that depression mediates sadness. Nonetheless, 
 we cannot know, in any particular case, if a depressed person is perforce 
sad or  if a sad person is perforce depressed. So, too, we can’t know if any 
particular  atheist suffers from autism or if any particular autistic 
individual is an  atheist (in fact, many autistic individuals claim a personal 
relationship with  God). We simply can’t know if any particular person’s 
belief or unbelief is the  result of a cognitive malfunction, rational 
reflection, or cultural influences  (or a combination thereof). 
With respect to the rationality of atheism and agnosticism, Norenzayan,  
Gervais, and Trzeniewski offer wise counsel: “We emphasize that our data do 
not  suggest that disbelief solely arises through mentalizing deficits; 
multiple  psychological and socio-cultural pathways likely lead to a complex 
and  
overdetermined phenomenon such as disbelief in God.” 
Is atheism’s connection with autism the silver bullet that proves once and  
for all that atheists are irrational? Given the complexities of both the 
human  mind and human culture, it is impossible to tell. 
So when a (philosophically reflective) atheist claims herself to be 
rational  because she believes that the arguments for theism are bad and the 
arguments  against theism are good, I suggest we take her at her word. 
Discussion Questions: 
1. In what ways might belief in God be similar or dissimilar to unbelief in 
 God?  
2. Are any of these similarities or dissimilarities relevant to what might  
make belief/unbelief in God rational? 
3. We often make judgments about the rationality of the beliefs of others  
(and not so much about our own beliefs). This essay suggests that we don’t 
have  access to what might ground another’s rationality (because we can’t 
peek into  their minds). Do you buy this? If you do, what are some 
consequences of judging  the rationality/irrationality of  others?




-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to