NT & religions (& God)

[cafe]

Originally Posted by BlueWing

Does your INTP sincerely believe still? Or is that just an hold habit that he's passed up in favor of superior philosophical beliefs?

If he does, what exactly motivates him?

NTs tend to have difficulty finding inspiration to maintain their religious fervor because they tend to be impersonally inspired to live their lives the way they chose. An NF, I could understand how they'd retain their religious beliefs for a long period of time, as they need a personal reason to inspire their actions. As for example, believing that there is a being who loves them and would approve of their every action if they pleased him would likely suffice. This is much like their relationship with a parent or a spouse. I am not surprised that religious belief is much more common among Fs than Ts and even NFs who are much more in tune with reason than the majority of the populace stand a considerable chance of being life-long Christians. Yet, I just wonder how NTs, especially INTPs or ENTJs--the radical thinkers manage it, without feeling like it all has been a terrible drudger to bare.

Would appreciate if you'd let me know more of his general approach to Christianity and how he finds the motivation to remain in faith. Does he not become envious of other NTs who have the great liberty to explore ideas that he does not, being tied to religion like a dog to a chain?

I have an older ENTP friend who is a senior pastor at a pentacoste church, recently we've discussed my philosophical discoveries after losing faith. He has not told me about his mindset, but we connected much better after this. He even made a comment that implicitly suggested that because of his fascination with chaos theories, he likes messing with the minds of SJs by asking open-minded questions and being as intuitive as possible and thus stirring them into a panic. Whilst, because of his mastery with persona building (skills associated with dominant Ne), they can not come after him because he successfully passed himself off as their fellow fundamentalist.

In short, he is compelled to keep on searching for reasons to keep his faith (it all has to come from within for him because his Ti is strong, just like for myself, and it all has to be founded on impersonal motives) because of all the emotional obligations that he is environed in in his church--stemming from his inferior Fe, yet cannot find any genuine reasons to do so, as he is stuck in the mud. He certainly envied me for how I was able to explore ideas without wondering what orthodoxy I've just crossed. He is tied to his religious worldview like a dog to a chain. And he is an intensely externally focused ENTP, I would never wish such an evil to happen to an INTP, a type that tends to produce personalities that are likely more idea oriented than he is.

Your friend sounds like a fun guy.

I don't know all the details of my husband's inner workings on faith. My impression is that his belief is sincere and possibly more orthodox than my own. Our problem has always been more with the difficulty of finding a community in which we are not ugly ducklings or feel the need to be lobotomized in order to fit in, not because we do not believe in the orthodox teachings (we're Pentecostal, too) but because the leadership tends to do such a poor job getting those teachings across and explaining the Biblical/theological reasoning behind them. Not that most of the congregations seem to mind.

That is where our discussions tend to go. I don't, honestly, consider it my place to inquire a great deal into all of his reasonings on every subject, especially one so personal as religion and faith. I consider that something that is between him and God.

I can tell him you are interested in his thoughts on the subject or you could PM him. He usually pops in on the weekends to read my blog. He might respond.

[niki]

I do think that people as intuitive & logical as NT can even embrace Christianity safely. C.S Lewis, a great Christian apologist, for example, is an INTJ . I do enjoy a lot his writings , because I think though he portrays as a very logical & intellectual person (in his writings), yet he doesn't write in a shallow manner as "The Bible says so" (which what unfortunately many church & preachers & so-called 'christian popular books' these days present), which is why I fully respect him. He seems to 'explore' through many different perspectives, and then from there onwards, he finally come to his own conclusion.

Though, as apparent in many of NT's postings in this thread, even he himself also don't agree entirely of some awkward concepts in Christianity, including some dogmatic teachings of it. But he does admit that nevertheless, he is still a Christian, and consider it to be the most-embracing belief system, personally for him.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Conservative Christianity seems possible, perhaps even plausible.

Congratulations on arranging seven carefully selected words into the seven-word sentence I am most incapable of agreeing with.

Let's see what you can do with six next.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Congratulations on arranging seven carefully selected words into the seven-word sentence I am most incapable of agreeing with.

Let's see what you can do with six next.

"I don't get paid; read Lewis."

EDIT:

I just saw Niki's post about Lewis. But yes, if you want a "pattern/analogy" view of the faith, which is used a lot in evangelical circles to buttress things, he'll give you some analogies to work with.

When I speak of "possible" or "reasonable," it is this arguing from metaphor that I am usually referring to. What observable patterns exist in real life that could then possibly be projected into the spiritual realm, if the physical and spiritual realms have any bearing on each other?

Still, it is an argument from inference. And that's where it breaks down and a person has to either decide whether it is (un)reasonable, not whether it is certainly (un)true.

[Uberfuhrer]

NTs invent their own religions.

[reason]

Nobody ever explains what I think, not even close

[substitute]

All-purpose Nerd: Project Credo
All-purpose Nerd: Credo 2: God
All-purpose Nerd: Credo 3: Religion and the Bible
All-purpose Nerd: Credo 4: Evangelism

I believe that answers the questions in the OP, where I'm concerned. Hopefully, and if anyone can be arsed to read them (which I understand if they're not... I probably wouldn't be...)

[Economica]

I'm a hardcore atheist. In my worldview, there is no god, no afterlife, no absolute meaning with life and to boot we are all biological robots.

Regarding type and religion, I was brought up in a non-religious household, so I cannot take credit for having independently questioned and abandoned a faith.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

"I don't get paid; read Lewis."

That doesn't count, as it is a neutral statement with which I can neither agree nor disagree.

...also, to stop sounding like a robot, I have read a bit of his defense of Christianity and while I can't argue that it's eloquent and well-composed, he is guilty of what I've found every NT Christian I've encountered on these boards and in real life to be guilty of: rather than applying his intellect to drawing conclusions via the rigors of logic, he puts the cart before the horse, starting with his conclusion/belief, then going on to use his intellect in the defense of what he wants to believe. I.e., rather than logic leading to belief, he begins with the belief then uses logic to support his not not believing.

In the words of the Great Sage Shatner, I can't get behind that.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

That doesn't count, as it is a neutral statement with which I can neither agree nor disagree.

Sorry. I was sticking to the Six-Word Rule and didn't feel like using up valuable glucose to provide something of actual value.

...also, to stop sounding like a robot, I have a read a bit of his defense of Christianity and while I can't argue that it's eloquent and well-composed, he is guilty of what I've found every NT Christian I've encountered on these boards and in real life to be guilty of: rather than applying his intellect to drawing conclusions via the rigors of logic, he puts the cart before the horse, starting with his conclusion/belief, then going on to use his intellect in the defense of what he wants to believe. I.e., rather than logic leading to belief, he begins with the belief then uses logic to support his not not believing.

I haven't read Lewis for a long time, to be honest (15-20 years?). What you describe is my current problem with faith issues: The conclusions are assumed, then logic is used to support them or show why they could easily be true.

And this is why I mentioned him specifically in regard to the form of apologetics I was describing in my post: Pattern recognition. It is really the style of support that enabled me to believe for such a long time -- I can see patterns in life, which I take to then be true, which then suggest or insinuate things about spiritual reality. And for a long time, that is what I operated from -- using observable patterns to justify spiritual belief or support what I had been told was true and what seemed to be true. (This is why I said for awhile that Christianity seemed "reasonable" to me. That is the most that can be said with pattern recognition style logic.)

But I eventually reached a point where I recognized that might all be fancy on my part -- proof of nothing. And I wanted something more rigorous, where I started with the data and developed my conclusions from it. So that is where I am at now.

In the words of the Great Sage Shatner, I can't get behind that.

Oh, Shatner is a master at striking from behind!