Why did God make us as aspies?

Post Reply New Topic

That is genetically wired in. There are a few who are devoid of empathy but this is a rare exception. This inherent empathy plus the rules and conventions of a culture are joined together to create ethical systems or moral codes.

ruveyn

As you discovered with your music manual you seem to have a talent for obscure communication. A manual of social operation is not created by some guy climbing a mountain and waiting for lightning to carve it out of granite, whatever Cecil B. DeMille might have impressed you with in the movie. By trial and error, when people misbehaved there were consequences and eventually those rules evolved so that the negative consequences were minimized. But if you think all fathers and mothers should be honored you have had your mind doped by Walt Disney or Norman Rockwell. Statements on this site have several times indicated that fatherhood is frequently unable to turn sonsabitches into lovable old codgers. And impregnating women has variable effects on men.
And that's only one of your revered rules. I do not much run on and on as you seem to be in the habit of doing. Just an observation of style, not a criticism.

If you choose to run on and on, that's up to you. I find it preferable because this is not an issue that can be thoroughly explored in few words. If it were a criticism, I wouldn't blame you or be offended. I'm just not sure of a better way to effectively make the same point--same reason I said I wouldn't make more posts in that direction.

I understand what you're saying about trial/error. You're talking about cause/effect, and I'm can't dispute that. But why is there even cause/effect at all? If all we feel and believe is the cumulative result of millennia of evolutionary development, there ought not be penalties for stealing or killing someone for possessions. Then again, there wouldn't even be a need for possessions at all. Wild animals, for instance, fight over territory and rights to females. While human beings are capable of the same behavior, we are also capable of alternatives. It COULD be a result of trial and error, but we demonstrate much more complexity of values and judgment than, say, a dog. Dogs can be trained, for example, and even without training display behaviors that resemble human loving/compassion or joy and excitement and their opposites. On their own, however, they are left to their survival instincts. While it's possible they can still exhibit some of the same behaviors I mentioned, it is not imperative to do so.

With human beings, the opposite is true. It IS imperative that we act within moral standards. It's true that we can stumble onto some objective moral value or standard on our own. It might take a LONG time, but anyone ought to be able to figure it out. Like Sand said, there's no mystery. But it can't happen if it isn't DESIGNED to do so. If it were a simple accident of creation, we'd be at liberty to ignore it. But it isn't an accident. We are COMPELLED to live out our moral standards or face consequences. You can't obey a directive if it isn't given, and a directive can't be given if no one is there to give it.

Yes, I do believe the Bible, but that has little to do with the point at hand. But if you were to ask ME, I'd give you an example like this: I leave my clothes on the floor until someone tells me to pick them up. Who tells me? My wife, What authority does she have? Well, she's my wife. So what? The Bible says to love my wife as my own body, therefore I should pick up my clothes out of respect for her. Who wrote the Bible? We think maybe 40 different men. What authority do they have? Well, God Himself inspired them to do so. Therefore, God, the author of my morals, commands me to do a simple act of picking up my clothes.

OK... Can I prove that God, aka YHWH exists and is the definitive authority for all morals? No, not to anyone but myself. That's a matter of faith. What I CAN show, however, is what I've already said in the way of answering the problem of the source of morality as being the result of a Designer/Creator. If you can't SHOW me any other source, then that means you don't KNOW.

Finally!! ! An ANSWER!! !

Thanks for actually taking a chance. If an answer is a flawed answer, it can at the very least be explored and shown for its merits.

Let me ask this, though--is empathy the best word for what you mean? The word refers to one's ability to understand invisible things like emotions, attitudes, concerns, and so on--not to be confused with "sympathy" which means your feelings and behaviors work in tandem or tangentially with others, like strings tuned harmonically will cause each other to vibrate (i.e. you cry when someone else cries, laugh when they laugh, and so on).

Empathy is a mode through which communication is received and understood. You can display empathy, for example, when someone tells you something and you repeat their words in paraphrase. It's a good practice because, unlike "sympathy," it enables the listener to show understanding in a non-pretentious way (you can't REALLY "know" how ANYONE feels at any time, and often words misrepresent or disguise our true feelings and intent).

Empathy cannot blow throw a ventilation system and keep me cool on a hot summer day (it's not real in a materialistic or naturalistic sense is all I mean, in case you missed that in my previous posts). But it can open a pathway through which we transmit moral codes. For example, Sand could say he's sick and tired of me picking on him and that he does not know the answer to my question, at which point I'd be compelled to forever drop it inasmuch as it pertains to him--not because I agree with him, but because I understand his discomfort on the matter and I owe him at least that much respect. Empathy does not originate morality. It's only one means of propagating or distributing it.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-Huh

So YOU think morals come from this guy named Jesus who created a code of conduct that HE claims benefits humanity and if you violate this moral code he'll send you to hell when you die, eh? Kinda like how a parent will punish a child for not doing what they're told since the parents are in charge and have *authority* which is an integral part of social organization(AKA Hierarchy)......

There have been people who are considered to be morally repugnant(like Hitler for example)because he inflicted suffering on innocent people to pursued his own agenda, all the while claiming that he was doing something Good. If I had no empathy for others than I would have no qualms about inflicting suffering upon innocent people for my own personal gain. You see AngelRho, regardless of your religious beliefs it is abundantly clear that we humans are fundamentally selfish and our primary instinct is to pursue our own personal gain. Since we are social animals and live in groups but at the same time are selfish, the result is competition. If there were no morals, and no laws, there would be no incentive to continue living in a group since we would have no incentive to trust one another. Religion likes to make up fairytales in order to manipulate people into behaving in a certain way(like the infantile notion that there's this guy named Satan who tries to trick us into doing things we're not *supposed* to).

On whether Jesus is the answer or not is your decision. I already know what I believe, and I'm not ashamed of it. Nobody here is sending anybody to hell--again, that's something you and your conscience have to resolve.

Besides, you seem to only know what others have had to say about the tenets of Christianity. Sand likes to gently urge people to educate themselves. I feel I should follow his example and ask you to do the same, or, if there is a certain point of contention you'd like to discuss, just go ahead and say so and I'll be glad to clarify.

That's all beside the real point. Whether it's Jesus, or Buddha, or Confucius, your uncle, or a little birdy, morality necessarily must be transferred through some authority that you believe. Otherwise, you have no reason to believe it.

Perhaps you can clear something up for me, because we don't seem to use the word "empathy" the same way. Exactly what do you mean by empathy? I've already stated what I believe empathy to be and how it can certainly be a pathway through which morals may be transmitted. Perhaps we're talking about two different things?

Here is the essence of our difference. My assumption is that morality is developed by humans for human sensible cultural interaction and there are many failures of different types in different cultures and many successes. Humans have been attempting throughout all human history to devise a morality that will result in general beneficence and although there have been partial successes the huge miseries throughout history and obviously within our present times testifies to a lack of reasonable success. Assuming a powerful non-observable authority that hands down a perfect system of morality obviously does not alleviate our problems.

To characterize me as gentle may be seen as a kind gesture but I am well aware of my acerbic approach. I am deeply disturbed by the extensive misery in the world and the blatant stupidities that create it and I do not go gently into this vicious chaos. I have had phenomenal failure in trying to show people what horrible misunderstandings they have over sensible and realistic outlooks but as long as I live I have no alternative but to keep on trying.

OK... Now you're beginning to make sense. Your answer is that morals are purely a human construct. That answer would be consistent with my whole line of reasoning in the sense that it is something passed from human to human. It's certainly not a human invention, though. Is it genetic? I don't know the answer that. My guess is that it is. MOST of us at least have the capacity for morals, something that we'd have to first possess as a result of being born human. But it morals themselves do have to be communicated, whether by mouth, by scripture, or by inference.

You are deeply disturbed by all the evil in the world (call it what it is). Based on my previous arguments, I'd judge that those evils are not the result of morality but acts of rebellion against it. We know morals have to be communicated. But when anything gets communicated, especially in oral communication, some of the details here and there are going to become misspoken, misunderstood, or otherwise distorted. The end result after several generations of telling may be far from the actual truth itself. Morals are the same way. When evil manifests itself in destructive acts of religious fundamentalism (I'm not singling anyone out here), it clearly shows a distortion of truth or morals. Many Christians of the crusades, the inquisitions, and various witch-hunts believed themselves good, working out the will of God--I hear it often said that more Jews were killed during this time than in Nazi Germany. Islamic extremists carried out an act of violence that cost thousands of people their lives. Both of these groups clearly saw themselves in the light of goodness at the height of their most destructive moments. And history isn't over yet!

I'm not getting into doctrine here... I've read just enough of the Koran to know why someone would get it in their head to do something horrible like that, but most Muslims I personally know aren't interested in hurting anyone. The intent of the Bible is peace and love, but its message has often enough been miscommunicated to justify great acts of horror. And it happens because people aren't reading the Bible, just hearing and believing rumors about it.

That's just the Bible. When people only hear rumors, that's all they will believe. But the rumors are not the truth. The reason the Bible had to be codified at all is because God knew, as well as the first believers, that there could be no preservation of moral integrity, history, and other facets of faith without the text. What should really amaze you about the Bible is how well it has been copied since its beginnings. I already stated in another post some known facts about the written Word.

As much as we've been deceived by moral "rumors," you have to admit we live in a much more sensible age than we used to. We are free to discern Biblical truth for ourselves, not listen to it held upside down and read aloud in Latin. We have the ability to get moral codes straight from the Author.

Does the Bible alleviate the problem? No, because we have the free will to rebel against morality to the point that we become numb to its effects. I'm not talking about sociopaths who are that way from the outset. I mean things you feel guilty about, don't feel other consequences, do them again, and then decide it doesn't matter if you keep doing it or make up some rationale for why you should disobey the rules.

What the Bible does do is give us an absolute, objective, moral standard. The Law gives us the original plan from which we can model our own. Jesus gives us the Law of Mercy or the Law of Peace (my terms, but I'm probably not the first to come up with it). We try to hold onto it because we don't want to live in rebellion, but failure is inevitable. When we are repentant, we show that we are obedient and faithful. All we can hope for is that our actions are a testimony to the One we serve, dispelling the figurative "rumors" that pervade our world.

I am not beginning to make sense, I have been reiterating this all along and somehow you failed to see it. I know how to behave and to deal with people decently and have nothing to do with the Bible. I act to make an acceptable and workable situation and I need only experience and reason to accomplish this. Evil is an idiotic concoction of religious people to define nonconformity with the rigid set of they assume are universal to be obedient to their imaginary master. I do not have an imaginary master.I endow all other living things with the same sense of decency that I feel in myself and need no external agency to demand this sense of equality or suffer stupid eternal punishment which is obviously an imaginary extension of human legal vengeance systems.I am also aware that this overwhelming compassion is an exaggerated emotional feeling and probably somewhat unreal but I am satisfied to live and work with it. Otherwise I would not spend time trying to confront what appears to me as silly people with what I have experienced as useful truth,

Now I AM confused. You say "I am not beginning to make sense." I thought you claimed to be a sensible, rational, intelligent person. Are you rescinding your own high appraisal of yourself?

I'm kidding! Yes, I took that out of context. I admit it.

Seriously, though... You say evil is an "idiotic concoction." It is an illusion. If that is so, it follows that morality, which is something that helps us steer clear of evil, is also an illusion. Without evil, there is no purpose for morality. If one is illusion, so must be the other.

You rail against "stupidity" and "silly people," so you do exhibit some basis for comparison. Yet you imply "silly people" have no basis for objective or useful truth. So what makes something right? The fact that you say it? Or could it be that there is no objective truth?

Answer this one for me: Are you a relativist?

Wikipedia is very vague about the term relativism. I am a pragmatist and adopt what works. After a couple of thousand years of Biblical indoctrination in the world one would assume there should be sufficient evidence throughout the world to cause overwhelming doubt as to its utility. Rational science has been in effective operation for only a couple of centuries and appears to have done rather well. I appreciate its methods and approach.

That's because relativism, by it's very nature, is vague.

As addicted as I myself am to Wikipedia, I have to be careful with it. While it can be very helpful, it is not consistently the best source of information.

I take it you feel Wikipedia is evil.

Why does God make anybody with a condition that sets them up to suffer? He's a ******* a** hole.

I don't think we understand God, if there really is a God. I feel this life is MADE to be horrifying, and we elect to come here in advance, to learn something.

I guess your version of God can't see the outcome of his actions. Not that there's anything wrong with that- there's a million and one "what ifs."

My viewpoint on God differs a bit from the classical conception. Just look at the many messes he created with his inept and vague orders and the many inherent drives incorporated n human nature to do things not in subservience to His demands. He may be some sort of super being but mentally he seems all thumbs. I pity the poor Schmuck for all the disappointments he must undergo all the time.