[INTP] INTP and GOD

[Totenkindly]

I wouldn't worry about loosing your faith to much though. I mean the same thing happened with santa didn't it? And you lived through that!

I think what annoys me about comparisons like this is that the context, purpose, relevance, and depth of believing in Santa has nothing really to do with someone wrestling with questions over the meaning of life and how the spiritual might intersect it.

Even from a rational POV, it's still sort of an unnuanced comparison to make.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

You seem to have missed my point. Here's what it comes down to: you're calling an x a y. You're using the word "dragon" the way most people use the word "dinosaur".

Yes I understand what you are saying. You are saying the words "dragon" and "dinosaur" mean two totally different things. This is true from our modern perspective where our modern definition of dragon is influenced by Hollywood and fantasy literature.

But what I am saying is consider where the ideas of "dragon" and "dinosaur" came from. If a person living 500+ years ago discovered a skeleton of a T-Rex, then what would they call it? They would call it a dragon. If a modern person were looking at the same skeleton they would call it a dinosaur. In this sense we are not talking about two different things. We are simply using two different words to describe the exact same thing.

I am not trying to redefine the word "dragon". Instead I'm trying to give context to where the idea of a dragon came from in the first place. Earlier in this thread the question came up concerning what reason a person would have to believe in dragons. When you consider that there are sketelons of giant reptiles buried in the ground, then there is actually a pretty good reason why a person might believe in dragons. Of course no modern person admits to believing in dragons. We call these skeletons "dinosaurs" instead. On the other hand if you were describe a dinosaur to a person from an ancient time, then what would he call it? He would call it a dragon. To the ancient person there is no difference. That is because the ancient idea of a dragon is not exactly the same as our modern one.

And of course the irony of this whole discussion is that it mirrors a common debate that people might have about religion. One person might say "x and y are totally different". Another person might say "no x and y are really the same thing". It is more a matter of perspective than anything else.

 

[Totenkindly]

But what I am saying is consider where the ideas of "dragon" and "dinosaur" came from. If a person living 500+ years ago discovered a skeleton of a T-Rex, then what would they call it? They would call it a dragon. If a modern person were looking at the same skeleton they would call it a dinosaur. In this sense we are not talking about two different things. We are simply using two different words to describe the exact same thing.

I am not trying to redefine the word "dragon". Instead I'm trying to give context to where the idea of a dragon came from in the first place.

It seems like a plausible idea; and yes, I note and agree with what you're saying here. It seems likely.

The problem with this style thinking, however, is simply there is no way to verify it. Offering it as a possibility to consider is about as far as it goes.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

It seems like a plausible idea; and yes, I note and agree with what you're saying here. It seems likely.

The problem with this style thinking, however, is simply there is no way to verify it. Offering it as a possibility to consider is about as far as it goes.

Well I guess it depends on what you mean by the word "verify". From what I've seen various groups use different criteria to verify something (even if you are referring to a strictly academic setting). For example, if I were trying to convince a group of anthropologists then I would compile stories about dragons and then compare them to various fossils. I would also compile any accounts of ancients finding fossils that I could. Basically compile all of the data available and make my case. I think I could provide a convincing enough case to them.

If on the other hand I were to convince a group of paleontologists...well I wouldn't. They've already chosen their word, and they don't give a damn about ancient peoples. And of course if I were to convince some other sort of person, then I'd use a different approach. Because there are different criteria for what counts as "verification" depending on the context.

 

[corey_vann]

I been making a lot of thread lately, sorry if I annoy you but I like hearing feedbacks.

How well do INTP deal with god? My parents both believe in god so I also believed in god growing up but as I get older it's starting to fade away. My parents are worried about me and religion is stressing me out.

I agree with other posters that MBTI doesn't have much affect on what you think or how you feel about God. I would say that it does have an affect on how you find your conclusion. I have been surprised by how many INTPs I meet the church I attend. Our teaching pastor is an INTP, and one of the best (if not the best) teachers I've ever heard. Another member is a philosophy professor at a local community college, another is a friend of mine who is getting his degree in philosophy and going to seminary, and another is a genius who never leaves his room. I'm sure for as many people you find like them, you will find just as many non-believing INTPs.

 

[Feops]

I think type has less to do with what you believe and more to do with how you came to the conclusion. I'd think an INTP would seem prone to mapping things out, becoming perplexed if things don't fit, then reworking things to make more sense with little guilt at the notion of doing so.

My annoyance is when people who feel they have things worked out for them start to claim that they know these things for sure. Ie. "I know God exists". This feels abrasive to me because it treats the assertion as a fact which should apply to everyone rather than a personal observation.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well I guess it depends on what you mean by the word "verify". From what I've seen various groups use different criteria to verify something (even if you are referring to a strictly academic setting). For example, if I were trying to convince a group of anthropologists then I would compile stories about dragons and then compare them to various fossils. I would also compile any accounts of ancients finding fossils that I could. Basically compile all of the data available and make my case. I think I could provide a convincing enough case to them.

Okay... and I agree, that would be one way to go about it; but ARE there any such narratives?

This is sort of the place where your arguments always lose me. You seem to make a lot of these "intuitive" cases and suggest some decent ideas, and can even suggest how to do a check on them... but usually the sort of checks that are proposed don't exist (as far as I can tell).

How many narratives do we actually have of people in the time brackets you describe, where someone found a skeleton and is writing about it? You're still just assuming such narratives exist to verify your point; then assuming your point is correct; etc.

The problem for me is just that it all remains speculative, one can't even really usually research the material underlying the speculation. Everything's a case of purely inductive logic.

I'm more an inductive thinker than not, but at some spot I need a hard line to tether the balloon to the earth. So here, the inductive case seems to be enough to convince you to accept this as true; for me, I would like to believe you but need something more than an inductive case.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Okay... and I agree, that would be one way to go about it; but ARE there any such narratives?

This is sort of the place where your arguments always lose me. You seem to make a lot of these "intuitive" cases and suggest some decent ideas, and can even suggest how to do a check on them... but usually the sort of checks that are proposed don't exist (as far as I can tell).

How many narratives do we actually have of people in the time brackets you describe, where someone found a skeleton and is writing about it? You're still just assuming such narratives exist to verify your point; then assuming your point is correct; etc.

The problem for me is just that it all remains speculative, one can't even really usually research the material underlying the speculation. Everything's a case of purely inductive logic.

I'm more an inductive thinker than not, but at some spot I need a hard line to tether the balloon to the earth. So here, the inductive case seems to be enough to convince you to accept this as true; for me, I would like to believe you but need something more than an inductive case.

Well I haven't researched thoroughly enough to write a formal paper about it. Generally if I have a question about something I look into it enough until I've satisfied my own curiosity. When I am researching something I very rarely am thinking about investigating it in such a way to convince other people I am right (unless I am being paid to do so).

(And to redirect...) my original point was not to prove something concrete about dragons and dinosaurs anyway. It was more of an analogy toward the actual topic of this thread. Specifically I'm saying that instead of judging something based on our initial own perspective it's more enlightening to discover the perspective of others. Sometimes a subject that appears totally cut and dry at first can seem quite different when we examine it under another perspective. So I was trying to insert another perspective about dragons as an analogy.

 

[highlander]

I do believe in God. Brought up that way I suppose. Not sure how one religion can be right and the other wrong though.

 

[Craft]

My annoyance is when people who feel they have things worked out for them start to claim that they know these things for sure. Ie. "I know God exists". This feels abrasive to me because it treats the assertion as a fact which should apply to everyone rather than a personal observation.

I'm also annoyed by the inaccuracy but also in the opposite case of "I know God doesn't exist." Though I doubt it's something we can prevent; Humans are prone to think in absolutes.

 

[Mycroft]

There is nothing wrong with this definition other than he is trying to apply it to all Judeo-Christian theology which is too broad. This is the common definition held by Evangelicals and quite a few non-Evangelicals too, but you couldn't apply it to everyone with a Judeo-Christian background. If you were going to define God more for all Judeo-Christian theology then you'd need a more general definition like:

"A single powerful entity responsible for the creation the universe."

Either way I don't think believers see a problem with these traditional definitions like you are suggesting.

If you believe that there is a higher being, and all is this being, you are a pantheist. If you believe that there is a higher being, but this higher being is not all, and that this higher being created the universe, you are a deist. If you believe that this being has a discernible personality, personal motives, etcetera, you are a theist. If you believe that this deity is as described in the Old Testament, you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. If you believe that this God sent his Son or some manifestation of Himself to earth in Jesus Christ, you are a Christian.

Christianity, as a subset of Theism, this a subset of Deism which is in turn a subset of Pantheism, propounds very specific beliefs to the exclusion of others. This is uncongenial to many Westerners, who've come to believe that making an effort to avoid believing in anything with any conviction is the path to peace. However, dismissing a religion as popular as Christianity would also be some pretty major boat-rocking; we'd hate to exclude anyone. So they dismiss this hierarchy, as though their dismissal will cause it to cease to be the case.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm also annoyed by the inaccuracy but also in the opposite case of "I know God doesn't exist." Though I doubt it's something we can prevent; Humans are prone to think in absolutes.

Yeah, I'm annoyed by both extremes too... but again, as you said, some people don't do well with ambiguity, so I try to be patient. (Sometimes I even succeed.)

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, I'm annoyed by both extremes too... but again, as you said, some people don't do well with ambiguity, so I try to be patient. (Sometimes I even succeed.)

If one of the "extremes" were correct, it would be fallacious to dismiss it merely on the basis of its extremity.

 

[burymecloser]

Yes I understand what you are saying. You are saying the words "dragon" and "dinosaur" mean two totally different things. This is true from our modern perspective where our modern definition of dragon is influenced by Hollywood and fantasy literature.

No, you don't understand. You're right that I am saying the words "dragon" and "dinosaur" mean two different things. Furthermore, I do not think that is open to debate. Calling dinosaurs "dragons" is no more valid than using "unicorn" as a synonym for "rhinoceros".

When you say "I do believe in dragons, and there is plenty of evidence that they used to exist," what you mean is that there is plenty of evidence that dinosaurs used to exist, and you think dragon myths are based on dinosaurs. Your actual sentence is misleading to the listener/reader. This would even be misleading to someone hundreds of years ago, because you're talking about T-Rex, and they're talking about something that flew and breathed fire.

There are grounds for believing that dragon myths may have been inspired by dinosaurs. It's an interesting idea, and it's certainly not unique to you. Similarly, there is evidence to suggest that unicorn stories may have been inspired by something related to the modern rhinoceros. Based on the rhino thing, I could say "I do believe in unicorns, and I have seen them at the zoo." And that would be the same thing as your bit about dragons. Your sentence -- "I do believe in dragons, and there is plenty of evidence that they used to exist" -- is misleading, because you're not using the word the same way your audience does, and you're not even really saying what you mean. It's just provocative semantics.

I'm sure you'll misread this the same way you did my earlier posts, but I'd like to know if you think there's any difference between you saying that dragons used to exist and me saying they have unicorns at the zoo.

Also, FWIW, this is the second or third time you've dismissively referred to "Hollywood and fantasy literature", as if modern dragon stories aren't all based on tales hundreds of years old. Setting aside the difference between Eastern and Western conceptions of dragons, those basic ideas haven't changed a great deal over the last millennium. Western dragons are almost invariably large, lizard- or snake-like creatures with scaly armor, wings, and fiery breath. It's not like Tolkien and 20th-century Hollywood conspired to radically alter this word, like in 1920 you said "dragon" and everyone thought of a fucking brontosaurus.

And of course the irony of this whole discussion is that it mirrors a common debate that people might have about religion. One person might say "x and y are totally different". Another person might say "no x and y are really the same thing". It is more a matter of perspective than anything else.

Perspective can be readily applied to subjective situations, but when something has a set definition, there's no value in alternative perspectives. I can't learn anything new by asking someone what 2 x 2 equals, or what the word "avocado" means.

The problem is that your argument is different than what you've actually said. Your argument is that tales about dragons originated with dinosaurs. I don't personally believe that's the case, but it's a plausible argument. However, you're using that argument to disingenuously state that dragons used to exist, and that is a distinct argument, not the same thing.

This is the 21st century, and the word dragon has a definition which is not the same as the definition for dinosaur. And yes, I know you think that ancient people called dinosaurs dragons and based their dragon stories on dinosaurs. You've said so half a dozen times. Do you see how that is not the same thing? "X is based on Y" or "X might be mistaken for Y" does not imply "X = Y".

Well I haven't researched thoroughly enough to write a formal paper about it.

But if you believe this so strongly, there must be a reason for it. Surely someone else has written something you can cite? Otherwise, you believe something in the total absence of any objective evidence.


Maybe this was all a clever ruse, getting me to condemn your faith in dragons as asinine, then pointing out that by the same logic, I've just condemned religious faith as asinine! If so, I take it all back. You're very clever.

(And to redirect...) my original point was not to prove something concrete about dragons and dinosaurs anyway. It was more of an analogy toward the actual topic of this thread.

Of course not. I'm sorry for my role in getting us sidetracked. However, as you indicated, this does relate back to the original topic, and your misunderstanding of the dragon analogy does not give me a lot of faith D) in your ability to draw compelling conclusions on the subject of religion.

Specifically I'm saying that instead of judging something based on our initial own perspective it's more enlightening to discover the perspective of others. Sometimes a subject that appears totally cut and dry at first can seem quite different when we examine it under another perspective. So I was trying to insert another perspective about dragons as an analogy.

I agree with your general premise. The dragon analogy, unfortunately, is not an effective means to demonstrate this, because it's too grounded in the objective, the unchanging: parts of it simply are not up for debate. Some topics -- elementary math is the obvious example -- are sufficiently settled that rational, well-informed people have nothing to gain by re-considering them.

A better example might be something undefined or unexplained. In a discussion of literature, a variety of perspectives can be illuminating, and often will make the conversation far more interesting. You need something where there's not a "right answer". Arguing that dinosaur remains inspired dragon legends would qualify; arguing that the words are interchangeable does not.

In fact, I think you could have come right out and said the same thing about religion. It is my opinion that most major religions have something valuable to offer, even if we may be unconvinced by some of the specifics. That said, at least one of your posts seemed to imply that all religions are different ways to honor the same supernatural power, which is not a view I subscribe to.

If you believe that there is a higher being, and all is this being, you are a pantheist. If you believe that there is a higher being, but this higher being is not all, and that this higher being created the universe, you are a deist. If you believe that this being has a discernible personality, personal motives, etcetera, you are a theist. If you believe that this deity is as described in the Old Testament, you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. If you believe that this God sent his Son or some manifestation of Himself to earth in Jesus Christ, you are a Christian.

The bolded sentence is problematic. You could perhaps substitute "Abrahamic God" as a more accurate substitute. I might even argue for "Hebrew God", since Islam and especially Christianity use many of the same stories but ultimately portray distinctly different deities. You might also consider "Hebrew Testament" as an alternative to the explicitly Christian and implicitly disparaging term "Old Testament". More generally, this passage strikes me as radically oversimplified, and you seem to have forgotten Islam entirely.

Christianity, as a subset of Theism, this a subset of Deism which is in turn a subset of Pantheism

I don't see how that follows.

I kind of get the impression that you're coming in here just to drop science, but don't actually know what you're talking about. I could be wrong.

If one of the "extremes" were correct, it would be fallacious to dismiss it merely on the basis of its extremity.

That's true, but if you've followed this line of the conversation at all, it's pretty apparent that the "extremes" described cannot be proven correct, and to the extent they are being dismissed, it is precisely because they cannot be proven correct. Critical reading is an immensely useful skill.

 

[ZPowers]

I find that I seldom find either of the extremes in people who have examined their own beliefs more briefly. I find very strong conviction, I'd say I have a fairly strong conviction on the issue myself, but generally anyone either willing or able to carry on a debate on the subject is generally not quite extreme enough to "know" (and if they do claim to 'know', I've noticed they tend to do a lot of begging the question).

As for the pantheism/theism/deism with Mycroft... I'm not following either. My understanding is that theism is belief in a creator/Personal God, and a theist usually also believes that God has some kind of active role in humanity or the world (i.e. are open to miracles, possibly communication with such a God), though don't necessarily pretend to know the details of or nature of that God. The primary distinction with Deists, who continue to hold that God is a creator and Personal in nature (notice, this is generally considered distinct from Pantheism), but has no interest in people or human affairs, activities or ideas and does not intervene. And then, of course, Pantheism posits all things in the universe are God, but I think we know that.

It's possible some of my understandings on those subjects is erroneous, and certainly the above descriptions are overly brief.

 

[Mycroft]

The bolded sentence is problematic. You could perhaps substitute "Abrahamic God" as a more accurate substitute. I might even argue for "Hebrew God", since Islam and especially Christianity use many of the same stories but ultimately portray distinctly different deities. You might also consider "Hebrew Testament" as an alternative to the explicitly Christian and implicitly disparaging term "Old Testament". More generally, this passage strikes me as radically oversimplified, and you seem to have forgotten Islam entirely.

Fair enough. The Abrahamic God, then.

I don't see how that follows.

We begin with the belief that some greater power/being/whatever-you'd-like-to-call-it exists. This brings us to pantheism. To this belief, we add that this being exists, is separate from reality, and created reality as we know if it. We've now arrived at deism. To this we add that this greater being has a distinguishable personality, wishes and desires, etcetera. Now we've arrived at Theism. To this we add all that the Abrahamic religions have added (to use your apt terminology), arriving at the Abrahamic God. To this we add, further, that this variation of a theistic deity sent his son or a manifestation of himself as Jesus Christ. We've now arrived at Christianity. To remove any of these refinements, from pantheism down, is to revert to another form of belief.

I kind of get the impression that you're coming in here just to drop science, but don't actually know what you're talking about. I could be wrong.

I don't know what I'm talking about, in what respect? I'll readily confess I'm not as knowledgeable of the finer details of Christianity as, say, Jennifer is, but I'm not interested in dedicating a great deal of time to learning the ins and outs of a strand of philosophy that can't offer a compelling argument, let alone any evidence, in favor of its central claims.

That's true, but if you've followed this line of the conversation at all, it's pretty apparent that the "extremes" described cannot be proven correct, and to the extent they are being dismissed, it is precisely because they cannot be proven correct. Critical reading is an immensely useful skill.

The point is that it's become all too common for people to dismiss stances on the strength of the conviction of the proponents. This is fallacious.

 

[RaptorWizard]

God is the Ultimate Architect of the Universe!

 

[think2much]

God is the Ultimate Architect of the Universe!

over two years and you bump this. WHY?

 

[Fluffywolf]

over two years and you bump this. WHY?

Aparantly he believed it was a good one liner that no one would have thought of at the time this thread was active.

Although I personally find it much more likely that there were plenty of people who saw the joke but thought it was too obvious to worth mentioning.

 

[RaptorWizard]

over two years and you bump this. WHY?

Because I am God and I have the power to do anything I want!