• 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 why did you embrace religion?

flame

New member
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
17
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Just my 2 cents:

If you can look death in the eye and face it alone, I am of the opinion you are that you are very brave yet foolish. It takes quite a person to believe that we all cease to exist after the physical death.

Well, holidays and travel have put me very much behind in the conversations, but I'll step into the party late and just say that I do not know that NT's "embrace" religion. We may not completely dismiss it, either.

Historically, we humans have used religion to help cope with that which we cannot explain or control. Way back when, it was just about everything - the weather, food, sickness and disease, etc... Now, we have enough science to undertand the weather, how to grow crops, and how to prevent and cure many illnesses. The one thing that we still cannot explain or understand to some extent is what happens after death. And no, there is no verifiable, unfalsifiable "proof" for what happens after death. So, to use a term such as proof in an argument about religion is futile. Some indiviudals may have experiences that they claim to be evidence, but nothing about any man-made religion has been proved.

And yes, it can be very frightening (and disappointing) to accept that we actually cease to exist after death. So, religious beliefs help many of us psychologically - they help us cope with all fear and uncertainty, includind death. Most man-made organized religions sell certainty, especially those versions of religion that we practice in the western world.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,258
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Jennifer, why did you lose your faith?

Well, it's not like I "lost" my faith. I didn't just one day wake up and realize I had a hole in my purse and somewhere along the way my faith fell out and now it's gone. And as I said, it's not as if I have NO faith or discount religious experience altogether. I am simply no longer going to tolerate a muddying of the lines between what can be intuited and what can be shown.

I don't care what people want to believe, because strong philosophical cases can be made for belief; but I'm tired of hearing religion essentially say their intuitions are "proof" or are "more correct" than intuitions that disagree with them. Perhaps I am overly sensitive to those insinuations, but that is where I am at right now.

I grew up in a conservative Christian environment. It was not abusive in the sense we often hear of "religious abuse" nowadays... but my personality and upbringing left me very sensitive to displeasure or disagreement. I did not want to disappoint people. I never felt "safe" enough to ask my questions openly, and the times I did, I felt as if I was ignored or dismissed. So really, any faith I had was much more internal and personal rather than traditional, although I wore more traditional trappings in order to not make waves.

[If you want more specifics, I have been involved with: Methodists, Lutherans, Baptist, Mennonite, Evangelical Free, non-denom, Intervarsity, Young Life, and Brethren in Christ... maybe more, over the years. It is not like I haven't examined a wide range of Christian culture.]

The entire time I was part of the "conservative Christian" community, I had many intellectual questions that were never answered. Most I suppose could be blamed on the Bible and the approach the Christian community I was immersed in took towards it. For those who claimed it was infallble and delivered to earth in the same breath essentially, straight from the tongue of an all-powerful God -- well, that was promoted as the only reality, but the truth is that there are different frameworks to approach the Bible in, and even the translators understand the reality of this. Yet this information never seems to filter down to the average layperson, who views their perspective as the only valid approach.

During those years, I was taught to doubt my own intellect and perception. I was also taught that my heart was evil. I was taught that emotions could not be trusted. I was stuck into a framework that depowered me, removed mystery from God, and tried to bend and cram what data it could find to support its tortuous beliefs.

I find myself angry at how dismissive Christians were towards concepts such as evolution and how they shut down conversation on such topics with bad science. Evolutionary science is the standard in the scientific community, not because "scientists hate God or have bad hearts" but because, in terms of the quantifiable, the process actually works and has been mirrored in laboratory settings as part of our technological advancements. Most Christians don't want to know any other viewpoints; they simply want to cling to anything that supports their beliefs... Josh McDowell-type apologetics. Evolution is rejected not because it doesn't make sense, but because it leaves people feeling like they're just part of a deterministic framework; it's a "feelings-based" decision, not an intellectual one... but it masquerades as an intellectual one and that lie infuriates me.

Every four years, when a presidential election rolls around, I watch the bulk of Christians treat other people like dirt... or at the very least, place themselves on some sort of moral high ground and not just disagree with but dismiss the values of others. The attitude is very dismissive... because Christianity as a faith in this country is politicized. If you don't vote for the right candidate, you are aligning with the forces of darkness... but my eyes just see a group of flawed human candidates who usually want to do something important for the their country... just like everyone else does.

I feel like I have been lied to and crushed by a community I was willing to give everything to... and finally had to remove myself in order to get perspective and strength to stand on my feet again. I have the feeling that God is out there and that I will find him, and that he will embody the spiritual goodness I saw of him in Jesus.... but as far as venerating before a Bible (which is basically how it's treated nowadays) or entering conversation where one side claims they know the detailed truth of goodness in every situation... I'm not doing that anymore. It is bunk.

Christianity is meant to be lived. It's in how we treat each other. Some people who are accused by Christians of being pagan live more like Christians than the Christians in question, and I think they're more aligned with the will of God in the process. If the words of Jesus are to be believed, God will say, "depart from me, I never knew you" to those for whom Christianity was all about having the right doctrine, to the point of crushing or ruining or damaging their brethren.

All of these philosophical discussions are nice... but mostly irrelevant. They're just conjecture, not as meaningful as we pretend them to be. They are patterns of what could be.... but just that.

I'll stop there, although it is really just a first draft and probably missed some things and mentioned other things I would have been better off cutting.

Please also note that I am not necessarily including you [jon or anti] in the list of people who have bothered me... I haven't yet even worked completely through your posts yet. So please don't take it as an indictment of your belief.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Actually yours is the only post with proof in it :tongue10:

(You, Bluewing, Jennifer and myself have mentioned prove or proven though ;) )

I should clarify, now that you mention it, that I refer to objective proof. Just in case.

There is no one type of objective proof. The method of objective proof is determined by the context. In a mathematical or philosophical context logic is the standard of proof. In a scientific context data is the basis for proof. In a legal context the jury objectivelty proves what is true and what is false. In a social proof popular opinion determines what is true. In a religious context revelation determines what is true, although the authority of the revelation(s) differ depending on which religion you are referring to. (Christians might go to the Bible for proof, while adherants to other faiths might go to the Qu'ran, Tao Te Ching, Rig Veda, etc...).

Furthermore Joseph Campbell (I believe) developed an objective way that you can judge the merit of a religion. In spite of all this there is no objective standard toward determining the existence of God (or any other type of deity). This is why there is no "proof" for the existence of God...because how do you do it? There is no commonly accepted standard. You can't prove God exists and you can't prove God doesn't exist either. If there was a commonly accepeted method, then we just apply the method and the whole argument is over, because we'd know one way or the other. But there is no method, and that is why there is no proof.

Now frequently what a person is implying by "proof" is some type of scientific proof. I can't think of a worse medium to prove the existence of God than science. Why? Because the underlying assumptions of scientific inquiry are designed to keep God completely out of the discussion. And hey, that's great as long as you are asking questions of a scientific nature. But when you want to answer theological questions then it's not good at all. Science assumes away God before the first piece of data is collected. That is why scientific methods are great for answering scientific questions but awful for answering theological ones.
 

htb

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,505
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
it takes a whole lot more in the way of bravery to stand up to what could be a hundred people and tell them that you think they're talking rubbish than it does to stand with the hundred or to mute your message.
Really? Try remaining unapologetically Christian in the typical gathering of ages 18-34.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
There is no one type of objective proof. The method of objective proof is determined by the context.
My apologies I should have further defined that by objective proof I mean proving something to be objectively true. I consider such impossible and hence never work on certainties only probabilities.
Really? Try remaining unapologetically Christian in the typical gathering of ages 18-34.
That also is worthy of respect. See I do not side with the nay sayers any more than I do with the supporters of a thing in terms of who deserves respect or admiration. I'm just saying that it takes bravery to actually state what you believe to be true especially if you know that the reception may be hostile to that view point... well unless your uncaring about such things of course.
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
That also is worthy of respect. See I do not side with the nay sayers any more than I do with the supporters of a thing in terms of who deserves respect or admiration. I'm just saying that it takes bravery to actually state what you believe to be true especially if you know that the reception may be hostile to that view point... well unless your uncaring about such things of course.
I don't think red13 expected the reception to be hostile.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,258
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
...Now frequently what a person is implying by "proof" is some type of scientific proof. I can't think of a worse medium to prove the existence of God than science. Why? Because the underlying assumptions of scientific inquiry are designed to keep God completely out of the discussion. And hey, that's great as long as you are asking questions of a scientific nature. But when you want to answer theological questions then it's not good at all. Science assumes away God before the first piece of data is collected. That is why scientific methods are great for answering scientific questions but awful for answering theological ones.

Well, yes. I think that's my issue.

To reduce my last post to a basic statement (doh!), I don't have an issue with people following a particular faith in theory, I just have issues when they lay claim to their faith being the "objectively right one" as opposed to another. Yes, there are some "objective facts" we can discuss (like the Mormon history as a good example, where there's no record of civilizations in the US that it lays claim to), but it seems that religious people buy into a truth package that cannot be "proven" objectively, then feel uneasy because they feel animosity/challenged, and then try to claim they have the only objective reality.

Growing up in a conservative Christian background where science is fabricated (e.g., Young Earth Creationism) so that the faith can claim "proof" that it's the truth. Not just overt claims, but how people interrelate to each other -- there is an attitude of "I'm right, you're wrong" or "I'm more 'mature' than you, so I can lecture you / one day you might get to where I am" in how people approach each other, boiling down to one believing that they have the handle on truth.

As far as God being defined by science: If God could be defined by science, he would be subject to scientific law... which would seem to make him not-God. He should transcend it, if he created it.

I have trouble telling anymore what the 13-19 year old culture is, in terms of "standing up for Jesus." A lot of kids don't seem to care, one way or the other anymore, as far as picking on Christians; and sometimes Christians trigger the response because they're trying to "stand up for Jesus" and thus again are setting themselves up as "more spiritual" than others who follow different faiths or have no particular faith. Many Christian kids also hang out with other Christian kids and avoid conflict altogether, insulating themselves.

It really is a complex matter -- this issue of who is oppressing who, who is causing the tension, etc. It's a cycle/circle, not one-way linear.

... I should probably move some of these posts, we've wandered somewhat afield (partly my fault) from BW's original topic.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
I don't think red13 expected the reception to be hostile.
I didn't think it was hostile. I thought it was more of a semantics argument than anything.
 

Camelopardalis

New member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
58
MBTI Type
INTJ
Now frequently what a person is implying by "proof" is some type of scientific proof. I can't think of a worse medium to prove the existence of God than science. Why? Because the underlying assumptions of scientific inquiry are designed to keep God completely out of the discussion. And hey, that's great as long as you are asking questions of a scientific nature. But when you want to answer theological questions then it's not good at all. Science assumes away God before the first piece of data is collected. That is why scientific methods are great for answering scientific questions but awful for answering theological ones.

In my opinion, religion and deities are kept out of science is because they are vague, most often times assumptions to 'fill in the gap of knowledge'. God does not require an explanation if you use him to explain everything. Any time there's a mystery, one can say: God triggered this. He has performed a miracle. By my standards at least, response like that is unacceptable logically (but we can't say otherwise until new, authentic evidence arrive, can we? What if we don't find them? So God definitely had a hand in it? Could it be that the evidence was destroyed? Any other reasons other than God?). Science looks for an explanation of things and more often than not finds a solution that makes sense. Another reason why science dismisses God before collecting data is because back then, when ignorance is strong, people use supernatural means to explain many things, such as mental illness. Most of them turned out to be natural, don't they? Science is merely applying a common pattern of causes to their investigation. Anything that we don't have an answer for, could it be that we don't have an answer, yet? Considering God before collecting data is like considering the possibility that the experiment or investigation is unnecessary because it's a miracle or divine intervention.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
In my opinion, religion and deities are kept out of science is because they are vague, most often times assumptions to 'fill in the gap of knowledge'. God does not require an explanation if you use him to explain everything. Any time there's a mystery, one can say: God triggered this. He has performed a miracle. By my standards at least, response like that is unacceptable logically (but we can't say otherwise until new, authentic evidence arrive, can we? What if we don't find them? So God definitely had a hand in it? Could it be that the evidence was destroyed? Any other reasons other than God?). Science looks for an explanation of things and more often than not finds a solution that makes sense. Another reason why science dismisses God before collecting data is because back then, when ignorance is strong, people use supernatural means to explain many things, such as mental illness. Most of them turned out to be natural, don't they? Science is merely applying a common pattern of causes to their investigation. Anything that we don't have an answer for, could it be that we don't have an answer, yet? Considering God before collecting data is like considering the possibility that the experiment or investigation is unnecessary because it's a miracle or divine intervention.
I'm pretty sure science doesn't include God is because science has no way of measuring God.
God is a spirit and can only be perceived by a spirit.
 

disregard

mrs
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,826
MBTI Type
INFP
INTJMom said:
I'm pretty sure science doesn't include God is because science has no way of measuring God.
It is not so much that science falls short of the ability measure God, but rather, God falls short of the ability (or desire.. what have you) to make himself evident.
 

Camelopardalis

New member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
58
MBTI Type
INTJ
I'm pretty sure science doesn't include God is because science has no way of measuring God.
God is a spirit and can only be perceived by a spirit.

True, science cannot measure God, but among other things, just as it cannot measure the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns. I think God is a belief and can only be perceived as a belief.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,258
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It is not so much that science falls short of the ability measure God, but rather, God falls short of the ability (or desire.. what have you) to make himself evident.

So that large question remains (and can't really be answered by science or in a blanket way) whether God is not irrefutably evident because He isn't there, or simply because it suits His ultimate purposes to not be so obviously evident.

People can make cases for either.

So, to get back to the topic, what makes an NT choose to believe in a particular case conclusively over another one, versus embracing ambiguity and not endorsing either case as the truth?
 

disregard

mrs
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,826
MBTI Type
INFP
I believe it has to do with consistency. However NTs build upon their foundation of truth is how they will determine God's existence. If an NT demands evidence, then he will not believe in God. If an NT seeks an answer, he will have to embrace ambiguity.
 

htb

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,505
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
well unless your uncaring about such things of course.
Not at all. I care deeply, just as I do for the fact that you're a uncouth heathen who's gonna burn, burn, BURN!
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I'm pretty sure science doesn't include God is because science has no way of measuring God..

Science relies on empirical evidence to make the assessments it makes. Their epistemic methodology is primarily empiricistic. This is one way to discover objective truth.

I see another one, however, that of the rationalist epistemology. Or perceiving what is objectively true based on abstract reasoning. For example, two mathematicians can solve a calculus problem (a problem no doubt that has nothing to do with the concrete world and one that is therefore off limits to the empiricist), and by virtue of the laws of mathematical logic we all can see which of the two got the right answer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hence, at this point we should be willing to say that we know of two sound epistemic methodologies--or two reliable ways to discover truth.

Can you ascertain of God's existence by one of these two? As we have established you cannot do this with the first method, or the empiricist. But can you do this with the secondary method I have propounded?

If you cannot accomplish this with these two epistemic methods, can you think of another method that could accomplish this with?


God is a spirit and can only be perceived by a spirit.

What is this 'spirit', and is it one of those epistemic methods that we can count on to deliver objective truth to us?
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
In my opinion, religion and deities are kept out of science is because they are vague, most often times assumptions to 'fill in the gap of knowledge'. God does not require an explanation if you use him to explain everything. Any time there's a mystery, one can say: God triggered this. He has performed a miracle. By my standards at least, response like that is unacceptable logically (but we can't say otherwise until new, authentic evidence arrive, can we? What if we don't find them? So God definitely had a hand in it? Could it be that the evidence was destroyed? Any other reasons other than God?). Science looks for an explanation of things and more often than not finds a solution that makes sense. Another reason why science dismisses God before collecting data is because back then, when ignorance is strong, people use supernatural means to explain many things, such as mental illness. Most of them turned out to be natural, don't they? Science is merely applying a common pattern of causes to their investigation. Anything that we don't have an answer for, could it be that we don't have an answer, yet? Considering God before collecting data is like considering the possibility that the experiment or investigation is unnecessary because it's a miracle or divine intervention.

Yes, I agree. But one has to realize that another implication of this is that science has no ability to answer theological questions. It purposely leaves God out. It's very useful for discovering the patterns of nature, but totally impotent at explaining whether or not these patterns have anything to do with some type of higher power.

Dana said:
It is not so much that science falls short of the ability measure God, but rather, God falls short of the ability (or desire.. what have you) to make himself evident.

Actually it is exactly that science falls short of the ability to measure God. I cannot think of any phenomena that could be observed that would cause science to declare that God exists. Science purposely leaves God out of the discussion.

BlueWing said:
Hence, at this point we should be willing to say that we know of two sound epistemic methodologies--or two reliable ways to discover truth.

Can you ascertain of God's existence by one of these two? As we have established you cannot do this with the first method, or the empiricist. But can you do this with the secondary method I have propounded?

If you cannot accomplish this with these two epistemic methods, can you think of another method that could accomplish this with?

I do not believe you can do this rationally unless your a priori assertions are ones that would logically conclude to belief/disbelief in God (or some other deity). Generally these assertions are not much different than simply stating that God exists (or doesn't exist) as a foundational assertion.

Belief in God is essentially a personal endeavor. One must decide on their own what standard should be used and then apply it. In a Christian context I would suggest this statement of Jesus to be a good standard to start with, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." Jn. 7:17 First follow the teachings of Christ and then decide whether or not they come from God.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Science relies on empirical evidence to make the assessments it makes. Their epistemic methodology is primarily empiricistic. This is one way to discover objective truth.

I see another one, however, that of the rationalist epistemology. Or perceiving what is objectively true based on abstract reasoning. For example, two mathematicians can solve a calculus problem (a problem no doubt that has nothing to do with the concrete world and one that is therefore off limits to the empiricist), and by virtue of the laws of mathematical logic we all can see which of the two got the right answer.
That's an excellent point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hence, at this point we should be willing to say that we know of two sound epistemic methodologies--or two reliable ways to discover truth.

Can you ascertain of God's existence by one of these two? As we have established you cannot do this with the first method, or the empiricist. But can you do this with the secondary method I have propounded?
I'd be curious to know the answer to that myself.

If you cannot accomplish this with these two epistemic methods, can you think of another method that could accomplish this with?

What is this 'spirit', and is it one of those epistemic methods that we can count on to deliver objective truth to us?
I suppose it very well could be, but I have no way of knowing for sure.
 

disregard

mrs
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,826
MBTI Type
INFP
Science purposely leaves God out of the discussion.

"Science is the effort to understand how nature works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding."

Science does not purposely leave God out of the discussion, God simply does not meet the criteria for discussion because his existence is non falsifiable.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I do not believe you can do this rationally unless your a priori assertions are ones that would logically conclude to belief/disbelief in God (or some other deity). Generally these assertions are not much different than simply stating that God exists (or doesn't exist) as a foundational assertion.God.

No you cant do this rationally. Whats worse is that we don't even know what God is.

Essentially it is perceived as some other-worldly ineffable entity. Ineffable means inscrutable by definition--or outside of our understanding, there is nothing about it that we can know.

This, of course, is not the attitude of our theologians is they indeed do believe they can know all they wish to know about god and its all so cut and dry and their concrete symbols and rituals that any philistine can understand!

That is a debasement of the ineffable ideal image of God--manifest idolatry!

It is best not to believe in God or acknowledge that it is some odd thing that we cannot correspond with any earthly entity and one we should not try to define. Otherwise this idea is simply mistaken for some entity of this world. We start worshipping not the ineffable spiritual, higher essence of God, but ink and paper, the literal words inscribed in our books, the statues we've erected and the edifices we practice our religion.

Thus, because we have such a very concrete notion of God, (the way he is described in the book of dogma)---idolatry becomes close to inevitable.

Its difficult to extract spirituality from the Conventional Judeo-Christian creed. It is best to abandon that path. If you wish to seek spirituality, you're on your own. Following an authority is not an option because when we need to make spirituality accessible to all--we have no choice but to make it concrete. This is where we lose it, as the only way we can explain an idea to others is by relating it to this world. Relating it to things we have experienced. However, when you try to imagine what you've been presented, you will not be able to grasp the idea of spirituality because it does not relate to anything you've experienced. Therefore you will have stored in your mind only what could be related to what you have experienced, namely the concrete symbol bestowed upon you by your teacher. In the end, the rituals and concrete symbols will be all that have gone through because the spiritual message itself is non-transferrable, as it cannot be associated with any symbols of communication inherent within this world.


Belief in God is essentially a personal endeavor. One must decide on their own what standard should be used and then apply it. .

Where did this idea of God come from?

If you're going to say that you just want to believe this as a bare assertion, why dont I say that we shall believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

Why is the Christian personal endeavor better than the one I offer?


First follow the teachings of Christ and then decide whether or not they come from God.

Why not also follow my gospel on how to become the greatest swamp digger on Earth and then decide whether or not my teaching comes from God?

I don't think that we should first believe in ideas and then ask if they are sound (meaning, ask if we should have believed them in the first place), it would be more efficient to first decide if the idea is sound before believing in it.

It would be more efficient to look before we leap. Otherwise, if we first and foremost accept the final answer to our question, we likely will look to affirm our beliefs. Or carefully examine mostly ideas that agree with what we already believe in, and pay little heed to those that countervail.

For this reason it is difficult for religious philosophers to maintain intellectually honesty and objectivity---(Maimonides, Aquinas, James and Tillich were very rare and striking cases indeed), as they are first and foremost concerned with maintaining loyalty to what they already believe in and not acquisition of truth.
 
Top