[NT] NTs and God

[Totenkindly]

When it comes to belief in God I actually didn't want to believe he existed. However my experiences have lead me to believe otherwise. You are right though that I didn't conclude God existed through logic. (Logic is simply how I try to explain things to other NT's, but it doesn't work too well with atheists because we are operating under different axioms.)

I agree with the parenthetical part.

Funny -- my experience was the opposite. I started out believing in Him since my earliest memories and WANTED to believe in him... but my intellectual integrity is such that I have to be very clear and fair about what I can prove and show and what I cannot.

The evidence has been ambiguous to me; I can't determine whether my spiritual sensibilities and perceptions are part of some anomalous physical/bio state or whether I'm perceiving and experiencing things beyond the material realm.

At this stage, I just accept that it's ambiguous. I can live as if I believe in God and that paradigm is real to me; at the same time, I can carry its shadow and acknowledge that there might not be anything there at all and I'm just too far immersed in my framework and biology to evaluate it from the outside.

I can't speak for other NT's though, but personally I don't really conclude anything with logic. I always lead with intuition, and then use logic to check if my conclusion is correct.

I have trouble determining what's logic and intuition, for me -- they both work so closely together. My intuition uses logic to make connections from data to data and fill in blanks, and logic uses intuition to formulate new points... it is sort of a blur.

I was very unhappy in my teens and 20's though, because I had intuitive ideas but had separated them from logic, and was trying so hard to prove to others that spiritually I was 'right' via logic and dismissing intuition and feelings.

However there are some instances where logic is virtually useless, and a person must rely on perception alone. For example how does a person conclude the grass is green? They simply see it is green.

Yes, it's SOMETHING.... and we've labeled that something green.

No thinking is involved, only perception. That is the best analogy I can give for why I believe God. I believe in God, because I perceive that He exists.

Maybe it's the delineation between what can be perceived and what actually can be formulated that causes issues? I think many people have perceived God (or a higher spiritual reality) but either the perception was limited (and thus God is limited) or they add extra things to the perception that they THINK were part of the perception but were NOT... just actually spiritual baggage of sorts.

(We see this in cultural studies of faith - people extrapolate from a small pool of data to suddenly make broad pronouncements of what must be true and why other experiences that don't mesh up in the superficialities must be false.)

All that I'm pointing out is that you (and others) continue to return to the same line of reasoning: that there is a sort of "default theory" (here: "God exists"), that must be disproved by any other theory. This is a basic logical fallacy. This is a "critical thinking 101", will-be-on-the-first-test-of-the-first-semester, as-basic-as-they-come logical fallacy. ... You're thinking from the wrong end. All theories are in a foot race, if you will: he with the most evidence wins. It doesn't matter if we're talking about theories as to how light may be produced from electricity or theories as to how life came into being: theories stand or fall on the basis of evidence.

yes, that's definitely part of the baggage I refer to. I experience it not just in the religious discussions, but in social conundrums that involve preference or psychological/spiritual values. I see people assume their position is the default, and this justifies their view of the other person as the "defector" or "violator" and then leads to particular courses of action being taken. If they would see it as no one has the high ground and that all viewpoints are inherently unprovable, their behavior and attitude would change accordingly and the situation would become easier to resolve; it's hard for people to overcome that strong inner bias if they view their own views as the "standard" against which other things are the deviation.

With me, I'm stuck: I see patterns of deity and Providence, and I also see a self-sufficient system that operates like a giant mobile, potentially having spawned itself. I'm not sure which is right, even though I can operate in either sphere quite well. I don't see either as the "default." But I remember (with some pain) the look on a loved one's face when I told them what I saw... because I was obviously deranged compared to their assumption of their position as the default.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think that something is underestimated in this thread to some degree and I think that generalization will not lead us far

On this world world we have NTs that have more standard interests and we have NTs that are into hard science and reasearch.

I think that there is very large difference between those two.

One thing is to read some magazines from time to time and to watch TV and work in the office for a living,

Jet another thing is to be professionally into it and deal with "godless" things every single day. (like me)

 

[Eric B]

No, I'm not.

All that I'm pointing out is that you (and others) continue to return to the same line of reasoning: that there is a sort of "default theory" (here: "God exists", but for the moment let's set the theistic element of this conversation aside) that must be disproved by any other theory. This is a basic logical fallacy. This is a "critical thinking 101", will-be-on-the-first-test-of-the-first-semester, as-basic-as-they-come logical fallacy. I don't know how else to explain it to make this point more clear than I already have. Whatever motives you may believe people have for attempting to disprove this theory are irrelevant: the very notion that one theory is the default theory that must be disproved is fallacious.

Actually; "default theory" is your term, not ours. (Hence, another straw man). I'm not trying to prove it's default, but rather respond to claims that its "irrationality" or whatever else your side levels our way is the "default" position just because you do not have the evidence you want.
As Laser touched upon; perhaps it's an Ne vs Ni perspective. Ne does not filter out the ideas, but looks at them seriously. Te demands hard evidence. But Ti is also more likely to fill in the blanks that a world that works as it does appears to be designed.

You're thinking from the wrong end. All theories are in a foot race, if you will: he with the most evidence wins. It doesn't matter if we're talking about theories as to how light may be produced from electricity or theories as to how life came into being: theories stand or fall on the basis of evidence.

To return to the theistic debate:

At present, there is no proven way to derive life from matter. There is no winner. However, theories other than the "God did it" theory are pulling ahead and, in fact, the "God did it" theory, at present, has no evidence and is, to rely once more on this metaphor, still standing at the start line.

This based on what? Either there is evidence of how life developed with or without intelligence, or there is not. If neither theory has that evidence, they're both at the starting line, or running neck and neck somewhere. There is a lot of jumping the gun.
Again, this presumption that an atheistic theory is "way ahead" seems to be based on filling in many of the other gaps and then generalizing the evidence to the gaps it hasn't filled in yet. "Y'all were wrong on God causing every lighting bolt because we can now explain it; so the origin of life, (and of the universe itself) must be the same way". But actually, all that would mean is that science has caught up. Theism was basically "ahead" before the knowledge increased. Just because theism may have had a false lead in the past doesn't automatically propel the opponent into the lead. But that's what your side is often doing; presuming to have left us in the dust now.
This is all I am addressing. Nothing about any "default". We're on the defensive now, not the offensive! It might be "default" to us, but when we're called irrational, mocked (like that image floating around here) and all sorts of other things, then we are going to argue our case.

Do I believe that there isn't a single scientist in the whole of the venture with a bone to pick with the religious? Of course not. That's why science relies upon empirical evidence that stands or falls regardless of the opinions of those involved.

As for the perspectivist leaning this thread has begun to take: the extent to which you believe reality (and, consequently, science) is only a matter of personal opinion and perspective is the extent to which you interject your own wishes and inclinations between perception and reality.

Reality; no; science, that's a different story, as "science" means "knowledge", and this basically describes our perceptions of reality, and thus is fallible and even subject to skewing by personal opinion and perspective. That's what your side needs to stop forgetting. You're not above the same humanity as these "irrational" religious people.

 

[DLGenesis]

God is real.. so real that you are "oblivious" without prior knowledge.

I can prove GOD is a real force.
an IDEALISTIC force..

god is human.
to know is to be...

an all pervasive nature that underlines everything a person can know

then u shall fear the love of god .
unless u meet him face to face..

 

[Costrin]

Actually; "default theory" is your term, not ours. (Hence, another straw man). I'm not trying to prove it's default, but rather respond to claims that its "irrationality" or whatever else your side levels our way is the "default" position just because you do not have the evidence you want.
As Laser touched upon; perhaps it's an Ne vs Ni perspective. Ne does not filter out the ideas, but looks at them seriously. Te demands hard evidence. But Ti is also more likely to fill in the blanks that a world that works as it does appears to be designed.

Or perhaps it's not an Ne vs Ni difference. I agree with what Mycroft is saying, and I am definitely TiNe. My perspective is that the logical thing to do when judging available theories to explain a particular event(s), is that you should start with a base level of... nothing. You believe no explanation about what happened, until you have carefully examined various explanations and found one that is supported by the evidence. If there is no theory that is supported by the evidence, then you settle for "I don't know", and hopefully, continue looking for evidence and refining the theories, and possibly creating new ones that fit the evidence. Filling in blanks is unscientific, if what you are filling the blanks with is unsupported.

This based on what? Either there is evidence of how life developed with or without intelligence, or there is not. If neither theory has that evidence, they're both at the starting line, or running neck and neck somewhere. There is a lot of jumping the gun.
Again, this presumption that an atheistic theory is "way ahead" seems to be based on filling in many of the other gaps and then generalizing the evidence to the gaps it hasn't filled in yet. "Y'all were wrong on God causing every lighting bolt because we can now explain it; so the origin of life, (and of the universe itself) must be the same way". But actually, all that would mean is that science has caught up. Theism was basically "ahead" before the knowledge increased. Just because theism may have had a false lead in the past doesn't automatically propel the opponent into the lead. But that's what your side is often doing; presuming to have left us in the dust now.
This is all I am addressing. Nothing about any "default". We're on the defensive now, not the offensive! It might be "default" to us, but when we're called irrational, mocked (like that image floating around here) and all sorts of other things, then we are going to argue our case.

I think you misunderstand here. We are not claiming to have won, and not claiming that you were wrong about God and lightning bolts. Rather, 'we' are saying that the explanation that God causes lightning bolts is not supported by any evidence, and therefore unlikely to be right, and on the other hand, the commonly accepted explanation offered by the scientific community is supported by evidence, and therefore, likely to be right (note the word (un)likely, it isn't a 100% certain statement). Furthermore, no one I know would seriously claim that because we are right about lightning bolts, we are also right about the origin of life/universe. I do believe however, that there is evidence in support of the 'atheistic explanations'. They make claims which are testable and falsifiable, and in some cases the outcome of experiments agree with the predictions the theories make. This is a huge lead over theistic explanations which are not testable and falsifiable, and though in some cases they may make predictions, it is impossible to test them.

Reality; no; science, that's a different story, as "science" means "knowledge", and this basically describes our perceptions of reality, and thus is fallible and even subject to skewing by personal opinion and perspective. That's what your side needs to stop forgetting. You're not above the same humanity as these "irrational" religious people.

Nobody from 'my side' would ever claim that they are infallible, or somehow above their subjective opinions and perspective. It is a strawman on your part to claim that people from 'my side' hold these views.

 

[Mycroft]

Actually; "default theory"...

You have repeatedly reworded the same argument:

"Science has been able to prove how a few things occur, but it hasn't proved that God doesn't exist."

This is a basic logical fallacy. That is all I've pointed out.

My perspective is that the logical thing to do when judging available theories to explain a particular event(s), is that you should start with a base level of... nothing. You believe no explanation about what happened, until you have carefully examined various explanations and found one that is supported by the evidence. If there is no theory that is supported by the evidence, then you settle for "I don't know", and hopefully, continue looking for evidence and refining the theories, and possibly creating new ones that fit the evidence. Filling in blanks is unscientific, if what you are filling the blanks with is unsupported.

Precisely. (To this paragraph and the two that followed as well!)

 

[Moiety]

I think that something is underestimated in this thread to some degree and I think that generalization will not lead us far

Jet another thing is to be professionally into it and deal with "godless" things every single day. (like me)

Well the NT generalization won't get you far either. But I think dealing with "godless" things everyday doesn't mean much. If you are an intelligent person, you'll have a somewhat cemented idea of how the world works, one way or the other.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well the NT generalization won't get you far either. But I think dealing with "godless" things everyday doesn't mean much. If you are an intelligent person, you'll have a somewhat cemented idea of how the world works, one way or the other.

I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I was saying that NTs are quite heterogenetic group.

But I think that being professionally into evolution can create big impact upon person in this kinds of things.

 

[Moiety]

I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I was saying that NTs are quite heterogenetic group.

But I think that being professionally into evolution can create big impact upon person in this kinds of things.

A few years back when I still considered myself christian, I used all my intellectual capacity to validate what needed validation most of the time. Even then, I thought it was unwise to trust everything in the Bible as true, though. There's conflicting ideas in that book. But that means very little considering the book was an account of events written by normal human people. But it's not because I don't think the Bible can be regarded as dogma that I'm not a believer. I always believed in evolution, even when I was a christian.

I don't know much about MBTI but I never regarded NTs as any more diverse or eclectic a group. Which is why I said this thread concept's problem isn't the nature of the NT group - it's the nature of groups. Any and every group.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I don't know much about MBTI but I never regarded NTs as any more diverse or eclectic a group. Which is why I said this thread concept's problem isn't the nature of the NT group - it's the nature of groups. Any and every group.

That is true, but this thread is specific and aims to NTs so I was talking about NTs. If someone one wants to exapand topic it is fine by me. But for that we will need another thread.

As for personal part I just wanted to say that I am clearly on atheistic side of the spectrum.

 

[Eric B]

Or perhaps it's not an Ne vs Ni difference. I agree with what Mycroft is saying, and I am definitely TiNe. My perspective is that the logical thing to do when judging available theories to explain a particular event(s), is that you should start with a base level of... nothing. You believe no explanation about what happened, until you have carefully examined various explanations and found one that is supported by the evidence. If there is no theory that is supported by the evidence, then you settle for "I don't know", and hopefully, continue looking for evidence and refining the theories, and possibly creating new ones that fit the evidence. Filling in blanks is unscientific, if what you are filling the blanks with is unsupported.

I think you misunderstand here. We are not claiming to have won, and not claiming that you were wrong about God and lightning bolts. Rather, 'we' are saying that the explanation that God causes lightning bolts is not supported by any evidence, and therefore unlikely to be right, and on the other hand, the commonly accepted explanation offered by the scientific community is supported by evidence, and therefore, likely to be right (note the word (un)likely, it isn't a 100% certain statement). Furthermore, no one I know would seriously claim that because we are right about lightning bolts, we are also right about the origin of life/universe. I do believe however, that there is evidence in support of the 'atheistic explanations'. They make claims which are testable and falsifiable, and in some cases the outcome of experiments agree with the predictions the theories make. This is a huge lead over theistic explanations which are not testable and falsifiable, and though in some cases they may make predictions, it is impossible to test them.

Well, we are dealing with a lot of very "certain" sounding statements. Look at what we're dealing with: Jesus is a "cosmic zombie", and sarcastically "Really makes sense". You don't talk like that unless you're sure it's false. On the other hand, what is this 'evidence' in favor of atheism? All I hear is refutation of "God of the Gaps" by referring to gaps that had previously been explained. I'm not making that up; that's what all the responses from the science side are. How can you say no one seriously claims that?
It's not a matter of even one day creating life in a lab, or smashing two atoms and a whole universe popping out from it. You would have to reproduce those things without any cause. That's what an "atheistic explanation" would imply. (Even if the cause turns out to be some higher race of creatures, then what created them and their universe?) But then if it's without cause, then it would by it's very nature not be "reproducing", as just our causing it would defeat the test. So something like that is by its nature not testable. You can say that because it's not testable, then it can't be known. I would not be be bothering to argue against that. But people are doing more than that, if they can mock other people's proposed explanations like that.

And we have modified our theories based on the evidence that has presented itself. Hence, we no longer insist God directly causes every lightning bolt, or is a man sitting on a giant chair in the sky, and many of us have backed off of young earth, global flood, God literally patting together mounds of dirt to make the first man or animals, etc. But you would think we were still arguing that stuff, with some of these arguments, and this "cosmic zombie" or "pink unicorns" stuff.
The natural explanation of lightning is something that is likely because natural evidence has been observed. Actually, that still does not make God "unlikely" as the cause, either directly, or indirectly through setting those natural laws in place. We can never know, but we can use the evidence to understand how it works. Where religion was sorely misguided was in setting the natural against the divine, so that it had to be either nature OR God, and one excludes the other. This is what has set the tone for the whole debate, as science seems to assume if it has a natural explanation, then that's one more strike against God. It's like if we build something with materials using the laws of nature, and then someone comes and observes the natural aspect of it and concludes it must have put itself together purely by natural processes.

Another problem is the rigid definition of "evidence" as only something we can "falsify" or test in a lab. Demand of empirical evidence is a Te method, as logic is seen as valid only if it is externally based. And the entire field of science is shaped by a Te dominated culture. Including psychology. Type theory faces the same thing, and is basically dismissed supposedly because of some lack of "accuracy" in MBTI and other instruments. But to me, the THEORY can stand apart from the measurement tools. The cognitive functions, expressed and wanted behaviors of temperament, etc. are all things we experience, and can observe in others. Now granted, that's much more than theism can claim as evidence. But even that is not good enough for mainstream psychology. If the tests are accurate enouygh, the theory has no value. And it even gets trashed as a fairy tale just like religion does, with some calling it a "cult", and stuff like that. The same thing with string theory ("Not even wrong"! It needs bigger particle accelerators to do its tests which no one is funding yet, but to me it is still a very good theory).
So an internal logical mindset can look at the theoretical evidence that life (and the complexity of the universe and the laws that shaped it into everything we see) cannot come from absolutely nothing and then develop all by itself, and deduce that there must be some sort of higher intelligence. Now, this is not absolutely proven externally, but the theory then cannot be dismissed as "irrational". But that's what people continue to do. They argue as if it is not even possible (Ne) due to lack of empirical evidence (Te).

Nobody from 'my side' would ever claim that they are infallible, or somehow above their subjective opinions and perspective. It is a strawman on your part to claim that people from 'my side' hold these views.

Well then, what was the point of Mycroft insinuating that we "believe reality is only a matter of personal opinion and perspective" and thus interjecting our own wishes? For that was what I was responding to. If your side says we are doing it, then it is possible for you to be doing it too, and then throwing out that accusation is just a roundabout distraction that makes it sound like an assumtion that you are always totally objective in contrast to us.

You have repeatedly reworded the same argument:

"Science has been able to prove how a few things occur, but it hasn't proved that God doesn't exist."

This is a basic logical fallacy. That is all I've pointed out.

Well, is that statement true or not? Has science proven a few things, but not proven God does not exist? If that is true, then we should be able to remind those who insist it is totally irrational or delusion.

But it seem the only answer you will accept is, as it has been stated above, an "owning up" of our belief is "irrational", and as your side mocks and derides it, we wouldn't even get "worked up". We would just happily accept our status as idiots worshiping a cosmic zombie. Basically asking the other side to drop out of the race while both are still at the starting line.

 

[Costrin]

Well, we are dealing with a lot of very "certain" sounding statements. Look at what we're dealing with: Jesus is a "cosmic zombie", and sarcastically "Really makes sense". You don't talk like that unless you're sure it's false. On the other hand, what is this 'evidence' in favor of atheism? All I hear is refutation of "God of the Gaps" by referring to gaps that had previously been explained. I'm not making that up; that's what all the responses from the science side are. How can you say no one seriously claims that?

I assure you that all references to cosmic zombies and pink unicorns are sarcastic and meant to be humorous. There is no evidence in favor of atheism. Atheism doesn't make any claims, all it does is deny the claim that god exists.

It's not a matter of even one day creating life in a lab, or smashing two atoms and a whole universe popping out from it. You would have to reproduce those things without any cause. That's what an "atheistic explanation" would imply. (Even if the cause turns out to be some higher race of creatures, then what created them and their universe?) But then if it's without cause, then it would by it's very nature not be "reproducing", as just our causing it would defeat the test. So something like that is by its nature not testable. You can say that because it's not testable, then it can't be known. I would not be be bothering to argue against that. But people are doing more than that, if they can mock other people's proposed explanations like that.

You are making the mistake of assuming that just because the 'atheistic' explanations haven't won the race, that they don't have any evidence at all.

(Even if the cause turns out to be some higher race of creatures, then what created them and their universe?)

That's an ironic statement. If God created the universe, then what created God?

And we have modified our theories based on the evidence that has presented itself. Hence, we no longer insist God directly causes every lightning bolt, or is a man sitting on a giant chair in the sky, and many of us have backed off of young earth, global flood, God literally patting together mounds of dirt to make the first man or animals, etc. But you would think we were still arguing that stuff, with some of these arguments, and this "cosmic zombie" or "pink unicorns" stuff.

Your theories still do not make any testable, falsifiable claims. Plus, even if you personally do not hold these positions, many theists do.

The natural explanation of lightning is something that is likely because natural evidence has been observed. Actually, that still does not make God "unlikely" as the cause, either directly, or indirectly through setting those natural laws in place. We can never know, but we can use the evidence to understand how it works. Where religion was sorely misguided was in setting the natural against the divine, so that it had to be either nature OR God, and one excludes the other. This is what has set the tone for the whole debate, as science seems to assume if it has a natural explanation, then that's one more strike against God. It's like if we build something with materials using the laws of nature, and then someone comes and observes the natural aspect of it and concludes it must have put itself together purely by natural processes.

There's this scientific principle, you may have heard of it, called Occam's Razor. It states that if there are two competing theories, both of which are equally supported by the evidence, then one should go with the simplest theory. This means, that one could say that God causes all lightning bolts by hand personally, and the mechanism he uses to do it is as the scientific community says, however, God is an unnecessary tack on here. It isn't necessary to implement God in order to explain how lightning bolts form. Therefore, we razor it away.

Another problem is the rigid definition of "evidence" as only something we can "falsify" or test in a lab. Demand of empirical evidence is a Te method, as logic is seen as valid only if it is externally based. And the entire field of science is shaped by a Te dominated culture. Including psychology. Type theory faces the same thing, and is basically dismissed supposedly because of some lack of "accuracy" in MBTI and other instruments. But to me, the THEORY can stand apart from the measurement tools. The cognitive functions, expressed and wanted behaviors of temperament, etc. are all things we experience, and can observe in others. Now granted, that's much more than theism can claim as evidence. But even that is not good enough for mainstream psychology. If the tests are accurate enouygh, the theory has no value. And it even gets trashed as a fairy tale just like religion does, with some calling it a "cult", and stuff like that. The same thing with string theory ("Not even wrong"! It needs bigger particle accelerators to do its tests which no one is funding yet, but to me it is still a very good theory).
So an internal logical mindset can look at the theoretical evidence that life (and the complexity of the universe and the laws that shaped it into everything we see) cannot come from absolutely nothing and then develop all by itself, and deduce that there must be some sort of higher intelligence. Now, this is not absolutely proven externally, but the theory then cannot be dismissed as "irrational". But that's what people continue to do. They argue as if it is not even possible (Ne) due to lack of empirical evidence (Te).

A theory can stand apart from the evidence, but without it, it may be divorces from reality. Evidence is the thing that ties a theory to reality. You are free to work with theories that are not tied to reality, in fact, I do it all the time, like when I'm discussing the latest book or movie I read, and it can be immensely enjoyable, but that doesn't mean that The Matrix for example accurately depicts reality. As for MBTI, it does make predictions, and can be falsified, although it is really vague. In my experience, and the experience of many others, it is accurate, and therefore, a good candidate for more experimentation and development.

Well then, what was the point of Mycroft insinuating that we "believe reality is only a matter of personal opinion and perspective" and thus interjecting our own wishes? For that was what I was responding to. If your side says we are doing it, then it is possible for you to be doing it too, and then throwing out that accusation is just a roundabout distraction that makes it sound like an assumtion that you are always totally objective in contrast to us.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I assure you that I realize that I am not infallible. I assume that the majority of people who hold my position similarly realize their own fallibility. As for Mycroft's statement in particular, I believe it was in reference to what I said above, about evidence tying a theory to reality.

Well, is that statement true or not? Has science proven a few things, but not proven God does not exist? If that is true, then we should be able to remind those who insist it is totally irrational or delusion.

But it seem the only answer you will accept is, as it has been stated above, an "owning up" of our belief is "irrational", and as your side mocks and derides it, we wouldn't even get "worked up". We would just happily accept our status as idiots worshiping a cosmic zombie. Basically asking the other side to drop out of the race while both are still at the starting line.

The statement is true. But consider, it's also true in regards to every single explanation for every single phenomena imaginable (and quite a few unimaginable ones). If I were to say that I am God, it wouldn't be possible to disprove that statement, but is that a good reason to bow down and worship me?

And just because your beliefs may be irrational, that doesn't mean you have to stop believing in them. Accept they are irrational, don't try and force them upon any else, and go on believing as you did. We wouldn't be here at MBTI Central if we weren't willing to accept irrationality.

 

[Mycroft]

The statement is true. But consider, it's also true in regards to every single explanation for every single phenomena imaginable (and quite a few unimaginable ones). If I were to say that I am God, it wouldn't be possible to disprove that statement, but is that a good reason to bow down and worship me?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn example and other similar examples exist to illustrate this precise point: "'Theory A' until proven false" is a logical fallacy. Literally nothing can be proved to not exist.

I assure you it was not my intention to be humorous or snide, but simply to call attention to a logical error.

As for religious beliefs being irrational, for something to be considered rational, two criteria must be met:

1.) The premises must be verifiable fact. (Some definitions assert that the premises must simply be axiomatic, but insomuch as, say, the existence of angels was once considered an "axiom", such definitions are flawed and ought to be disregarded.)

2.) The conclusions must be drawn upon the basis of logic.

While religious beliefs and theologies may meet the second criteria, they fail to meet the first and, consequently, cannot be said to be rational.

Also, I would like to make a small revision to my earlier definition:

I will subsequently define "critical thinking" as the process of determining if an argument or line of reasoning meets the two aforementioned criteria and, as a result, can be considered rational.

 

[Eric B]

I assure you that all references to cosmic zombies and pink unicorns are sarcastic and meant to be humorous. There is no evidence in favor of atheism. Atheism doesn't make any claims, all it does is deny the claim that god exists.

Maybe not atheism; but with many atheists, it seems to often be another story.

You are making the mistake of assuming that just because the 'atheistic' explanations haven't won the race, that they don't have any evidence at all.

I didn't say that, but I still wonder what the "evidence" for "no God" (the no, specifically) is. Especially since this is being used to posit that atheism is "ahead" of theism, or more "tied to reality", or meeting the criteria of "verifiable fact", to the point that theism's "not being proven false" means nothing next to it.

That's an ironic statement. If God created the universe, then what created God?

God would by definition be the one who simply "is" (not created, exists outside of time also, so no beginning). In one of these discussions, someone arguing on the atheist side came close to saying that the universe or its laws, "just is". That would just be an impersonal "god". The debate here really is whether "the One who is" (The Hebrew YHWH) is personal vs impersonal.

Your theories still do not make any testable, falsifiable claims. Plus, even if you personally do not hold these positions, many theists do.

But miot of them today (such as the ID crowd) do not. Those are the old school creationists (Henry Morris, etc) you all are thinking of. It does not good to keep reacting to them, when they have faded from the forefront of the battle.

There's this scientific principle, you may have heard of it, called Occam's Razor. It states that if there are two competing theories, both of which are equally supported by the evidence, then one should go with the simplest theory. This means, that one could say that God causes all lightning bolts by hand personally, and the mechanism he uses to do it is as the scientific community says, however, God is an unnecessary tack on here. It isn't necessary to implement God in order to explain how lightning bolts form. Therefore, we razor it away.

Saying God did it seems more "simple" to me. Then, the scientific processes we can observe would be the more complex details. But of course, the whole problem is, that's too simple for science. Again, what you're saying is like saying that I build something using natural laws, and since you can explain it by the natural laws, then I as builder am an "unnecessary tack on".

A theory can stand apart from the evidence, but without it, it may be divorces from reality. Evidence is the thing that ties a theory to reality. You are free to work with theories that are not tied to reality, in fact, I do it all the time, like when I'm discussing the latest book or movie I read, and it can be immensely enjoyable, but that doesn't mean that The Matrix for example accurately depicts reality. As for MBTI, it does make predictions, and can be falsified, although it is really vague. In my experience, and the experience of many others, it is accurate, and therefore, a good candidate for more experimentation and development.

(And still, it does not meet the criteria of the science field, including psychology). And using Occam's Razor, the base concept of God (an intelligent creator; not frills such as being manlike, etc), is much simpler than the Matrix, or unicorns, spaghetti monsters and all the other manmade stuff people compare him to.

The statement is true. But consider, it's also true in regards to every single explanation for every single phenomena imaginable (and quite a few unimaginable ones). If I were to say that I am God, it wouldn't be possible to disprove that statement, but is that a good reason to bow down and worship me?

That's true, but then all I am doing is defending the belief against those who seem sure it is nonsense. Again, there is clear evidence against you being Creator, so that analogy does not even fit.

And just because your beliefs may be irrational, that doesn't mean you have to stop believing in them. Accept they are irrational, don't try and force them upon any else, and go on believing as you did. We wouldn't be here at MBTI Central if we weren't willing to accept irrationality.

But "irrationality" is scorned, and people then dismiss its adherents as kooks, and try to sweep the belief into the dustbin of the flat earth and stuff, especially in the education dispute. Who in the world wants to settle for that?

 

[Totenkindly]

I think that something is underestimated in this thread to some degree and I think that generalization will not lead us far

On this world world we have NTs that have more standard interests and we have NTs that are into hard science and reasearch.

I think that there is very large difference between those two.

One thing is to read some magazines from time to time and to watch TV and work in the office for a living,

Jet another thing is to be professionally into it and deal with "godless" things every single day. (like me)

Hmmm, way to try to disenfranchise people from the discussion and place yourself in an elite class; how convenient (and regardless of which class you might be placing me in, I still find the approach counter-productive).

I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I was saying that NTs are quite heterogenetic group. But I think that being professionally into evolution can create big impact upon person in this kinds of things.

I do agree with your point here.

I found it very informative when I moved from a generalized discussion of God and creation/evolution into the specific meat of why evolution is accepted on a wide scale, and it did change my opinion to a large degree. Also, knowledge of how the principles of evolution have been applied to modern tech (and have actually proven very fruitful) contributes also to a more nuanced view.

I consider this more a flaw of the basic style of Christian reasoning, which stays away from specific details and just paints with a broad brush. As soon as the details are learned, it inevitably starts to turn the discussion on its head. (In the typical conversation, Christians usually paint evolutionists as people who simply don't want to accept God, so they have to come up with a vague concept like evolution; but studying the science of it helps dispel much of that fallacy. There is meat to the argument that isn't usually touched by the religious side.)

 

[Costrin]

Maybe not atheism; but with many atheists, it seems to often be another story.

True.

I didn't say that, but I still wonder what the "evidence" for "no God" (the no, specifically) is. Especially since this is being used to posit that atheism is "ahead" of theism, or more "tied to reality", or meeting the criteria of "verifiable fact", to the point that theism's "not being proven false" means nothing next to it.

Gah! You continually fail to understand this point. You cannot disprove God. It can't be done, it's a logical impossibility. However, you can't disprove anything. That is what I'm saying. Just because something can't be disproved, is not a logical reason to believe it. For example: "Costrin is God, worship him and send him all your money or you will go to hell." That can't be disproven, and has the same amount of evidence as any other theistic claim. I hope to be seeing a good sum of cash in the near future.

God would by definition be the one who simply "is" (not created, exists outside of time also, so no beginning). In one of these discussions, someone arguing on the atheist side came close to saying that the universe or its laws, "just is". That would just be an impersonal "god". The debate here really is whether "the One who is" (The Hebrew YHWH) is personal vs impersonal.

Very well, I can accept that.

But miot of them today (such as the ID crowd) do not. Those are the old school creationists (Henry Morris, etc) you all are thinking of. It does not good to keep reacting to them, when they have faded from the forefront of the battle.

Then please elaborate on what these testable, falsifiable claims are.

Saying God did it seems more "simple" to me. Then, the scientific processes we can observe would be the more complex details. But of course, the whole problem is, that's too simple for science. Again, what you're saying is like saying that I build something using natural laws, and since you can explain it by the natural laws, then I as builder am an "unnecessary tack on".

Saying God did it may be more simple, but it's not supported by the evidence. Only in the case of two theories both equally supported by the evidence do you go with the simpler one. In this case, it might be something like "The universe just exists" and "God just exists, and he created the universe". The former is simpler, therefore we go with that one.

(And still, it does not meet the criteria of the science field, including psychology). And using Occam's Razor, the base concept of God (an intelligent creator; not frills such as being manlike, etc), is much simpler than the Matrix, or unicorns, spaghetti monsters and all the other manmade stuff people compare him to.

The difference is, it does actually have at least some amount of supporting evidence.

That's true, but then all I am doing is defending the belief against those who seem sure it is nonsense. Again, there is clear evidence against you being Creator, so that analogy does not even fit.

What is this clear evidence against me being God? Even if you do somehow manage to find some evidence, how do you know I didn't fake it to spread doubt and discern the True Believers (tm) from the posers?

But "irrationality" is scorned, and people then dismiss its adherents as kooks, and try to sweep the belief into the dustbin of the flat earth and stuff, especially in the education dispute. Who in the world wants to settle for that?

Irrationality is accepted all the time in society. Irrationality is only bad when it interferes negatively with your life. Many people settle for irrationality because they derive happiness from it, and that's fine.

 

[527468]

Actually the INTP and ENTJ are not likely to believe in phenomena while the INTJ and ENTP are quite in tune with accepting these types of possibilities.

The majority of God believing NTs are ENTPs.

 

[Eric B]

Gah! You continually fail to understand this point. You cannot disprove God. It can't be done, it's a logical impossibility. However, you can't disprove anything. That is what I'm saying. Just because something can't be disproved, is not a logical reason to believe it. For example: "Costrin is God, worship him and send him all your money or you will go to hell." That can't be disproven, and has the same amount of evidence as any other theistic claim. I hope to be seeing a good sum of cash in the near future.

What is this clear evidence against me being God? Even if you do somehow manage to find some evidence, how do you know I didn't fake it to spread doubt and discern the True Believers (tm) from the posers?

I would think the claim of you being God would need much more evidence than just the hypothesis that such a being exists (and that the unintelligent energy and matter of the universe didn't effectively create itself).

Then please elaborate on what these testable, falsifiable claims are.

I didn't say there were testable, falsifiable claims; I was saying that we were not arguing all of the details of the older Creationists, which people are still erroneously reacting to.

Saying God did it may be more simple, but it's not supported by the evidence. Only in the case of two theories both equally supported by the evidence do you go with the simpler one. In this case, it might be something like "The universe just exists" and "God just exists, and he created the universe". The former is simpler, therefore we go with that one.

But that first statement is apparently more loaded than it appears. What we are debating here, is "the universe just exists, and it created itself"; with the "just" implying no higher creative entity, I presume. NOW, the statement is just as complex as the second one. Again, all this is doing is just depersonalizing God. Now, you can say, "the universe is, and we don't know how it came to be". But then an definite atheistic explanation is just as unevidenced as a theistic one.

The difference is, it does actually have at least some amount of supporting evidence.

But my point is it's still dismissed by "science". To me, this suggests that maybe their standards of viability or "rationality" are a little bit too stringent.

Irrationality is accepted all the time in society. Irrationality is only bad when it interferes negatively with your life. Many people settle for irrationality because they derive happiness from it, and that's fine.

And there are people who think it does interfere negatively with life, because of abuses of theistic concepts by certain people and groups across time. So they paint it all with a broad stroke to try to delegitimze it, and some even suggest eradication (Marshall Brain "Why Won't God Heal Amputees"; because God is a delusion stopping scientific progress and should be eliminated, etc). Santa Claus is an irrational belief people derive happiness from. But we look on people who believe in him as children who don't know any better. The same way people want to view theism. Nobody wants to be in a category like that.

 

[Eric B]

Actually the INTP and ENTJ are not likely to believe in phenomena while the INTJ and ENTP are quite in tune with accepting these types of possibilities.

The majority of God believing NTs are ENTPs.

I take it you're basing that on the dominant iNtuition of both of those types.
Still, Ti can arrive at its own subjective conclusion that either the available date points to a creator, or it doesn't. And the Ne parents by keeping the possibilities open. So it seems INTP's are divided. INTJ's still have that Te parenting, and it demands that hard objective evidence which theism can't provide. Ni is subjective perception, and I'm not sure how that influences the judgment. It could work somewhat like Ti, but whatever it perceives, it gives more of a sense of certainty than Ne. So INTJ's appear less likely to believe than INTP's, at least from what I've been seeing in these discussions.

This is a lot like the fourth dimension. I'm not sure how that would measure up to the "rational" criteria. That seems to be more accepted in science, probably because of Einstein's theory of curved space. Higher dimensions are also the backbone of string theory, which is not fully accepted now. Again, the theory would be tested by larger accelerators, which would detect the smaller particles predicted by the theory. And of course, even that may not be successful, and that if we even get the technology and the funding to create the energy level needed.

Still, just learning the elementary basics of the fourth dimension from Sagan's Cosmos when I was a kid; I became thoroughly convinced it must exist. I even myself figured out the transition from 1D to 2D to 3D, and saw no reason why it ends at 3. It's just that we're embedded in 3-space, and hence don't have any access (including perception) to the higher dimensions. So we end up in the same dilemma religion often poses. "Our limited understanding can't fathom it, but it's there".
So this to me is trusting a theory just on hypothesis and generalization, without any real evidence at all.

 

[EcK]

The majority of God believing NTs are ENTPs.

what ?
I wouldn't say that but hey, suit yourself.
Where did you get your statistics from?

I'm not going to go into deep analysis here but, aren't introvert more likely to believe in god?
Take an intp, Ti+Ni. Basically a self sufficient system able to pretty much make sense of anything, even if a simple look at the world would be proof enough to see the non sense.