Why did God make us as aspies?

Post Reply New Topic

And you have laid out clearly your misunderstanding of basics. Your point, for instance that you cannot buy a "one" when "one" is clearly an adjective. You cannot buy a sharp, or a bumpy or a small either because they are verbal modifiers and no object s indicated. This is so elementarily obvious and yet you tout it as a mystery. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to win anything. Just make common (or perhaps not so common ) sense.

You really seem lost when you talk about abstractions. You don't seem to realize that the essential you is inside a piece of elaborate meat in the dark in your skull. The only contact it has with the so-called real world is through the multiple abstractions presented to it by the various senses. All that hunk of meat knows is the nerve impulses from the eyes, the ears, the nose and the various touch senses. These are total abstractions from a world that has a myriad of other characteristics which pass you completely by because you have not the senses to react. So, from these few abstractions you assemble a primitive model of the outside and call this reality. But it is all only integrated patterns. Outside there is no color red or high C note or the smell of cinnamon. That is your senses stimulated and without their stimulation those "realities" would not exist. It's all abstractions and patterns.

And you're putting me in the mood for a fish dinner with all the red herrings you're throwing out. "1" is a number, a mathematical object--in which case it is a noun, not a modifier. It becomes a modifier when it is used to describe something. You also completely miss the point that I never claimed it to be a mystery. It's NOT mysterious because we are aware of it, we can use it for counting, and we can use it to describe the world around us. But in and of itself it has no value in the material world. It is "out there," wherever that is.

You're still running, Sand. What are you so afraid of?

You still haven't answered the question: Where does morality come from?

Honestly, I'm out of time. Your attempts to distract me show that you do not have an answer or that you cannot answer without the likelihood of exposing yourself to something you don't want to face.

Here are my conclusions: Science/materialism/naturalism does not have access to morality, hence its invisible nature. It is real because it manifests itself through our behaviors. Morals communicate. We feel moral convictions before we're even in a situation that puts them in question. We feel guilty when we break the rules.

Why morality? Is it simply illusion? Clearly not. I don't think any of US would dispute that. Is the existence of morals due purely to chance? No, remember that morality is a form of communication. It is passed from one mind to another--parents to children, lawmakers to law enforcement to citizens. It can't just be an accident. Morals are "spoken" to us, like I said, mind-to-mind. If they weren't "spoken," (communicated somehow), then no one would have "heard" (received) them, and hence they could never have been further transmitted. We can also choose to ignore them if they aren't based on any real authority. You don't have to do anything I tell you to do just because "I said so." But if I'm in an advanced position of knowledge and authority over you and you understand that, then you are compelled to carry out any directive I give you. Your morals, therefore, all stem either directly or indirectly from some kind of moral authority. If they didn't, there'd be no punishment for wrongdoing, no matter how minor. Feelings of guilt and remorse are indicators of the punishment resulting from a disobeyed order, a broken moral rule.

What authority is there, then, if morality isn't an accident? One necessarily must consider that some Creator (not a "smoky ghost magician," not an "invisible friend") dictated morality in the first place. Up to this point I have not suggested any supernatural link. But I think given the evidence, one must at least consider it in a very serious and real way. Sand, you said so yourself that it's not a mystery, no big secret, no big revelation that we have these feelings and moral tendencies. It can't be an accident because morals have to be communicated and transmitted. Where was it before there were even such things as human beings? We had to have gotten it somewhere. It only makes sense that some Intelligent Designer or Creator initiated it. It didn't exist before a human being could accept it because an order can't be given without a subject to give it to. Some higher knowledge and authority had to be the initiator.

If evil didn't exist, there'd be no need for morals. If there is no God, there is no source for morality. Yet we know they exist. If they can't exist without a source, then there is evidence that such a God or Creator exists. And if we can "know" that invisible things such as evil, morals, emotions, abstractions, numbers, and so on exist, does it not follow that if there IS a possibility God exists, even an unknowable one, He exists on the same or similar plane as the rest of those things?

Now, I'm not setting out to "prove" God. I've already done that for myself. You seem to like evidence. Interestingly, science does not often conclusively prove that much, just make assumptions about what is known about what evidence there is. There is a great deal that has been proven, I'm sure, but there remain many questions as well. Likewise, I haven't proven anything. I haven't tried to destroy something you put a lot of faith in. I haven't given you proof, just evidence, and there's more where that came from. Any good scientist would examine evidence. Though this by nature is not scientific, it deserves examination, though perhaps with a different eye than that of the material, naturalistic world.

I think it follows that I no longer am interested in debating this issue at length--in my mind it's fairly pointless to.

OK. I took a lot of time and assumed you'd made your point, so I didn't see this earlier.

On the idea of abstractions: We're on the front lines of a war of semantics here. I took "abstraction" to mean an "idea," not necessarily something concrete in the material sense. You meant it as something taken from the material world through the senses--like the "idea" of red, of the "idea" of cinnamon, integrating those things into ideas and patterns. We assemble this primitive ideas into our "reality." It's not a bad appraisal of the role of senses in perception. If our senses don't paint an accurate picture of objective reality, how then can it be that science even CAN be reliable? I don't think you really meant to contradict your own belief system, and it's hardly the point.

The problem, Sand, is reality is absolute despite our varying perceptions of it. You may see a portrait on an easel from one angle, while I only see the easel from the other. My differing opinion as to what I'm seeing doesn't make it more or less what it is. You may not see the piano falling from a high-rise, but you're still going to get squashed by it if you don't move.

You also haven't explained the existence of morality. You're REALLY trying to avoid talking about this. We all have the ability to perceive things that are invisible. That ability MAKES us sensible, not crazy. All these little distraction aren't going to change reality. You're having a lot of trouble facing this problem.

This psychological trick of continuously accusing me of running is a rather peculiar defense mechanism to to try to put me down. From what am I supposed to be running? From your set of archaic Biblical values? Because some ancient Hebraic tribe disciplined themselves into a rigid set of social rules am I supposed to be frightened to death of following their path? My set of values has nothing to do with the imaginative nonsense of old tribal laws. And those laws may have some resonance here and there with genetic drives but they are generally irrelevant to me.

Your continuous insistence that personal emotional reactions are somehow invisible and therefore mysterious when all they are are individual psychological states strikes me as a most peculiar attitude. I don't understand why you are so puzzled. You seem terribly insistent that there are permanent mysteries unapproachable by analysis and observation and theory. I wonder why. I don't know but I suspect your early religious training might have installed some sort of mind warp.

You still haven't answered the question. Where does your morality come from?

There is no psychological trickery involved. You are being evasive. You are running from my question. From whence comes morality?

This has NOTHING to do with my familiarity with Israelite tribal laws and customs, which, by the way is only through my study of the Bible--I'm not Jewish, I just observed one night of Hanukah with a Jewish friend and his family, and THEY didn't even keep Kosher.

What do I have to gain in frightening you? What do I know of you other than some exchanges of both our painful past histories? You seem to be over it, or if you aren't, at least you want to believe that you are and you want me to believe same. I have no need or desire to use that or anything against you. I never suggested that your values had ANYTHING to do with any tribal laws. When/were did I say that? Did I reference any specific laws?

And where comes this idea of mystery? Nothing we experience that we can know for ourselves is a mystery. I've often said that. Love is no mystery. Hate is no mystery. Evil is no mystery. Joy is no mystery. We experience those things in different ways, sure. But there is nothing mysterious or secret about them. Why do you insist that I say otherwise when I never do? Did I not say that emotions manifest themselves in behavior? Would it not follow that morality has the same effect on behavior?

You say I'm puzzled. I say you are mistaken. I have no doubts or illusions. You, however, appear to show the effects of doubt on your reasoning. Your very response is FILLED with contrivances that have no basis relevant to the discussion at hand--I'd even go so far as to say based on outright lies. That's a new one for you, Sand. You're suggesting that I'm engaging you in psychological warfare based on OT doctrine? That's silly. And that kind of silliness is uncharacteristic of you.

"Emotional responses that are invisible and therefore mysterious..." Why must something invisible necessarily be mysterious? That makes no sense. You are displaying a vastly irrational side of your personality with that statement. You still haven't shown me how emotions themselves may be observed. Tell me, what does "emotion" look like? You can't describe it in materialistic or naturalistic terms without using it to describe associated behaviors in which it manifests itself. Science alone lacks that capacity. It does not exist in the same world as bed sheets, walls, and mirrors.

What do values look like? Where do they come from? Genetic drive? No. Genetic drive explains animal instinct--knee-jerk types of reflex actions over which we have a marginal amount of control. Have you ever wanted to harm someone? Most of us do at some point, if we're being honest. What stopped you? Fear of laws governing bodily harm? Fear of consequences? Your own value of human life? What? Perhaps a better question is "have you ever wanted or felt some compulsion to do something you knew was wrong?" Temptation is another invisible fact of life. There is no moral wrong in temptation itself, only on acting on it. If you felt tempted to do something you knew was questionable, what ultimately stopped you?

You have tried very hard to deny your own morality, yet your words indicate that you possess some moral barometer. You can't argue genetics, because that means that morals are an accident of creation. Morals necessarily have to be communicated, else we wouldn't have them. There are only two alternatives: Morals are either the product of an intelligent mind and necessarily began when humans developed the brain capacity to receive the communication of morality (not getting into creationism/evolutionism here, that's beside the point), or they are an illusion. You have expressed certain values in your writing. So you either received your morality from an intelligent source or you yourself are delusional. Which is it?

If morals are illusions and you are NOT delusional, then that means that morals apply to everyone else but you in a relativistic way, i.e. I have my morals and you have yours--there is no absolute objective truth or morality. Are you a relativist?

You claim to dispel ignorance. You long for reasonable, logical, knowledgeable dialogue, and yet you resort to tactics of distraction to avoid the question when someone presents you with a well-reasoned and well-established argument. This makes you very uncomfortable--your response makes that very clear. Answer the question, and do so plainly: Where do your morals come from?

If you don't have an answer, just say so and we'll drop this right away. Remember, good scientists are allowed to say "I don't know."

The same place as mine; partially genetic and partially learned conventional behavior. You might as well ask where did our language come from. Same answer. Humans are primates who are also genetic blabber mouths. We are born to talk. The language we speak is learned at home from our care givers when we are young.

ruveyn

he question seems to be:where do morals come from? Its the same problem as:how do you drive a car? You push some levers and some things happen. If you push the right levers in the right order and the car goes where you want then you can call that morality if you like the word. Nothing supernatural about that. If you live in a social situation and you follow certain rules nobody gets hurt and everybody benefits. Nothing about religion or history necessary. It's mere operating procedure. You can label it morality but its just a way to get things done properly. No mystery at all. And I'm not running from anything.

OK. So where does it come from? You still haven't answered the question. You're still being evasive.

I have laid it out clearly. Perhaps you need a translator from English to whatever language you understand. :My concern is with a functional social system. You can see that as morality or as social engineering or as whatever but there is no invisible mystery involved. If you cannot understand the language I cannot help you.

Morality : it can be rounded up around the concept of reciprocity, which as Ruveyn said, is wired into most of us.

Heck, even a kid is able to find out pretty fast if something is "not fair". Or have you never watched the publicity where two kids are offered a "pony" ("Would you like a pony?"), where the guy gives one of the little girls a plastic one, then gives the other a real-life pony.

Obviously, the first one would complain. (And it is usually what she does in that publicity) This is where other concepts such as "evil" emerge. (As in, you are deprived of something that you consider should be yours)

OK... Perhaps I was being unfair with so short a response.

Let's address the problem of driving a car: If it really was so simple as pushing levers and making things happen, it might be said that we are born knowing how to drive cars. All you do is push levers and make things happen, right? OK. But we also know that if everyone, whether they understood the concept of operating a motor vehicle or not, got behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle and started pushing levers, chaos would ensue.

Let's get back to the problem of the car: Assume I know nothing at all about driving the car. There are two immediate options: Either I can find someone who DOES know how to drive the car willing to teach me to drive, or I can read an operating manual or some other form of technical writing. Although a manual is not the same things as a knowledgeable person, it does give a starting point of reference from which I can make other decisions. For example, the manual can tell me how to put the car in reverse, make turns, brake, move forward, and so on, it can't tell me what do do at a traffic signal light or a yield sign. It doesn't place a limit on velocity. It is only concerned with the operation of the car itself. But at least that's a starting point. I can't observe the rules of the road without driving on it. Perhaps a better starting point would be learning traffic laws, for which there are other human authorities and texts, THEN learn how to drive, and so on.

All those things point to some creator (the car manufacturer), the technical writer of the text (hired by the manufacturer to disseminate knowledge about auto operations), lawmakers (who establish rules of the road), and law enforcement (police). That is not a strict hierarchy, of course, but they all work hand-in-hand in giving us the sensibilities necessary for driving cars and preventing chaos and destruction. People break the rules all the time, and SOMETIMES these decisions end in disaster.

Let's try something else: Let's suppose we have no access to any authority whatsoever for knowledge about driving the car, and let's only concern ourselves only with the basic operation of that car and assume that all the conditions are there for that car to operate. One might through discovery find that turning the key in the ignition initiates the motor. They might then notice a stick to shift into drive or reverse, but they are unable to move it. There might be some safety switch, latch, or button required, or that in combination with another safety feature such as the brake (that's how my car works, at least). Through one's own investigation, one might discover the basic principles of operation, even if they know nothing else about it, no "a priori" information, no examination of a car's vital components. You don't have to understand the principles of internal combustion, for example.

But now we have a new problem, which is the existence of the car itself: Where did the car come from? A manufacturer, of course. Either a human creator or the result of human creative effort (programming robots for assembly-line work, for example). The car is not a result of an accident. It is created from design. The design itself is also the result of intelligent creative effort--the mind. The design is the something brought forth from nothing.

Therefore, if there is no companion authority on the operation, if there is no text dealing with it, then all you have is the creation--the car. There is a key in the ignition. Nothing else in the car works, but the key will turn. And when the key turns, other things begin to happen. The designer of the creation, the car, is telling the discoverer what the intent and purpose of the creation is through the creation itself. These instruction have been communicated, though maybe in a somewhat confused way, from the designer to the driver.

Take it a step further. The driver meets a friend who also does not know anything about cars or driving. The driver now has the ability to teach his friend to drive. His friend may teach others to drive, and it goes on and on from there. Nevertheless, even generations later, it remains that the initial source has always been the designer-creator.

Take it ONE MORE step further. Let's suppose this driver comes into contact with a different vehicle made for a different purpose, a diesel-powered non-commercial moving van, for instance. He would instantly notice that the look and feel is MUCH different than his car. He could not look directly behind him, for example, because his view would be obstructed and depend more on side mirrors or even the assistance of another person to help him initially move around. Despite these difference, and the differences are by design, they retain common features from his previous driving experience: Ignition, shifting into different driving modes (park, neutral, drive, reverse), This is because, at some point in history, SOMEONE made the decision to accept some kind of standard from which all motor vehicles would have a common interface. Because I'm unfamiliar with the history, I don't know who did it, or if it were a committee of people, but it undeniably it happened. Many things remain in common, and the differences points to a different purpose endowed upon it by its creator to serve the like or similar purpose of the driver. It doesn't make sense, for example, to drive a moving van to go pick up your mail if you have a more appropriate mode of transportation. In that way, the creation itself speaks for its designer, passing along valuable information to us.

That last scenario is certainly possible. But for most of us, we have no need to go about learning things in any haphazard kind of way. If you want to know something about anything (except potty training--which I firmly believe IS the final mystery of the universe), you can look it up on the internet or buy a book.

Morals aren't cars, however, but the same principals I've outlined explain how moral codes may be transmitted from knower to knower. If there is no moral designer, there cannot be morals. Likewise, if there are no people to drive cars, in what purpose is their manufacture? Will they drive themselves? No, and so is the way of morality. A creator cannot bestow morality without a creation to bestow it upon. So why invent morality in the first place? To serve a purpose, perhaps to warn of us evil and to keep us away from it. What is evil? I'd define it as the failure to do what is right, hence it is something that is not God-made, but rather the invention of a creature (any creature) acting in rebellion to God's will and purpose. You don't have to believe in God to believe in evil, of course, that's only MY point of view and certainly up for debate elsewhere, but I think we can all agree that that deviation from what is right results in wrong, rebellion against what is good creates evil. Because evil can be said to exist, it doesn't necessarily follow that morality MUST exist. Rather, morality exists because someone saw a need to confront and combat evil. Further, morality takes a step further and helps us avoid it altogether. That we can act in defiance of moral codes is of little consequence. Choice is an entirely different issue.

Morals have to come from somewhere. I believe your answer, Sand, when you say "you follow certain rules nobody gets hurt and everybody benefits," means that we get our morals from society. What is society? It's made up of collections of people, right? Society gets its rules from its people who comprise it. US laws are not entirely unlike Western European law and, in fact, descend from certain conclusions drawn in western European society--it just took a longer time for European populations to wake up and make practical use of those conclusions. However, these same laws do not apply in, say, Saudi Arabia. In an Islamic theocracy, for instance, you still have the same "right-to-life" mentality as in other nations, but there are just different conditions for that right or privilege! That's not a blanket condemnation, by the way, just an observation. A first-time offense for marijuana possession, for example, in the US might result in just a day or two of jail time, but possession of drugs in some countries can cost your freedom so much that you'll be lucky to ever see sunlight again. What does it even matter? Drugs, the degree of which is up for debate, are known for destructive behaviors that are harmful to individuals and to society at large. Who cares what you do in the privacy of your own home, right? Nevertheless, there is nothing short of a moral compulsion to restrict people's access to harmful drugs.

Where did this come from? Who decides? Did we just wake up one day and say, "Drugs are evil, let's make them illegal"? No! Recreational drugs WERE legal for a long time. What's the harm of a little coke in my Coke? Of course there were some political motivations in this country, but that doesn't change the fact that we know and are witness to the harmful effects of such things. Why should anyone care what you do in the privacy of your home? Because people have a moral obligation to protect themselves and each other. We value the lives of others to the point we'd rather cause them great pain and make ourselves enemies to them than to see them destroy themselves completely--all in the hope that what we do is good and beneficial to them in the end.

Where does this come from? This is not animal instinct. This not the product of evolution. Science cannot tell us where in the world it resides. It is invisible, but it is NOT a mystery because our actions confirm it.

You say it comes from society, if I'm reading you correctly. Where did society get it?

"It's mere operating procedure." Who wrote it? You can't have an "operating procedure" without a machine to operate, an operator to operate it, and some communication as to how to operate it--whether it be a printed manual, oral instructions, or communicated by the design of the machine itself. It can't exist without design.

Which leads us back to the original question: Where does it come from? The way you keep dancing around this issue, Sand, indicates to me that you don't know. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. Even scientists use it sometimes. Go ahead, give it a try. You MIGHT feel better if you do. If you persist in avoiding it, I'm going to assume that "I don't know" is your answer.

People learn to work together and sometimes they get it right and sometimes they don't and if they don't they get a screwed up morality and a lot of people die or just suffer - as is obvious in the world today. Morality is learned and made by experience and not donated by some goofy supernatural manual. The reason many cultures develop similar moralities is because those are the ones that make the society function.

A good Christian should keep his promises.

A good human should keep his promises.

ruveyn

As some have pointed out, I did promise no more posts, but I meant no more posts to MAKE my final point on the matter, not no more posts to clarify should the discussion continue. My apologies if this appears deceptive as I do endeavor to keep my promises.

In response to Sands "answer":

Not good enough.

Morality is learned... Sure, we can agree on this point--almost exactly what I've said. Made by experience? OK, I'll buy that--not a far stretch from my point about the car. Not "donated by some goofy... supernatural manual"? On this we also agree. I'll explain why:

In my graduate days as a student of electro-acoustic music composition, I was charged with writing a basic manual for operating a new digital 8-track recorder. The problem was that while the multi-tracker looked straight-forward from the outset (just hit play/record/stop/forward/reverse), actually GETTING the thing to play or record was an entirely different matter. Following the tutorials in the manual was just a waste of time, and it was a needlessly large amount of time at that. So I put the manual aside and, one by one started pushing buttons and noting their function (remember, the instructions are inherent in the design). I discovered several things. The most significant discovery was that there were too many features for an undergraduate to ever learn or use in one or two semesters in an advanced electronic music course. The second most significant discovery was its use of multiple modes of operation in which only certain features could be used. After figuring all of this out, I set out to write my own manual outlining the most direct way to select a track, arm it for record, record, playback, record next track, and so on for what I felt would be the most frequently used and most important features of the machine.

The manual I wrote was a work of beauty. Nothing was impossible if you only read my words and followed them exactly. I wrote with a very basic, simple, somewhat sarcastic "any-idiot-can-do-this" language that any, well, IDIOT could understand. I was very proud of myself. No more hours wasted reading technical jargon about features that were completely irrelevant to the class.

But something COMPLETELY unexpected happened, and to this day I cannot fathom HOW this happened. My comp prof. approached me and said I needed to write a different manual. I was dumbfounded. When I could find words again, I asked why. He said that some of the students had trouble reading it and found some of the language disingenuous. I was genuinely hurt. In writing a manual (for "idiots") I injected too much of myself into it. In trying to write something useful for human beings of average intelligence, I created something that was "goofy."

So yes, if you're looking for a written moral manual, you don't want something that only a higher intelligence can understand. But you don't want anything "goofy," either. Personally, and this has nothing to do with my point, I find the Bible to be perfectly appropriate. Again, not the point, but there are many on both sides that argue either its difficulty to understand or its "goofiness." I believe a careful reading of it, without prejudice, can be very revealing that it is not written in such a way to ONLY be understood by an elite, ivory-tower minority, nor is it especially condescending. Even if you don't believe in God, the moral lessons of the Bible are applicable universally, that is, Biblical tenets of conduct are among those most cultures hold in common. How can it be that we all agree on things like "honor your father and mother, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat on your spouse, don't murder," and so on? They almost sound like common sense, right?

It only stands to reason that moral instruction is a product of its source. What source can there be?

"Society," whatever that means to you, didn't just wake up one day and say, "Hey! How about today we all just be good people?" Society gets its morals from its constituent individuals who got them from another source that got them from another source that, somewhere down the line, got them from an authority.

Simply answer the question: Where do morals come from? I don't think you know, Sand, otherwise you wouldn't struggle so much with this.

The reason why we even have the concept of *Morality*(a code of rules for how we should treat one another)is because by virtue of being social animals, we have something called EMPATHY. THAT is where morals ultimately come from!