Why did God make us as aspies?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know what you mean by honest. I respect probabilities and the probability of there existing a God, the more we understand of the workings of the universe, is very close to zero. But that zero is asymptotic and not worth much consideration.

As far as I'm aware, agnosticism is about the existence of God being unknowable, and theism and atheism are about belief. These are different concepts. I am agnostic because I don't think that the existence of God is knowable. I'm still an atheist, though, because I don't believe in God. Similarly, I don't know with absolute certainty that Russell's teapot doesn't exist. That's not enough for me to believe in it, though.

I'm using the word 'God' quite loosely there, though. I'm not agnostic on the Gods of the major monotheisms.

Last edited by you_are_what_you_is on 14 Apr 2010, 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

The pearlist mindset that many of we atheists hold makes it quite difficult to make statements like that with certainty. We'll examine anything critically, even our own doubt.

On the other hand, an agnost would tend to be more careful as the consequences of their beliefs could lead either way. Atheists are drawn apart from that in that we live and speak as if this life is all we will to get. No hedging the bets, so to speak.

You're honest in that at least you acknowledge the possibility that in what you DO know based on, for example, probability, there MIGHT be some form of supreme being/intelligence/prime mover/what have you. A "true" atheist, in the sense I meant it, would hold forth with absolute certainty that there IS/ARE no [insert appropriate reference to deity] god(s). To do so is a profound statement of faith in and of itself and is wide open for question. It can be logically shown that there is a very real and valid possibility that God does exist (you know, of course, I do not doubt at all, for which I have my own reasons). Therefore, saying with absolute certainty that there is no God is a foolish argument. Agnostics at least acknowledge the possibility, even if they feel that the possibility can't be known.

My life moves on practicalities. The remote chance that something which you might identify as God had something to do with the universe exists but in no wise perceptible to me nor to any modes which practically effect anything in my life. There are remote possibilities of many odd ideas and these can be played with in the imagination but until they exhibit concrete effects I cannot take them seriously. So far God has appeared to me only as the delusions of people uncomfortable with the world as I experience it.

Two or more gods would have a cluster f*ck and soon there would be either one or no gods left.

ruveyn

That sounds very sensible to me. Choosing whether to perceive anything beyond the senses is entirely up to you, of course. Logic, which clearly does prove at least the possibility of God, can also be used to support gibberish. It then remains up to the individual perceiver what is to be believed and what is not. My solid, immovable faith rests in certain experiences I've had throughout life. I've never had a reason to question my beliefs, only certain doctrines that I've found to be questionable.

For example, when I was a little kid, a Sunday school teacher told me that if I didn't tell an unbeliever about Christ and that person died and went to Hell, then I'm going to Hell, too, because it's my fault for not at least trying. I know this to be untrue since I'm able to discern scripture for myself. But it's a VERY scary thing to hear at such a young age! I realize now, of course, that teacher was mistaken and that this was only her idea, not that of the church. I might DESERVE, on the other hand, to burn in hell with that person, but my "fire insurance" dictates otherwise (btw, my faith is MORE than simply "fire insurance," otherwise I wouldn't be so open about it).

While I do appreciate your less blatantly insulting means to your point, I do have to take issue with your idea that one's experience of God is merely delusion. A strict reliance on science might also be said to be delusional not because of the facts that it collects or observes, but for those things that cannot be scientifically explained--AND YET we hold those things to be facts. I think the BEST example would have to be emotions. Sure, science can explain that there are certain electro-chemical reactions within the brain and neural pathways and can draw an association between those reactions and some kinds of urges within the psyche. But science alone cannot explain what those urges are or how they arise. It isn't useful for explaining the existence of such things as love, hate, anger, desire, revulsion, and so on.

Of course, there is psychology, but not everyone even agrees that psychology is a valid science. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is (my wife has a degree in psychology, and I studied almost as much as she did in preparation for a teaching career--I think it's a science, but there are those who disagree). Psychology can only observe and measure behavior, whether it's physical behavior or cognitive behavior. Psychology in practice can also be used to suggest possible ways in which to modify behavior--for example, someone with AS that has difficulty with social cues might be told what those are and how to respond appropriately. Another example is taking control of a chaotic classroom. Still another is my job: Taking musically illiterate children and adults and making them piano players. I deal with frustrated children and adults all the time. I know exactly how to get silly kids to be serious, and serious kids to loosen up. I can monitor a student to see when a drill is going to make them angry/anxious, and I can adjust the pressure or give them a break to either motivate them or steer them away from their anger. Psychology doesn't explain these emotions, it simply acknowledges that fear, anger, anxiety, frustration, happiness, contentment, joy, peace, love, and other emotions are present. It can also measure response to stimuli to find common threads among those that lead to anger or pleasure (or whatever).

Psychology can only do this on the assumption that certain cognitive behaviors such as emotions exist. Psychology has no other proof other than what the client has to say about his/her feelings ("patient" has fallen out of vogue because counselors aren't necessarily "treating" a disease, but rather helping the client understand his/her own behavior). If there is no scientific "proof" that emotions or cognitive behaviors exist, how is it then a valid science?

It IS a science, because such things DO exist and can be observed through behavior. We can't explain it. But we can't deny it. If we are to deny it, then we have to say that all emotions and other kinds of cognitive behavior are delusions. Not only that, but we also have to say that anyone observing those behaviors (the psychologist) is also delusional. If psychology is a delusional science, then it cannot be used to either support or oppose the idea that people believe in God and experience Him in some way. Further, it cannot be used to either support or oppose anything, for that matter.

But if psychology is true, and I believe it is, then one cannot deny that emotions and other cognitive behaviors are also true. If those things are true, which cannot be proven, then it also follows that one's experience of God on some cognitive level can very well also be true. The fact that there are so many well-educated, logical, rational, clear-thinking people (to include even psychologists and other scientists themselves) that are believers attests to the undeniable: That what these people experience is as they believe it to be.

Insofar as I can figure it out emotions are neuro-chemical reactions responding to various stimulations and have nothing to do with the supernatural.

I didn't mean to imply that emotions have anything to do with the supernatural (personal beliefs aside, that is).

Science can show that emotions manifest themselves as neuro-chemical reactions, of which there is no doubt. Science can also link them to various stimuli.

What science cannot explain, however, is why certain stimuli do not affect more people in the same way. Why is it, for example, one may crack a joke and get laughter from one person, but get punched in the face by another person? If neuro-chemical reactions are the direct result of response to stimuli, then why is it that those neuro-chemical reactions so varied from one person to another?

If human beings are blind to their neuro-chemical reactions, why doesn't stimuli result in consistent behavior from one person to another? In other words, why might one person punch you in the face, another burst into tears, and yet another not even react at all? Pure science can't make sense of that other than saying "In general X% exhibited X behavior, Y% exhibited Y behavior, and Z% exhibited Z behavior. Based on this study, X appears to be the predominant result of stimuli S, with e% margin of error."

The jury is still out on what causes people to "fall in love."

There is no scientific reason why people of one color commit hate crimes against other races.

There is no scientific reason people from other countries descend upon a poor nation to help it recover from natural disaster.

There is no scientific basis for anyone to fight injustice when it doesn't affect them, even at a great risk to their own lives. Science seems to support the idea of a survival instinct. So how does one explain altruism? Suicide?

Science and psychology can only guess. Try going up to a suicide victim and ask them what they were feeling when they swallowed the pill/pulled the trigger. I have an idea they won't really be in much of a mood to talk.

If there are so many things KNOWN to exist, and yet they lie beyond the realm of science, then that necessarily must mean that reality is much bigger than what scientific observation allows. In that case, one must at the very least consider that the odds of a "Supreme Being" (among other things, of course) to be significantly greater than what science alone can reveal.

I'm sorry, but all those emotional reactions are rather clear to me and have nothing to do with supernatural mysteries. Basically humor is a pseudo-fear reaction because a joke is a surprise misinterpretation of reality that would be frightful if it were real but it is obviously so not real that it's funny. I have been in love a few times and am well acquainted with the roots of the reaction and it's not mysterious at all. Other emotions run the same way and many are tied to strong cultural influences but they are not mysterious. People are very individual and to expect uniform reactions from them is unreal.

you_are_what_you_is, I completely agree that agnosticism and theism/atheism are different concepts. I, like you, am an agnostic, however, I am a theist. I choose to believe in God, but I don't believe that the existence of God is knowable. I don't believe a loving God would allow God's existence to be proved by the human mind. If knowledge of God could be achieved by the human mind, belief in God would loose it's salvific nature because belief in God would no longer be a matter of faith, and I believe faith is what gives belief in God potency in this world.

They are not mysteries to you any more than they are to me or many others because they undeniably exist; we know them, we experience them. However, you still have not shown that science explains them. That is because science CANNOT explain them. You explained humor as a "pseudo-fear reaction." Even if I did buy that explanation, you now open yourself up to an explanation of fear. What is that? Can I touch it/see it/smell it (well, bad example)/hear it? I can observe the behaviors of people who feel fear. But I cannot "see" fear itself through a scientific eye (assuming, also, that psychology is also a science). We fear a lot of things, and you can't simply explain it away as a chemical fight-or-flight reaction. Not all fears are related to survival. I feared being homeless, for example. And yet I managed to accept that I and my family were homeless and that there was nothing we could do except wait--now we own property that cannot be taken away by a bank. I lived with fear every day during that period managed to avoid suicide or mental health facilities--or worse, lashing out at people I felt had done me wrong during that year. Knee-jerk kinds of instincts are unavoidable in the animal kingdom because of of neuro-chemical reactions. Fear may cause a n-c reaction, but you cannot hold it/measure it/dissect it in any kind of material way.

Yes, people are very individual. But that still doesn't explain how/why emotions exist or why individuals handle them in different ways. Science can't put the "sense of self" under a microscope. All science can do is uncover the physical manifestations of certain emotions--anxiety and depression, for example--and prescribe temporary remedies for them. Science cannot undo the underlying source, that is, the causative emotion itself.

You may breathe a sigh of relief, however. I'm done beating that dead horse, and my point has by far been made.

What about something else that can't be explained by science? How about evil? You can't run a test on it, but you can't deny its existence, either. Emotions point to a larger world than science can reveal. I never said they have a supernatural link, only that they call certain scientific assertions into question (not really, just the assertion that science is the ultimate answer for all that we see/perceive in the universe--the existence of emotions CLEARLY show there's more to the universe than the material plane of existence). I say emotions aren't alone in the realm untouched by science. Evil is one of those tricky, invisible things most of us agree exists REGARDLESS of our stand on Christianity, agnosticism, or other religions/belief systems. Can you dye-stain it to show its complexity? Does it attach itself to living cells to destructively propagate? Can it be repulsed by anti-viral chemicals or antibiotics? Left up to science alone, evil cannot be said to exist. However, we KNOW it exists because of the effects it has had on all of us throughout our lives. Even the most rational, clear-thinking scientist will at some point acknowledge the existence of evil, even if he can't "prove" it.

Try to challenge me on this one. I dare you. The existence of evil, just as the existence of emotions, points to a world apart from the purely scientific, materialistic, natural world, but nonetheless it is a real world in which we also exist. Christians have historically been VERY good at sniffing out evil, and at times even better at practicing it. If that plane of existence is real, then one may also inquire as to others in which one might with a very strong likelihood find that God also is real (no, I'm NOT talking about quantum physics and alternate realities/universes). Evil exists. Not only does evil exist, it exists beyond what we can scientifically "know," and yet we DO "know" it.

Good luck!

I don't believe in good or evil. They are social dysfunctions and are judged by social norms which differ from culture to culture. When a predator catches a prey that is good from the standpoint of the predator, evil from the standpoint of the prey. God and evil does not exist in nature. Things happen, that's all. If you don't want them to happen, you do something to prevent it. If you don't do it right, that's not evil, that's stupid.

Last edited by Sand on 14 Apr 2010, 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unless you're talking about humans, presumably neither the predator nor the prey would be able to conceive of it in any kind of moral way. If you are talking about humans, it may be that the aggressor believes that what s/he's doing is evil, but goes ahead anyway.

That said, I don't believe that morality is objective. There are no mind-independant values of good or evil out there.

Though I'm quoting you_are, this is really directed to anyone assuming that viewpoint: no good or evil.

The aggressor in this situation may think what he or she is doing is good, maybe even preferable if the aggressor stands to benefit from that action. If the aggressor senses what is done is wrong is evil, then the aggressor may choose to ignore moral issues and do it anyway, and there are any number of reasons why that may happen. It's really fairly irrelevant, anyway.

But Sand appears to me a fairly honest person. I ask this question: Sand (or whoever wants to answer), if someone were to burn your house/place of residence down, steal all your possessions, perhaps even murder someone you care about, what would be your thoughts/feelings? Suppose someone were to steal any intellectual properties of yours and profit from it (software, songs, books, patents), how would you react? If someone were to deliberately cause you harm--gunshot wound, stabbing, beating, breaking bones, acid burns, other (we assume) unprovoked acts of violence--would you honestly be OK with that? What about Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you think that was justified? What about the genocide in Rwanda?

Do you think bias in the mass media is appropriate news reporting?

What about bias in the scientific community? It's perfectly OK to skew scientific findings in favor of the funding entity? Recent evidence has come to light that cigarette companies "found" through "research" that smoking has no effect on incidence of lung cancer and can even be good for you, when MOST research finds just the opposite to be true. Is this kind of action appropriate? Encouraging people to engage in harmful, addictive behavior for the sake of a steady, tidy profit? That's perfectly acceptable?

Many of us enjoy freedom to believe what we believe and share our views. You say you don't believe in God, and you have certain reasons to support that. Fine. But what if you suddenly found yourself in a theocracy where you might be threatened with death if you didn't change your beliefs or unbelief? Or if you refused to change your beliefs/unbelief, you were sent to some kind of concentration camp in which you were subjected to "re-education" to conform to society at-large? You would be perfectly fine with changing your mind?

I don't want to get too far into this line of questioning. I'd love some answers. I don't expect EVERY question to be answered. But those questions are relevant issues to many people. I'm interested in how you honestly view these issues.

My beliefs on this subject are as follows : I think that there is a God. However, I do not think that it made anybody an "Aspie"... I think we are responsible for our own personalities, and that that we have each been on this Earth for many lifetimes. In those lifetimes, ever since man had fallen from a divine status, we have developed many layers of negative and animal-like emotions that blind, limit and drain us. The effects of these egos can be easily observed in many situations, such as when one develops tunnel vision due to frustration and misses obvious things, or distracts themselves and almost gets killed on the road while driving.

Some of these egos just happen to collectively form personalities that fit the diagnosis of "Asperger's Syndrome". Most others' egos do not.

Also, I believe it is incredibly arrogant to presume that everybody else is "neurotypical" and that we are not. From my perspective, the only people that are mentally fully-functional are those with no self-centered thoughts and who only know love (i.e. saints) and the rest of the world is defective, officially recognized mental disorder or not.