[MBTI General] Intuitive Bible processing

[INTJ123]

might as well burn me on the stake, I'm a witch. It's fine if you don't want to entertain the idea, but no need to act like little children. I think I hit some sort of intp nerve.

 

[Virtual ghost]

might as well burn me on the stake, I'm a witch. It's fine if you don't want to entertain the idea, but no need to act like little children. I think I hit some sort of intp nerve.

I am looking at this thread from the start and I don't understand why did you expect that you will get different result ? I mean you came into the place full of NTs which are mostly unreligious/unspiritual looking for "apperciation" and now you are hurt. (at least you sould like that). Plus you have accused them that they can't see past the logic.



However this does not mean that I agree with your claims. On the contrary I am quite skeptical about your claims.

 

[songofcalamity]

I am intrigued.

Do you mind discussing/explaining your view more in depth?

 

[SecantSquared]

might as well burn me on the stake, I'm a witch. It's fine if you don't want to entertain the idea, but no need to act like little children. I think I hit some sort of intp nerve.

hit an INTP nerve? no, i think you hit an NT nerve. we like logic, not idiocy. go take this to the religious forum, why don't you? it doesn't belong here.

 

[Erudur]

...evolution has done nothing but become more validated as new evidence and methods of analysis have come about. DNA sequencing being a major one...

Actually, DNA has created some problems for orthodox darwinism. From what I read these days, the scientific orthodoxy hasn't moved past their own bias to step back and rethink the problems within darwinism.

That includes the biological sciences as well as the social sciences. I think the only the physical sciences and mathematics has maintained much distance from this bias.

 

[Totenkindly]

From what I read these days...

Can you list some of these things you read so that it's clearer what your sources are?

Both sides sort of make these sweeping claims, and there's no way to judge the veracity of those claims if we have no idea what sources are being used.

I don't mean to be a jerk here... but I don't think you've done a thorough review of the topic (I spent 7-8 years as a molecular biologist). "Junk DNA" is a highly overgeneralized (and inaccurate) term - an oversimplified "sound bite" explanation for something that has long been suspected to be complex. Basically, the real conclusion of scientists back in the day was more like "Hmm, there's a lot of DNA that doesn't seem to serve as a point of origination for the information that directly leads to protein translation - I wonder what it is for, or if it's for anything at all." It's not really the same topic, but there is a *load* of evidence that DNA results support evolution. It's not even a question among the *overwhelming* majority of people knowledgeable about the field.

There does seem to me to be a breakdown in this culture between experts in their field and laypeople, where those who actually work with the science/field of study every day have a certain collection of truth that for whatever reason is not filtering down to the general populace. So the guy on the street thinks one thing is common sense, whereas if you just went to school for a few years in that field, you'd realize a lot of the public sense of things makes no sense at all. The public is extremely resistant to be informed.

I remember a lot of conservatives dissing Obama last year during the election because he's an intellectual. Where did it ever get to the point that being misinformed and not learning was prefered over being able to absorb knowledge and take many factors into account? Instead it seemed pretty clear that the choice of politician for the previous eight was based on "who belives similarly to me and who would I like to hang out at the bar with?" and even the choice of VP candidate was based on "who seems spunky/likable" rather than "who seems informed/knowledgable". Where did actually being studious and intelligent in the broad sense, being able to examine things from a non-predetermined POV, earn a bad rap?

I don't really mean to make this into a political discussion, I bring it up because it has a bearing on all this stuff. I'm smart and open-minded as a person, but I grew up in a religious culture where I was trained in Genesis Record and eventually Intelligent Design first and taught to be skeptical of scientists, and defended such things (and was taught that scientists were biased/faulty), but when I finally started reading stuff outside that particular subculture, I realized things were nearly not that way at all and there was a lot of reason for the biological and scientific claims being made.

You can always argue that God (I mean, an "intelligent designer") specifically designed things to look like evolution is the driving force in speciation, but this is inherently unfalsifiable - there's no way to disprove the *possibility* that this happened... but scientifically, there's no data to support the idea either. That's more a matter of choosing to believe in a religious explanation or not. What *is* important when considering the facts is that "We don't know (yet)" does not equate to "It must have been God" (I mean, an "intelligent designer").

That is one of the biggest issues with ID, imo.

And really, ID is not purposed to be a scienfitic explanation of anything, it really was raised, tailored, and cultured as a support leg to prop up people's religious beliefs. That is its purpose, and it's most clearly shown by the driving need to use it to promote a particular outcome rather than to explore possibilities. As you say (and as the Republican judge in Dover scathingly noted in his decision against the school board that pushed for ID to be included in the high school science curriculum, making national news a few years ago), ID is not falsifiable (meaning it's "not science") and is simply being used by religious forces to get their foot in the door under the guise of science. There is simply no way to test and see if this "Intelligent Designer" exists... and what exactly its nature would be... and usually when it gets brought up in church, no one cares to test for that anyway... its goal is to allow people to believe whatever they were already believing, without having to feel anxiety or needing to feel their faith is threatened by any sort of evidence.

I was all for ID and supported it when it came out in the mid/late 90's, but the more I was forced to reevaluate my faith at that time, the more I had to acknowledge what was going on.

Perhaps, predictably, there exists a sense of threat among people in the different stages of religious development. Mostly we are threatened by people in the stages above us. Although they often adopt the pretense of being "cool cats" who have it "all together," underneath their exteriors Stage I people are threatened by just about everything and everyone. Stage II people are not threatened by Stage I people, the "sinners." They are commanded to love sinners, but they are very threatened by the individualists and skeptics of Stage III, and even more by the mystics of Stage IV, who seem to believe in the same sorts of things they do but believe in them with a freedom they find absolutely terrifying. Stage III people, on the other hand, are neither threatened by Stage I people nor by Stage II people (whom they simply regard as superstitious), but are cowed by Stage IV people, who seem to be scientific minded like themselves and know how to write good footnotes, yet somehow still believe in this crazy God business.

I hope you intps arn't mistaking me for a stage 2 superstitious dogmatic religion freak. No it couldn't be, it wouldn't bother you so much.

Heh, I'm well acquainted with Peck's work, I've got all his books. Yes, basically it goes from non-believer to rigid/structured believer (because the structure is providing a valid role), then to challenger of the structure (agnostic/black sheep) and then finally to the mystic. It's sort of ironic that the characteristics of each stage do seem to mesh to some degree with Keirsey's four MBTI archetypes, isn't it? But it doesn't mean the stages are true, it's just an idea with SOME connection to data... I just don't know if we can generalize religious belief so cleanly.

(Peck was an INTJ, by his own commentary, btw. And while I admire him deeply as a thinker -- his "People of the Lie" resonates with me 15 years after I read it -- he was also a habitual smoker/drinker and an adulterer, impetuous and arrogant, again by his own admission, which is why his long-suffering wife finally left him within the few years before his death. While I can judge his thoughts about religion/faith on their own merits, it still leaves me wondering where his ideas led him or how effective such beliefs were for him.)

Actually there are other options here besides the four. For example, there is the psuedo-mystic, who says and thinks lots of mystical sounding things and is misunderstood, but rather than having deeper insight, they're actually totally off the wall. How do we determine this, especially if the mystic is resistant to challenge? In situations like this, Peck's order breaks down. It's really just meant to suggest a potential pathway for natural spiritual development in order that people learn to accept and not immediately dismiss as "anti-religious" those who do not follow the textbook legalistic definition of spirituality promoted by particular parts of the culture... and I think this was probably something relevant to Peck, who felt he had some spiritual understanding/insight but felt dismissed by the more conventionally religious.

 

[Alwar]

Actually, DNA has created some problems for orthodox darwinism. From what I read these days, the scientific orthodoxy hasn't moved past their own bias to step back and rethink the problems within darwinism.

That includes the biological sciences as well as the social sciences. I think the only the physical sciences and mathematics has maintained much distance from this bias.

I got it from a testimony on a documentary about that Virginia school board that was trying to impose "intelligent design" (lol) into the curriculum. The case went to the supreme court and they had a biologist on there who testified that DNA could have disproven Darwin's theory but ended up making it stronger.

Can't remember the name of the town, but it was PBS who produced the doc. One of Darwin's descendants was there covering the trial and wrote a book about it afterwards, the whole thing is hilarious.

Yeah nothing tops the math, physics, engineering etc. Many go into them just so they don't have to deal with political nonsense.

 

[chegra]

Ok it's official we have decided to take away your NT pass.

Unless you admit to being an ENTP and just doing this for fun.

(ISTJ would more suit you)

 

[INTJ123]

I am looking at this thread from the start and I don't understand why did you expect that you will get different result ? I mean you came into the place full of NTs which are mostly unreligious/unspiritual looking for "apperciation" and now you are hurt. (at least you sould like that). Plus you have accused them that they can't see past the logic.



However this does not mean that I agree with your claims. On the contrary I am quite skeptical about your claims.

don't worry my feelings didn't get hurt, you seem to think I expected a different result? But I didn't it was quite predicatble. Your response is quite predictable, because I used to think exactly like this.

 

[INTJ123]

Can you list some of these things you read so that it's clearer what your sources are?

Both sides sort of make these sweeping claims, and there's no way to judge the veracity of those claims if we have no idea what sources are being used.



There does seem to me to be a breakdown in this culture between experts in their field and laypeople, where those who actually work with the science/field of study every day have a certain collection of truth that for whatever reason is not filtering down to the general populace. So the guy on the street thinks one thing is common sense, whereas if you just went to school for a few years in that field, you'd realize a lot of the public sense of things makes no sense at all. The public is extremely resistant to be informed.

I remember a lot of conservatives dissing Obama last year during the election because he's an intellectual. Where did it ever get to the point that being misinformed and not learning was prefered over being able to absorb knowledge and take many factors into account? Instead it seemed pretty clear that the choice of politician for the previous eight was based on "who belives similarly to me and who would I like to hang out at the bar with?" and even the choice of VP candidate was based on "who seems spunky/likable" rather than "who seems informed/knowledgable". Where did actually being studious and intelligent in the broad sense, being able to examine things from a non-predetermined POV, earn a bad rap?

I don't really mean to make this into a political discussion, I bring it up because it has a bearing on all this stuff. I'm smart and open-minded as a person, but I grew up in a religious culture where I was trained in Genesis Record and eventually Intelligent Design first and taught to be skeptical of scientists, and defended such things (and was taught that scientists were biased/faulty), but when I finally started reading stuff outside that particular subculture, I realized things were nearly not that way at all and there was a lot of reason for the biological and scientific claims being made.



That is one of the biggest issues with ID, imo.

And really, ID is not purposed to be a scienfitic explanation of anything, it really was raised, tailored, and cultured as a support leg to prop up people's religious beliefs. That is its purpose, and it's most clearly shown by the driving need to use it to promote a particular outcome rather than to explore possibilities. As you say (and as the Republican judge in Dover scathingly noted in his decision against the school board that pushed for ID to be included in the high school science curriculum, making national news a few years ago), ID is not falsifiable (meaning it's "not science") and is simply being used by religious forces to get their foot in the door under the guise of science. There is simply no way to test and see if this "Intelligent Designer" exists... and what exactly its nature would be... and usually when it gets brought up in church, no one cares to test for that anyway... its goal is to allow people to believe whatever they were already believing, without having to feel anxiety or needing to feel their faith is threatened by any sort of evidence.

I was all for ID and supported it when it came out in the mid/late 90's, but the more I was forced to reevaluate my faith at that time, the more I had to acknowledge what was going on.



Heh, I'm well acquainted with Peck's work, I've got all his books. Yes, basically it goes from non-believer to rigid/structured believer (because the structure is providing a valid role), then to challenger of the structure (agnostic/black sheep) and then finally to the mystic. It's sort of ironic that the characteristics of each stage do seem to mesh to some degree with Keirsey's four MBTI archetypes, isn't it? But it doesn't mean the stages are true, it's just an idea with SOME connection to data... I just don't know if we can generalize religious belief so cleanly.

(Peck was an INTJ, by his own commentary, btw. And while I admire him deeply as a thinker -- his "People of the Lie" resonates with me 15 years after I read it -- he was also a habitual smoker/drinker and an adulterer, impetuous and arrogant, again by his own admission, which is why his long-suffering wife finally left him within the few years before his death. While I can judge his thoughts about religion/faith on their own merits, it still leaves me wondering where his ideas led him or how effective such beliefs were for him.)

Actually there are other options here besides the four. For example, there is the psuedo-mystic, who says and thinks lots of mystical sounding things and is misunderstood, but rather than having deeper insight, they're actually totally off the wall. How do we determine this, especially if the mystic is resistant to challenge? In situations like this, Peck's order breaks down. It's really just meant to suggest a potential pathway for natural spiritual development in order that people learn to accept and not immediately dismiss as "anti-religious" those who do not follow the textbook legalistic definition of spirituality promoted by particular parts of the culture... and I think this was probably something relevant to Peck, who felt he had some spiritual understanding/insight but felt dismissed by the more conventionally religious.

I already mentioned the backsliding and if they read the entire page I posted it explains the inbetweens, it's obvious that some people just skimmed over the webpage and didn't really absorb the entirety of it.

 

[Valuable_Money]

might as well burn me on the stake, I'm a witch. It's fine if you don't want to entertain the idea, but no need to act like little children. I think I hit some sort of intp nerve.

I am entertaining the idea, infact, at the risk of giving oyu more trolling ammo I am quite a spiritual person and am not fond of atheism, especial militant atheism. But you have to look at the evidence(that your a troll)

Exhibit A) This topics posted here as opposed to the pre-existing spirtuality/religion/philosophy board.

Exhibit B)

Well, I originally posted the "..." because I assumed you were trolling. But you've put effort into this.



Evolution is the most consistent theory. Piecing together snippits of biological evidence that are tens of thousands of years old is quite a difficult puzzle.



"Science" only appears to be a religion because it steps on the toes of "religion" when something is proven that contradicts what a religion has claimed. It is not itself a system of belief along with ethics and spiritualism, but simply what can be proven or theorized. Science does not have a stance, or position. Its conclusions are mutable if new evidence is brought forward to cause a reassessment.



You should read up on Scientology.


Looking at the spiritual growth site, I do have to admit that I find the stages listed there to be an intriguing logical twist on the typical progression. Though I don't agree with it.

I am almost 90% shure that he is taking all of this from some creationsit site or blog.

What kind of person doesnt knwo of the church of scientology? I find it hard to believe that this person doesnt know of lord xenu and tom cruises eternal fight. Exhibit C that he is a troll.

While the rest of the evidence is more circumstantial exhibit A is the best example. If you really wanted an inttelligent discussion oyu would of posted it in the propper board but instead you post in a sub forum you know to be full of atheists.

 

[INTJ123]

I got it from a testimony on a documentary about that Virginia school board that was trying to impose "intelligent design" (lol) into the curriculum. The case went to the supreme court and they had a biologist on there who testified that DNA could have disproven Darwin's theory but ended up making it stronger.

Can't remember the name of the town, but it was PBS who produced the doc. One of Darwin's descendants was there covering the trial and wrote a book about it afterwards, the whole thing is hilarious.

Yeah nothing tops the math, physics, engineering etc. Many go into them just so they don't have to deal with political nonsense.

Don't you think it's ridiculous that Darwinism is in the curriculum in the first place? and not other views as well, considering that darwinism is just a theory, I'm sure it's fair to let other theories out for everyone's consideration. The simple fact is, that we DON'T KNOW how human life started, so to monopolize one idea is to lock up our freedom to think freely even when there are no facts to bring total closure.

 

[kelric]

Don't you think it's ridiculous that Darwinism is in the curriculum in the first place? and not other views as well, considering that darwinism is just a theory,

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this... "theory" as in "Theory of Evolution" or "Theory of Relativity" does not mean "idea" or "possibility". In scientific terms (as opposed to casual use), it means (more or less) "hypothesis that has repeatedly stood up to the challenges of observational tests." Darwinism *is* a theory... one that has been tested many times, in many ways, and has (so far) always stood up to scrutiny. There are no other scientifically supportable theories to explain speciation - none that have even a shred as much supporting evidence as Darwinian evolution. It's true that we don't know everything about the process - or how it played out historically - but not knowing *all* of the answers doesn't make what we *do* know false. Open to revision? Sure - if there's new evidence. But the new evidence that we do find tends to support the model - not detract from it. (a similar example is Newton's theories of motion not predicting exactly the motion of Mercury around the Sun... Einstein's refinements to Newton's work did explain it - but that didn't make Newton's conclusions wrong in the circumstances under which he made his observations).

I'm sure it's fair to let other theories out for everyone's consideration.

Not in a science class, it's not. Science isn't a body of knowledge - it's a process of making judgments based on objective (as much as possible) observations and repeatable tests. When it comes to speciation, there isn't a significant body of evidence to either disprove evolution or to support any other model. It's a cliche, but it's not that dissimilar to stating that the "Flat Earth Theory" deserves equal time in science class to the "Round Earth Theory" because both are possible based on the view from your living room window.

The simple fact is, that we DON'T KNOW how human life started, so to monopolize one idea is to lock up our freedom to think freely even when there are no facts to bring total closure.

If you're looking for "total closure" on this or pretty much any other complex topic I'm afraid you're out of luck. There are a *LOT* of facts... that support the model of evolution. Does that mean that we shouldn't continue to look for data and refine the model? Of course not. Does it mean that it's *impossible* that the model is flawed? Of course not. But it is, by far and away, the best explanation that we have based on what we can observe.

Anyway, I think I've said my bit .

 

[Valuable_Money]

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this... "theory" as in "Theory of Evolution" or "Theory of Relativity" does not mean "idea" or "possibility". In scientific terms (as opposed to casual use), it means (more or less) "hypothesis that has repeatedly stood up to the challenges of observational tests." Darwinism *is* a theory... one that has been tested many times, in many ways, and has (so far) always stood up to scrutiny. There are no other scientifically supportable theories to explain speciation - none that have even a shred as much supporting evidence as Darwinian evolution. It's true that we don't know everything about the process - or how it played out historically - but not knowing *all* of the answers doesn't make what we *do* know false. Open to revision? Sure - if there's new evidence. But the new evidence that we do find tends to support the model - not detract from it. (a similar example is Newton's theories of motion not predicting exactly the motion of Mercury around the Sun... Einstein's refinements to Newton's work did explain it - but that didn't make Newton's conclusions wrong in the circumstances under which he made his observations).


Not in a science class, it's not. Science isn't a body of knowledge - it's a process of making judgments based on objective (as much as possible) observations and repeatable tests. When it comes to speciation, there isn't a significant body of evidence to either disprove evolution or to support any other model. It's a cliche, but it's not that dissimilar to stating that the "Flat Earth Theory" deserves equal time in science class to the "Round Earth Theory" because both are possible based on the view from your living room window.

If you're looking for "total closure" on this or pretty much any other complex topic I'm afraid you're out of luck. There are a *LOT* of facts... that support the model of evolution. Does that mean that we shouldn't continue to look for data and refine the model? Of course not. Does it mean that it's *impossible* that the model is flawed? Of course not. But it is, by far and away, the best explanation that we have based on what we can observe.

Anyway, I think I've said my bit .

HOW AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO RELIZES THIS IS A TROLL? Somebody move this spirituality and philosophy.

 

[SecantSquared]

HOW AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO RELIZES THIS IS A TROLL? Somebody move this spirituality and philosophy.

you aren't the only one, i agree, and i've said it. though at first i thought this was a joke, coming from a "fellow INTJ"

 

[Totenkindly]

(a similar example is Newton's theories of motion not predicting exactly the motion of Mercury around the Sun... Einstein's refinements to Newton's work did explain it - but that didn't make Newton's conclusions wrong in the circumstances under which he made his observations.

Nice example, thank you. There's definitely a big difference in torpedoing/undermining a theory vs refining a theory to better accommodate new information.

HOW AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO RELIZES THIS IS A TROLL? Somebody move this spirituality and philosophy.

you aren't the only one, i agree, and i've said it. though at first i thought this was a joke, coming from a "fellow INTJ"

Actually, I think the OP is sincere in their beliefs, and you're doing exactly what you are supposed to be doing by challenging the ideas with counter-examples and facts that you believe supports better conclusions.

 

[INTJ123]

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this... "theory" as in "Theory of Evolution" or "Theory of Relativity" does not mean "idea" or "possibility". In scientific terms (as opposed to casual use), it means (more or less) "hypothesis that has repeatedly stood up to the challenges of observational tests." Darwinism *is* a theory... one that has been tested many times, in many ways, and has (so far) always stood up to scrutiny. There are no other scientifically supportable theories to explain speciation - none that have even a shred as much supporting evidence as Darwinian evolution. It's true that we don't know everything about the process - or how it played out historically - but not knowing *all* of the answers doesn't make what we *do* know false. Open to revision? Sure - if there's new evidence. But the new evidence that we do find tends to support the model - not detract from it. (a similar example is Newton's theories of motion not predicting exactly the motion of Mercury around the Sun... Einstein's refinements to Newton's work did explain it - but that didn't make Newton's conclusions wrong in the circumstances under which he made his observations).


Not in a science class, it's not. Science isn't a body of knowledge - it's a process of making judgments based on objective (as much as possible) observations and repeatable tests. When it comes to speciation, there isn't a significant body of evidence to either disprove evolution or to support any other model. It's a cliche, but it's not that dissimilar to stating that the "Flat Earth Theory" deserves equal time in science class to the "Round Earth Theory" because both are possible based on the view from your living room window.

If you're looking for "total closure" on this or pretty much any other complex topic I'm afraid you're out of luck. There are a *LOT* of facts... that support the model of evolution. Does that mean that we shouldn't continue to look for data and refine the model? Of course not. Does it mean that it's *impossible* that the model is flawed? Of course not. But it is, by far and away, the best explanation that we have based on what we can observe.

Anyway, I think I've said my bit .

"Science isn't a body of knowledge - it's a process of making judgments based on objective (as much as possible) observations and repeatable tests"

So you can't eliminate bias? Quantum physics double slit?

"by far and away, the best explanation that we have based on what we can observe"
That kind of thinking is why the flat earth theory was developed in the first place, and was the popular view.
As far as they can see it was flat.

 

[stringstheory]

That kind of thinking is why the flat earth theory was developed in the first place, and was the popular view.

Yes, and then once new evidence came along the theory was no longer consistent with the evidence we had and was abandoned. What's your point? That's how science works, it makes no claims that it gets it right the first time. That's why they are called theories, because even though they hold up to the facts we have now, in the future we may find evidence to the contrary.

 

[INTJ123]

Yes, and then once new evidence came along the theory was no longer consistent with the evidence we had and was abandoned. What's your point? That's how science works, it makes no claims that it gets it right the first time. That's why they are called theories, because even though they hold up to the facts we have now, in the future we may find evidence to the contrary.

My point is, he can't put himself in the position of, could my current belief be like the flat earth earth theory? Is there something else? Because obviously we are missing something here if it's not a fact.
He basically said, it's the popular view and I'm satisfied with that even if it's not totally proven, just like a flat earth theorist would behave.

In my opinion theory of evolution is kind of like this, it's just really popular but still not a fact and anyone who thinks otherwise is considered crazy without any real thoughtful consideration of the possiblity.

 

[stringstheory]

My point is, he can't put himself in the position of, could my current belief be like the flat earth earth theory? Is there something else? Because obviously we are missing something here if it's not a fact.
He basically said, it's the popular view and I'm satisfied with that even if it's not totally proven, just like a flat earth theorist would behave.

While I see what you are saying and I believe it's important to keep in mind, I think people (such as myself) who place a lot of weight into science already do. Because we are human we don't know the answers to the big questions, we try and figure them out and one of the big things about science is that we should be open to new research and findings.

There is always the possibility we're missing something, but keep in mind there's also the possibility that we are not. While we can never be 100% for sure how right we are (if at all), we can't say for sure how wrong we are either (if at all). And due to that chance of being wrong, even if it's only 0.000001%, that's why it always will be theory, it's just the closest we have to fact using these methods. And if the evidence continues to show that our current theories hold up, what else are we to assume it as until new evidence throws a wrench in it all?

Evolutionary Theory isn't like the prom queen, it isn't "popular" just because. It's not accepted BECAUSE it is popular, it's accepted because that it's the idea with the most scientific research and findings on it's side. To dismiss it as the "popular view" is to imply that there isn't really any weight behind it, which is simply not true.

In contrast, if theories do not hold up to the scientific method we base our fields of science off of, then what business does it have in a science classroom? None. That's the point of having those standards in the first place, and those ideas belong in another classroom.

Sorry for the big edit, I was inspired