User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 66

  1. #21
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    People make a plethora of assumptions unknowingly. Intuition helps us uncover these assumptions. Once the assumptions are clearly stated it allows us to reason more astutely.
    1) Nothing wrong with turning water into wine if it could be explained completely naturalistically.

    3)Contradictions exist and need to be resolved. Logical thinking (T) is more important than pure abstract perception (N) in coming up with ideas because it gives structure to our intuitions. It is logical thinking that unconvers those unconscious assumptions, not imagination because the former is what shows to us the objective ways of looking at the world rather than what our fancies command.


    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    People make a plethora of assumptions unknowingly. Intuition helps us uncover these assumptions. Once the assumptions are clearly stated it allows us to reason more astutely.
    All in all, you seem to have it backwards here. Assumptions are clearly stated because of logical thinking, as this faculty is what brings clarity and structure to our thoughts. Intuition or imaginaiton is a mere hunch that we do not have a clear view of.

    For this reason, the INTPs, not ENTPs were the most prominent discoverers of complex ideas. Aristotle, Boole, and Galileo. There could be no doubt however, that a dominant Intuitive type has preceeded all 3 of these men who has had hunches about their ideas. They carefully analyzed those hunches and provided structure for them. Such a clear view of the situation allowed them to explore the ideas initially propounded by N doms in greater depth and more extensively.

    In summary, there can be no doubt that Intuition is necessary to start an exploration of new ideas, but to give them structure and thus shape them into the form of 'ideas' , Thinking is necessary.

    In philosophy, mathematics and the sciences. INTPs will outnumber the ENTPs in discovery of new ideas. In less complicated matters where less structure is required, ENTPs will have the upper hand. This is why the ENTP is known as the innovator. Why not the INTJ, the INFJ, or the ENFP? Simply because even in those matters, though less complicated, formidabble logical thinking capabilities are necessary.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #22
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    1) Miracle I would define as a phenomena that cannot be repeated by anyone under similar circumstances. When I said before that miracles were illogical I meant that many people would see them this way according to this definition. In reality they would not negate our ability to reason.
    I don't think there is any way that we can distinguish a "miracle" from a "law of nature" that is accessible only by a few.

    It reminds me of the comment often used about the bumblebee, how it "breaks the laws of nature" in being able to fly.

    No, it doesn't: It's flying. If it broke the rules of nature, it wouldn't fly. Thus we know that we simply don't understand the rules yet.

    ... or, it's a miracle. Which?

    Human beings of imperfect intellect cannot discern adequately between miracles and natural law. They just notice when something breaks a known and accepted pattern.

    Reason alone is not able to bridge the gap.

    I have found it more useful, if I was going to make a faith commitment, to base it on character and ethics rather than the apparently miraculous.

    Rather than trying to validate it by some miracle I could not properly evaluate (since I cannot ever do so without ambiguity being involved), was the belief I was embracing worth my making that level of commitment?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #23
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    The worrying thing that occurs to me is that it could well have been explained but the writers of the bible didn't understand and so to stop others questioning edited it a little and came up with "he said do this and don't ask questions.. it's rude".
    Again... no way to "prove" anything. It's just a working theory, though not unreasonable.

    It'd be interesting to disassemble the bible with reference to personality typing and other psychology fields to see where there maybe discrepancies due to it being a book written by mortals. I think that too much faith is placed in that book. It is, after all, a story book whether based on fact or not.
    That's sort of what I've done privately and it has colored how I interpret things.

    Did you ever notice that the gospels each could be assigned to a particular Kiersey archetype?

    SJ = Matthew (tax collector by nature; Jesus is king/authoritative, follow him)

    SP = Mark (young, active; focus is on the daily events and miracles, what Jesus DID)

    NT = Luke (physician; tries to really root Jesus in context; thorough, tries to mesh everything together like a big picture)

    NF = John (disciple/mystic; metaphorical; entire book describes the symbols representing Jesus; very metaphysical/abstract in nature, focuses on NF-style-depth concepts of love)

    But I think personalities are so obvious in any of the people described in the Bible, and it colored how they should be read. (Thus, you read an ESFP like Samson one way, and an INFJ like David a different way. And the things they say and do must be taken in that context, as their "facet" of the big picture of JHVH.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #24
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Again... no way to "prove" anything. It's just a working theory, though not unreasonable.
    Proof? Don't get me started on that again... you know I don't believe in that religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    That's sort of what I've done privately and it has colored how I interpret things.

    Did you ever notice that the gospels each could be assigned to a particular Kiersey archetype?

    SJ = Matthew (tax collector by nature; Jesus is king/authoritative, follow him)

    SP = Mark (young, active; focus is on the daily events and miracles, what Jesus DID)

    NT = Luke (physician; tries to really root Jesus in context; thorough, tries to mesh everything together like a big picture)

    NF = John (disciple/mystic; metaphorical; entire book describes the symbols representing Jesus; very metaphysical/abstract in nature, focuses on NF-style-depth concepts of love)

    But I think personalities are so obvious in any of the people described in the Bible, and it colored how they should be read. (Thus, you read an ESFP like Samson one way, and an INFJ like David a different way. And the things they say and do must be taken in that context, as their "facet" of the big picture of JHVH.)
    I was thinking more in terms of how you can psychologically note the avoidance of details, the repetition of messages, how most things within it's pages fall into a pattern which reinforces messages where as we see day after day that you have to hold to ideals despite contradictions to it.

    I always wondered if it could be gotten rid of as an unreliable and outdated text which only serves to disuade others from joining in and inhibits the "flock" from being all they can be or if there is no religion without it....
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #25
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    I was thinking more in terms of how you can psychologically note the avoidance of details, the repetition of messages, how most things within it's pages fall into a pattern which reinforces messages where as we see day after day that you have to hold to ideals despite contradictions to it.
    Well, I meant that as well.

    I can discern how their personality seems to be suggested not by just what they said but how they chose not to say it... and that colors my interpretation as I "work backwards" to what the original data source(s) and event(s) in question might have been.

    I always wondered if it could be gotten rid of as an unreliable and outdated text which only serves to disuade others from joining in and inhibits the "flock" from being all they can be or if there is no religion without it....
    I see written word as stagnant. It's useful, as Victor describes elsewhere, but it kills and strangles life by removing people from the direct object of the text. So the text is a ladder for you to climb to a higher plane of spirituality, but you cannot cling to it as the actual object of your devotion; it's only a fascimile of the living vibrant life / interaction with others.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #26
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I don't think there is any way that we can distinguish a "miracle" from a "law of nature" that is accessible only by a few.

    It reminds me of the comment often used about the bumblebee, how it "breaks the laws of nature" in being able to fly.

    No, it doesn't: It's flying. If it broke the rules of nature, it wouldn't fly. Thus we know that we simply don't understand the rules yet.

    ... or, it's a miracle. Which? .?
    All laws of nature are completely objective. Accessible to all. Those who know how the miracles work could explain the process. Does not mean that all will understand them, not because some people are incapable of understanding. But simply because they currently lack the skills to comprehend such complexities, yet they certainly would be able to acquire them under certain conditions.

    Much like a mathematician could explain a complex theory in completely objective terms, all could understand it if they learned to do math on that high of a level. All have the potential to do so, some will simply require more work than others.

    Bottom line is, there is no such thing as a law of nature accessible to only a few as a law of nature is by definition objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Human beings of imperfect intellect cannot discern adequately between miracles and natural law. They just notice when something breaks a known and accepted pattern.?
    Logic is the study of objective patterns of reasoning. There simply will never be a time when we know for something to be true, yet cannot make a good argument for it. Such an attitude is incompatible with the sciences or philosophy.

    Bridging the gap with 'faith' means simply believing in something because we want to believe in it, not because there is any good reason to do so.

    This is the essence of the very essence of Fideism. Mere self-deception.

    There have been philosophers who have achieved similar results as the fideists, namely attunement with ideas that gave a 'spiritual' meaning to their lives with no tomfoolery. Spinoza is the case in point.

    Human intellect is not imperfect. As Einstein said 'God does not play dice'. All things of this world could be known, as the very existence of laws of reasoning shows, even the most superfical inquiry into modern logic evinces that they could be used to analyze an infinite amount of arguments. We do not know some things because we have not had the experiences to establish the premises for the foundation of the necessary arguments. Yet they are possible to establish.

    This is an interesting note: Kant pointed out that the world as we experience it is not the real world, but the unconscious perception of the infinite, real (noumenal) world. One may ask, is this epistemic relativism? It is not, because all humans have a similar structure of cognitive faculties. Therefore we all see the same world. Dogs and cats will see a slightly different world. Therefore, with respect to the world as we know it, we all see the same thing, and therefore all things are bound by the same laws of nature.

    Hence, if a prophet is talking about this world, he has no way out of explaining his views in terms of objective reasoning.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #27
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I don't think there is any way that we can distinguish a "miracle" from a "law of nature" that is accessible only by a few.
    It doesn't matter. The idea is to prove He's the Son of God. Say he instantly turns water into wine. Either he does this with supernatural power or he does it because he knows the laws of nature far beyond any other human. Either way the proof is sufficient. No one could work something seemingly miraculous like this without some type of superhuman intervention. The miracle would prove that he is more than man.

    I have found it more useful, if I was going to make a faith commitment, to base it on character and ethics rather than the apparently miraculous.

    Rather than trying to validate it by some miracle I could not properly evaluate (since I cannot ever do so without ambiguity being involved), was the belief I was embracing worth my making that level of commitment?
    If you are basing the decision on character then how do you know that he's not really just a nice guy. How could you say that Mr. Rogers isn't the Son of God, or Morther Theresa, or...? (name the most virtuous person you can think of.)
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  8. #28
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    All in all, you seem to have it backwards here. Assumptions are clearly stated because of logical thinking, as this faculty is what brings clarity and structure to our thoughts. Intuition or imaginaiton is a mere hunch that we do not have a clear view of.
    Meh, we are basically saying the same thing. Intuition is the source of raw insight. Reason allows us to develop these insights clearly and carefully.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  9. #29
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    It doesn't matter. The idea is to prove He's the Son of God. Say he instantly turns water into wine. Either he does this with supernatural power or he does it because he knows the laws of nature far beyond any other human. Either way the proof is sufficient. No one could work something seemingly miraculous like this without some type of superhuman intervention. The miracle would prove that he is more than man.
    ?

    No, it doesn't. Not at all

    Think through that again.

    • You haven't verified that other people have not been capable of this.
    • You haven't verified whether or not he's doing something that others might be able to discern how to accomplish.
    • You haven't verified that, even if he's more than human, he's actually still "the son of God."


    You took a VERY large leap there -- from "perceived miracle" to "Son of God."

    if you are basing the decision on character then how do you know that he's not really just a nice guy. How could you say that Mr. Rogers isn't the Son of God, or Morther Theresa, or...? (name the most virtuous person you can think of.)
    I would think that moral character, not miracles, is a better indication of someone attuned with "God" , if one believes God exists.

    Put another way, give me a virtuous person over Benny Hinn and that ilk any day of the week.



    ...I'll respond to your stuff later, BW, because I need more time to think through it.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #30
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    I've tried to synthesize certain arguments on discovering truth, from a number of people, and build upon it (or at the very least apply it). It relates very much to this thread, but i ultimately posted in another thread:

    Post Here

Similar Threads

  1. The Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of (strong) Atheism
    By Isk Stark in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12-09-2017, 10:33 PM
  2. The Situation of Faith in God or Science
    By nonsequitur in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-20-2012, 11:44 PM
  3. Is the brain the source of faith?
    By JAVO in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 05:08 AM
  4. The Ethics of Probability: A Poker Metaphor for Faith and Ethics
    By simulatedworld in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-17-2008, 08:00 AM
  5. Mother Teresa's crisis of faith
    By Sahara in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-25-2007, 12:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO