Still grappling with what to make of "faith" versus a "concrete" universe that compels us to "survive", but does not tell us where exactly the Transcendent fits in (and then watching others try to make them fit, often with some rather ridiculous looking/sounding results).

It seems to be pretty much an ST universe (“what is”, is what is), with no natural sense of what it means to living creatures (conceptual or personal consideration).
It seems the things of God are at root N and F, which is why hard ST “science” is so against it. (Keirsey associated NF with Spränger's “the Religious” type). And thus wly it's so hard to believe.

I'm NT, and so torn, as theology appeals to N, but T is drawn to assess tho cold impersonal nature of the universe. So I was able to readily embrace the idea of God, but then the same N leads to a conceptual search or meaning that is just not given. It just leaves open a bunch of possibilities and hypotheses, with God ending up as just another one of them.
You basically have to just choose something and take it in “faith”. But when it comes to PRACTICAL meaning, I end up expecting more than what familiar N (especially the extraverted variant) can tell me.

The universe doesn't “care” about us and our ideas or feelings. When galaxies collide, and black holes eat up stars, or gas giants pulverize nearby bodies into rings, or fling them into outer darkness (which forms a sort of archetypal pattern in us, as we personally identify {F} with such a situation, as if someone stronger were doing those things to us), our wants and needs, or beliefs about how God sees and responds to them just don't figure.

So ST's keep reciting “it is what it is”, while others (not necessarily NF's, but this would hypothetically be their perspective) say “just have faith; it's good for your soul”. (Which to me comes across like a potential pacification tool that only benefits the ST position. Hence, ST's as the leaders and NF's as the submitters).
SF is also half way; S seeing the universe for what it is, but F able to relate to a “personal” God in it, through people if nothing else, or perhaps through stuff like so-called [emotional, visible] “spiritual gifts”.
(This I say, because this seems to have come naturally for my wife).

I look at everything through what is often called “reason”, which is really a Thinking with iNtuition perspective. The “reasoning” comes from the N more than the T “logic” as one might assume. It's a process of perceiving the meanings and possibilities of the data being impersonally assessed. The universe runs on a T logic through an S “fact” perspective. Hence, the irrefutable answer is always “it is what it is”.

The universe seems to almost abhor this kind of "reason". I even realize this through seeing or dealing with some difficult people, and no amount of reason will ever show them they are wrong. All they do is twist it around to appear that they are in the right according to “reason”. The biggest example these days is the political rhetoric (spiked up now by the whole Trayvon affair) that seeks to blame all of our problems on the weak (portrayed as “leeching” off of everyone else), rather than the powerful (seen as “deserving”, and thus being exonerated from any blame). It seems they are the ones the most “in step” with the universe (and its laws regarding power; they recognized their strengths and talents and took advantage of them), and hence praised by others for it, in this heavy ST culture.

The NF perspective will use “reason” with a more personal element (ideals of how to benefit humanity), and SF will use fact with the more personal element (helping others through working around observed “laws” of life, and adornments such as aesthetics).

ST observation and assessment of “what it is”
“this is what it is, and this is what must be done with it”
NT observation of what it means, to assess what it is
“this is what it means, so this is what can be done with it”
SF observation of what it is, to assess what it means
“this is what it is, and this is how it will benefit us”
NF observation and assessment of what it means
“this is what it means, and thus how it can benefit us”

ST forms my “dominant introverted face”, but instead of getting me more in step with the universe, it only makes me all the more doubt the N-F perspective I apparently need for more faith. According to an internal (i) observation of how things are (S) and assessment of how they work (T), the physical universe seems to be "all there is" (based on what can be absolutely be proven), and any fanciful notions of what could be (Ne, even as preferred observation) is at best hypothetical, and the “humane” element (F) is shown to be just our own emotional, interpersonal survival strategy that is really not supported by the cold universe.

I'm not stating this as an official stance, for as the whole point of Jung's theory is the need for cognitive balance, and I'm apparently stuck in a T(N)S mode, but don't know what to do about F.

NeFe is my [auxiliary] “extraverted face”, but Fe being inferior, this just makes me feel like “submission” indicates inferiority in the external world. According to an external (e) observation of what things mean (N) and assessment of what they mean (F), the possibility exists that lack of acknowledgment in the world indicates worthlessness. This then degrades to the shadow introverted face, NiFi (Senex/Daimon), which basically confirms “no, you're nothing as a person”. SeTe are the shadow extraverted face (Opposing/Trickster), which come out in reactive behaviors, rather than getting me more in tune with the universe.

The pull of the S perspective is likely from ego living in its N fantasy world so long. So the N perspective naturally runs dry. T does also, but it seems that is what I see as still necessary to live.

ST universe most "in tune" types:
Preferred functions:
SiTe (STJ) the "administrators"
SeTi (STP) the "showmen"
(E's, more visible, I's, more behind the scenes)

SeTe “dominant extraverted face” (ENTJ/ESFP)
a more dominant “administrator” and a more personable “showman”