• 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.

[NT] NTs and Religion

Fife

New member
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
81
MBTI Type
INFJ
In 1000 years, many people who would have denied the Book of Mormon in this present day may accept it fully because it happened "so long ago".

I am not challenging you, but I have one question out of curiosity. Is it within the realm of your thinking that these ancient texts, such as the Bible, were taken as lightly as the Book of Mormon in their time but have gained credence simply because there is no way to disprove it, since it happened so long ago?

I've been quite surprised in the past by the shear amount of data - much of it non-biblical - which still exists in the record from biblical times. From my research it appears that Christianity spread very rapidly. ( I understand that popularity is no indication of truth.) My own faith has arisen from teenage years spent in research - but I'm no NT. I also believe evolution and the big bang - keeping quiet about it in most circles because I don't think it's that important compared to whether the resurrection occurred.

My prayer-partner is INTJ. He really knows his stuff - we were discussing dates, evidence and so forth the other day. I've also heard that C. S. Lewis was an INTJ
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
I'm not so sure about that. You may be thinking only of a certain religion or sect, but there are Divinity schools even in the Ivy League. And the long tradition of Judaism surely promotes research and knowledge. In fact, there are certain texts men are not even allowed to read until age 40, to make sure that their minds are receptive and probing enough to read and study it.

No doubt, in the past history, most inquiry of a scientific nature was endorsed by the religious organizations, especially because those 'educated' were mostly done so to be spiritual leaders, hence, most likely to take on inquiries of other abstract/intellectual nature as well.

As well, there are of course, scientists who do follow a religion, just like a school with a great research center can also have a divinity school. This is actually one of my points of why Science cannot be a religion. Because they are not mutually exclusive. Science makes NO commentary on religion, either way, good or bad. What we infer from the findings of Science, does.

My main point with falsification was that there is not one organized religion that has malleable basic tenants. I.e. every one of the main organized religions have some basic 'codes' that are given to be the 'truth' - immovable, indisputable, not up for falsification. While, EVERYTHING, in scientific inquiry, by its very definition, is up for falsification - there is no faith in Science.

I believe that most religion encourages questioning and research. It's only when it is filtered down through people that may otherwise want to control you, or large groups of people, that questioning is discouraged.

I won't disagree.


Just because science isn't successful, it doesn't mean that it doesn't try to be successful.


Anything that aims at an action is trying, otherwise, they wouldn't engage in the action in the first place, if not to try, and hopefully, succeed. But, trying is most usually the common motivation.


A main purpose of science is to provide explanations. And because you feel that religion is arrogant doesn't discount that it is also there in order to provide explanations. The only difference is that many religions claim to have all the answers, while science has only claimed to have some of them.

The bold, sure, that may be the case, but, imo I'd say its a more deeper fundamental difference. That of a priori versus a posteriori in terms of promoting a certain knowledge. Religion the former, science the latter, hence, my usage of the word, 'arrogance' for the former.
 

Oom

Your time is gonna come.
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
510
MBTI Type
IsfP
Enneagram
5w4
I'm agnostic as far as I know. I've considered religion, but I'm afraid I couldn't follow one seriously. I see people who do follow a religion with they're whole life built around it and the majority of the people I see are just trying to keep up with their peers. They are the yuppies that are religious because their friends are. It's just like high school when you walk into a church that is dominated by middle aged brown nosers.

I've always been too afraid to endorse any view for the reason that I'm never really sure about anything and I don't think anyone else is either. And I have the feeling that I'll be the biggest fool once we all find out what is behind the big picture, because I happened to believe in something that wasn't true.
 

TopherRed

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
1,272
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx

Oom

Your time is gonna come.
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
510
MBTI Type
IsfP
Enneagram
5w4
Really, that's okay. Proper word choice is very important to me--it's an articulation thing. It's really hard to be respected when you don't spell correctly, have bad grammer, or simply choose the wrong homophone.

Was that on purpose?:)
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
My main point with falsification was that there is not one organized religion that has malleable basic tenants. I.e. every one of the main organized religions have some basic 'codes' that are given to be the 'truth' - immovable, indisputable, not up for falsification.

If truth is of an eternal nature, then of course it would not be malleable. But if truth is malleable, then as a concept it cannot really exist.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
If truth is of an eternal nature, then of course it would not be malleable. But if truth is malleable, then as a concept it cannot really exist.

Hence my using the word 'arrogance', that you've (religion) reached the end, concluded that you've (religion) FOUND the Truth (a priori, no less). Rather than a pursuit for the truth, which would need to be malleable by the very nature of an honest search/inquiry.
 

TopherRed

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
1,272
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
To this quote I must say that, for me, the reliance on a church to come to a spiritual answer is a big hindrance for me. I truly wish to associate with no organization and follow no religious leader, or text. I am agnostic, meaning that I am without knowledge and don't know what to believe. But I will surely believe in God before I believe in Man.

First of all, I think you are being completely logical when you say that and it sounds like you've actually thought this out--just something about that kind of honesty is very...en fuego. ;) :wubbie:

Seriously though, because of your intellectual purity, I feel like I should encourage you to search; however you feel you can do so. I don't know if discovering "whatever is actually out there" is a life goal, but I believe the truth will surface if you seek it out and there are truly no emotional barriers to get in your way.
 

TopherRed

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
1,272
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Was that on purpose?:)

Ooo...um totally, yeah. ;) :doh: *writes Grammar on the board 10 times.*

I thought that word was wrong, but I didn't want to look it up because of it's potential comedic effect.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Hence my using the word 'arrogance', that you've (religion) reached the end, concluded that you've (religion) FOUND the Truth (a priori, no less). Rather than a pursuit for the truth, which would need to be malleable by the very nature of an honest search/inquiry.

Looks like I need to repeat St. Anslem once again, Credo ut intelligam(I believe so that I may understand). Faith is the foundation for rational inquiry into the truth. Without such a foundation, any inquiry into truth will go nowhere. In logic such a foundation is called an axiom.

So you're setting up a strawman here concerning religious claims upon the nature of truth, and man's capabilities for discerning it. I can also add a historical dimension to the argument here as well, which I will do in a few minutes.

You seem to have fallen into the all too-common temptation of forgoing uncertain truth for certain untruth.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Ok let's now turn to the historical developments of scientific inquiry and how religion(Christianity specifically) actually played a significant role in this:

But Christian theology impinged on science in return and altered its character. Certain aspects of Aristotelian natural philosophy, such as its determinism (everything that will occur must occur) and its denial of a creation, were diametrically opposed to central Christian doctrines. The ensuing struggles (which were not between Christianity and science, but rather, one must note, among Christians holding different views of the proper relationship between Christianity and science) led ultimately to a theological condemnation of these and other philosophical propositions in 1270 and 1277. The complexity of the encounter between Christianity and science is illustrated nicely by the aftermath of these condemnations.13 The condemnations did place a lid on certain lines of scientific speculation; henceforth, philosophers or scientists were forbidden to uphold certain Aristotelian positions and forced to tread lightly whenever they approached theological territory. But while losing certain freedoms, they gained others. Theological condemnation of a considerable body of Aristotelian propositions weakened the heavy hand of Aristotelian authority and freed scientists to speculate in non- Aristotelian and anti-Aristotelian directions. Thus we see in the fourteenth century a steady stream of attacks on various Aristotelian doctrines and a veritable orgy of speculation about non-Aristotelian possibilities, including such notions as the rotation of the earth on its axis.

The condemnations affected the scientific enterprise in another way. One of the central themes of the condemnations was the proclamation of God's absolute sovereignty and omnipotence. From this doctrine fol- lows the absolute contingency of nature-that the course of nature can be anything God chooses it to be and, therefore, that humankind's acquired knowledge of natural causes can be overturned simply by God's decision to do things otherwise. The condemnations thus generated a certain skepticism about the ability of the human mind to penetrate with certainty to the underlying causes of observed events; this attitude encouraged the view that science should restrict its attention to empirical fact and ignore the search for underlying causes, thus influencing the development of scientific methodology. Four hundred years later, the idea of God's absolute sovereignty and its corollary, the total passivity of matter, became central features of Isaac Newton's mechanistic world view.14

DAVID C

Of course some people commonly mistake issues of methodology with issues related to metaphysics.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Looks like I need to repeat St. Anslem once again, Credo ut intelligam(I believe so that I may understand). Faith is the foundation for rational inquiry into the truth. Without such a foundation, any inquiry into truth will go nowhere. In logic such a foundation is called an axiom.

An axiom is self-evident thus believed; faith (in terms of theology) isn't, it is trusted, so much so, that it is even advocated to be adhered to in the face of adversity, hence believed. Imo, science is a skeptics game, religion, one of apologetics.

So you're setting up a strawman here concerning religious claims upon the nature of truth, and man's capabilities for discerning it.

Can you flesh this out, how I'm setting up strawman?

I can also add a historical dimension to the argument here as well, which I will do in a few minutes.

I'm interested.

Edit: got it! ^ post. Thanks.

You seem to have fallen into the all too-common temptation of forgoing uncertain truth for certain untruth.

Expand this please, so I may comment.
 

01011010

New member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
3,916
MBTI Type
INxJ
Things that people believe in tend to come true.
They are self fulfilling prophecies.
If you truly believe in something, you tend to make it come true,
whether it's good or bad.

Perception shapes the way an individual person sees reality, but it doesn't actually change the concrete actions in the world by merely thinking it will. Confident people are more likely to take risks. Risks can reap rewards. In order to take a risk, action must be applied. Action doesn't occur from good thoughts alone. One must take steps towards their goals. Positive thinking might make you feel better, but will not reap riches on it's own.

Also, you look like my brother. It was a bit distracting at first.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Ok let's now turn to the historical developments of scientific inquiry and how religion(Christianity specifically) actually played a significant role in this:

[link]

Of course some people commonly mistake issues of methodology with issues related to metaphysics.

Ah, yes, this is not news to me, and I already addressed this previously in my discussion with Jenocyde, but thank you for the specific example:

No doubt, in the past history, most inquiry of a scientific nature was endorsed by the religious organizations, especially because those 'educated' were mostly done so to be spiritual leaders, hence, most likely to take on inquiries of other abstract/intellectual nature as well.

Your link, some parts:
Thus we see in the fourteenth century a steady stream of attacks on various Aristotelian doctrines and a veritable orgy of speculation about non-Aristotelian possibilities, including such notions as the rotation of the earth on its axis.

And, then, there was poor Galileo.

As for the rest of the points in that article, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to illustrate or counter? Modern science, as it is now, had an intrinsic history with religion and philosophy. And? It has its own footing now. Would you like me to argue that philosophical inquiries gave fire to theology thus philosophy is 'greater', trumps? I won't as it's not a valid position.

Btw, Francis Bacon was a huge skeptic of Aristotelian philosophy, and one of the forefathers of scientific inquiry. He was a philosopher, not influenced really by religion. And, of course, another great contributer to scientific inquiry - Galileo. Should I make a case for philosophy influencing science more than religious doctrine? Why would I? To prove what?
 

CJ99

Is Willard in Footloose!!
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
582
MBTI Type
ENTP
Do you find this as hard to believe as the existance of God?

Yes. Well not quite. But I am almost certain the god theory is wrong and I have trouble imagining an NT with a religious belief.
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Yes. Well not quite. But I am almost certain the god theory is wrong and I have trouble imagining an NT with a religious belief.

I can introduce you to some, if you'd like. There are plenty.
 

CJ99

Is Willard in Footloose!!
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
582
MBTI Type
ENTP
I can introduce you to some, if you'd like. There are plenty.

Explain to me in what context they have a religious belief?

To me belief implies some basic ideas that are unchallangable which seem to go against the basic character of an NT that anything is questionable.

But if nothing is concrete in their faith then it is just science is it not? A collection of theories that can be changed and adapted or scrapped to make sense.
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Explain to me in what context they have a religious belief?

To me belief implies some basic ideas that are unchallangable which seem to go against the basic character of an NT that anything is questionable.

But if nothing is concrete in their faith then it is just science is it not? A collection of theories that can be changed and adapted or scrapped to make sense.

I can't explain their beliefs to you, that is something they would have to do. But I have a dear ENTP friend currently serving as an officer in Iraq and he firmly believes that his faith will give him the courage to soldier on and lead his men and women through this horrible thing.

He studies his faith, probes and asks questions. He believes in the testimonies and the writings. He takes life and our symbiotic relation to the world around us as proof that a higher being designed this universe and everything in it. I can find conversations we've had through email and paste them here, if you would like, that would better explain his view. I'm sure he'd actually wish for me to do so.
 

CJ99

Is Willard in Footloose!!
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
582
MBTI Type
ENTP
I can't explain their beliefs to you, that is something they would have to do. But I have a dear ENTP friend currently serving as an officer in Iraq and he firmly believes that his faith will give him the courage to soldier on and lead his men and women through this horrible thing.

He studies his faith, probes and asks questions. He believes in the testimonies and the writings. He takes life and our symbiotic relation to the world around us as proof that a higher being designed this universe and everything in it. I can find conversations we've had through email and paste them here, if you would like, that would better explain his view. I'm sure he'd actually wish for me to do so.

Sure go for it.
 
Top