*Religion was Never Invented by NTs!*

Post Reply New Topic

How old are you again?

I hate elitism and intellectual snobbery.

So do I.

That's one of the reasons why I started this thread, because the attitude on the PPR board towards religion is so frequently dismissive of it as "just" for NTs, because AS are "obviously" so above that sort of thing, as if religion had little or nothing of any value to offer, as if thousands of years, and hundreds of people's deep thinking on the subject of life, how to live, etc, were of no consequence, as if people from the past were inevitably less enlightened than them.

.

Obviously religion is not just for NTs or any other demographic. You actually think that?

I'm a Catholic and I'm also Aspie. This shouldn't be a mind-blowing combo.

I think that you must have misunderstood/missed the point of what I've been saying, which is that I started this thread because I was feeling a bit fed up ( I have a bad cold right now , with high temperature, otherwise I probably wouldn't have started it!) of people on PPR saying over and over again that religion is only for saps, NTs, people who can't think straight, etc, etc, etc.

I wanted to discuss/explore how much in fact significant elements of religion may have been created by AS in order to deal with AS difficulties, and that in fact religion contains some great wisdom directly useful to AS.

Obviously I don't think that religion is only for NTs. As I already said, I think that in fact religion might have more to offer AS than the "average" "NT", seeing as so many issues addressed in it are closely related to those which most plague AS!

.

Do I even have to address the pure stupidity behind the title of this thread?

ouinon, read No One Sees God by Michael Novak when you get the chance; it deals with a lot of the dynamics your talking about.

What I would debate you on is the ability if NT's to have similarly inquiring minds, they're a very diverse group themselves and many of them have as well been some of the greatest scientists and philosophers right along side the aspies of history.

Thank you very much for the reference, it looks very interesting ( googled), will go and read more about it.


I admit that I simplified/exaggerated a little/rather! I think because I am a wee bit fed up of the similar, but virtually non-stop, exaggeration/simplification that goes on here in the other direction!

Thanks again for the ref. Much appreciated.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 11 Oct 2008, 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Seems to be a creationist argument
AFAIK Heliocentrism theory was already made and Galileo was the first one to provide evidence to support it, and the church rejected it at the time considering it Heresy, similar to why creationists reject evolution.

Far from it, Paul Feyerabend who I quoted there, is a well known writer on the history and philosophy of science, and neither he nor I agree with creationist position.

Read up about Galileo and you will see that the Church was exercising what is now considered to be the most scientific method, of approving new theories only once proven.

.

You're not here in a trollish capacity, are you?

When people just randomly drop by threads like to this to say "I'm offended!" and go their merry way, its really just a sign of blatant callowness. In that case though, offending some people is good - and its part of the reason I do it as well, they're so un-used to ideas different from their own that they can't bring themselves to even read it for what it is and sort out what's true or false about it in their own minds.

In his particular case though, unlike an adult who's still thinking this way, I would cut him some slack - he is only 15 and a prisoner of our fine government educational institutions and their own political agendas.

Oh please, fine government educational institutions? If I were to base my knowledge off of the education this country provides I'd be as dumbed down as the rest of the students my age. I read the title and the first post of this thread and it's ridiculous to argue that NTs don't ask the questions we apparently do. In case we forgot many people with AS don't even ask those questions, for people in general it's not always something that comes as interest to any of us. Also this by far isn't the first time I've seen it and I've got a good guess as to why but why does it seem like we're trying to classify neuro-typical people as their own species and people with mental disabilities as superior? The prejudice needs to stop. And are you suggesting I'm offended? Why in the world would I take offense to such a topic? I felt like laughing if anything.

I think that's why he said to cut you some slack!


Actually it isn't. It is something we are neurologically programmed to do, far more than "NT"s. It is why we have so much difficulty in so many situations which NT sail through, because we keep on asking questions, ones which go right to the heart of things/systems, which most NT do not seem to need to ask at all, or not very much. They tend to take a lot more on trust, they seem to have buckets of "natural", genetically-determined, faith, which means not asking questions unceasingly, not needing to understand everything before being prepared, or even able, to do it, etc.


That is true. I didn't ask that many about anything connected to philosophy or religion until I was in my late twenties; I had been far too occupied trying to work out the answers to unremitting questions that I had about social survival, including work environments, ( the sort of questions NTs mostly don't even need to ask), until then, and I imagine that this may well be the case for many AS.

And some AS are lucky and are able to earn their living asking and answering questions about specialist fields which are satisfying, aswell as remunerative, so that some/many of the questions religion was set up to answer never crop up for them.


That's what I'm wondering. Why does this thread subject seem like that to you, ( and to one or two others) ? Because it is very definitely not what I am trying to do.

The only explanation that I can come up with is that religion seems for some reason to be associated with a "higher" ground, and so anyone connecting themselves with it must be trying to suggest their own superiority, which is odd because not only does religion usually get treated to insults, ( on PPR), as something for the NTs/saps, but my own experience of religion is that it makes most sense when I am most "in need", most aware of my own difficulties, my own apparently unsurmountable weaknesses.

.

Did Aspies invent religion or did NTs invent it?

How to sort and seperate Aspies / NTs starting from the beginning of recorded history?

Who knows?

Does it matter?

Ouinon, why persist here? It's futile. It's irrelevant. Your intellect can be better spent elsewhere.

I believe that AS had a very significant, perhaps decisive, role in creating it, because so many aspects of religion address issues particularly common to AS.


Not possible. But what is possible, at least in the case of still-existing religions, especially those with ancient writings, is to discern those elements and teachings which seem to have a distinctly AS perspective on life, or an AS problem to solve.


I think that such an examination/understanding of Christian teachings/the Bible, for instance, , could be useful; it might perhaps make the whole religion thing seem more relevant to AS, ( many of whom seem to see it as something pathetic, suitable only for "unthinking" NTs), and worth investigating.


It can? Tell me where, and I'm on my way!

PS: Did you read my last post at the bottom of page 2, which already answered one of your questions in greater depth, about "usefulness".?

.