1. I'm no expert on autism. I'm not venturing specific, positive claims about autistics. Likewise, I'm not claiming that God never heals autistics. I don't have any statistics on that one way or the other. I'm just exploring why God might not answer a prayer to heal someone with a certain kind of cognitive disability.
There are Christian parents of autistic kids. I expect most Christian parents in that situation pray for their healing. And in most cases I expect God turns them down.
I'm sure that makes some of them mad at God. Or confused. Or they lose faith in God.
I'm going to explore the question of whether parents who pray for healing in cases like that are making a mistaken assumption, which might explain why God declines to heal their child.
Suppose you have a 20-year-old son (or daughter) with autism, Down syndrome, or FASD. Suppose you take your child to a faith-healer. This is what you hope for: the healer will lay hands on your child, a few moments later, God will repair the brain damage, and your grown child will suddenly be a normal young adult, as if he never had brain damage. As if he had a normal brain all along, had a normal childhood and adolescence.
Is that realistic? Or does that overlooks something crucial?
2. I'm a substance dualist. I think the human mind is ontologically independent of the brain. However, so long as the mind is coupled with a brain, cognitive function is largely dependent on brain function. The brain can facilitate or impede cognition.
To take a comparison, consider someone who's high on LSD. Even if his sensory perception is unimpaired, his perception of reality is severely impaired. How he interprets sensory input is dangerously distorted.
On the nature/nurture debate, I split the difference. I don't think we are blank slates at birth. I think we have innate character traits and instinctual know-how. But there's a lot we need to learn through experience. We're more like waffles than blank slates. A built-in structure, but to complete it you need to add the butter and syrup of the natural maturation process.
So our cognitive development is dependent on the developing brain, and how that enables us to perceive the world and interact with the world.
3. Suppose God heals a blind man. He could be blind in one of two ways. Maybe he as born blind, or maybe he became blind.
Suppose he lost his vision at 15 due to brain cancer, traumatic brain injury, radiation therapy, &c. If he's healed, he will resume his former life. Pick up where he left off.
But if he was born blind, that's a brand new experience for him. Paradoxically, even though it's hazardous to be blind, it's even more hazardous to be newly sighted.
He can now see–indeed, he has 20/20 vision–but he doesn't know what he sees. He doesn't know what things are supposed to look like. This is the first time he's seen them. He can't gauge distances. He can't tell what's harmless from what's harmful. Indeed, even what's ordinarily safe for a normally sighted person might be dangerous for a newly sighted person.
If he was born blind, he has coping skills. And he has a routine. But as a newly sighted, he's in a transitional phase where his old coping skills are largely useless, yet he hasn't developed alternative skills. It's riskier for a newly sighted person to cross a busy intersection than a congenitally sightless person. It's riskier for a newly sighted person to walk down a flight of stairs than a congenitally sightless person.
If he just received his sight, it would be very dangerous to leave him unattended. Like dropping him into the middle of a mine field.
Eventually, he will adjust, but it will take however long to get his bearings. He's having to make a fresh start.
Although miraculous healing furnishes the missing brain structures, it won't furnish missing knowledge that's a product of the brain structures. A person whose sight was restored after he lost his vision can easily revert, because he already knows how to use his eyesight to navigate in his physical environment. But a newly sighted person lacks that preexisting know-how.
4. Consider another comparison: suppose we transfer mind of 5-year-old into body of 20-year-old. That would be one scary 20-year-old! He'd have an adult body. And adult brain. The physical, and to some degree, the raw mental abilities, of a normal adult.
But he'd have a 5-year-old's judgment, a 5-year-old's impulse control, a 5-year-old's emotional makeup, a 5-year-old's moral compass.
5. Now let's circle back to the case of autism. Due to congenital brain damage, our 20-year-old may have missed some crucial steps in his moral formation and socialization. To furnish the missing brain structures won't furnish the missing judgment. He will lack normal adult judgment, because he didn't pass through the usual stages of cognitive development. To have an adult mind, conscience, social skills, and so on, is contingent on a normal process of maturation. But if congenital brain damage inhibits comprehension or empathy, then that was never acquired.
Compare that to God healing someone with dementia. If the soul is the seat of personality, then their personality will be intact. The deteriorating brain was just an impediment. Miraculous healing would remove the clogged filter.
But what if they never had that personality in the first place? If God miraculously healed an autistic adult, that might well result in a very dangerous adult.
6. One objection to my explanation is that God could heal the autistic sooner. However, a problem with that objection is that developmental disabilities aren't necessarily evident early on. Ironically, some developmental delays forecast superior abilities. There's what Thomas Sowell dubs Einstein Syndrome.
You also have autistic savants, where there seems to be a tradeoff. Paul Dirac may present a related example:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jan/07/autism-test-genius-dirac
7. And then there's the soul-making theodicy. Loving the disabled is a virtue that makes us better persons.
7. And then there's the soul-making theodicy. Loving the disabled is a virtue that makes us better persons.
In John 9:1-41 Jesus healed a man born blind, who did not appear to have any difficulty with comprehending what he saw. If God can heal, certainly he can instill what is needed to properly use the new or restored faculty without need of rehabilitiation or training. Please advise.
ReplyDeletei) You seem to be assuming that he was unaccompanied after his healing. But the account is silent on those details.
Deleteii) For a newly sighted person to walk around 1C Jerusalem is far less hazardous than walking around a modern city, with the automotive traffic and all.
I'm just taking the text at face value; my assumption is that if God wants to heal a man born blind, he can just as easily provide the necessary means of interpreting visual data as he can either recreate damaged or create absent visual hard wiring.
DeleteKirk Skeptic
Delete"I'm just taking the text at face value; my assumption is that if God wants to heal a man born blind, he can just as easily provide the necessary means of interpreting visual data as he can either recreate damaged or create absent visual hard wiring."
It seems to me the problem is "interpreting visual data" is at least in part dependent on some background or requisite knowledge as to what is being interpreted, but a man born blind wouldn't necessarily have this knowledge in the first place if some of this knowledge needs to have been acquired by lived experience.
Sure, God can do anything. God could simply drop all this knowledge into the man born blind. However, wouldn't this require another miracle for the man to be able to handle and process the data dump? Otherwise his head might "explode."
Besides, even if the man born blind could handle the data dump, how would this still be the same man if he acquired lived experiences he didn't actually live? It's not as if he is like Adam or Eve who started their first day of life with all this knowledge. Rather, the man born blind would presumably have lived a few decades before he was healed.
Just my two cents'.
i) Taking the text at face value doesn't settle that question one way or the other because the text is silent on whether or not he was chaperoned for a time after Jesus gave him sight. You're attempting to extract something from nothing. But silence carries no presumption.
Deleteii) It's a mistake to invoke miracles just to salvage a position or paper over a difficulty if we have no positive evidence that the position in question is true.
iii) There's no reason to make the text teach a double miracle, a miracle (instant visual skills) over and above new sight. The text doesn't say that or imply that.
iv) To suddenly receive sight in adulthood would naturally be extremely disorienting. What we see is a patchwork quilt of colors. A riot of shaded shapes.
Some objects have solid colors. Even in their case, the appearance may vary due to an uneven surface in combination with variations in light and shade. Other objects are multicolored. In the case of still other objects (e.g. trees, chain-link fences), you can see through them.
For someone who doesn't know what things are supposed to look like, he can't make out the boundaries. He can't tell where one object ends and another begins. He can't tell what's hard, soft, or sharp. He can't tell the difference between a disk and a ball, for even though he has depth perception, he doesn't know how to interpret the sense data. Likewise, he has no experience with relative size (apparent size in relation to distance).
It takes years of experience to distinguish and recognize objects by sight. An acquired skill we normally pick up through osmosis.
It's amazing how we instantly and effortlessly adjust to the ever-shifting visual field when we walk or drive.
If the text doesn't say that the blind man was aqccompanied, why should I assume that he was? What is a "double miracle;" ie why must God act in steps? The other blind man in Mark was healed in stages; we don't know if his blindness was congenital or acquired, but we are distinctly told he was healed in steps; the story in John provides no such detail. We accept creation ex nihilo without any stepwise reactions of matter, so why is this a problem?
Delete@RWH: Adam & Eve may have had to acquire knowledge, but their faculties of speech and special senses appear to have always been developed just as a creation ex nihilo resulted in a world with the appearance of age. If, as you admit, God can do anything, why do we need to complicate a relatively straightforward narrative?
Delete"If the text doesn't say that the blind man was accompanied, why should I assume that he was?"
Deletei) Why should you assume the contrary? These are selective accounts. They deliberately omit many extraneous details. And they omit some things that readers will take for granted.
ii) Both you and I are going to read something into the account that isn't stated.
"What is a 'double miracle;' ie why must God act in steps? The other blind man in Mark was healed in stages; we don't know if his blindness was congenital or acquired, but we are distinctly told he was healed in steps; the story in John provides no such detail. We accept creation ex nihilo without any stepwise reactions of matter, so why is this a problem?"
You seem to have a prejudice against ordinary providence. A prejudice against normality. But God designed humans to undergo a long process of maturation. To acquire much of what they know through observation and experience. That's not deficient or inferior. That's God's typical preference.
You act as though there'd be something wrong, something inadequate, something defective, about God giving the man his sight, then letting him naturally learn how to use it. I don't understand the basis of your prejudice. It would be exciting for him to discover the world, figure out how to use his newfound vision.
iii) In the case of Adam and Eve, that's creating a natural cycle. Once the cycle is in place, ordinary providence takes over.
Would a 1st c reader of the account even consider the possibility of a double miracle, being without modern understanding of the cns visual axis, neurophysiology, etc, or would he conclude as I do? Your appeal to ordinary providence amid a miracle is just as prejudiced as my position; besides, I don't know where I even hinted at my alleged opposition thereto. Is it your modern bias that has you adding another character to the Gospel account when none is needed? Getting back to my alleged aversion to ordinary providence, I' see no textual proof refuting your notion of stepwise learning to using newly-aquired vision, but I also see no need to even postulate such from the text. Are you aware of any early commentators - ie those without modern anatomic and physiologic knowledge - that see your way clearly?
DeleteKirk Skeptic
Delete"Adam & Eve may have had to acquire knowledge, but their faculties of speech and special senses appear to have always been developed just as a creation ex nihilo resulted in a world with the appearance of age. If, as you admit, God can do anything, why do we need to complicate a relatively straightforward narrative?"
I already included the explanation in my original reply to you, which you apparently didn't understand. It'd be another miracle. Why do you think it's necessary to heap a miracle upon another miracle? What's wrong with ordinary providence? Ironically, if this is what you think, then you're the one attempting to "complicate a relatively straightforward narrative."
"Would a 1st c reader of the account even consider the possibility of a double miracle"
I don't think you're following the logic of your own argument. It's your position, not ours, which is calling for "a double miracle."
"Your appeal to ordinary providence amid a miracle is just as prejudiced as my position"
No, because, for one thing, "ordinary providence" is the norm.
A multiplicity of miracles is not the norm. Otherwise it risks becoming a series of outlandish interpretations a la Medieval Catholicism.
"Are you aware of any early commentators - ie those without modern anatomic and physiologic knowledge - that see your way clearly?"
This is a red herring. Steve's argument doesn't depend on early commentators being in agreement with him.
1. It doesn't take modern scientific knowledge to realize that an adult who's never seen anything before won't recognize what he's looking at for the first time.
Delete2. A presupposition of miracles is God doing something for us that we can't do for ourselves. If we could do it on our own, the miracle would be superfluous.
The blind man can't make himself sighted. But given eyesight, he can learn how to find his way around.
God miraculously fed the Israelites in the wilderness because natural food sources were too sparse in the desert to support them. After they entered the promised land, they had to hunt and farm to eat.
3. You're operating with a Bart Ehrman hermeneutic, as if:
i) John didn't say x happened
is equivalent to:
ii) John said x didn't happen
But just because John doesn't say if something happened is not equivalent to John denying that something happened.
That fallacy becomes the basis for imagining discrepancies between the Gospels.
@RWH: I understand you completely; I just disagree, and there is no need to be condescending. As for multiplying miracles, what of the dumb speaking or lame man from birth walking: the text is silent on speech and physical therapy, as one who never spoke would need assistance with proper phonation and the formerly lame would have to develop their sense of proprioception in order not to keep falling...yet he picked up his mat an walked Was the chap with the withered hand merely un-withered without restoration of tendon, muscle, and nerve function via physiotherapy, or healed instantly and in toto? How many miracles did God have to perform with Joshua's long day, considering the effects of altering earth's rotation on tides, tectonics, etc?
Delete@Steve: I'm not saying anything Ehrmanesque, but rather challenging the assumption that a sovereign and omnipotent God can't make a man whole in one fell swoop.
Kirk Skeptic
Delete"I understand you completely; I just disagree, and there is no need to be condescending."
I haven't been condescending toward you. I've been making plain statements. You're reading condescension into my otherwise plain statements.
By the way, judging by your response, it doesn't appear you do "understand" let alone "completely." More on this in a moment.
"As for multiplying miracles, what of the dumb speaking or lame man from birth walking: the text is silent on speech and physical therapy, as one who never spoke would need assistance with proper phonation and the formerly lame would have to develop their sense of proprioception in order not to keep falling...yet he picked up his mat an walked Was the chap with the withered hand merely un-withered without restoration of tendon, muscle, and nerve function via physiotherapy, or healed instantly and in toto?"
You appear to think I'm arguing for multiple miracles. I'm not. Rather, it's your own position which commits you to multiple miracles.
For instance, you earlier said: "my assumption is that if God wants to heal a man born blind, he can just as easily provide the necessary means of interpreting visual data as he can either recreate damaged or create absent visual hard wiring."
This would mean God would have to heal the man born blind of his blindness. That's no problem, and I trust we agree here.
However, the problem is "the necessary means of interpreting visual data." The "interpretation" of visual data isn't limited to properly functional neurophysiology or other purely physical features of the brain and CNS, which we agree God could and would heal. No, it'd also require lived experiences and the knowledge gained from our experiences to be able to properly "interpret" visual data.
As an example, if the man born blind but now healed of his blindness looks up to the night sky, then he'd see many celestial objects such as little twinkling or sparkling objects in the sky. He'd have to learn these are stars. He'd have to learn what a star looks like. Its brightness and so on. He'd have to be able to pick out other objects like planets and comets too.
Yet, when you say God could "just as easily provide the necessary means of interpreting visual data," then this would mean God would have to provide the man instantaneous knowledge or experience to be able to properly "interpret" the "visual data" he is now viewing. That'd mean, for example, God would have to provide the man knowledge of what a star looks like at the same time as God heals the man of blindness.
As I said, sure, that's possible, but it'd be another miracle to provide the man immediate knowledge of what a star looks like so the man can now properly "interpret" this "visual data" that he is seeing a star, planet, comet, etc.
Hence this commits you to another miracle on top of the physical healing of blindness. The miracles of the man gaining physical sight as well as the man gaining instant knowledge or experience to be able to properly "interpret" what he's now seeing.
As I asked, why multiply miracles? As I asked, what's wrong with God using ordinary providence to "provide [the man] the necessary means of interpreting visual data"? Perhaps you have a good answer you haven't yet provided.
"How many miracles did God have to perform with Joshua's long day, considering the effects of altering earth's rotation on tides, tectonics, etc?"
Well, this wasn't a miracle of healing. As such, it's disanalogous.
Besides, and again, I never argued God isn't able to perform multiple miracles. But why should we expect him to do so?
No disanalogy at all; rather God merely wills something to happen and it does instantaneously and in toto - which you agreed can happen. I'm not arguing for multiple miracles so much as questioning the very concept of multiple miracles when God's fiat can accomplish all at once. My understanding of scientific laws is the same as my understanding of ordinary providence; ie our names for God's covenantal habits. A miracle, then,is merely(?) God acting outside of his routine for whatsoever reason he may have and with no external constraint. Thus I don't understand what is meant by "ordinary providence taking over," as if somehow God must act in some ordered manner. Maybe there's something I'm missing here, but your distinctions sound awfully scholastic. My question then is why you perceive a need to break down God's actions into discrete steps and parts. Again, what am I missing?
DeletePS: let's consider the man born blind to have suffered from congenital cataracts which, when left untreated, often cause amblyopia. Jesus healed him: if he merely resolved the cataracts or the amblyopia, the man would still be visually impaired; if he healed both conditions, the man would have normal vision but only because Jesus performed a double miracle even if Jesus didn't perform the data-dump allowing him to interpret visual signals (ie, a triple miracle). Again, am I missing something?
DeleteKirk Skeptic
Delete"No disanalogy at all;"
How is God healing a person born blind relevantly analogous to God stopping the sun?
"rather God merely wills something to happen and it does instantaneously and in toto - which you agreed can happen."
From the very beginning I've always said "God can do anything." However, that's not "agreeing" with your original contention that God "can just as easily provide the necessary means of interpreting visual data."
"My understanding of scientific laws is the same as my understanding of ordinary providence; ie our names for God's covenantal habits. A miracle, then,is merely(?) God acting outside of his routine for whatsoever reason he may have and with no external constraint."
I'd need further elaboration, but this seems to play into Hume's much contested "a miracle is a violation of natural law."
"Thus I don't understand what is meant by "ordinary providence taking over," as if somehow God must act in some ordered manner. Maybe there's something I'm missing here, but your distinctions sound awfully scholastic. My question then is why you perceive a need to break down God's actions into discrete steps and parts. Again, what am I missing?"
Not that I think "scholastic" is pejorative, but you evidently do. If so, then I'd say it's not "scholastic" in the sense you mean.
By contrast, here's what I'm saying:
Just because a man born blind can now see doesn't necessarily mean he knows what he's seeing.
However, if you say God "can just as easily provide the necessary means of interpreting visual data," then it seems to me you're suggesting God can make the man both see and know what he's seeing at the same time.
Sure, as I've said, God can do "anything." But for God to do what you're suggesting would seem to require God give the man the ability to see (via physical healing) as well as the ability to properly "interpret" what he's seeing (via lived experiences).
We both agree on the first about physical healing. But where we disagree is why God likewise needs to give the man lived experiences he hasn't lived.
There's more to it than this, much more could be said, but I think that's the main gist of what I'm trying to get at.
Kirk Skeptic
Delete"PS: let's consider the man born blind to have suffered from congenital cataracts which, when left untreated, often cause amblyopia. Jesus healed him: if he merely resolved the cataracts or the amblyopia, the man would still be visually impaired; if he healed both conditions, the man would have normal vision but only because Jesus performed a double miracle even if Jesus didn't perform the data-dump allowing him to interpret visual signals (ie, a triple miracle). Again, am I missing something?"
These are essentially physical healings. They're not at issue.
What's at issue is what you earlier said, that God "can just as easily provide the necessary means of interpreting visual data." This would require God to give the man something over and above physical healing. It'd require God to give the man something which is normally gained by a person living and experiencing "life" in general.
If God healed all the autistics, would there be any atheists left?
ReplyDeletethey would find some other excuse for their unbelief.
Delete