• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Logical thinkers and religion

LEGERdeMAIN

New member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
2,516
By either adopting them into the fold of what is predominantly a theist worldview or rejecting them altogether. A personal God doesn't exclude the possibility of macroevolution, but a ~6,000 year old Universe does. Commonly, evolutionary theory and even cosmology is subservient to theology for those who accept it.

I guess there are also those theists who could be confused and conflicted.

Sure. dinosaur bones are planted by god to test our faith, etc, etc. I was asking Xyl(sp?)(jk), because I wanted to see what (s)he'd say so i could continue questioning him/her until we got to lcd.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Sure. dinosaur bones are planted by god to test our faith, etc, etc. I was asking Xyl(sp?)(jk), because I wanted to see what (s)he'd say so i could continue questioning him/her until we got to lcd.


um... before we do this...













asl?
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I'm not sure about the 90%. Even absent a religious upbringing, the idea of god is just too pervasive, in society, in literature, art and public discourse. I suspect the majority of people raised to be critical thinkers will still develop spiritual faith, but it will be much more individual, rational/consistent, and possibly outside formal religious organizations. I know a few people who are open-minded, logical critical thinkers and have spiritual faith. They seem far more secure in their faith (and respectful of others' beliefs) than the many who blindly follow some established religion. These last often seem to cling to faith almost out of fear and desperation rather than wonder, as if shifting to examine it too closely will cause them to lose their grip and fall.

Yeah the number 90% in this case is a number taken out of the clouds, but when I wrote that I was thinking of my upbringing. Childs around my place were raised involving virtually none religion. When you are protestant you come in touch for the first time with religion at age 14 for your confirmation. As a catholic its age 6 and 12 for communion and confirmation. Besides that you go to church on christmas, they make beautiful events on xmas eve.

But thats about it what you have to do with religion. My parents never mentioned a thing from religion in my upbringing. people are just completly oblivious to it. When you go to a higher school, you will discuss religion in contrast to philosophy around age 17 - 20. Thats a good thing but even then most people are more intrested in philosophy.

So its really only felt 10% later that become religious at all. Most people stay oblivious to it for a lifetime. I am not saying this is the right way, its how things are here. You maybe will meet a lot of people who are agnostic and wont rule out that there could be something like a God. But real church followers who go to church every evening and preach the word every day, well thats really really rare (and those people are considered extremists in my society. So Joyce Meyer wouldnt stand a chance here).
 
A

A window to the soul

Guest
NO YOU DIDN'T! My question was "How can you be both absolutely certain of something AND accept that new information could change your mind?". You have stated that you do that but have not said how, which is really all I want. I'll leave you alone after you answer that simple question. :)

Certainty admits of degrees. Absolute certainty does not, as it is a lack of any doubt and it comes through God’s word and Spirit. I see how it would take a flexible person to achieve that. So being open to convictions, opinions, criticisms, are examples of what I call flexible; where I will listen and I can bend and not break. My opinion, is that without absolute certainty, one would live in fear, uncertainty, and skepticism (in general); thus making them more rigid (than flexible).

I guess if your thoughts on God are more flexible then there wouldn't be much of a conflict. [MENTION=8543]Nerd Girl[/MENTION]
I didn't notice a conflict.

If you feel conflicted, you are welcome to flex my way and meet me in the middle. Remember, I didn't go in your direction looking for reasons why you don't believe in God. And I'm not looking to swim with you all down stream. You all approached me as if you had proof God doesn't exist. I am willing to listen to what y'all have to say and I'm happy to answer your questions about my faith, but my beliefs are ultimately a personal choice and journey. I am happy swimming upstream without you.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Certainty admits of degrees. Absolute certainty does not, as it is a lack of any doubt and it comes through God’s word and Spirit. I see how it would take a flexible person to achieve that. So being open to convictions, opinions, criticisms, are examples of what I call flexible; where I will listen and I can bend and not break. My thought is without absolute certainty, one would live in fear, uncertainty, and skepticism (in general); thus making them more rigid (than flexible).

I think it's possible to be skeptical and yet open minded, but doing so requires purity in both. If one is skeptical, then they should reason well, and if necessary, harbor their old assumptions. Skepticism for skepticism's sake isn't reasonable skepticism. As a rule, one should be skeptical only if something doesn't make sense, not if they are fearful because an idea isn't in their best interest. Similarly, it would be great if people took their beliefs to their logical conclusions, even if their fears or biases urged them not to. If ones self interest usually guides their will to believe one thing or another, then the desire to understand what is actual should replace ones self interest.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
I didn't notice a conflict.

Well, if Jung's God is oneself, and if oneself is inherently evil, don't you think that grates at the traditional Christian thought that God is an objective entity, separate from oneself, that is not evil?

Of course, perhaps you and Jung experienced the same intuition, but you had different conclusions about what caused it. I still don't like that you took something out of context that was already out of context to bolster an argument with an authority who didn't exactly support your argument. If you need someone else to confirm your intuition with theirs without even consulting them, then perhaps yours isn't as absolute as you say it is.
 

Xyk

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
284
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
Certainty admits of degrees. Absolute certainty does not, as it is a lack of any doubt and it comes through God’s word and Spirit. I see how it would take a flexible person to achieve that. So being open to convictions, opinions, criticisms, are examples of what I call flexible; where I will listen and I can bend and not break. My opinion, is that without absolute certainty, one would live in fear, uncertainty, and skepticism (in general); thus making them more rigid (than flexible).

I just don't see where you're coming from here. What you have said is exactly the opposite of what makes rational sense. An absolute certainty of anything, by definition, means that every opposing idea is categorically false. Absolute certainty does not bend. Bending would be admission of some incorrectness. I'm not absolutely certain that there is no god, just like I'm not absolutely certain that I'm not constantly surrounded by invisible dragons; however, there's no good reason that either of those MUST be true, so by default, they aren't. I freely admit that if some new, incredibly persuasive information were to be presented, I would accept the presence of whichever seemingly ridiculous thing.

Without absolute certainty, I don't live in fear, however I do live knowing that death could be around any corner, or, more likely, in the air I'm breathing. Dwelling on that fact will not help it to become less true, so I pretty much ignore it. Uncertainty is a given. I live in constant uncertainty and that's what makes things exciting. I also live with skepticism in the general sense. That does not make me rigid. Skepticism means I force every idea through a rigorous logical gauntlet. Most non-empirical ideas don't make it through because they are usually illogical. Basically, what Ginkgo said. Frankly, I don't know where you find the causal relationship between skepticism and inflexibility. When presented with various religious ideas (christian and otherwise), I can take them individually and decide how likely whatever deities they worship are to exist (usually the answer is "negligibly likely"). One with absolute certainty of his or her religious beliefs will give a categorical "No, those don't exist" to all except his or her own. I only disbelieve one more deity than you do.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
[MENTION=13419]Xyk[/MENTION]: I think what she means is given the data she has, she is sure (I'll refrain from saying 100% because I think that's the source of some confusion) her conclusion has the most value (predicated on her basic assumptions/desires). So if her data set changed, her conclusion may be different. That seems reasonable, although I personally disagree.

I probably feel similarly about my worldview. I would just refrain from using the terms "know" and "100%". :)
 
A

A window to the soul

Guest
Perhaps she's going on the assumption that new information won't come to light, so she may be tentatively "absolutely" certain of whatever you guys are talking about.
My understanding is similar to Leger's. I believe she is simply assenting to the fact that she is a limited being with limited knowledge. She simply cannot foresee any new info that would change her position.
Xyk I think what she means is given the data she has, she is sure (I'll refrain from saying 100% because I think that's the source of some confusion) her conclusion has the most value (predicated on her basic assumptions/desires). So if her data set changed, her conclusion may be different. That seems reasonable, although I personally disagree.

Thank you.

I probably feel similarly about my worldview. I would just refrain from using the terms "know" and "100%". :)
If you ever experience God’s word and Spirit, you will understand.

No, this is a thread about religion. In religion, things like the existence of god are absolute. I always hope religious faith is hyperbolic, but it never has been in my experience. Plus, she said it enough times in several different ways.
Time to think outside of the box. This is not a complicated concept.

I just don't see where you're coming from here. What you have said is exactly the opposite of what makes rational sense.
It makes perfect sense. I can be absolutely certain I'm in love with @LEGERdeMAIN and then as new information becomes available, I want my dog and stuff back; it's over. Do you understand the 'human' condition?

I ♥ God.

Well, if Jung's God is oneself, and if oneself is inherently evil, don't you think that grates at the traditional Christian thought that God is an objective entity, separate from oneself, that is not evil?

Of course, perhaps you and Jung experienced the same intuition, but you had different conclusions about what caused it. I still don't like that you took something out of context that was already out of context to bolster an argument with an authority who didn't exactly support your argument. If you need someone else to confirm your intuition with theirs without even consulting them, then perhaps yours isn't as absolute as you say it is.

Hmm, honestly I was not aware Jung's God was oneself. I have heard him call intuition God, but I didn't take it literally. I interpreted his quote, where he said he was gripped by God, as something not of himself. What are your thoughts on that quote?

Without absolute certainty, I don't live in fear, however I do live knowing that death could be around any corner, or, more likely, in the air I'm breathing. Dwelling on that fact will not help it to become less true, so I pretty much ignore it.
That's you. Open up to other possibilities because uncertainty affects people in differenct ways. You may be able to live with uncertainty in your life and remain positive and flexible. Others may not.

If you want a real world example, then look at finance. In finance, risk is described as uncertainty, and the potential outcome of uncertainty is fear. Reduce the uncertainty, and people become less afraid and more flexible.

With regard to logical thinkers and religion, uncertainty could be a consequence of being inflexible to obtainable facts, and inflexible in trusting their intuition. Reduce the uncertainty, and people become more flexible. At some point, it makes sense for faith to increase to a point where people would become absolutely certain. I can testify to that.

That does not make me rigid.
What would you call your inability to understand my point of view? We don't have to agree, but at least try to accept that there are other rational possibilities than what you can imagine.
 

Xyk

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
284
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
I'm sorry, where I come from, "absolute" means "absolute". That word means "free from imperfection", and should be used as such. If new information could conceivably change something, then it is not absolute.

So I guess your answer is that your faith is not absolute, you're just really really sure.
 

Xyk

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
284
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
So where do you come from? I added to my previous post to help you understand, if you would please reread it.


lol, you're somethin'. I am absolutely certain God exists. I've already explained why. If you truly want to understand how that's possible, then pray for God to show you, and he will. :)

"Absolute" means "unquestionable". It means nothing could possibly change your mind. If you accept that something could conceivably change your mind, then it is, by definition, not absolute. It can be near absolute, sure. 99.99999999999999% confidence is close to absolute, but is not absolute. Will you admit that by my definition of "absolute" (which is also the dictionary's definition), your faith is not absolute, but instead "nearly absolute"?

I come from a place where words have meaning and we try our best to avoid contradiction in things we say.

I suppose you could call attachment to facts and reason a sort of rigidity. But I don't know why it would be better to ignore facts and reason. They are the best tools we have for uncovering the secrets of the universe. Arguably the only tools.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Nerd Girl said:
If you ever experience God’s word and Spirit, you will understand.

i just want to point out that this is a gently amusing comment to me because my agnostic INTP father said something rather similar at one funny point, which was along the lines of, i just feel like if you could see things through my mind and know what i know, you would understand that my conclusions are right. which is so very NTPy.

i think there is a very important distinction between logic being internally and externally coherent. in the system of a religion, many religious beliefs are logical. others may look at it from the outside and say it is illogical because they are looking at external coherency. but if you skip that step - a leap of faith, so to speak - then logic can abound within religion. and i think that is largely how we have logical thinkers who embrace religion - especially if they are raised in a certain religion (primed to endure that leap of faith) or encouraged toward it via some major life experience.
 

Antimony

You're fired. Lol.
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
3,428
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
My brother, an INTP, turned to Christianity on his own will. The rest of our family are atheists. I always found a rational like him, who's major is in neuroscience, inexplicable to hold certitude grounds of a historic elaborate dogma...
I suppose faith and history is all that we have of our origin.

Our views are quite different with morality, I beg to withstand morals were made to test our boundaries, using our identities to discover a true explanation of our inclusive behaviour. He regards morals inherent universally and claims, "you cannot invent colour".

This. I keep running into arguments over these sorts of things with people. It frustrates me to no end.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
If you ever experience God’s word and Spirit, you will understand.

This is kinda interesting. How would I know the difference between experiencing God's word and Spirit and incorrectly interpreting a feeling (not in the MBTI sense) as experiencing God's word and Spirit? If the metric for deciding the legitimacy of the religious experience is my own gut, being correct and incorrect would seem to me to be exactly the same. So if I "understand", I can either be correct or delusional.

This line of reasoning is why I don't view personal experience of God as evidence for God.
 

Red Herring

Superwoman
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,488
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
This discussion causes good oldfashioned Ti headache ... Please think of the children!
 

Antimony

You're fired. Lol.
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
3,428
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Prove it. And prove there's no God while you're at it. :D

Can you prove there is a god?

No, not impossible. I have both.

I am absolutely certain 2 + 2 = 4. It is indisputable (smart asses, don't even think about it).

However, I was not entirely certain what my political stance was. It was disputable, malleable, changeable. I was flexible. Because I was uncertain. I was open to new information to change my opinion.

Very few things I am certain of. Do you think that your belief in god can be challenged and changed?

I think that saying god does not exist is as illogical as saying he exists is. It also depends on how you define it.

One of my biggest issues is the lack of impeccable, precise vocabulary in this thread.

What if someone feels Zeus' presence? Is that valid?

Ne is not 'feeling stuff' and running with it. That appears to be Ni. Ne Ti breaks things down by logic.

Saying this is right because it is right has always be a Feeler and Ni sort of thing, based on my observations.

When you can break god, the christian god, down to it's most basic parts, and say it is rational, I will believe those who think it is entirely rational.

I just wish people would stop saying that this must exist because something feels that way. Some people feel like the FBI is watching their every move. Some people feel like they are about to die, and they don't. Some people feel like everyone hates them, or thinks they are weird.

Many times, people have very, very powerful feelings, and when left unchecked, they translate into things like paranoia and faith.
 
A

A window to the soul

Guest
Can you prove there is a god?
Are you asking me to prove to you God exists? Do I look like God? Anyway, faith doesn't work like that, LOL! Just like life, death to self is a personal journey. I can't do it for you.

I am absolutely certain 2 + 2 = 4. It is indisputable (smart asses, don't even think about it).
Yes.

However, I was not entirely certain what my political stance was. It was disputable, malleable, changeable. I was flexible. Because I was uncertain. I was open to new information to change my opinion.
I understand. Politicians may stand on a pedestal, but they are human just like we are. They aren't perfect.

Very few things I am certain of. Do you think that your belief in god can be challenged and changed?
Challenge me and see; everyone is doing it. Changed? I've been crucified with Christ. I am at the point of no return.

I think that saying god does not exist is as illogical as saying he exists is. It also depends on how you define it.
That's a reasonable sentiment regarding those who lack knowledge and understanding of spiritual things.

One of my biggest issues is the lack of impeccable, precise vocabulary in this thread.
lol, are you ranting? if you're wanting me to agree with you on all of this, I can't because you apparently zoned out during most of the discussion. It sounds like you just barely skimmed our posts. :dont:

What if someone feels Zeus' presence? Is that valid?
You'll have to ask the guy that believes in Zeus.

When you can break god, the christian god, down to it's most basic parts, and say it is rational, I will believe those who think it is entirely rational.
It is rational.

I just wish people would stop saying that this must exist because something feels that way. Some people feel like the FBI is watching their every move. Some people feel like they are about to die, and they don't. Some people feel like everyone hates them, or thinks they are weird.

Many times, people have very, very powerful feelings, and when left unchecked, they translate into things like paranoia and faith.
Why are you telling me that? I can't relate and don't recall that in this thread.

Ne is not 'feeling stuff' and running with it. That appears to be Ni. Ne Ti breaks things down by logic.

Saying this is right because it is right has always be a Feeler and Ni sort of thing, based on my observations.
Evan asked about it. I don't recall anybody soley justifying their faith based on feelings or what is right. Where in the world did you get that from? :laugh:

I corrected [MENTION=1654]Evan[/MENTION], when he misunderstood that intuition was experienced like a feeling; intuition alone is not rational or feelings; it's instinct.

Did you read our posts? Okay, I didn't think so, here's a refresher that I quoted from Jung:

Wikipedia said:
Jung said that a person in whom intuition was dominant, an "intuitive type", acted NOT on the basis of rational judgment but on sheer intensity of perception. An extraverted intuitive type, "the natural champion of all minorities with a future", orients to new and promising but unproven possibilities, often leaving to chase after a new possibility before old ventures have borne fruit, oblivious to his or her own welfare in the constant pursuit of change. An introverted intuitive type orients by images from the unconscious, ever exploring the psychic world of the archetypes, seeking to perceive the meaning of events, but often having no interest in playing a role in those events and not seeing any connection between the contents of the psychic world and him- or herself. Jung thought that extraverted intuitive types were likely entrepreneurs, speculators, cultural revolutionaries, often undone by a desire to escape every situation before it becomes settled and constraining—even repeatedly leaving lovers for the sake of new romantic possibilities. [8]

In Carl Jung's theory of the ego, described in 1921 in Psychological Types, intuition was an "irrational function", opposed most directly by sensation, and opposed less strongly by the "rational functions" of thinking and feeling. Jung defined intuition as "perception via the unconscious": using sense-perception only as a starting point, to bring forth ideas, images, possibilities, ways out of a blocked situation, by a process that is mostly unconscious.

[The foundation of my faith is the Bible, which I find to be very logical.]
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
How would I know the difference between experiencing God's word and Spirit and incorrectly interpreting a feeling (not in the MBTI sense) as experiencing God's word and Spirit? If the metric for deciding the legitimacy of the religious experience is my own gut, being correct and incorrect would seem to me to be exactly the same. So if I "understand", I can either be correct or delusional.

This line of reasoning is why I don't view personal experience of God as evidence for God.
There are plenty of people in asylums who are absolutely certain that they are Napoleon, or that their hair is made of snakes. Their certainty doesn't make it objectively so, though their subjective experience is indisputable.

I have no reason to doubt God for the reasons I've already stated repeatedly. 'Absolute' is a personal choice. 'Flexible' is a personal choice. And the two can coexist.
Ah, the acceptance of contradictions. Christianity does seem to require that. Jesus was god and man. God so loved the world that he sent his only son to redeem it; but was so disgusted he killed nearly everything in the great flood. Let the little children come, until it is time to sacrifice them on the mountainside. Cling to the wife of your youth, unless she is barren; then you can sleep with her handmaid. In God there is no longer slave or free, Jew or Gentile, male or female; but only females must cover their heads and keep silent.

Yes, I am prooftexting, negatively. Highlighting the kinder, gentler bible quotes to justify one's faith or promote Christianity is just as much prooftexting, though. It is faith with blinders on, seeing only what we like in the bible. Yes, the bible itself is not religion, but an entire religion is predicated upon it. If you follow Christ, it is your primary, usually your only, "primary source material". There are plenty of Christians out there who know enough not to take the bible literally, to understand its cultural and historical context, and to see how it can inspire us in the modern age. There are also Christians who do not limit themselves to the bible in attempting to know Christ. Unfortunately, there are far too few.

i think there is a very important distinction between logic being internally and externally coherent. in the system of a religion, many religious beliefs are logical. others may look at it from the outside and say it is illogical because they are looking at external coherency. but if you skip that step - a leap of faith, so to speak - then logic can abound within religion. and i think that is largely how we have logical thinkers who embrace religion - especially if they are raised in a certain religion (primed to endure that leap of faith) or encouraged toward it via some major life experience.
As someone mentioned earlier, it comes down to assumptions. External viewers may find a faith illogical because they are questioning the logic of holding certain assumptions, and not just the conclusions drawn from those assumptions. Even from the inside, I could see the illogic and inconsistency of my childhood faith, which quickly led me to start questioning the basic assumptions. At that point, it all began to unravel like a great ball of string.


Can you prove there is a god?

I think that saying god does not exist is as illogical as saying he exists is. It also depends on how you define it.

One of my biggest issues is the lack of impeccable, precise vocabulary in this thread.

When you can break god, the christian god, down to it's most basic parts, and say it is rational, I will believe those who think it is entirely rational.
As soon as you look beyond the Christian god, you find notions of deity that are more rational, and more healthy. Christianity and unbelief are not the only options.

True atheism is just as much a matter of belief as religious faith. As someone wrote earlier, perhaps on another thread, agnosticism is the only logically defensible perspective on god. Nonetheless, it can be logical sometimes to accept what cannot be rigorously proven through evidence and logic. I would have been hard-put to prove my mother loved me, but I have always believed it.
 
A

A window to the soul

Guest
God so loved the world ...but was so disgusted he killed nearly everything in the great flood. Let the little children come, until it is time to sacrifice them on the mountainside. Cling to the wife of your youth, unless she is barren; then you can sleep with her handmaid. In God there is no longer slave or free, Jew or Gentile, male or female; but only females must cover their heads and keep silent.

Yes, I am prooftexting, negatively. Highlighting the kinder, gentler bible quotes to justify one's faith or promote Christianity is just as much prooftexting, though. It is faith with blinders on, seeing only what we like in the bible. Yes, the bible itself is not religion, but an entire religion is predicated upon it. If you follow Christ, it is your primary, usually your only, "primary source material". There are plenty of Christians out there who know enough not to take the bible literally, to understand its cultural and historical context, and to see how it can inspire us in the modern age. There are also Christians who do not limit themselves to the bible in attempting to know Christ. Unfortunately, there are far too few.
OMGoodness funny!! Are you Jewish? I do not live by the old testament, which is what you are promoting (above). You've taken bits and pieces out of context and proven you don't understand the Bible at all. None of what you just wrote applies to me as a Christian. None of it.
 
Top