Why did God make us as aspies?

Post Reply New Topic

Let me put this on a very personal level. When I was working in Israel my kids were playing in front of the house and I was trying to fix a broken kitchen door i the back of the house. My kids were three and four years old. Without my knowing it the kids decided to go up to the road near the house and walk along it. The road had a sidewalk on the other side and when they heard a car coming they started to run across the road since they were always warned to walk on the sidewalk. The driver of the oncoming sports car saw my kids start to run for the sidewalk and he figured he could beat them before they crossed the road. He was a wealthy Israeli textile manufacturer with a past record of injuring people while driving. He struck my younger son and tossed him fifteen feed down the road. I heard his horn and the squeal of brakes and immediately ran to see my kids and then ran to the road to see the driver, still sitting in his car and a taxi that had stopped in front of the accident where my son lay unconscious on the road. A cop had also stopped in front of the accident. I realized that time was of the essence and picked up my son and got into the stopped cab that had two fares and got my other son into the cab and told the driver to get to the nearest hospital as quickly as possible. The cop agreed and we got to the hospital just in time to get my son into an emergency operation that saved his life. When I left the driver of the sports car still was sitting in his car.

My son remained unconscious for over a week and nobody in the hospital could figure why he could not breath without machine assistance. I finally, at great personal expense borrowed from my employer, the United Nations, enough to transfer to an intensive care unit in Leiden, Holland, where it was found his spinal cord had been severed and he would remain quadriplegic for the rest of his life dependent upon a respirator. The man's insurance company offered me $5000 immediately to cover and excuse all liabilities for the driver and of course I told him he was nuts. The driver offered to help on a subsequent phone call but when I asked him to cover the expenses for sending my son to Holland he accused me of extortion and hung up.

My son remained quadriplegic for the rest of his thirty.two year life which was a sustained nightmare for myself and my family. Both I and my son were U.S. citizens and the USA refused to even give me advice about how to get help, not to speak of doing anything to help care for my son. My wife was a Finnish citizen and on that basis Finland granted my sons Finnish citizenship and took my injured son into the Finnish medical system to care for him for the rest of his life.

The driver of the sports car was lightly reprimanded and retained his license and I never heard from him again. I don't think he was evil, merely extremely callous and abysmally stupid. A court settlement after several years granted my son enough money for his care for ten years which was totally inadequate but it had to do. Was evil involved? Perhaps you might think so but it was of no concern to me. My problems concerned giving my son whatever life he had left some worth and significance and I seemed to be successful at that. I really don't give a damn what happened to the sports car driver since Israel freed him to continue committing mayhem. That was a problem for Israel, not me. I see no evil in the misbehavior. Merely stupidity and unfeeling and that sense can be extended to all the brutal nonsense that humanity continues unremittingly to commit. There is no evil. Only monstrous stupidity.

I never said there was no good or evil. I said that morality isn't objective, and that there are no mind-independent values of good or evil.

There are many things I consider good, and many things I consider ethically wrong (presumably you could translate 'ethically wrong' as 'evil', although the latter is not a word I use).

I'm VERY sorry to hear. That indeed sheds much light into some of the thoughts I've seen you express here... Not the thoughts themselves, but certain recurring patterns and themes.

I can't imagine at all what that must have been like--my own past pales in comparison. My brother, who I never knew (though I wish I had) was killed by a drunk driver when he was 10 years old--I was too young to have any memory of him. The driver happened to be a Native American who couldn't be tried in the usual court system, not to mention drunk driving wasn't the serious issue then that it is now. The newspaper read that he got 30 days, but mom said nothing happened to him.

Why would I be concerned, when I didn't even know my brother? Because for maybe 10 years of my life, my dad couldn't even get my name right. Because my brother was "perfect," and I couldn't keep my grades up in school. Because for any number of reasons I had to live in a 10-year-old's shadow long into my teens. It wasn't fun. I never knew my dad before my brother died, but I do know that whatever made him any kind of man at all died with my brother.

Even before all this happened, my dad was known for a quick temper and hostile, abusive behavior. When he was diagnosed a diabetic, he just gave up. And if you know anything about diabetics, you know they can be prone to violent mood changes. I had to deal with being pushed around until I got big/strong enough to push back. If that wasn't bad enough, I had to watch him slowly fall apart. After he died, which for a short time was a relief, my mom remarried a very strict, religious conservative man who tried everything he could to change me into something I'm not (I AM a religious conservative, but at least I'm one who actually KNOWS what the Bible says). I got some relief in college, but I still have a bunch of people still trying to make me into something I'm not. Things got better in grad school, but then I bounced from one teaching job to another because I just don't fit in. My wife lost her job just when I was starting my own business, and THEN we have people investigating us because of alleged child abuse--quickly dismissed because it was obviously untrue, but frightening none-the-less. And I won't even discuss what happened in the church--and you know how much my faith means to me. I can't pretend to equate my experiences with yours, and that is certainly not the point. My point is that I can certainly relate in a real way to the "brutal nonsense" and "monstrous stupidity" of humanity.

But, Sand, come on... Let's call it what it is. What you call "brutal nonsense" and "monstrous stupidity" IS evil. I certainly don't mean to be insensitive. If that's what you need to forgive someone and let this horror go, so be it. But look at your own words: "past record of injuring people," "he was nuts," "not... doing anything to care," "extremely callous," "abysmally stupid," "totally inadequate," "worth and significance," "freed... to continue... mayhem, "stupidity and unfeeling." Whether you name it is irrelevant. Your account shows what side you're on. You do have a moral standard--"worth and significance" versus "monstrous stupidity."

Why bother saving his life at all? Why bother being involved in a court case lasting years? Why bother giving your son "worth and significance"? Why endure the nightmare? I'm not going to press the issue on this point, so if you'd rather not answer those questions, I perfectly understand. I'll simply say this: Your actions (I assume you're telling the truth) reflect that you have a moral standard. You have a sense of right and wrong and some way of measuring moral values, if none other than your own. If you didn't have a standard for comparison (right/wrong, good/evil), then you couldn't say some of the things you said. If there IS no good/evil, right/wrong, then what you said doesn't make any sense. You make very positive assertions. You use language that takes a stand. Your language takes sides. You are not neutral. You have in the past accused me and other believers of being delusional (thanks for easing up on that, by the way). Those things prove that either you are NOT neutral or that you are a liar and you just made that story up to give me a guilt trip. If you're telling the truth (I have no reason not to believe you), then you feel you and your son have been wronged and you sought the best kind of life that your son deserves in that situation. If you are a liar, then you fabricated a story for some reason: Perhaps believing I'd feel guilty or humbled and trying to get me to just go away because I touched a nerve or crossed a boundary which you feel I was wrong to do. Either way, you display some kind of moral compass/measuring stick/whatever you want to call it.

Emotions, like I said earlier, are invisible relative to scientific observation. The existence of evil (call it what you will) is another invisible entity. Still another invisible entity is morality. You can't see it/smell it/touch it/hear it. It's "just there." Science can't affirm it, but only observe and record the ways in which it manifests itself.

By saying those things (or even if you're lying), you've made some kind of moral value judgment. You can't make those value judgments without a standard, because calling someone "stupid" or "delusional" requires some departure from that standard. If you didn't have a standard, you'd have absolutely no right or reason to call someone "stupid" or "callous" or "delusional." You can't have a departure from a moral standard if you have no standard to depart from. You clearly show that you have one, and you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't.

So if you have a moral standard, where did it come from? Where is it now? What does it look like? If you (or anyone else reading this) chooses to answer, good luck to you. I don't think you can even TRY to seriously make a go of this, though, because we're talking about things that we know to be true and know to exist, yet they are unseeable and unknowable through physical, material, natural means. Notice I haven't EVEN made a mention of God here or attempted to connect Him to morality or good/evil. All I can say is, just as I made my point about emotions and their very present reality, evil and morality necessarily do exist on the same kind of invisible plane of existence. Could it be that God also exists here in the same way? And could it also be that the likelihood of God's existence in this sense is much more than we imagine it to be?

Thoughts?

See http://www.megabaud.fi/~tsand/

I am a decent human purely out of understanding the necessities of living in a world full of dangers that we, as social beings, need to confront and deal with. I need no supernatural agency to fortify that necessity and I value all living things in their struggle to survive. The natural order of maintaining my own life demands a certain destruction of other lives, something I regret but cannot avoid. But even the most elemental forms of life are a wonder to me as a designer and an observer and I value them all greatly. That is the root of my behavior.

just a sec, ill pray and check...

hm... "same reason i made the vietnamese" he says :S
whatever that means... what a weirdo...

Note that YOU are the one suggesting the link to a "supernatural agency" and not me. All I did was ask a question.

By your response, you show that you ARE a moral creature and therefore in agreement. You describe yourself as a "decent human being." I won't dispute that. "purely out of understanding the necessities of living in a world full of dangers" sounds like ethics to me--yet again, if not the equivalent of moral standards, are also within that same invisible plane of existence. You express "regret"--likewise as I've already said. "I value them all"--an obvious value statement. You recognize some measure of "goodness," though you don't use that term, in those things. By making that choice of the "root" of your behavior, you establish and choose what is "good," exactly in the same way we all "choose" what we believe and hope to be good. The ways and means to accomplishing this is irrelevant. You choose and accept some code or standard of morals. Ergo, you accept something that is not visible. By saying you participate in destroying something valuable to you is an admission of something that is evil to you, yet unavoidable. In the Christian faith, we believe that sin is unavoidable in its entirety--though that doesn't prevent us from making our best effort. So saying that you do something you feel is on one level wrong and yet unavoidable, you admit to the same human nature Christians seek to escape. That you are an unbeliever is irrelevant. We have much in common.

So... In the invisible realm, we have evil, morality, emotions. What about some other things? Logic? Sure. Numbers? Absolutely. Meaning? Language? Hopefully, if you are reasonable and rational, you see my point. Do the natural laws of science affect these things? No, because they don't even exist on the same level. So in the same way that materialism is false, so is naturalism.

What else can we say about morals? Well, Sand, you may not necessarily have been a willing participant, but by default through this discussion you helped reveal something else about morality: It's a form of communication. In your writing, you expressed your views on your morals. In a written from, you morals leapt from your mind into mine. Like magic! Just kidding. Seriously, though, by writing down your moral code/values, you were able to transmit that to me. Essentially you are giving me a directive: Avoid meaningless destruction. You can't GIVE orders without someone to take orders, nor can you TAKE orders unless someone gives them to you. It takes two minds to accomplish this. Morals do something else that's kind of funny: They make you feel a certain way about certain things before you even do them. Not meaning to be insensitive, and I promise to leave it alone after this, but think about one of the questions I asked about your son: Why bother even saving his life? I think what you're telling me is his life still had value. Therefore, it was imperative that you save him. You already knew what you were going to do before the accident even happened. Your morals dictate that. The last word I have on this line of thinking is that morals cause pain. If you break one of your own rules, you feel discomfort. That's called guilt. You regret killing plants/animals for your own survival. That it is unavoidable is irrelevant. You feel a certain guilt that may also translate into a desire to take ONLY what you need and preserve/conserve the rest as best you can. No one can get rid of this kind of pain completely, though drugs, alcohol may help temporarily. Correction: Sociopaths somehow do manage to override the conscience. And you don't strike me as a sociopath!

Given what we know about morality, that is it's invisible, it communicates, it dictates what we're supposed to do, and causes pain when we fail, we're confronted with the fact that we can't remain neutral--your account had some very choice words. You're not neutral, nor should you be. You can deny it, but I dare say you're only lying to yourself if you do. Therefore, we have to confront certain other issues.

I don't think you would call morality delusion, especially after I've carefully shown how you yourself possess it. That would make you as delusional as the believers you've accused in the recent past. You clearly do not think of yourself delusional, so we can cross this off the list. You could say that your morals are accidents of the "natural order" you believe in, perhaps like survival instinct. But, you see, the problem here is that if you can't find any justification for a personal moral tenet, you can make the choice to ignore or discard it--not something you can just do in the "natural order." Another issue is that morals, which we have established MUST be communicated, that cannot happen by random chance. Something that looks like a directive can conceivably happen by random chance, but it can also be ignored. A directive has to be communicated by someone/something that has the authority to issue it. Douglas MacArthur, for example, strongly advocated the use of nuclear weapons in Korea, but it was the President who relieved him of command. No one else had the authority to do that.

Your morals didn't just appear out of nowhere. Perhaps your parents instilled within you some sort of value system which, at some point, you had to decide which values to retain and, after your parents no longer held any real authority over you, which ones to discard. If you got some of your morals from your parents, and then some from a trusted friend, or from a teacher, or mentor, or a an employer, then it logically follows that they inherited or acquired their morals from other authoritative sources. If this were not true, then things like crime/punishment would not make sense. You wouldn't feel any kind of pain of regret at all destroying life for your own survival. And you wouldn't feel duty-bound to carry out certain actions. You do what you do not for survival instinct, as you put forth, but because you feel some kind of weight of morality, perhaps some kind of conviction. Morality can't speak to you without some kind of authority behind it. If your morals had no authority, you wouldn't be compelled to listen. If they had no authority, you would not feel the pain of guilt. If they had no authority, you could do whatever you wanted and there'd be no consequences. We know, however, there are always consequences for violating our morals, even if they are nothing more than what I've already mentioned.

So now, we have to figure out where the authority comes from that drives morals. I'm not trying to lead anywhere with this statement right now. Is it a seen or unseen authority?

What other thoughts can we have on this?

Morality is a kind of emergent regulating principle. Its origin is partly genetic and partly based on experience. If you took two genetically identical twins and raised them in very different ways, they could develop quite distinct moral systems of moral judgment. Most humans develop a not fully verbalized system of moral discernment. Some humans do not develop any. Among these you will find the sociopaths. If you analogize moral discernment to sight, the sociopaths are congenitally or genetically blind.

ruveyn

There is, in your analysis, a constant reference to some intangible external system of order that you feel I must respond to construct my behavior. I doubt I can convince you that there is not since this imperceptible imaginary pattern seems impressed deeply into your entire being. My value system is entirely constructed of elements that are in plain sight. I am disturbed when a grasshopper hits the windshield of my car because I am aware of what technological wonders went into the construction of that insect, wonders that science is only now approaching and comprehending, not because some smokey ghost magician waved a negative finger in my direction and boomed out a thou shalt not. Protein is wonderful stuff and millions upon millions of years is impressive time to fiddle with it. That deserves respect, not fairy tales about naive creation stories. Sin is nonsense.

True. But some times it is a lot of fun.

ruveyn

Not if you believe in it. It bugs you.

If I had Jesus to atone for my sins, I would not worry a bit. Once Saved, always Saved.

ruveyn

From what I've heard there's no federal deposit insurance on sins.

Ruveyn:

You make some good observations about morality not unlike what I've mentioned and to which I mostly agree. Emergent regulating principle? Sure! We "know" right from wrong, we are uncomfortable with the idea of committing wrong, we are "punished," so to speak, when we commit wrong--external, physical effects aside (jail time), we feel an internal sense of guilt when we don't get caught or the wrong is inconsequential enough not to warrant greater penalties. We pay for it either way, unless, of course, we can justify our actions or lie to ourselves enough we become numb to the effects of it. The overall manifestation of morality remains the same: There are some things you JUST DON'T DO. Partly genetic? No doubt about that. It's a HUMAN trait, so certainly we inherit the capacity for morals. The subject of sociopaths is a sticky one. One can be born with "spiritual" (not meaning to be biased here, I just can't come up with a better word) defects just as one can be born with physical or mental defects. I say "spiritual" because sociopaths aren't normally mentally impaired--they aren't "crazy," they just don't care. I have no reason to argue against genetics (which is really a natural/material way of propagating information from one or more members of a population to another) as a source of moral capacity. Separating twins would likely demonstrate that variations of morals passed on through variations of authorities (different cultures, societal values, environment, etc.) would also be passed onto the twins. My concern is not necessarily what would be different, but rather what moral traits remain in common. For that, you can look at any moral system in any part of the world and compare it to your own. Why is it that I, as a Christian, could conceivably walk into an Islamic theocracy where I could be killed for my beliefs, and yet still have a real chance of walking out alive? This happens all the time, and it's because of a shared moral view: Human life is valuable without respect to differences of faith.


Sand:

You yourself believe in this "intangible external system." You demonstrate it. There is no logical or even scientific reason why you should deny it. You seem (just going by appearances, here) to fear that acknowledging that necessarily proves what you believe to be my point--that God exists. Don't worry--it DOESN'T prove that point. That God exists is not a case I'm even really trying to make, otherwise I'd be making more direct references to God. All I'm saying is that there is more to this universe than what we see.

If it doesn't exist, explain numbers to me. What is "1"? Can I go to my local grocery store, buy a box of "1" and pour it into a cereal bowl and eat it with my breakfast? Can I fill a tub with "1" and take a bath in it? AND YET when I wake up every morning there are two cars in my driveway. When my wife leaves for work, there is only "1" car left. I can't eat "1" or bathe in "1" or in any other way prove that "1" exists, but nevertheless when my wife leaves for work I am reminded of how real "1" is. This "1" concept of "numbers" is so real that there is an entire academic discipline devoted to it. Why be so devoted to something you can't see/smell/touch/hear? Either it exists, or we are ALL insane.

Let's continue on a little with just what we have so far: Morality. You say you are "disturbed" when a grasshopper hits your car. That is an emotion. What is "disturbed"? Can you scan it to a PDF and email it to me? Of course not. You are aware of the "technological wonders" of that insect. That word "wonder" is a problem, Sand. Once again, you are taking a stand on something. Science may "approach" and "comprehend," but it does NOT assign value. YOU did that on your own. How did you do that? By what authority can you make that claim? Why should I even believe you? Yet I also honestly believe that your grasshopper is a technological wonder. If we are so different (believer/unbeliever), how can we share a value judgment? We can't, except that something beyond the naturalistic and materialistic world allows us to. I'm not talking about "heaven" or a "spirit world." I'm talking about right here, right now, our plane of existence extends beyond the physically, visibly "knowable" world only in front of our eyes. To acknowledge this fact does not refute science in the least--it only recognizes science for what it is. It doesn't disqualify scientific method or discovery.

I don't know much about quantum physics, but what little I do know is that it is a largely theoretical study that has allowed us great insight to our physical universe. Quantum physics can be used to explain multiple dimensions within the physical realm and even suggest the existence of alternate realities/universes. OK, I don't personally believe those things exist, but quantum physics DOES provide a good model. Let's say "science" is only the visible dimension in which we live. Another dimension would be "intangible" things like numbers, emotions, the soul. You may make the observation that certain things interact/intersect while other things are separate. Logically, you COULD conclude that perhaps the reason for this is the world in which we live is made up of multiple levels and dimensions that, even if we can't explain them in natural or material terms, still make up an overwhelmingly significant portion of the human experience. How many levels, of course, is up for debate. I tend to think in three: The visible world, the invisible world, and the spirit world (also invisible, but separate from that which in which we have direct experience).

"That deserves respect..." Again, another value judgment. Where did you get this? Can you paint it and hang it in a gallery so others may see it? "Naive... stories." Science can't measure naivety. You made that decision.

"Sin is nonsense." Well, on this point we agree. There is a LOT of nonsense going on the world. You can't turn on the news, listen to the radio, browse the internet, read a newspaper without running into it. Your life has been greatly affected by "nonsense," as has mine. It's unavoidable.

Or is that not what you meant? We agree that sin is nonsense, though we may disagree as to the meaning of that phrase. What is "meaning"? Can I break "meaning" out of a shell, scramble it, and serve it with toast? At the moment, that does sound really tasty...

You say you doubt you can convince me because this pattern is deeply impressed into me. That statement is not true. The reason you can't convince me is because it is deeply impressed into all people, yourself included, and to deny such is not only illogical, irrational, but just plain silly (Oh! Look! I just made a value judgment, too!! !). I can't stress enough that understanding and accepting this fact does not negate the value of, the reality of, and the reliability of scientific investigation. The great technological accomplishments of human beings over the course of history, especially computers and the internet just to name two, would be "nonsense" without it. Of this there is no dispute. This "pattern" you refer to is certainly imperceptible--at least with the classic senses--but it is NOT imaginary. You are a participant in it with the rest of us. If you weren't, then you couldn't hold forth that certain things are right and certain things are not.

I'll likely wrap this up soon, but it's only fair that I allow for more responses before I do. Any MORE thoughts? Anybody?

I thought they taught class theory in elementary school these days.It has to do with the nature of numbers which is no mystery. Look it up. The nature of abstraction is rather useful to become acquainted with.

You are jumping all over the place exhibiting your ignorance. Every time I point out that people need to look into mattes that puzzle them they think I am insulting them. I am not. I am just suggesting they educate themselves. Ignorance is remediable.

Irrelevant. The ability to count on one's fingers has nothing to do with the underlying concept. Numbers are meaningless without representing some real tangible thing. The point of advanced mathematical study is not really to produce a tangible result but rather to train the mind into thinking in a much higher order of abstraction. Algebra, for example, doesn't even deal with absolute numbers, much less actual things/people/objects. It CAN, however, show someone how to look at a complex problem or system of concrete facts/objects and come directly to a solution/analysis. It is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Purely on its own, it amounts to little more than an abstract mind game or exercise that can spur the imagination and help children invent and create--essentially bringing forth in tangible form a product of the imagination, making something from which there was nothing.



There you go again. I can study the "nature" of abstraction all I want, but I can't fuel my car with it. Where is this "abstraction" of which you speak? Either it doesn't exist or it's part of a different world that parallels and annexes the material and natural world. You yourself are "knowing the unknowable."



Red herring. This has nothing to do with whether I feel insulted or not. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that something you hold very dear is under attack. I'm not attacking ANYTHING. I'm not refuting ANY kind of science! I'm simply pointing out that science cannot by its nature explain EVERYTHING, and some things it can't even explain in principal.

I'm also pointing out some VERY real evidence in support of that. Don't scientists do that? Don't they show supporting evidence for their findings? Surely they do, or you'd never have a leg to stand on. I believe in science, too. I have nothing to gain from tearing it down. But scientists THEMSELVES can study a hypothesis or even a theory and come to a conclusion that either the hypothesis or theory as it stands is false or, at the very least, inconclusive. They may then proceed to investigate the matter further until a better conclusion CAN be reached. Science is an ONGOING investigation. Even you said that. Science, however, still doesn't seem to be concerned about INVISIBLE things. Even things we KNOW to be true. Abstractions, emotions, morals, evil... We know and accept these things. When is science going to get to work on them? Likely never, I think, and part of that could possibly be due that science itself is partially built upon abstractions--mathematical formulas, for instance. That means the science upon which you rest much of your faith is itself partially built on things that are unseen, yet we never stop to question them. Why? I don't know. Why fix something if it isn't broken?

By suggesting my ignorance when I've provided thorough, well-reasoned, well-explored evidence to show otherwise, you express an opinion that has no rational basis. You feel uncomfortable because the basis of your system of belief appears to be under attack, or at the very least some things are being called into question. Nothing is further from the truth. If your faith in science isn't under attack, then it's something else about what I've said that makes you uncomfortable--even uncomfortable enough that you falsely accuse me of ignorance, and by doing so you put as a defense your usual attack mechanism. And, actually, for once in a dialogue with you, I don't feel insulted!

What are you running from, Sand?

Let's get back to the real point: Morality. You can't explain it. You can't measure it. You can't grill it and serve it with potatoes and Texas toast. But you have it. You know it. You feel it. It seems I've even stumbled upon something that is morally objectionable to you, and I apologize if I've come across as being harsh and insensitive. I'm really not a very good aggressor. I'm not even really that smart (master's degree notwithstanding). This is not about punishment. This is not about me winning. Where does morality come from?

I promise, no more than two posts after this one. You have NOT given a real answer.

I think the worthy Sand is distancing himself from nonsense and balderdash, an impulse I roundly applaud. Morality comes from two places: our genetic make up. Virtually all humans (with a few notable exceptions among sociopaths and mentally ret*d folk) have some kind of morality. This impulse to judge things as fit or fair is wired into us, as is the case in some other primate species. Some of our morality is conventional and a product of hour experience and the culture we live in and deal with on a daily basis.

Just a comment on your attitude toward abstractions. Without abstractions you would not have computer and a communication network with which to propagate your ill founded ideas. Abstractions keep you fed when you are hungry and warm when you are cold.

ruveyn