Religion and Fe/Fi

[Eric B]

Religion has something for all the function preferences.

The universalized inner ethics it supports will appeal to Fi. However, if it doesn't seem authentic or congruent with other personal values, they may resist it.
The group harmony will appeal to Fe. However, if the group dynamic is abused, and disharmony is sensed; then they will be against it.

Te will like the organizational aspect of it.

Ti can like some of the concepts, but they may run afoul of universal logical principles. So of the judgment functions, Ti will probably have the most trouble getting into it.

Si also likes the concrete structure. However, bad memories (esp. childhood, etc.) will make them rebel against it and never look back.

Ni might like the archetypes and symbols that can be found in it. But then these things might move them away from an "orthodox" interpretation in any system.

Ne will like the possibilities of how it can make things better. But then if it is too restrictive and tradition-focused, they will be left dry.

Se probably has the least use for religion.

Also, of course, for any of these functions preferred, the opposite will be in the nonpreferred position, and also affect the person's view of it.

Like because a Ti dominant is going by internal logic; if it is a judgmental authoritarian atmosphere that restricts free thinking, then the inferior Fe, as vulnerable as it is, will sense potential disharmony and shy away from the group.

A Te preferrer's lesser Fi will also rebel against the organizational aspect of it if it is seen as trampling personal/universal values.

 

[Poki]

Religion has something for all the function preferences.

The universalized inner ethics it supports will appeal to Fi. However, if it doesn't seem authentic or congruent with other personal values, they may resist it.
The group harmony will appeal to Fe. However, if the group dynamic is abused, and disharmony is sensed; then they will be against it.

Te will like the organizational aspect of it.

Ti can like some of the concepts, but they may run afoul of universal logical principles. So of the judgment functions, Ti will probably have the most trouble getting into it.

Si also likes the concrete structure. However, bad memories (esp. childhood, etc.) will make them rebel against it and never look back.

Ni might like the archetypes and symbols that can be found in it. But then these things might move them away from an "orthodox" interpretation in any system.

Ne will like the possibilities of how it can make things better. But then if it is too restrictive and tradition-focused, they will be left dry.

Se probably has the least use for religion.

Also, of course, for any of these functions preferred, the opposite will be in the nonpreferred position, and also affect the person's view of it.

Like because a Ti dominant is going by internal logic; if it is a judgmental authoritarian atmosphere that restricts free thinking, then the inferior Fe, as vulnerable as it is, will sense potential disharmony and shy away from the group.

A Te preferrer's lesser Fi will also rebel against the organizational aspect of it if it is seen as trampling personal/universal values.

I like that

 

[CuriousFeeling]

Religion has something for all the function preferences.

The universalized inner ethics it supports will appeal to Fi. However, if it doesn't seem authentic or congruent with other personal values, they may resist it.
The group harmony will appeal to Fe. However, if the group dynamic is abused, and disharmony is sensed; then they will be against it.

Te will like the organizational aspect of it.

Ti can like some of the concepts, but they may run afoul of universal logical principles. So of the judgment functions, Ti will probably have the most trouble getting into it.

Si also likes the concrete structure. However, bad memories (esp. childhood, etc.) will make them rebel against it and never look back.

Ni might like the archetypes and symbols that can be found in it. But then these things might move them away from an "orthodox" interpretation in any system.

Ne will like the possibilities of how it can make things better. But then if it is too restrictive and tradition-focused, they will be left dry.

Se probably has the least use for religion.

Also, of course, for any of these functions preferred, the opposite will be in the nonpreferred position, and also affect the person's view of it.

Like because a Ti dominant is going by internal logic; if it is a judgmental authoritarian atmosphere that restricts free thinking, then the inferior Fe, as vulnerable as it is, will sense potential disharmony and shy away from the group.

A Te preferrer's lesser Fi will also rebel against the organizational aspect of it if it is seen as trampling personal/universal values.

The point about Te preferrer's lesser Fi definitely rings true for me, cos I see some religious beliefs trampling over my own personal values about giving a woman the freedom of choice, likewise I support Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, and I know that is not something that is appreciated much by the Church. I don't want to be forced to agree to something that I don't.

In theory my secondary cognitive process should be Ti, and using this principle, I definitely find a lot of what is said in religious texts tends to go completely against what logic tells me. "Is there evidence of this phenomenon that they are describing in religious texts? This doesn't make sense, how can a supernatural being steer you in an immoral direction? Isn't it the individual's free will to abstain from 'evil'? 'Evil' can exist in terms of a human being's own deviation from social mores, not from a spiritual being. How can God create the Universe in just 6 days, that's impossible. There's fossil records that show evidence of 'creation' that had occurred over billions of years! Creatures evolve from each other. If we were exclusive from other organisms, how can our genetic material be very close to that of the chimpanzee? This doesn't make sense!" A lot of religious ideology is not consistent with my existing priori of the world, especially since I view the world from a scientific standpoint.

With Ni as my lead process, I can agree about the symbolism part. I think there are several ways of interpreting a religious text. Essentially, I think that the concept of God is a different way of explaining symbolically the same definition of multiple gods and goddesses, the mystical spaghetti monster, you name it. Likewise with a length of a day to God might be longer than our own Earth days, could be the same length as a course of a billion years.

 

[Poki]

The point about Te preferrer's lesser Fi definitely rings true for me, cos I see some religious beliefs trampling over my own personal values about giving a woman the freedom of choice, likewise I support Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, and I know that is not something that is appreciated much by the Church. I don't want to be forced to agree to something that I don't.

In theory my secondary cognitive process should be Ti, and using this principle, I definitely find a lot of what is said in religious texts tends to go completely against what logic tells me. "Is there evidence of this phenomenon that they are describing in religious texts? This doesn't make sense, how can a supernatural being steer you in an immoral direction? Isn't it the individual's free will to abstain from 'evil'? 'Evil' can exist in terms of a human being's own deviation from social mores, not from a spiritual being. How can God create the Universe in just 6 days, that's impossible. There's fossil records that show evidence of 'creation' that had occurred over billions of years! Creatures evolve from each other. If we were exclusive from other organisms, how can our genetic material be very close to that of the chimpanzee? This doesn't make sense!" A lot of religious ideology is not consistent with my existing priori of the world, especially since I view the world from a scientific standpoint.

With Ni as my lead process, I can agree about the symbolism part. I think there are several ways of interpreting a religious text. Essentially, I think that the concept of God is a different way of explaining symbolically the same definition of multiple gods and goddesses, the mystical spaghetti monster, you name it. Likewise with a length of a day to God might be longer than our own Earth days, could be the same length as a course of a billion years.

Se combined with Ti allows me an outsider perspective into why people believe in god, why they need to, what it provides them, not the concept of religion, how its practiced, but why we go through it, what experiences it offers others, how it makes them feel(percieved through vision). Se isnt tied to religion in anyway, so it has the ability to observe from a distance. So my Ni is very concretely tied to what is in front of me, what I see, what I observe. I dont get much into the logic behind the words in the bible unless it relates to real life in a manner I have observed.

The difference between Ne is that I dont really question, I just understand by watching.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I never felt like religion fit well with me, from a young age, although aspects of it were very enjoyable, namely the rituals and camaraderie that encompassed Sundays. I think there is something to a God gene, although I think more research needs to be done into it.

According to this hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2), is not an encoding for the belief in God itself but a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with the presence of God or other mystic experiences, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind. Based on research by psychologist Robert Cloninger, this tendency toward spirituality is quantified by the self-transcendence scale, which is composed of three sub-sets: "self-forgetfulness" (as in the tendency to become totally absorbed in some activity, such as reading); "transpersonal identification" (a feeling of connectedness to a larger universe); and "mysticism" (an openness to believe things not literally provable, such as ESP). Cloninger suggests that taken together, these measurements are a reasonable way to quantify (make measurable) how spiritual someone is feeling.
The self-transcendence measure was shown to be heritable by classical twin studies conducted by Lindon Eaves and Nicholas Martin. Interestingly, these studies show that specific religious beliefs (such as belief in Jesus) have no genetic basis and are instead based on purely cultural or informative transmission.
In order to identify some of the specific genes involved in self-transcendence, Hamer analyzed DNA and personality score data from over 1000 individuals and identified one particular locus, VMAT2, with a significant correlation. VMAT2 codes for a vesicular monoamine transporter that plays a key role in regulating the levels of the brain chemicals serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. These monoamine transmitters are in turn postulated to play an important role in regulating the brain activities associated with mystic beliefs.
What evolutionary advantage this may convey, or what advantageous effect it is a side effect of, are questions that are yet to be fully explored. However, Dr. Hamer has hypothesized that self-transcendence makes people more optimistic, which makes them healthier and likely to have more children.

The above bolded fits me well, in that it doesn't fit and ties in to perhaps why religion never jived with me. I don't have much self-forgetfulness, transpersonal identification, nor mysticism on a regular basis.

 

[Moiety]

Well Fe and Fi aren't necessarily more attuned to religion than any other function. If anything I'd say it has to do more with the perceiving functions.

 

[Poki]

Well Fe and Fi aren't necessarily more attuned to religion than any other function. If anything I'd say it has to do more with the perceiving functions.

How so? Isnt religion very highly about whats right vs wrong? Lifes problems and how to handle them. Its very judgement based IMO. Can you explain the perception thing better.

 

[Moiety]

How so? Isnt religion very highly about whats right vs wrong? Lifes problems and how to handle them. Its very judgement based IMO. Can you explain the perception thing better.

Perceptions functions Si Se Ni Ne.

Ni are mystical
Ne are about possibilities and bullshit
Si are about tradition
Se are about fuck you I'm gonna pick this cause I want to

And I would say that religion isn't about right vs wrong. The institution of religion itself isnt, the reason why people "pick" a specific religion isn't...quite...

It's really more about education vs going against the norm vs coming up with your own ideas....it has to do with your perception of the world much more I'd say. Christians know how they feel about death penalty irrespective of their religion and they still consider themselves christians. Just an example.

 

[Glycerine]

I'm Fe-dom and could care less about religion. I am actually scared of organized religion sometimes. I just went along w/ it when I was a little because I THOUGHT I had to and that if I did not believe in God, I would burn in eternal Hell. I think both Fe and Fi types will use religion for different purposes. The most judgmental religious person I have ever met in my is my ESFJ aunt (she's like the really negative caricature of an ESFJ) but that doesn't necessarily mean squat.

 

[Amargith]

There's a reason I always felt judged by organized religion and my spiritual path is very much an individual one...and sometimes incredibly lonely.

Still..I wouldn't want it any other way. It's a place where I'm able to be just *me* 100 percent, purely me, without having to compromise for *anyone*

I wouldn't give that up for the world.

 

[Moiety]

There's a reason I always felt judged by organized religion and my spiritual path is very much an individual one...and sometimes incredibly lonely.

Still..I wouldn't want it any other way. It's a place where I'm able to be just *me* 100 percent, purely me, without having to compromise for *anyone*

I wouldn't give that up for the world.

Get out of our forum nutto!

 

[kevrawlings]

C'mon, be nice, Sytpg

 

[Amargith]

C'mon, be nice, Sytpg

*hides behind the big ISTP

 

[kevrawlings]

Don't hide behind me, woman! I don't wanna get my ass e-kicked! jk

 

[miss fortune]

I'm afraid you're going to have your STP badge in for avoiding that fight, kev

 

[kevrawlings]

I mean, "Got a problem, friend?" (like Bruce Willis to John Travolta in Pulp Fiction).

 

[miss fortune]

that's better!

 

[kevrawlings]

*giggles* like Eddie Murphy in Bowfinger. jk

 

[Amargith]

Whatever

 

[cafe]

For me, I guess it's almost like I believe too much. I read the principles taught in the texts of my religion and I want to live by them as much as possible or at least recognize when I'm not following them.

As a young person in the church, I wanted to implement what was being taught and be a part of things.

As I got older, I began to see just how much of a disconnect there was between what I had read and had been taught and what was happening. I could have even lived with that if the disconnect had been acknowledged, but it wasn't. People in spiritual positions of power lied, stole, cheated, bullied, etc and, to all appearances, were not the least bit repentant. They sincerely seemed to believe themselves entirely justified and if anyone opposed them or even said something like "Hey! Ouch! You're hurting me!" they blamed it on their victim's unrighteousness, lack of faith, etc.

From what I could see, they loved money and it was their God. They twisted the scriptures, my God's scriptures to subdue their victims through shame and fear. At first I was unable to believe that I was seeing what I was seeing, but there was no other explanation. It makes me very, very angry.

I know this is not all religious people or religious leaders, but the religious people and leaders will not confront this rot. They either don't see it or pretend they do not.

Then I realized just how much crap their political teachings were and how they were just acting as corporate tools -- being cowed by tales of boogiemen into selling themselves out. I decided I would not be part of that anymore. Now I am thought of as at best misguided, at worst backslidden. That annoys me.

Now I find myself still religious, but always a skeptic, wanting to obey the commandment to be part of a fellowship, but very much not the target audience of the ones that seem to share my religious beliefs. They are often loud and emotional and lacking rationality. I don't doubt their sincerity, but I guess I question their depth.

So I guess that makes me just as self-righteous and hypocritical as they are, maybe more so, I don't know. For now, we've found a church where the music isn't too annoying and we can respect the pastor's intellect and character, but we don't really want to stick around to get to know people (which kind of defeats the purpose).

I don't really feel a lot of spiritual stuff that other people seem to feel. I know people that hear God talking to them all time (people that are otherwise sane, so who knows?) but I don't get that hardly ever myself and it's always open to questioning when I think I do. But I am still passionate about the Jesus I know from the Bible and the things that are taught there about how we treat one another, etc.

I'm completely capable of self-forgetfulness if something is interesting enough. I don't feel a particular connection to larger universe. I am enthusiastically and skeptically mystical. I love imagining what could be even, or maybe especially, if it's kind of crazy.