• 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.

Do Agnostics Tend To Be Perceivers?

E

Epiphany

Guest
A commonality that I've noticed among my acquaintances who are religious or atheist is that they tend to be Judgers; which I suppose makes sense since the function seems to come to conclusions more readily than Perceiving. With atheism, the belief is that in accordance with our current understanding of science, it is sufficient to conclude that no god/creator exists because if it did, then we would be able to prove it. Likewise, religion provides believers with conclusions and in many cases, discourages asking questions. Faith itself depends on coming to a conclusion about a particular issue.

Just out of curiosity, are you a judger or perceiver and do you consider yourself an atheist, agnostic or believer in God. I assume somebody will complain about the options being too narrow so feel free to elaborate on your particular beliefs.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It might be interesting to have a poll. Perhaps just limited to whether the person is a P or J and then if they are religious, agnostic, or atheist? I'd actually be curious to see the results. Your hypothesis sounds like it would be correct, but I haven't noticed it as you have. Interesting topic.

Edit: I'm a "Judger" I suppose, but I am definitely agnostic. I do not tend to hold absolute conclusions about anything, and most often hold several opinions at once about everything.
 

mintleaf

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
505
MBTI Type
infp
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp
I agree, this would make an interesting poll.

I would think that agnostics would tend to be Perceivers, but it's not like it wouldn't make sense for Judgers to be agnostic too. It's probably just that perceiving functions make a person slightly more prone to this type of uncertainty.

It depends on what you mean by agnostic:
1. those who believe that we can't know and have stopped searching
2. those who are still searching (and some within this category have more faith than others that they can eventually come to a conclusion, that the answer's within the realm of human understanding)

There are probably other distinctions, but I can't think of any right now.

I'm a Perceiver and identify with #2, and lean towards the "have only a small amount of hope that I'll eventually come to a conclusion" end of that spectrum.

As far as people in my life whose type I know, there hasn't been much of a significant correlation.
 

21%

You have a choice!
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
3,224
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I'm a judger and I'm very certain in my uncertainty.

I think have a weird Romantic, existentialistic twist to my agnosticism though... so maybe it doesn't count as being agnostic after all.
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Just out of curiosity, are you a judger or perceiver and do you consider yourself an atheist, agnostic or believer in God. I assume somebody will complain about the options being too narrow so feel free to elaborate on your particular beliefs.
I'm a Judger. I am both agnostic and a believer in God. I don't think it's possible to know for certain whether there is a God or what the nature of God is. But I believe in the Christian God and am doctrinally Evangelical.

Religion, to me, is kind of a short-cut for ethics and philosophy and theology: some of the work is already done for me, so I don't have to reinvent the wheel on every single thing. Some of my beliefs are just kind of ingrained from my upbringing. Like, I could decide tomorrow that God didn't exist, but if I hear of someone having a hard time or something troubling or scary is happening to me, I'm going to pray.

I've parted ways with my religion on a few things. I can't believe in Hell the way I was taught, for example. Nor do I think being gay or transgendered, etc is sin. Otherwise, I'm okay with a lot of the rest of it so far and I'm not real motivated to do a lot of further exploring. Moving further away from my family on this stuff than I already am would be inconvenient in a way I'd rather not deal with right now. Mostly I just try to focus on being as ethical as my situation and nature allows, because ultimately how you treat people is what I think is most important whether or not there is a God and whatever s/he may be like.
 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I'm guessing....

:notype:

i.e. IME I haven't seen a correlation. The trend I've noticed with my agnostic friends has had more to do with whether their family was hyper-religious, not religious at all, or somewhere in between (as opposed to anything to do with type). More likely to be agnostic if their parents were on either extreme.

Edit: I'm a J, I'm an Episcopalian, and my parents didn't force religion on me -- which is probably why I ended up sticking with it.
I don't think my beliefs mesh up 100% with that of the church, but in the words of Robin Williams: "No matter what you believe, there's bound to be at least one other Episcopalian who agrees with you."
 

Luv Deluxe

Step into my office.
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
441
MBTI Type
NiSe
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Judger, here, of the agnostic breed.

I think your theory could be right, though; in deciding that I'm agnostic, I've had to come to a number of conclusions about what I believe.

My opinion is that we cannot and will not know, that it's arrogant to stake a claim and violently defend it in either direction. I'm open to all points of view, as long as they're delivered without aggression. While not at all religious, I do consider myself a spiritual person. I'd like to think there must be something greater than ourselves, and I entertain ideas such as the interconnectedness of all living beings, etc. I doubt we as humans can prove anything either way (even if we think we know what we're doing), but I don't care, either, because I already have a deep reverence and appreciation for life, and I make it my goal to honor that by enjoying the shit out of mine.

Essentially: I am comfortable with not knowing. I've made peace with that kind of uncertainty, and to think or worry about it too much would probably just inspire anxiety.

I guess that would put me a little more into the first camp of agnostics as described by [MENTION=17424]decrescendo[/MENTION]. Perhaps that's the key - maybe, if you're an agnostic Judger, you tend to feel fine with your position and aren't currently seeking another one or constantly questioning yourself. Or maybe my perspective belongs to a separate bin entirely, because it's just a little more nuanced than a simple "nobody can know, and that's that." It's that I'm okay with not knowing, for myself as an individual. Is this more of a Perceiver's point of view?

For what it's worth, my use of Judgment and Perception appears to be very balanced, split almost right down the middle, Judging just barely edging out Perceiving.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would make exceptions to this theory in different ways, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a correlation between Perception and agnosticism. Maybe it's not so much your actual position as it is your approach to it?

Interesting topic.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Agnosticism is a formal philosophical position and it does not preclude the suspension of disbelief in religion or art or movies.

In other words, our intellectual integrity may lead us to agnosticism, but our imagination may lead us to religion or art or the movies.

So Agnosticism does not preclude that leap of imagination, or indeed that leap of faith, that is so necessary to suspend our disbelief.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
No, type is irrelevant; it's just people who are too weak to construct their own worldviews in general.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I think the premise here is far too simplistic, it pre-supposes that all religion teaches people not to question first of all (NOT TRUE, though it may be the case in very organized sects or particular faiths that are highly structured) ...and secondly I'm not sure what made you think that a Ji dom, especially an Fi dom, wouldn't form a strong opinion about something.

There is a way to gain evidence for the power of faith or prayer though. People can see that things like yoga, meditation, prayer, faith, and even belonging to religious congregations seems to make people more mentally balanced for some reason. It's not like you're some miserable cowering person being forced to be religious in most places anymore, you can test it out for yourself.

You totally forgot about spiritual seekers, Zen Buddhists, etc.

Oh, plus the religions that are officially agnostic or atheist.

Are some types of people more open to spiritual experiences than others? Maybe.
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think your theory has merit. There's not enough data for a meaningful conclusion, but I made a detailed poll a year ago and the Ps seemed to be distinctly drawn to the n/a option on the atheist/theist question :

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-spirituality/55643-survey.html

However, there's likely a specific Ne tendency of leaving possibilities open that might be influencing the results, and I don't think there's an equivalent tendency for SPs, so perhaps they should be excluded from the theory (sorry artisans).


That said, I'm an atheist. :laugh:
 

Rail Tracer

Freaking Ratchet
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
3,031
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I choose to be agnostic, not because I am undecided of whether I believe in a deity or do not believe in any deity but because the strongest of atheist and the strong of theist make themselves to be believers of their... hmmm base.

I think your theory has merit. There's not enough data for a meaningful conclusion, but I made a detailed poll a year ago and the Ps seemed to be distinctly drawn to the n/a option on the atheist/theist question :

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-spirituality/55643-survey.html

However, there's likely a specific Ne tendency of leaving possibilities open that might be influencing the results, and I don't think there's an equivalent tendency for SPs, so perhaps they should be excluded from the theory (sorry artisans).


That said, I'm an atheist. :laugh:

Change that question to "Do you think a god/diety(s)/afterlife exists?

And you'd get a better opinion from me. That answer is I don't know, because I don't have knowledge of whether they exist, even if we expended enough resources to explore the entire universe (or something equally far in the future,) I'd guess there are still questions left unanswered where believing or not believing in them would not make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

If you give me a question like, "Do you believe or disbelieve in a god/deity(s)/afterlife?"

The answer is neither, because my answers aren't about belief. It is about whether I/we know these things exist or not. And for that answer, there isn't an answer. I don't believe nor disbelieve. I either know or don't know.
 
Last edited:
S

Society

Guest
anecdotally from my life: no - i've known many judges who are agnostic.

if anything, i think probability theory is almost like a designer drug custom made for INTPs, so many more of them are going to be tea-pot-agnostics or "it's possible but about as probable as the flying spaghetti monster / pink invisible unicorn" variety, which is generally code for "practically atheist but gets lost in semantics".
 

Antimony

You're fired. Lol.
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
3,428
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think it varies greatly. I would say that there might be some slight correlation between being a perceiver and being agnostic; however, it may be related to how Fe is used. I notice that people with higher amounts of Fi tend to be very definitive on what they feel is right, but that's just personal experience.
 
S

Society

Guest
I think it varies greatly. I would say that there might be some slight correlation between being a perceiver and being agnostic; however, it may be related to how Fe is used. I notice that people with higher amounts of Fi tend to be very definitive on what they feel is right, but that's just personal experience.

i've noticed the opposite - quite a few NFPs who seem to not filter... at all. god, spirits, chakras, atlantis, ancient astronauts, occult... everything that's stimulates our imagination is there to be treated as real - no probability spectrum.

it's worth mentioning i used to be like that myself as a teen, so this might have more to do with the growth of Ti doing something that Fi doesn't.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Interesting. Five INFJ agnostics in this thread so far. I tend to think that people who are Ni-doms who also deal in the subjectivity of Fe have an internal lack of certainty, and that many people assume INFJ is going to be overly-certain, but the opposite is true of INFJs who are strongly Ni-dom because that type of processing is always viewing everything from multiple angles, especially because it deals in the multiple perspectives of Fe as well. Many mistypings result.

This may not apply to other Ni-doms, but I would describe Ni processing as agnostic in most all realms. I construct internal continuums of opposite concepts, each concept existing in its pure, theoretical form at either end of the continuum and conclusions exist as a sliding point along these continuums, so that no conclusion is ever fixed, but always shifting. Most ideas require the use of multiple continuums, each with a sliding data point. When dealing with the largest scale concepts like the nature of reality or the existence of god, it brings into play many of these poles at once, possibly all of them, and so it is most difficult to reach a single conclusion. In this way the concept of god, and any concept is like watching a river or a cloud which continually shifts, and at best reaching approximate conclusions that encompass a range of possible configurations.

Fi and Ti can be far more conclusive in their internal structures, building large structures with many possibilities, but valuing more certain data points than Ni. Obviously this is all a hypothesis, with many possible degrees of accuracy including the possibility of being completely nuts.
 

Rail Tracer

Freaking Ratchet
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
3,031
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
anecdotally from my life: no - i've known many judges who are agnostic.

if anything, i think probability theory is almost like a designer drug custom made for INTPs, so many more of them are going to be tea-pot-agnostics or "it's possible but about as probable as the flying spaghetti monster / pink invisible unicorn" variety, which is generally code for "practically atheist but gets lost in semantics".

So what is the difference between the pink invisible unicorn and the Christian God? Give me some details. :D (FYI, people here know that I rip on Christianity from time to time.)

That is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

God is the creator of things, which we know nothing with certainty of who or what created the universe. Honestly, I don't go by the book on these things. If there is a God, he/she/it honestly would of created everything that we are discovering now, not by a book that says that everything was created in 6 days (or somewhere around there.)

That pink unicorn thing, well, that's another story.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
A commonality that I've noticed among my acquaintances who are religious or atheist is that they tend to be Judgers; which I suppose makes sense since the function seems to come to conclusions more readily than Perceiving. With atheism, the belief is that in accordance with our current understanding of science, it is sufficient to conclude that no god/creator exists because if it did, then we would be able to prove it. Likewise, religion provides believers with conclusions and in many cases, discourages asking questions. Faith itself depends on coming to a conclusion about a particular issue.

Just out of curiosity, are you a judger or perceiver and do you consider yourself an atheist, agnostic or believer in God. I assume somebody will complain about the options being too narrow so feel free to elaborate on your particular beliefs.

This is interesting, perhaps to me especially at the moment since I am interested in developing perceptiveness and feeling, not just in the MBTI sense because it was not from this source or knowledge of this source that the motivation sprang, but obviously, yes, in the MBTI sense too.

I do think that judging could have an implication, although it would be possible to judge that strictly speaking there is not sufficiency in either the argument or evidence of either atheism or religion to provide them with credibility and instead agnosticism prevails.

To be honest from a strictly rational and logic basis agnosticism seems the most valid opinion, during the spiritual crisis which I have experienced before now, it is the philosophical and spiritual perspective that I retreat to, some of my favourite philosophical and psychological perspectives suggest that objectively the better religious sources are objectively agnostic in so far as they deal with the topic of God, afterlife, ultimate reward or punishments in one way or another but quickly proceed on to ethics and how people are to live the best life together. Erich Fromm talks about Maimodies (spelling) the Jewish philosopher's conclusion that God is "incorporeal" as supposedly a drawing of a line beneath the God question as unresolved and unresolveable (although Fromm seems to think it is a disguised affirmation of atheism) and the rest of this writings being about ethics.

Personally I think that atheism has done real violence and harm, in science and elsewhere, as much as the forces which it legitimately problematises. I recently read Arthur C Clark's profiles in the future and the sort of thinking, really imaginative, which it contains I dont think would be possible to most of the athiests in the same schools of thought as Dawkins, Dennett etc.

Clarke's idea that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic explains a lot to me, not simply about magic but also about God and religion, from this perspective religion may remain able to ask questions that science can not, certainly not atheistic science, and so science is no longer illuminating and enlightening as its proponents perport or boast. That is the greater part of the reason I am religious, not because of dogmatic assurity and certainty steming from judgementalism, which I think is important and fair in and of itself, but because it's engaged in the proper search for answers.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
So what is the difference between the pink invisible unicorn and the Christian God? Give me some details. :D (FYI, people here know that I rip on Christianity from time to time.)

That is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

God is the creator of things, which we know nothing with certainty of who or what created the universe. Honestly, I don't go by the book on these things. If there is a God, he/she/it honestly would of created everything that we are discovering now, not by a book that says that everything was created in 6 days (or somewhere around there.)

That pink unicorn thing, well, that's another story.

It is, it is a facetious and dismissive rhetorical tool of atheist argument.

A theist equivalent would be insisting that disbelief in a deity, afterlife, ultimate consequence etc. results in Austwhitz, Belsen, Gulags, Rwandan genocide, Serbian genocide etc.

There is not any objective association or bridging between the two things but it is made in order to persuade the impressionable and immature thinker that since they know that the one thing is false or wrong then the other must be too. Schopeuer (spelling) wrote about this in a book instructing people how to argue which collected the chief means of making arguments but it was overall supposed to be an indictment of the level of learning and reasoning in his day, things have gotten worse since then.

The creator God thing sounds like pantheism or deism, in many ways I wish that Christianity would out grow and dispense with the bible in order to prevent really sloppy criticisms of biblical literalism, which is a comparatively recent and ruinous development within protestantism, detouring people from considering it at all as valid.
 
Top