Do Agnostics Tend To Be Perceivers?

[wolfy]

Maybe. Perceivers like to leave their options open.

 

[Lark]

You totally forgot about spiritual seekers, Zen Buddhists, etc.

I dont think its just zen buddhists, I was impressed by Hans Kung's book What I Believe in which he talks about a life long search for God which may only finish with the end of his life, so much so that I believe I am on the same path.

Unlike buddhists I think that enlightenment and nirvana are by products of the search for God, as much as happiness is the byproduct of something else rather than the goal itself per se.

 

[Nicodemus]

Atheist, J.

 

[Rasofy]

Change that question to "Do you think a god/diety(s)/afterlife exists?

And you'd get a better opinion from me. That answer is I don't know, because I don't have knowledge of whether they exist, even if we expended enough resources to explore the entire universe (or something equally far in the future,) I'd guess there are still questions left unanswered where believing or not believing in them would not make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

If you give me a question like, "Do you believe or disbelieve in a god/deity(s)/afterlife?"

The answer is neither, because my answers aren't about belief. It is about whether I/we know these things exist or not. And for that answer, there isn't an answer. I don't believe nor disbelieve. I either know or don't know.

I didn't see any effective difference. Also, chances are you're mistyped - you don't sound like a Ni-dom at all.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Atheist, J.

You must be NJ then and not SJ, because otherwise you would be a sheep in following the faith, but instead you attack all the religions and think God is some toxic human construct with no relation to reality!

In some ways I agree, as far as God being seen incorrectly, but as you said before, even if there is an ultimate lifeform somewhere, why call it God?

 

[Glycerine]

I am agnostic with a leaning towards atheism. J.

I have never been religious but pretended in order to satisfy authority figures.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I'm probably a perceiver and I am a Pantheist.

 

[FemMecha]

anecdotally from my life: no - i've known many judges who are agnostic.

if anything, i think probability theory is almost like a designer drug custom made for INTPs, so many more of them are going to be tea-pot-agnostics or "it's possible but about as probable as the flying spaghetti monster / pink invisible unicorn" variety, which is generally code for "practically atheist but gets lost in semantics".

That is a great example of the tendency towards needing specific data points. Each of those concepts (FSM, PIU, etc.) have specific parameters. The more parameters you place on the concept of God, the less likely it is to exist. My approach to agnosticism is not placing specifically defined concepts of god within their probabilities of existing. Every concept of god a human being defines will be a subset of that human being's ability to conceive of an idea. Taking specifically defined concepts of god and then deciding whether or not it could exist seems to me like a ridiculous mental activity, and yet it does dominate these discussions.

My move from theism to agnosticism was a process of dismantling each parameter I was taught to place on this concept of "god". Once completely dismantled, the question was no longer pointing at an idea and deciding if it could exist. The questions became "what is the nature of the universe" and "what evidence is there that human beings possess the hardware to comprehend it". Looking at every other creature on the earth it is possible to see and define the limits of their perception and cognition. When an ant crawls up my arm, it responds to stimuli, but will not comprehend my existence. We can also look at other human beings and measure the distortions and limits of cognition through testing. The only thing we have proof of is that we have finite capacity to comprehend reality.

It seems like that is the only responsible way to address topics that are assumed to be on a level beyond our comprehension as human beings. So agnosticism is not saying there is a .0000000000001% chance the spaghetti monster exists, it is saying that in all probability, human beings cannot comprehend the entire nature of reality which could involve higher levels of sentience than we understand, or it could be without comprehension beyond ourselves.

 

[Lark]

As a social psychological or anthropological fact I've got to say that the whole "God is dead" thesis is correct, its not been a good thing though.

And it is a shame but most people operating in that context and environment if they should "come to" God are going to doing so in a manner which looks a lot like adopting or creating a "social construct".

This is part of the reason I really like good historical accounts of life before all this, when the brain was patterned differently and the superego or conscience was stronger than it is today and there was much less in the way of rationalisations for selfishness and wrong doing.

 

[Blackmail!]

Make a poll and we shall see the empirical evidences (if any).

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Do Agnostics Tend To Be Perceivers? I don´t know, but it´s interesting to contemplate the concept whether or not MBTI has any correlations.

If I were to examine the issue I would not look at the letter P. Using my own personal experiences as a comparison, I´ve noticed that as I age (I´m 42) I am more sure about some things and ¨decided¨. However as a consequence of experience, my exposure to new and different things has increased the absolute number of things I need to consider and has illuminated my own inability to truly ¨know¨. Consequently I believe any correlation, if there is, between MBTI and agnosticism, must also be take into consideration other factors like: age, gender, nationality, et. al.

In that vein I would suggest taking into consideration cognitive functions. Specifically Ti vs. Te. If I were a betting man, I´d say you are more likely to find a correlation there. Taking that one step further, Ti Perceivers.

I´d also like to add one more thing, these self labeling systems and the evolving terms to go along with them, are social & political constructs. I think this is relevant to the question because social acceptance can be a bigger deal to some ¨types¨ than others.

FTR I am an atheist INFP.

Good luck on your inquiries.

 

[Society]

Give me some details.

Russell's_teapot

That pink unicorn thing, well, that's another story.

invisible, so how do you know its pink? but putting boring cliche's aside... you are seen the difference in the implication of the unknown information piece rather than the nature of the information piece:

the main difference isn't specifically about god, but rather how you view the question:
agnostics tend to view it as a straight forward yes/no question: he either exists or he doesn't, 50/50, all equal grounds.

atheists \ tea pot agnostics (we can go into the difference later if it's needed but i guarantee you this convo will go way off topic if we do) tend to view beliefs/assumptions on a probability scale and put god on the low end of it, a.k.a. "god is possible but unlikely". so you can say he is as unlikely as the tooth fairy, as unlikely as the flying spaghetti monster, as unlikely as santa claus, zeus, underwear gnomes, etc'.

but how do you apply probability to complete unknown? statics you can't measure? Occam's razor - a Ti deity in his own right - tries to answer that, and one way you do that is by breaking down the theory and counting the number of blind assumptions you are actually making. for example for the monotheist god to exist, i am not making just one assumption - i am assuming that the nature of existence can support him, i am assuming that matter and energy can be produced from nothing, which means i am assuming there's a reason it never happens around us, i am assuming the capacity to interact and place with every particle regardless of conditions, and i am assuming there are billions of reasons for the creator to do everything that happens - every single little thing - as well as seemingly rearrange the universe to show that there is always a cause other than himself to explain it, etc.

in short: you break it down and you will find an endless series of assumptions, so whether god exists isn't a 1 in 2 coin toss, rather, each and every single assumption required to support it becomes a 1 in 2 coin toss, and you need all of them to come up on top. the more coins you'll throw, the smaller the chances are that they will all land on the same side. in the case above, the chance is significantly slim.

That is a great example of the tendency towards needing specific data points. Each of those concepts (FSM, PIU, etc.) have specific parameters. The more parameters you place on the concept of God, the less likely it is to exist. My approach to agnosticism is not placing specifically defined concepts of god within their probabilities of existing. Every concept of god a human being defines will be a subset of that human being's ability to conceive of an idea. Taking specifically defined concepts of god and then deciding whether or not it could exist seems to me like a ridiculous mental activity, and yet it does dominate these discussions.

if one does that straight forward you end up with a spinozian god:
I.E. if a pizza is not defined by it's toppings, the cheese or the sauce, if a pizza is beyond the need for bread.. what is a pizza? is my chair a pizza? is this laptop? they certainly well could be, but does a pizza really exist? can you really exclude anything from the possibility that it might be a pizza? in which case, you do indeed have a parameter defining a pizza - that if it exists we know it is defined by it's very existence, there are no boundaries on what is or isn't a pizza, so if pizza exists, everything in existence is thus pizza! the universe is pizza! i believe in the universe! i believe in pizza!

alternatively, you can go the gnostic definition, in which case we don't set parameters for god, but we set parameters for everything else that we believe to not be god, and god becomes the great unknown, the sum of all unrealized possibilities, god is essentially all that does not exist, defined by virtue of being incomprehensible....

- i've done that in my teens, but then i looked at myself and realized i am getting lost in the ecstasy of inferring the universe through poetic meanings, and when it comes down to it it's a trick of my own mind - the human mind's need for "cold" to define the lack of heat, or "static" to define the lack of motion. even if god is defined as the incomprehensible, we can comprehend ourselves enough to see that the need to do to see the incomprehensible as an object rather than the simple lack of comprehension, is part the distortion within our own mind, a trick of our own very human and very semantical eye which has nothing to do with the nature of the universe outside of us.

which redefines the question into the nature of subjectivity - do you define us as subjective view points within the objective universe or do you define the universe as perceived points of consistency within a subjective universe. again i realized the divide isn't something that's actually there - rather it's an odd limit of view points regarding semantic constructs which makes including both difficult. the points of consistency do infer an objective universe in which subjective view points exists and vise versa - either way the playing field is the same, two sides of the same coin. either way you are left with the realization that if there is an objective universe, we are able to become aware of our subjective distortions through it, and if there isn't, we have an ability to experience a sense of viewing our own minds as distorting it.

 

[Society]

oh i should probably give some lip service to the OP...

P (imp)
atheist - friday to monday
agnostic on weekends
gnostics every couple of months.

 

[Blackmail!]

I.E. if a pizza is not defined by it's toppings, the cheese or the sauce, if a pizza is beyond the need for bread.. what is a pizza? is my chair a pizza? is this laptop? they certainly well could be, but does a pizza really exist? can you really exclude anything from the possibility that it might be a pizza? in which case, you do indeed have a parameter defining a pizza - that if it exists we know it is defined by it's very existence, there are no boundaries on what is or isn't a pizza, so if pizza exists, everything in existence is thus pizza! the universe is pizza! i believe in the universe! i believe in pizza!

It reminds me of Lichtenberg's most famous aphorism, about a knife without a blade, and whose handle is missing. What is this knife, then? And why our mind is still telling us it is a knife?

 

[Rail Tracer]

I didn't see any effective difference. Also, chances are you're mistyped - you don't sound like a Ni-dom at all.

Nuances make all the difference. It's like the difference between "I think I am mistyped" and "I believe I am mistyped."

Think and Thought

to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.

to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation

to have a certain thing as the subject of one's thoughts

to call something to one's conscious mind

to consider something as a possible action, choice, etc.

to invent or conceive of something

to have consideration or regard for someone

to esteem a person or thing as indicated

to have a belief or opinion as indicated

Believe and Belief.

to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.

to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).

to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation

to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause)

That bold part is the only definition closest to believe and belief. You'd notice that believe and belief has a type of assertion that one or the other does/doesn't exist while think allows for more breathing room.

An Atheist believes god doesn't exist, and a Theist believes a god/deity(s)/afterlife exist.

An Agnostic thinks that if a god exist, we wouldn't know until said god appears.

Agnostic

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic

 

[Kayness]

agnosticism and atheism are two different things; agnostic refers to the view that the existence of a deity/deities are unknowable and atheism is lack of belief in a deity or deities. One can be BOTH agnostic and atheist.

Anyway enough semantics. I don't think this is type related.

and [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION] is right, thanks for mentioning atheistic religions lol you beat me to it...I sometimes forget that myself even though the main religion in the country of my birth is Buddhism which is an atheistic religion, because when I interact with English speakers online they tend to be overwhelmingly from countries that have Judeo-Christian traditions, so naturally theism=religion & atheism=irreligion.

haven't read the whole thread though so I don't know if somebody else said what I already said (sorry I got to get back to work!)

 

[Society]

It reminds me of Lichtenberg's most famous aphorism, about a knife without a blade, and whose handle is missing. What is this knife, then? And why our mind is still telling us it is a knife?

huh, maybe if i knew about that earlier i wouldn't be craving pizza...

agnosticism and atheism are two different things; agnostic refers to the view that the existence of a deity/deities are unknowable and atheism is lack of belief in a deity or deities. One can be BOTH agnostic and atheist.

i sort of hate that kool aid - it's rigged so that you can't opt-out out of that system: i would very much like to not play the religious game at all, but no matter what stance you take you are still playing that game. wanting to not playing the game means you're playing it as an agnostic/atheist/whatever. i can be a secular jew, i can even become a christian jew or a muslim jew or a buddhist jew, i can't not be a jew.

 

[WALMART]

I'm fairly certain I'm a P, and I'm fairly certain I am atheist.

 

[/DG/]

agnosticism and atheism are two different things; agnostic refers to the view that the existence of a deity/deities are unknowable and atheism is lack of belief in a deity or deities. One can be BOTH agnostic and atheist.

I hear this tired explanation every time someone dares to use the word "agnostic." Agnostic is also used colloquially as a state of being neither a theist nor an atheist. Some argue that this is just implicit atheism (as in a newborn baby). It can be, but I'd argue that this is not always so. It's similar to apatheism (someone who just doesn't care), but not quite. Someone who considers himself or herself an agnostic likely has given much thought on the issue, but feels he or she does not have enough information to take a stance on the issue. Consider the issue of the death penalty. You hear both sides of the argument, but can't decide whether you're for or against the death penalty. You are "agnostic" (note the quotes) in this situation.

I agree it is not the best word to describe the situation, but there is a reason people use it this way.

Anyway enough semantics. I don't think this is type related.

Funny enough, this tends to be the conclusion we arrive in many of these threads asking if X type is more likely to do Y.

 

[Society]

i will say this - the ExxJs i've known to be believers, do it with an extreme ferocity.

ExxPs - not so much.