Religion and INTJ - Is such a thing possible?

[Evalis]

So Let's imagine for a moment that religion is a perfectly logical system with cause and effect that can be replicated and recognized as part of the given religion. Would INTJ's then be religious? Possibly.. but probably no, as to be religious requires a certain ammount of 'devotion' that does not seem to be prevalent in perfectly logical people. Would they follow the commandments of that religion if doing so proven to avoid an eternity of suffering - likely yes. Though this isn't quite the same as being religious. For example; We all (well most of us) believe in, and respect the power of, gravity. No person in their right mind would leap off a ten story building, as it would lead to death.. and were religion proven to be accurate, no logical person (INTJ) would break the commandments as it would lead to ultimate suffering.

So.. now that we've highlighted the fact that a logical person is unlikely to be 'religious' in any other sense but to avoid their own horrifying fate, we turn to the reality of the situation: No Religion (of which there are many) has ever been PROVEN to be accurate. How then, would it even be concievable for a logical person to be religious in any manner at all, if there is no cause and effect to make proper decisions by?

The questions I pose here are the following:

Are there any INTJ here that religiously belong to a faith?
If so, what is the reason being making this decision?
If not, what factors (as the world is now) would have to exist for an INTJ to become religious ?

Oh and make sure you bring me some coffee with your reply ^^

[radioactivez0r]

Religion is faith-based, not fact-based, and therefore removing the faith eliminates the religion altogether. Basically a summary of what you wrote, I guess.

I myself have never been religious; yeah, I went to Sunday school as a kid, I tried to get back into church during high school, mostly for the youth group with the hot chicks, but it never stuck, because...well, I guess because I don't need that reassurance that there is something like a god. I'm not devoid of spirituality, it just manifests itself differently in me, probably something more akin to paganism. Go Celtic heritage!

I think the basis of religion would have to change to ever get me interested in converting...not about being "saved" or "enlightened" but simpler, about living a decent life and being decent to others. While I think tenets like those are prevalent in most religions, they are pretty much forgotten.

[Jezebel]

I'm sure there are religious INTJs, as MBTI isn't an all encompassing system. I'm willing to bet they'll be in the minority though, along with the INTPs.

I'd describe myself as firm agnostic. If there is a god and he's choosing not to show himself to humanity for whatever reason, I see it as irrelevant to how I live my daily life. I don't see the point in searching for the answer. I'm simply incapable of worshiping anything I haven't seen solid evidence of through fear of being wrong.

I can't answer the rest of this thread because I'm pretty much in agreement and would just be rephrasing what has already been said.

[Aleph-One]

I'm speaking mostly from my own experience, but I'd think that INTJ's who are religious are mostly apologists. *I was raised in a religious family, but distinctly remember not feeling the emotions that everyone else reported. *As long as I was religious, most of my time was spent trying to justify what I believed, so I was trying to cobble together various arguments. *Of course, like most post hoc justifications, that didn't last very long, but I can imagine that it might for some people. *My grandfather (also a strongly expressed INTJ) is, in fact, a pastor (but one who has only ever given apologetic support to religion, and has never ever been party to the kind of flamboyant revivalist methods that used to bother me so much about church, nor has he ever delivered long saccharine laden expressions of his personal identification with God or fellowship, or anything like that). Although a Christian of the nondenominational ilk, he (at least in private) isn't shy about expressing his openness to other possibilities, and seems to think of it as something which he's subscribed to a little bit arbitrarily, and for pragmatic reasons (although it seems he intends to take his exact views on religion to the grave). He also isn't a fundamentalist, even though (until he developed the brain tumor he's fighting now) he was part of a large evangelical church. He was always in opposition to the more conservative elements of the church when it came to things like Jung, Frued and neurology (he is also a psychologist), and was sometimes viewed as an iconoclast.

In any case, I think that most religious INTJ's can only be classified as "religious" in that they subscribe to a set of beliefs. *I would doubt very much that a strongly expressed INTJ could ever feel the kinds of emotions associated with religion apart from a sense of wonder, which they would get from other sources without the religion anyway.

[Solnath]

It all depends on whether or not the definition of "religion" is meant to focus on organised religion or spirituality. I personally am very spiritual at times but even then think that organised religion is a cancer for our species.

[Aleph-One]

I'm sure there are religious INTJs, as MBTI isn't an all encompassing system. I'm willing to bet they'll be in the minority though, along with the INTPs.

I recall some statistics which suggested that INTJs were, among the types, the least likely to be religious. I can't find them right now*, but will post them when I come across them again.

*As my posts will increasingly indicate, my I, N and T are strongly expressed, while I only happened to answer one question more in favor of a J than I did a P. My desk is, in fact, a mess, and I'm late for everything with an alarming degree of consistency.

[Jezebel]

I recall some statistics which suggested that INTJs were, among the types, the least likely to be religious. I can't find them right now*, but will post them when I come across them again.

was this the page? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

In national sample, ranked highest in saying "No" to belief in a higher spiritual power.

[wolf]

So Let's imagine for a moment that religion is a perfectly logical system with cause and effect that can be replicated and recognized as part of the given religion. Would INTJ's then be religious? Possibly.. but probably no, as to be religious requires a certain ammount of 'devotion' that does not seem to be prevalent in perfectly logical people. Would they follow the commandments of that religion if doing so proven to avoid an eternity of suffering - likely yes. Though this isn't quite the same as being religious. For example; We all (well most of us) believe in, and respect the power of, gravity. No person in their right mind would leap off a ten story building, as it would lead to death.. and were religion proven to be accurate, no logical person (INTJ) would break the commandments as it would lead to ultimate suffering.
Logically, believing in and following some religion is the best option. If you don't, you cannot succeed should one be true, but if you do, you have a slim chance that your chosen religion is correct. The question is whether you think the effort is worth the possible payoff.

Are there any INTJ here that religiously belong to a faith?
Please expand on your question. I am a strong INTJ and I consider myself a "christian" in the sense that I follow the teachings of Christ. I don't go to church, except with family that expects me to do so. It doesn't bother me that others don't go to church or follow the teachings, because most so-called "Christians" don't follow them to begin with; they're "in name only".

If so, what is the reason being making this decision?
Things make too much sense to be the result of random chance. The teachings are designed to decrease suffering; the human condition has been pretty consistent for a very long time...

I don't believe in organized religion, though, as organization removes the value entirely.

[Evalis]

First off, I'm going to apologize in advance if any of this comes across as being an attack of some sort of your beliefs. It certainly isn't meant that way.. I really am curious of the reasonings behind your choice here - you can imagine how rare it is to discuss this logically, or to find someone to have chosen religion of the INT side of the myers-briggs. So without further adeaux... ^^

Logically, believing in and following some religion is the best option. *If you don't, you cannot succeed should one be true, but if you do, you have a slim chance that your chosen religion is correct. *The question is whether you think the effort is worth the possible payoff.

This statement here is an unproven truth, and only functions if we assume that religious beliefs are already accurate. For example, we are assuming that should there be a god, following the correct religion will lead to infinate happiness, while following an incorrect or no religion will lead to infinate suffering. Howver, even if you assert that while following a religion may cause grief during life, it will never ammount to any percentage of potential infinity, we fail to address the possibility that a god could exist that chooses his/her worthy based on their level of intelligence and willingness to explore the world provided to them. Indeed, this god may refuse those that choose to adamantly attach themselves to a religion without actual proof, instead of continuing to use the beautiful minds their god gave them to seek the truth. Why have you decided that the above statement (quote) must be true?

Things make too much sense to be the result of random chance. *The teachings are designed to decrease suffering; the human condition has been pretty consistent for a very long time...

I fully agree to some extent that the teachings of bhudiasm, christianity, and a whole host of other religions include messages and commandments that serve to improve society and the world around them. There is the question though... on whether or not following a religion is necessary, after you have acquired the knowledge to assist in being a better person. Would it not still be possible to follow the codes without actually putting any belief into the existance of a divine being?

I don't believe in organized religion, though, as organization removes the value entirely. *

Why go to church then?

[Tarrick]

I'm a Christian, and I regularly attend services.

(Deep breath) But the reasons that I believe and attend are not because I raise that way (though I was) or because I'm expected to. It's not even because I use it as a crutch of some sort. I attend because I've come to the conclusion that there is more to life then is scientifically explainable.

I could launch into a looong monologue, but I won't. Short version: I believe what I believe not because I was taught it, or because everyone in my family does. I believe the way I do because, through logical deduction and induction, I have come the conclusion that what is presented in the bible must be at least mostly true. By faith I believe that there is a God, but I do not do so blindly.

[wolf]

First off, I'm going to apologize in advance if any of this comes across as being an attack of some sort of your beliefs. It certainly isn't meant that way.. I really am curious of the reasonings behind your choice here - you can imagine how rare it is to discuss this logically, or to find someone to have chosen religion of the INT side of the myers-briggs. So without further adeaux... ^^
My beliefs are purely personal, and they don't perfectly align with any living "leaders".

This statement here is an unproven truth, and only functions if we assume that religious beliefs are already accurate. For example, we are assuming that should there be a god, following the correct religion will lead to infinate happiness, while following an incorrect or no religion will lead to infinate suffering. Howver, even if you assert that while following a religion may cause grief during life, it will never ammount to any percentage of potential infinity, we fail to address the possibility that a god could exist that chooses his/her worthy based on their level of intelligence and willingness to explore the world provided to them. Indeed, this god may refuse those that choose to adamantly attach themselves to a religion without actual proof, instead of continuing to use the beautiful minds their god gave them to seek the truth. Why have you decided that the above statement (quote) must be true?
If proof was necessary, people wouldn't believe in evolution, either.

I fully agree to some extent that the teachings of bhudiasm, christianity, and a whole host of other religions include messages and commandments that serve to improve society and the world around them. There is the question though... on whether or not following a religion is necessary, after you have acquired the knowledge to assist in being a better person. Would it not still be possible to follow the codes without actually putting any belief into the existance of a divine being?
It would be and it would gain you the same basic benefits in life.

Why go to church then?
I don't, except to avoid conflict with family.

[Jon]

This statement here is an unproven truth, and only functions if we assume that religious beliefs are already accurate. For example, we are assuming that should there be a god, following the correct religion will lead to infinate happiness, while following an incorrect or no religion will lead to infinate suffering. Howver, even if you assert that while following a religion may cause grief during life, it will never ammount to any percentage of potential infinity, we fail to address the possibility that a god could exist that chooses his/her worthy based on their level of intelligence and willingness to explore the world provided to them. Indeed, this god may refuse those that choose to adamantly attach themselves to a religion without actual proof, instead of continuing to use the beautiful minds their god gave them to seek the truth. Why have you decided that the above statement (quote) must be true?
If proof was necessary, people wouldn't believe in evolution, either.

He's not really saying the problem with believing in a god out of pragmatism is illogical because there's no proof of a good existing, but rather there's no proof that the god is necessarily one that wants people to have blind allegiance to it. If all gods have an equal probability of existing, a god that spites you for believing in the wrong one, in turn, sending you to eternal punishment while admiring the fence-sitters for their reservation is just as possible as randomly picking any god and hoping it's the right one. This notion of a with-us-or-against-us-how-dare-you-angels-remain-neutral-you-are-just-as-guilty-as-the-guilty-ones-so-you-will-go-to-hell-with-them god is one that kind of disgusts me. If somehow that god turned out to be real, I would rather go to Hell and suffer eternal punishment just to oppose it than to praise it for whatever messed up moral code he has and advocates. I'd be suffering forever, but at least I'd be the winner.

I met a crazy man (crazy after a couple strokes. Apparently his personality did a 180 after they happened) back in June who told me about his personal interpretation of god. It was some kind of giant ball of energy who fed off our emotions because feeling was the one thing it couldn't experience. It was basically a big ball that lived vicariously through our loves, hates, murders, good deeds, bad deeds and everything. That sounds like pretty much the only type of god I could ever accept existing after the fact. Still, though, I'm a total atheist.

Also, how evolution happens is the theory, not its existence. Gravity is still a theory, too, but you don't see people refuting its existence.

[Firebert]

Personally I view myself as a fairly religious person. I see religion as a compendium of knowledge and wisdom that's all been thrown together in one place. I feel that to ignore that simple fact is asinine. Although I happen to agree most with Christianity, by no means do I disregard the wisdom that's around from Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc. I think that it's inherent for all humans to desire answers to life, the universe, and everything (42)...it's all a matter of how you want your truth.

A little thing that I've noticed about myself as a Christian INTJ is that I'm very VERY critical of hypocritical or overzealous Christians...which is hypocritical in and of itself. It's just that listening to someone rant about how God makes them feel so warm and fuzzy is like listening to a debate where someone just yells their opinion louder with no facts to back it up.

So am I religious...I like to think so. Am I skeptical...well...that's inherent to most of us here.

[Tarrick]

Agreed Firebert. I really get riled up over people who take things at face value and never bother to understand why. Or those people who try and push Christian values on to non-Christians. Christ never did that.

And being skeptical is part of who we are.

[The Rose]

...The questions I pose here are the following:

Are there any INTJ here that religiously belong to a faith?
If so, what is the reason being making this decision?
If not, what factors (as the world is now) would have to exist for an INTJ to become religious ?

Oh and make sure you bring me some coffee with your reply ^^I am a strong INTJ and I have always been religiously minded.
I have always wanted to believe there is a God.
When I was 23, I had life-changing experience with the Spirit of God and I have been a devoted Christian ever since.
To me, God and Heaven are the only real TRUTHS there are.

I believe all people are capable of a relationship with God, regardless of their personality type.

[Rei]

Never have been, never will be.

I've been to sunday school, I have some ridiculously religious family members (uncles, cousins, aunts), I have strongly religious friends. *I just couldn't help but reject every reason that says I SHOULD believe.

I guess I'm a "true scientist" *I won't acknowledge it until it has been proven (there is a God).

However, I'm all for the morals and such (just not Christian morals because I disagree what the the Bible has to say)
If anything I'd be buddhist because it is more "listen to my teachings and you will live happily" than "be my follower and you will be saved (after you die)" *Because frankly, I don't much care about what happens when I die. *I'll find out when I do. *Until then, I'll deal with my own life thank you very much... I'd rather earn what I get through hard work than through worship Any good God should be able to understand and see the merit in that. *I remember in Greek mythology the gods favour those who try to make their own way; and I believe that is wise for not even the gods can control everyone's intentions (otherwise the world would not be so imperfect).

[Guido]

Hah! I have pretty much that exact same view, except I chose to believe in God. I had a few events that happened in my life that leads me to believe God does exist. Although I have to admit, I really don't know for sure and it's possible He doesn't. That statement would probably upset a lot of devout Christians or otherwise, but like you put it, any God should see the merit in my reasoning.

I'll probably go to church when I'm older and make sure my kids do to if I can manage to get married and have some that is. I figure church is a good starting ground for morality. Ideally people should figure this stuff out on their own, but for those who won't at least they have church as a base. And I'm talking about being mildly religious, not the weird types that fall over and have seizures because they're communicating with god, or the types that are going to launch some crusade against another religion or people because they have conflicting beliefs.

[Rei]

The problem is though, that thesedays a lot of people go to church for the sake of meeting people, and not truely for worship or moral reasons.

It has made me dislike church-goers more than ever :(

[Guido]

Yeah... I know exactly what you mean. Some people in the church I went to would wear their life's screw-ups as badges of honour and go around telling everyone how messed they were, but 'they've found Jesus now!!!1@!2' so everything's ok. I think that was the most annoying type that was there.

On average, I would say that people who go to church are usually a little more moral than others, even if only marginally. It would be foolish to think that my kids are going to turn out like me and think things through to the degree I have, so I want to have at least some moral code as a base to start with. Even if I have to expose them to the crazy church goers :P

[Rei]

On the contrary. *Many of those who are religious, I find are throughly crazy. *I don't know, maybe our values are just not the same. *I'd like to believe I am as moral/sympathetic/"NICE", if not more so than most church-goers/believers.

My kids (if I end up with a good enough husband for me to consider having kids) are going to be strictly drilled on their code of honour and moral and values from a YOUNG age with good stories (eg fables) and such. I don't think the church/God need be involved. But hey, I guess everyone raises their kids differently

[Guido]

Well... I suppose I'll figure that out when/if I get there.

I suspect my grandfather was an INTJ, but I don't really know, since my mom cut him off because apparently he was a dick. But he did do some pretty mean stuff to my mom, so I hope he wasn't an INTJ :D Maybe an ISTJ? Regardless, he was very logical and spawned a family of hyper emotional children. My mom spawned a family of hyper logical children. I really have no idea how to teach my kids what I want to teach them without turning them into emotionally unstable crazies, because I figure this cycle might continue. I figured church may be an easy solution, but it'll probably end up being more complicated than that.

[Rei]

I think some of it is born-with. You just have to learn how to deal/guide the child as he/she encounters whatever problems and such. Not like there's a mold that's perfect that you want your kid to fit right?... right? O__o

As long as they do well being themselves and... don't screw everyone else in the world over.

[Tarrick]

I guess I'm a "true scientist" I won't acknowledge it until it has been proven (there is a God).




I would agree with you. However I have "proven" to myself not there is a God, but there has to be one. I did this through a series of logical deductive and inductive arguments. After that I used another series of logical deductive and inductive arguments to figure out what kind of God there was. Once I established that, I made the conclusion that the most likely, and logical, God to exist was the one described in the Bible.

I also understand your sentiments about some church-goers. But my relationship with God has little to do with theirs. They have their relationship and I have mine. It's the same God, but we all have our own opinions about it.

[Guido]

Of course not! Stick my kids into a mold? Crazy talk! I will however have to have them strictly drilled on their code of honour and moral and values from a young age. Seriously though, I will probably do this :o

I wonder if my kids will hate me :X

[Rei]

I KNOW my kids will probably hate me.
till they're about 20 and have gotten used to it... hopefully...

[Celldweller]

Hello, I am new to the forum, I just recently discovered this cyberspace community.

I am an INTJ and I am religious, more specifically I am a Christian. I am not a believer in the same manner as Pat Robertson or Marcus Borg. I take some of the Bible very literally and some of it metaphorically.

As to why I believe. When I look at creation, when I look at science, I see a creator. I do not see random nonsense that happened to make what we known and are, I see precise design of the grandest kind. I look at life and I see more than electrons, ions, and neurotransmitters. I find that humanity is far deeper than biology classes can explain (note: I am not saying biology classes are in error, merely that there is more to us and our story).

I do not understand much about subjecting the existence of the supernatural to the scientific method (I don't understand atheist or believers who want to use science to support their theological perspectives) as science is the observation of nature. God, in the theistic sense, is inherently beyond nature, therefore the scientific method is useless in proving or disproving a God's existence. The point I gave above is merely a personal response on what I see when I look at science, not an attempt to use science to prove anything.

In the end though it is faith, I can use reason to eliminate some beliefs, but it is faith that I hold onto.

[Guido]

I think reasoning should be applied to everything, including religion and the supernatural. Otherwise people can get a little OCD with their bizarre customs that evolve over time. If your beliefs can't fit around logic and reason, then you're doing something wrong. Science can't prove God doesn't exist, it only suggests it. This is why I logically have to admit that God could not exist.

I disagree with the precise design part though. Crunching some simple odds, suggests there is life on billions upon billions of worlds. So how precise of a design can this be given this fact? In the words of fight club: "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake." Things either evolve and adapt into the world, or get wiped out. Evolution is a very messy thing. To think that after 13 billion years of existence, as well as all the years we have left (which current research suggests it won't ever end), that the last 2000 ish years have been special in some sense, is a little crazy. If there is a God with a plan, I doubt we fill that big of a part of it. Learning about physics and how the universe works has dulled me to this I guess.

I personally do believe in God, but like you say, it's through blind faith.

[Tarrick]

I think reasoning should be applied to everything, including religion and the supernatural. Otherwise people can get a little OCD with their bizarre customs that evolve over time. If your beliefs can't fit around logic and reason, then you're doing something wrong. Science can't prove God doesn't exist, it only suggests it. This is why I logically have to admit that God could not exist.


Just a note: God can't be in the universe as it exists. However, if the universe was created by God with the constraints (Laws) as we currently understand them, it is also perfectly rational to understand that he is not constrained by those same laws.

It's analogous to that of a Computer Program and a Computer Programmer. The Program is written with Code that has certain Laws and Constraints inherent in it. The Programmer is by no means limited to the same actions as the Program that he made.

Also, whether or not there is more life in the universe or not doesn't really matter to me. I for one do believe that the universe is several billions years old. Why? Because there is evidence that it's that old. The "Seven Days of Creation" made be what is written in today's English bibles, but you have to bear in mind that Genesis was written by a man in or around the Bronze Age.

[Guido]

I like that computer program/programmer analogy :o

I'm pretty much trying to say that anything that doesn't fit with the computer program must be faith, as there is no way to know what's outside that program from within the program; computer programmer, the intent of the programmer, or otherwise. A lot of the beliefs that get passed down need to be revamped by those who inherit them. If we didn't use logic to get rid of a lot of these things, we'd still all be throwing salt over our shoulders and burning witches.

Believing that there is a computer programmer requires faith, but isn't a big leap because there is after all a program running. But this program updates it's state every Planck time, and with the sheer number of events that occur every state change, as well as the sheer number of state changes that have occurred and have yet to occur, I just find it fool hardy to believe that this is centered around us. I'm probably not going to comment much more on this, since religion can sometimes be a touchy subject, but these are just my two cents :o

[Rei]

I personally believe that it's entierly possible for everything to exist by chance.
By way of some random event...

In addition to my lack of need to believe, I am pushed furthur from religion because of the ill it has done to humanity. Blaise Pascal once said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction." In the bible, there are sexist, and racits indications. I dislike the idea that Christians believe humans are superior to animals. There is a balance, and everything has some advantage over something else. Superiority is not a concept I believe in. (goodness, do I sound like an F?)

Anyway, I simply think doing things for something that is intangable is simply inefficient.

[Tarrick]

I personally believe that it's entirely possible for everything to exist by chance.
By way of some random event...


And that's the clincher there, Rei. You believe it's possible that it was by chance. Whereas I believe it's possible that it was by God. Thing is, is despite how utterly improbable it was for it to happen, we are here.

Now, assume that we exist (because someone could be dreaming this) and that we all are human here (except for Guido, who is a robot apparently), then one of those two theories is probably true. There could be other possibilities, but for the sake of the argument, I'm leaving them out.

Now, as I've said before, I've done a lot of thinking about it and the problem really isn't a "Is there a God versus Was the Universe Spawned by chance". I mean, given the improbability of both, you could given them equal levels of improbability. However, if happens that God exists then everything falls into line after that. If it happens Chance occurred...then you have to have had Chance go again with nearly equal improbability that chemicals combined in a unique way for life to happen. And again for every time a successful series of mutation occurred to allow Evolution to successfully modify a creature so far that it makes a brand new, functional creature.

If the probability of God and Chance are X, then after billions of years, it would be X = God and X*Y with Y equaling the number of times Chance had to succeed. Statistically speaking, it's probability is hugely lower then God existing.

Now I'm not saying which God here, because that's not part of this argument, but this is basically why I came to the conclusion that essentially God must exist.


In addition to my lack of need to believe, I am pushed furthur from religion because of the ill it has done to humanity. Blaise Pascal once said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction."

I would agree. Many people do things in the name of God that would be considered Evil. However, I would also point out that very similar things took place in the name of Nationalism and other secular causes that people blindly followed.

I dislike the idea that Christians believe humans are superior to animals. There is a balance, and everything has some advantage over something else. Superiority is not a concept I believe in. (goodness, do I sound like an F?)

Anyway, I simply think doing things for something that is intangable is simply inefficient.

As for animals...well, I guess I just have to disagree. Animals are animals and people are people. It's not that we have a right to abuse them, though. We are called to be responsible stewards of the Earth. However I must ask...do you eat meat?



Anyway, I simply think doing things for something that is intangable is simply inefficient.

Perhaps. But most of what Christians (at least, the kind of Christians at my church) are about is helping people. And that is far from intangable.

/End Speech
/Dismount Soap Box

[Guido]

If I didn't believe in God, I don't think it would change the way I live my life or the morals I choose to follow. I live the way I think I should, not because of the way someone else has interpreted these things for me. As you put it, any God should see the merit in that.

And yeah... you sound like you're one step away from dedicating your life to spray painting fur coats and spreading "save the whales" pamphlets.

[Guido]

I disagree with one of those points up there... I think. I'm a little lost with the X and Y stuff, but here's my rendition. It's hard to predict the odds of us being here, given the fact that we are here. It's possible that 'random events' occur that create many instances of many universes on some bizarrely high order of magnitude. Trying to predict X (the odds of us being here) given that X is true for this universe, is kind of hard to figure out. Since the only thing we know, is that X occurred once out of Y times where Y could be anywhere from 1 to infinity. Assuming random events do occur, then it would follow that after an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of these events must occur. Thus, life as we know it, is bound to happen infinitely many times over.

When I see arguments that are similar to 'life is unique and cool that it can't be chance' (not to belittle your argument of course :o) my counter to that has always been 'how could life not have happened?'

[Rei]

Taking apart the wording of my posts *shakes head*

Better worded I sould say that I can imagine/concieve of the universe just coming to be at random. I cannot concieve of a God creating everything, and condemning the non-believers to hell after death.

Anyway... people just have a different platform on this. My psyc prof. talked about this before (damn I can't remember the term he used). But the point is, it's not even possible for non-believers to argue with believers because there is no common ground.

May I note that I am not a nationalist etc.

And, thanks for using statistics. (aka the only part of math that I despise)

And yes, I do eat meat. But I do not eat meat because I feel I am superior, but because it is part of the balance. We all have our own tasks...

Helping people. You don't have to be religious to help people. I help people as much as I can, I can say I help people with more vigor than most 'Christians' I know. And yet, because I don't believe, I'm going to be damned to hell anyway?

I refuse to believe that. And because I don't believe that, there is no point in believing in God, because if God is "all good and fair" it doesn't matter whether I believe or not.


Anyway... this is getting off topic.

The point is we now know it's possible for INTJ's to be religious.

[Rei]

If I didn't believe in God, I don't think it would change the way I live my life or the morals I choose to follow. I live the way I think I should, not because of the way someone else has interpreted these things for me. As you put it, any God should see the merit in that.

And yeah... you sound like you're one step away from dedicating your life to spray painting fur coats and spreading "save the whales" pamphlets.

I'd do that if I thought it'd ever work =/
I do climb the CN Tower to "stop global warming" though ;D

[Tarrick]

X does not indicate what happens, but a variable of the probabilities overall of something being/occurring. It's a unknown variable to be sure, but I just use it to give it a label. That's all.

If God has X chance of being and
If the Universe spontaneously appearing in some form also has X chance
and Y equals the number of X Chances that occur for Present day Earth being this way due to Evolution/Chance, then

God has X chance
And Evolution/Chance has X*Y.

Hope that clears it up a little. And yes I have more arguments about this too, but those are only available through request.

[Tarrick]

I cannot conceive of a God creating everything, and condemning the non-believers to hell after death.



Okay, my only word on this topic will be this: Do you blame your parents for punishing your for something you did wrong? And do you they not forgive you if you apologize? The magnitude of the punishment seems extreme in comparison, I know. How you or anyone resolves this...I can't tell you.

I am for far of unsympathetic! I often ponder this very issue, especially concerning people that have never heard about Christianity. So all I can say is I don't know.

[Jon]

Do you blame your parents for punishing your for something you did wrong? And do you they not forgive you if you apologize? The magnitude of the punishment seems extreme in comparison, I know. How you or anyone resolves this...I can't tell you.

Yes, I do blame them, because I should realize on my own what I did was wrong and punish myself. If they punish me for something I don't think was wrong, I would blame them even more. It's not for them to forgive me, unless I hurt them in some way other than their expectations. I choose to make myself accountable for my own actions. I don't need a giant invisible deity to make me feel sorry for something wrong I've done. I'd rather strive for a higher level of personal morality.

On the science of life front, you can replicate primordial Earth conditions (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and create amino acids and other organic compounds in a very short amount of time. It's not much of a stretch to think of the compounds becoming more complex over time.

[Jezebel]

Off topic replies have been moved to This Thread

[Rei]

Okay, my only word on this topic will be this: Do you blame your parents for punishing your for something you did wrong? And do you they not forgive you if you apologize?


Well... I don't really remember ever thinking I was wrong. *I may make mistakes, but I wouldn't call that doing something WRONG, it's called a learning process. *If they ever think I did something wrong I try to make them see my side... if they're going to be mad anyway then whatever.

Besides, this is irrelevent. *My parents wouldn't punish me for not worshipping them. *God is punishing me for not worshipping him... I think that is wrong. *Besides, if you're saying that God is going to forgive me if I apologise, then I'll do it when I die and see that he exists. *I still don't see the point in letting him occupying my thoughts and ideas. Way too intrusive...

[matthew]

So Let's imagine for a moment that religion is a perfectly logical system with cause and effect that can be replicated and recognized as part of the given religion. Would INTJ's then be religious? Possibly.. but probably no, as to be religious requires a certain amount of 'devotion' that does not seem to be prevalent in perfectly logical people.

This kind of definition of religion and logic depends upon constructs informed historically by monotheism, ironically, in which soul or psyche (thus for us now, mind), particularly as argued by some NeoPlatonists (and appropriated by the Christian faith for its theological justifications) possesses characteristics of individuality, distinctness (a kind of phenomenological remoteness), eternal duration, and so on - a resumption in Western thought analogous to the Hindu atman, which has been sitting deconstructed for over two millenia already.

An actually "perfectly logical" person will accept and cultivate devotion under any appropriate circumstances - which will be determined according to individual status, intentions, and goals of the moment. Devotion is no more and no less than the systemization and cultivation, through various rituals, of attentive awareness - one requisite factor of which is usually a psychologically determined fixation that results in neurological activation. Whether devotion is appropriate ("reasonable") or not will depend upon relative pathology.


Would they follow the commandments of that religion if doing so proven to avoid an eternity of suffering - likely yes.


Depends upon the kind of "proof" being assumed. Is subjective, experiential "proof" acceptable. If not, is it your position that all standards of personal interiority should conform to external determinants, or is it merely this area of structured interiority in particular (and if merely this particular area, what distinguishes this area for you from any other).


So... now that we've highlighted the fact that a logical person is unlikely to be 'religious' in any other sense but to avoid their own horrifying fate,


You are leaving out quite a few potential motivators, thus so far your argument is entirely contrived.


Are there any INTJ here that religiously belong to a faith?
If so, what is the reason behind making this decision?


My own refuge was determined through exposure to the systems of the world (as best I could encounter them over time), and discovery, to my satisfaction, of adequate explanations of phenomena. The motivation behind the search in the first place was a kind of existential angst, no doubt provoked by forces no different from those which usually motivate us as INTJs to systematize, draw meaning from, and optimize our experiences.

[matthew]

Now, assume that we exist (because someone could be dreaming this) and that we all are human here (except for Guido, who is a robot apparently), then one of those two theories is probably true. There could be other possibilities, but for the sake of the argument, I'm leaving them out.

By leaving out the various possibilities your argument will naturally lead to the conclusion potentiated through exclusion. Depending upon which possibilities are arbitrarily removed, the conclusion will change. So, there has to be an appropriate justification for inclusion & exclusion of these, beginning with a thorough exploration of the list of the possibilities, as derived from an appropriate reduction of the question into its constituent assumptions and basis.

Basically what you've demonstrated here from the very beginning is, strictly, no more than agnosticism.


Now, as I've said before, I've done a lot of thinking about it and the problem really isn't a "Is there a God versus Was the Universe Spawned by chance". I mean, given the improbability of both, you could given them equal levels of improbability. However, if happens that God exists then everything falls into line after that. If it happens Chance occurred... then you have to have had Chance go again with nearly equal improbability that chemicals combined in a unique way for life to happen. And again for every time a successful series of mutation occurred to allow Evolution to successfully modify a creature so far that it makes a brand new, functional creature.


Subsidiary to the concerns above, Evolution doesn't postulate Chance - that would be inconsistent and thus incoherent. But I see that this thread has been split, so, while ignorant of developments, I won't deal with this in detail.


If the probability of God and Chance are X, then after billions of years, it would be X = God and X*Y with Y equaling the number of times Chance had to succeed. Statistically speaking, it's probability is hugely lower then God existing. Now I'm not saying which God here, because that's not part of this argument, but this is basically why I came to the conclusion that essentially God must exist.

So that I am not accused of having no position whatsoever and merely criticizing, I will point out the possibility that the events of time are in fact beginningless, and thus that the consistent laws by which processes act upon each other have remained constant indefinitely. This perspective allows for an ongoing expansion and contraction of the universe, which could under some circumstances be mistaken for an absolute beginning and end, but by no means has to be.

Anyway I have written enough for one night, having just registered. Will be around.

[wise]

Religion and INTJ possible?

We all know that some INTJs are religious, believing in/following a religion of some sort, i.e. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

Possible? Not only is it possible, but it is.

Now whether it's possible for you is another point altogether.

[Tarrick]

Basically what you've demonstrated here from the very beginning is, strictly, no more than agnosticism.



That's because the argument I presented wasn't religion but my opinion on the necessity of there being a God/Creator. You want to start a thread on what God there is, I'll gladly post my arguments there.

[matthew]

Basically what you've demonstrated here from the very beginning is, strictly, no more than agnosticism.



That's because the argument I presented wasn't religion but my opinion on the necessity of there being a God/Creator. You want to start a thread on what God there is, I'll gladly post my arguments there.

Yes, decent point, I will rephrase. :) By taking as your only available contrast what amounts to a strawman (whether representative of the opinions of some unfortunates or not), you are setting up the question to produce an answer that (in some sense or another) you wish to emphasize. Such methods actually imply an incapacity native to the position that is put forth, unfortunately, and thus, while you have portrayed the process of thought as producing one conclusion, it in fact leads, in a general and somewhat inconclusive way, in another direction entirely.

[Tarrick]

Yes, decent point, I will rephrase. :) By taking as your only available contrast what amounts to a strawman (whether representative of the opinions of some unfortunates or not), you are setting up the question to produce an answer that (in some sense or another) you wish to emphasize. Such methods actually imply an incapacity native to the position that is put forth, unfortunately, and thus, while you have portrayed the process of thought as producing one conclusion, it in fact leads, in a general and somewhat inconclusive way, in another direction entirely.

A Strawman? A Strawman is when you make a argument point arbitrarily and then attack it, rather then the point at hand. I was just restructuring my argument to a tier-type: Where first the issue if God exists is handle. And my argument simply asks how things must of happened if there is no God and the implications of that. After all, we are here and we have a somewhat sorted idea of how we got here, but a lot of the details are fuzzy.

Is the issue of there being God inherently religious? I think so. I may not be address who God is in the argument, but rather the jump straight to that, I prefer to establish the grounds of "if" first and also ask some questions about what God may have down and how He acted before tackling his identity.

[matthew]

A Strawman? A Strawman is when you make a argument point arbitrarily and then attack it, rather then the point at hand.

A strawman as I understand it (having seen far too many -inadvertent- examples of this) is the caricature of a position, which usually arises from some miscommunication or infacility on one or more sides of any given debate, that is easier for an opponent to address than the actual position one should be confronting. It does not need to be arbitrarily contrived, but merely a caricature of the actual antithesis requiring consideration.

Of course it doesn't help when one's opponent has been using the same strawman as a puppet too. ;D


I was just restructuring my argument to a tier-type: Where first the issue if God exists is handle. And my argument simply asks how things must of happened if there is no God and the implications of that. After all, we are here and we have a somewhat sorted idea of how we got here, but a lot of the details are fuzzy.

The argument is not being reduced to its essentials prior to the use of this signification of "God". The actual argument is centred around the property of First Cause, which remains unestablished, and thus goes unargued. Thus in the denial of the signification "God" there is of course the absurdity of a Cause-less Creation, or Arbitrarily Emerging Creation. The tail is wagging without its dog (and then, who is to say that it should be a "dog", which is the argument you seem to be thinking I am looking for). I would say instead that the dog, including its tail, is merely a product of its environment, is dependent upon the usual things such as food, water, atmosphere, gravity, and so on, and that the dependent origins before and after the cycle of processes that is "dog and tail" continue in all of their many directions. One can obtain a tail without a dog, and also a dog without a tail. But, typically speaking, dog and tail are aspects of the same contiguous classifications. Both are preceded by constituent elements, and both are antecedents of constituent elements. Both are "ongoing".


Is the issue of there being God inherently religious? I think so. I may not be address who God is in the argument, but rather the jump straight to that, I prefer to establish the grounds of "if" first and also ask some questions about what God may have down and how He acted before tackling his identity.

It depends upon how we use the word religious. I would call it an existential question, because its answer contextualizes any interpretation of the fundamental ground of being-experience. "If" is of course the necessary place to begin, but one has to be careful that one is not predisposing the question toward one outcome or another, simply through its formulation. ;)

[futureperfect5]

Yep, I disagree totally with the truth in your premise. However, what you are writing IS the way that most people are taught religion. :scared:

Religious leaders much preferred to have their flocks flocking without knowledge or opinions based on facts -- just doing what they were socialized and indoctrinated to do.

Devotion to the Eternal aspects of the Universe and Cosmic Intelligence can be very different.


Religion is faith-based, not fact-based, and therefore removing the faith eliminates the religion altogether. Basically a summary of what you wrote, I guess.

I myself have never been religious; yeah, I went to Sunday school as a kid, I tried to get back into church during high school, mostly for the youth group with the hot chicks, but it never stuck, because...well, I guess because I don't need that reassurance that there is something like a god. I'm not devoid of spirituality, it just manifests itself differently in me, probably something more akin to paganism. Go Celtic heritage!

I think the basis of religion would have to change to ever get me interested in converting...not about being "saved" or "enlightened" but simpler, about living a decent life and being decent to others. While I think tenets like those are prevalent in most religions, they are pretty much forgotten.

[deicruxified]

I'm sure there are religious INTJs, as MBTI isn't an all encompassing system. I'm willing to bet they'll be in the minority though, along with the INTPs.

I'd describe myself as firm agnostic. If there is a god and he's choosing not to show himself to humanity for whatever reason, I see it as irrelevant to how I live my daily life. I don't see the point in searching for the answer. I'm simply incapable of worshiping anything I haven't seen solid evidence of through fear of being wrong.

I can't answer the rest of this thread because I'm pretty much in agreement and would just be rephrasing what has already been said.
i have faith in my own spirituality. i can't say i'm buddhist nor christian but a lot of people think i am... i've been an atheist before but then let's just say i got the leap of faith due to the experiences i have and i do believe that somehow i am directed... the bible, quran or whatever book say a lot of nice and sensical things but i don't want to label myself with one religion because i do think they all have a common ground... i don't pray not because i hate a supreme being but because it's my own way to train myself to be independent having to manifest all the things i want in life.

[Tarrick]

i don't pray not because i hate a supreme being but because it's my own way to train myself to be independent having to manifest all the things i want in life.

Curious as to why you "hate" the idea of a supreme being? Not believing in one is one thing, but to refusing to pray because of hate makes me curious.

[Rei]

i don't pray not because i hate a supreme being

"not because" :thumbsup:

[bikerscars]

i am an atheist

although i have a somewhat spiritual wave in me when in the outdoors(basic treehugger)

i am not religious for the same reason i don't read fiction- not what i find practical/enjoyable

[biased]

I'm an "agnostic" but I don't really like that label much. I tend to keep my beliefs in check by being familiar with both the traditional views (notably Catholicism) and those of the more skeptical and/or atheistic (generally sites like James Randi educational foundation which is based upon heavy skepticism). During high school I explored almost every philosophy I could get my hands on in order to find a solution to this "existential crisis" I was going through. Coupled with my new-found infatuation with psychedelics and quest to figure out what life is really about I stumbled upon mysticism which would captivate my interests for the next few years. Mysticism fascinated me because all of the mystics seemed to be in an agreement with what God truly is. No politics, just the core teachings.

Some of the greatest people I've met have been religious and I'm generally a harsh cynic. I've met many atheists and my main issue with that "culture" or ideology is it seems practically like a religion in and of itself. I loathe Dawkins as he is just as fanatical as those Southern fundamentalist preachers saying how you are going to burn in hell :thumbsdown: I used to believe that religion was a cop-out, a crutch to hold onto for the weak, a delusional joke in which they reassure themselves that someone is watching out for them. I believe that the Universe started with the big bang (btw it was a Catholic priest who first proposed this "big bang" theory) and that evolution is how science said. But I keep asking myself the question, "What came before the singularity?"

[Bossy Mom]

I am not religious and avoid church as much as I can. However, my daughter is religious and always wants to go. I don't know where she got it. I go with her just to make her happy (and also because she makes good friends there - she's 17). I have always been an Objectivist, therefore not religious. I do enjoy Christmas with the decorations, gifts, family time and fellowship. It is a time when I value friends and family, and we are surrounded by love and warmth.

I do work with two INTJs. One is religious and one is not. I like them both - we both have so much in common, but I often have to let them win. They are my bosses and I am their executive assistant. I am in charge of their work lives and they are happy with it!

[tmix]

Religion is one of those topics with many facets. I have a deep faith in God and may be considered religious, although I have never been terribly religious. As an INTJ, I don't love God with the high flying emotions of the other types, but I love God with my intellect (and with great energy). I have studied religion in college and will be attending divinity school next year and the rigorous academic study of religion (which shares aspects of science) is the way I have come to know God. I did grow up in a home where I went to Sunday school, but my faith became tangible when I started studying texts and observing the world around me. Indeed, I left church for a while deeming it a hindrance in my lifestyle, but later came back to God.

The MBTI types are very good at hitting major aspects of certain kinds of people, but it certainly cannot account for all people in exacting detail. Religion and the 'spiritual' things, I think, are universal to all types because there is an intangible side to humans we are each trying to understand. Some understand it through science and others understand it through religion. I don't think it would be correct for anyone to say I am not finding truth in religion or you are not finding truth in science because both have important truths to contribute to society. ;D

I noticed a lot people were talking about being religious and some being spiritual. Those are really two different and I think largely different issues. I find myself critically analyzing denominational churches often (and sometimes to a fault) while still remaining very close to God in my personal faith. Perhaps what many INTJs are so strongly against is the instituted church rather than God?

[Wolfie]

Youch! This is huge! I am religious. I'm the leader of my quorum and I'm an INTJ. For this to have significance, you have to understand quorums. There are three Aaronic Priesthood quorums in the LDS church. First is the Deacons(12-13) then Teachers(14-15) and finally Priests(16-17) afterwards you become an elder in the Melchezidek priesthood. I, being fourteen, am the president of the teachers' quorum. You must understand that I am one of the youngest, yet am the president. I am also an INTJ. I realize that was redundant, but we learned in English class that repetition causes effect. Being an INTJ helps me. My religion, to me, is perfectly logical. I know it is real because I have been able to exercise my priesthood. you must know, before you ask me to blow up the computer screen in front of you or something like that, you don't ever tempt God. He knows what is necessary. Get faith first. Exercise faith into knowlege, then ask something from God. If it is beneficial and a righteous want he will grant it. You don't tempt God. *I have been able to exercise my priesthood, and reproduce the created effects several times. Therefore I have a fact. The priesthood is logical and practical. God works in natural and mysterious ways. He will do what he will how he will. He isn't going to crash a meteor down, because that would show that he does exist, and he wants us to believe without having to have a sign. *He will give you a sign to show you that you have chosen the right faith.

[Henry]

Youch! This is huge! I am religious. I'm the leader of my quorum and I'm an INTJ. For this to have significance, you have to understand quorums. There are three Aaronic Priesthood quorums in the LDS church. First is the Deacons(12-13) then Teachers(14-15) and finally Priests(16-17) afterwards you become an elder in the Melchezidek priesthood. I, being fourteen, am the president of the teachers' quorum. You must understand that I am one of the youngest, yet am the president. I am also an INTJ. I realize that was redundant, but we learned in English class that repetition causes effect. Being an INTJ helps me. My religion, to me, is perfectly logical. I know it is real because I have been able to exercise my priesthood. you must know, before you ask me to blow up the computer screen in front of you or something like that, you don't ever tempt God. He knows what is necessary. Get faith first. Exercise faith into knowlege, then ask something from God. If it is beneficial and a righteous want he will grant it. You don't tempt God. *I have been able to exercise my priesthood, and *reproduce the created effects several times. Therefore I have a fact. The priesthood is logical and practical. God works in natural and mysterious ways. He will do what he will how he will. He isn't going to crash a meteor down, because that would show that he does exist, and he wants us to believe without having to have a sign. *He will give you a sign to show you that you have chosen the right faith.

Well I wish you all the best of luck with the LDS faith Wolfie, but you may not always find it as rewarding as you do today, and you may begin to recognize its various pscyhological manipulations as you age.

Don't believe me? Step outside the box intellectually or socially and see how supportive the community is.

[vulcan]

i was a hardcore christian for 17 years of my youth.

then i started thinking.

it's definitely possible. i still have a semi-longing to believe.

i thought i would come to college and be taught the ways of a good atheist for sure, but it isn't that simple.

i've settled nicely into agnosticism, however.

[mind_wander]

Youch! This is huge! I am religious. I'm the leader of my quorum and I'm an INTJ. For this to have significance, you have to understand quorums. There are three Aaronic Priesthood quorums in the LDS church. First is the Deacons(12-13) then Teachers(14-15) and finally Priests(16-17) afterwards you become an elder in the Melchezidek priesthood. I, being fourteen, am the president of the teachers' quorum. You must understand that I am one of the youngest, yet am the president. I am also an INTJ. I realize that was redundant, but we learned in English class that repetition causes effect. Being an INTJ helps me. My religion, to me, is perfectly logical. I know it is real because I have been able to exercise my priesthood. you must know, before you ask me to blow up the computer screen in front of you or something like that, you don't ever tempt God. He knows what is necessary. Get faith first. Exercise faith into knowlege, then ask something from God. If it is beneficial and a righteous want he will grant it. You don't tempt God. *I have been able to exercise my priesthood, and *reproduce the created effects several times. Therefore I have a fact. The priesthood is logical and practical. God works in natural and mysterious ways. He will do what he will how he will. He isn't going to crash a meteor down, because that would show that he does exist, and he wants us to believe without having to have a sign. *He will give you a sign to show you that you have chosen the right faith.
So would that mean, now you can say, "More people come to me and tell their own deepest fears, lies, truths." Why is that, I'm a priest! *:thumbsup: Interesting stuff.

[Wolfie]

Youch! This is huge! I am religious. I'm the leader of my quorum and I'm an INTJ. For this to have significance, you have to understand quorums. There are three Aaronic Priesthood quorums in the LDS church. First is the Deacons(12-13) then Teachers(14-15) and finally Priests(16-17) afterwards you become an elder in the Melchezidek priesthood. I, being fourteen, am the president of the teachers' quorum. You must understand that I am one of the youngest, yet am the president. I am also an INTJ. I realize that was redundant, but we learned in English class that repetition causes effect. Being an INTJ helps me. My religion, to me, is perfectly logical. I know it is real because I have been able to exercise my priesthood. you must know, before you ask me to blow up the computer screen in front of you or something like that, you don't ever tempt God. He knows what is necessary. Get faith first. Exercise faith into knowlege, then ask something from God. If it is beneficial and a righteous want he will grant it. You don't tempt God. I have been able to exercise my priesthood, and reproduce the created effects several times. Therefore I have a fact. The priesthood is logical and practical. God works in natural and mysterious ways. He will do what he will how he will. He isn't going to crash a meteor down, because that would show that he does exist, and he wants us to believe without having to have a sign. He will give you a sign to show you that you have chosen the right faith.

Well I wish you all the best of luck with the LDS faith Wolfie, but you may not always find it as rewarding as you do today, and you may begin to recognize its various pscyhological manipulations as you age.

Don't believe me? Step outside the box intellectually or socially and see how supportive the community is.

Actually... I live in Utah. The major religion is the LDS faith.

Haha. Sorry if I mislead you M_W. I'm a teacher not a priest. Only my quorum comes to me with problems. The usual problems of the adolescent age. Except... We live by the Law of Chastity, so none of that stuff. That stuff goes to the bishop anyways(he's the top man of our ward).

[mind_wander]

Well, you did a wonderful job at it. Can't blame you as an INTJ [mastermind]. You took some iq points away from me and claim it as your own :'(

[Figmentum]

Atheist. Specifically a Satanist.

[Danellian]

I am not religious, I am spiritual. When I was younger, I wanted to believe in God, but struggled with it due to my logical orientation. Now that I am an adult, I have developed my faith a lot, but still struggle with it. But that's part of the journey, sticking with it, even through all the lows as well as the highs. There are times when I consider turning away from God, but there is something inside of me that tells me I cannot do it. But that doesn't mean I don't consider it. There is that part of me that wants to call the shots, that doesn't want to be restricted by God, that doesn't want to view all other religions as somehow lacking in absolute truth, but I know that if I take such an inclusivist stance toward all religions, that my faith will be dampened, and my relationship with God will suffer. Conversely, I also struggle not to be self-righteous with my views. Sometimes, in the heat of a debate, things get taken personally on both sides. For that reason, I do not wish to engage in any heated debate here, as it has caused me many problems in the past. I am having a current problem of this nature, actually, with a friend, who has strong religous views. We both love to talk about and debate religious topics, and inevitably, we end up trying to convince each other of the rightness of our viewpoints. This is not what I am about here. Since we are discussion spirituality in this thread, I am providing my opinion, and hopefully this will lead to productive discussion.

[AresX9]

Religion is one of those topics with many facets. I have a deep faith in God and may be considered religious, although I have never been terribly religious. As an INTJ, I don't love God with the high flying emotions of the other types, but I love God with my intellect (and with great energy). I have studied religion in college and will be attending divinity school next year and the rigorous academic study of religion (which shares aspects of science) is the way I have come to know God. I did grow up in a home where I went to Sunday school, but my faith became tangible when I started studying texts and observing the world around me. Indeed, I left church for a while deeming it a hindrance in my lifestyle, but later came back to God.

The MBTI types are very good at hitting major aspects of certain kinds of people, but it certainly cannot account for all people in exacting detail. Religion and the 'spiritual' things, I think, are universal to all types because there is an intangible side to humans we are each trying to understand. Some understand it through science and others understand it through religion. I don't think it would be correct for anyone to say I am not finding truth in religion or you are not finding truth in science because both have important truths to contribute to society. ;D

I noticed a lot people were talking about being religious and some being spiritual. Those are really two different and I think largely different issues. I find myself critically analyzing denominational churches often (and sometimes to a fault) while still remaining very close to God in my personal faith. Perhaps what many INTJs are so strongly against is the instituted church rather than God?

Regarding your last paragraph: I completely agree. Personally, I am against the Catholic Church and organized religion in general as it seems as though they are giant hypocrisies. Something cannot come out of nothing. There has to be a starting point, there has to be a creator. I'm referring to the Big Bang. It could not have just "appeared", something had to entice the particles to form the giant ball with a massive explosion. There are also supernatural beings that our current science cannot explain.

Indeed, skepticism is part of an INTJ.

[The Many]

Religion is one of those topics with many facets. I have a deep faith in God and may be considered religious, although I have never been terribly religious. As an INTJ, I don't love God with the high flying emotions of the other types, but I love God with my intellect (and with great energy). I have studied religion in college and will be attending divinity school next year and the rigorous academic study of religion (which shares aspects of science) is the way I have come to know God. I did grow up in a home where I went to Sunday school, but my faith became tangible when I started studying texts and observing the world around me. Indeed, I left church for a while deeming it a hindrance in my lifestyle, but later came back to God.

The MBTI types are very good at hitting major aspects of certain kinds of people, but it certainly cannot account for all people in exacting detail. Religion and the 'spiritual' things, I think, are universal to all types because there is an intangible side to humans we are each trying to understand. Some understand it through science and others understand it through religion. I don't think it would be correct for anyone to say I am not finding truth in religion or you are not finding truth in science because both have important truths to contribute to society. *;D

I noticed a lot people were talking about being religious and some being spiritual. Those are really two different and I think largely different issues. I find myself critically analyzing denominational churches often (and sometimes to a fault) while still remaining very close to God in my personal faith. Perhaps what many INTJs are so strongly against is the instituted church rather than God?

Regarding your last paragraph: I completely agree. Personally, I am against the Catholic Church and organized religion in general as it seems as though they are giant hypocrisies. Something cannot come out of nothing. There has to be a starting point, there has to be a creator. I'm referring to the Big Bang. It could not have just "appeared", something had to entice the particles to form the giant ball with a massive explosion. *There are also supernatural beings that our current science cannot explain.

Indeed, skepticism is part of an INTJ.

Interesting post. I used to think like that a while ago, but most of these "supernatural beings" seem explainable through mere psychology, and as for the big bang... how about, the world is infinite instead? That is to say, an infinite series of big bangs. That is the opinion I have come to through quite some reading on the subject. I simply don't believe in God.

[Aestheticbend]

I have never been religious and I reject religion on an ontological rather than a scientific basis. I guess I would fall in line with Stirner and Nietzsche in the view that religion is one form of subordination of the individual and humanity in general. Subordination to an ideal is something that is done out of a will towards conformity or towards inner peace. However, what humans are, in my view, is something quite different and thus it is necessary for our being to transcend the weak wills of any sort of collective idea, whether mystical or secular. I see ontological freedom, freedom of will, as the only route to fulfillment and such cannot be achieved without rejecting dogma that totalizes oneself. Ideas exist for humans, not the other way around.

[Puffi]

The probability of God's existence is impossible to calculate to any extent. X = (X * Y) when you can't reduce X to a mathematical probability. X * Y only sounds better to you; this is an emotional response. You can't multiply infinity or the unknown.

If you want to argue that it's more "logical" to assume God exists because of the Bible or something similar, then is it not "logical" to assume people have made God up because people have a tendency to look for answers that will satisfy their various emotional needs?

I'm an atheist. I think even being agnostic is a sign of stupidity. Before you ban me, here is why: you are generally considered stupid if you believe in something fantastic without any proof! Just when it comes to religion you're supposed to be hush-hush about it. If I say I'm a god, you'd be stupid to believe me, or even be agnostic about it.

[brewmaster]

I agree with you Puffi, up to the part about agnosticism being a sign of stupidity.

Agnosticism doesn't mean only that you believe there is a possibility god exists, but that the whole notion of god is not necessarily what others have put forth before. For example, god could simply be the four fundamental forces governing the universe (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces). This by no means assigns any fantastic qualities to what could be considered god. Its all a matter of what you assign the noun god to.

[Puffi]

If there's a more simple explanation for things, why resort to a fantastic one? In science, the burden of proof is on people who claim the fantastic...

Basically what I was getting at is that the whole idea of agnosticism is stupid. No-one should ask you to even try to prove or disprove God's existence, just like they shouldn't ask you to prove I'm actually a rabbit, or whatever. People put irrational, misplaced, value on the search for God for social or emotional reasons.

[brewmaster]

If there's a more simple explanation for things, why resort to a fantastic one? In science, the burden of proof is on people who claim the fantastic...

Basically what I was getting at is that the whole idea of agnosticism is stupid. No-one should ask you to even try to prove or disprove God's existence, just like they shouldn't ask you to prove I'm actually a rabbit, or whatever. People put irrational, misplaced, value on the search for God for social or emotional reasons.

The problem is that your definition of agnosticism is wrong. Agnosticism simply means that gods existance can neither be proven or disproven, and therefore agnostics don't try and prove anything. Agnostics realize there is a possiblity god exists, but also that it may not, and remain open to the possibility. Atheists on the other hand have made up their minds that there is no god.

I am an agnostic simply because there is no data, and never will be.

Your last sentence is 100% correct in my opinion. I am very wary of religious people, they are either of low intelligence, emotionally unstable, or have ulterior political motives.

[AresX9]

If there's a more simple explanation for things, why resort to a fantastic one? In science, the burden of proof is on people who claim the fantastic...

Basically what I was getting at is that the whole idea of agnosticism is stupid. No-one should ask you to even try to prove or disprove God's existence, just like they shouldn't ask you to prove I'm actually a rabbit, or whatever. People put irrational, misplaced, value on the search for God for social or emotional reasons.

Even science is created by humans, therefore it could be faulty as well. There are also many things that we still don't know.

[Lance Kilkenny]

I'm a Christian, and I regularly attend services.

(Deep breath) But the reasons that I believe and attend are not because I raise that way (though I was) or because I'm expected to. It's not even because I use it as a crutch of some sort. I attend because I've come to the conclusion that there is more to life then is scientifically explainable.

I could launch into a looong monologue, but I won't. Short version: I believe what I believe not because I was taught it, or because everyone in my family does. I believe the way I do because, through logical deduction and induction, I have come the conclusion that what is presented in the bible must be at least mostly true. By faith I believe that there is a God, but I do not do so blindly.

I agree whole heartedly. I feel there is more to life then is scientifically explainable.

[Henry]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Never seen religion so well summed-up in under a minute.

[Puffi]

My bad, I should've cleared this out better, but think about this: why would any rational person say he's agnostic? Every word has more meaning than what the dictionary says. You have to consider pragmatics. If I say I'm agnostic, what will most people think? They'll think I'm open to the idea of God. That maybe there could be something there... Maybe that something just isn't what the books tell us... That's what being agnostic is to most people, at least where I live.

I believe what I believe not because I was taught it, or because everyone in my family does. I believe the way I do because, through logical deduction and induction, I have come the conclusion that what is presented in the bible must be at least mostly true.

What do you base this on? Exactly which parts of the Bible did you think are true through logical deduction/induction? Give examples. And you're belittling the impact of your culture. Is it a coincidence that people who have religious parents or were brought up in religious surroundings end up religious more than people who weren't? No. To completely dismiss this just because you can't see it from your own view - which is always subjective - is not rational. I know a part of why I'm religious is that I wasn't brought up that way or because no-one I knew as a child was religious, nor is religion very strongly represented in my culture to begin with. Religion is the most powerful social force in human history.

People have to step out of their illusions of "rationality" and accept that everything they say or do is emotion-based. Science is based on emotion as well. Math isn't 100% perfect. Just because an algorithm works a trillion times, it doesn't mean it'll work the next time. Even abstractions can be altered by people. There is much science can't explain. Precognition is scientifically proven, but people are too afraid to accept it before more studies. Studies that wouldn't be needed for something less shocking. But none of these things could ever make anyone logically deduct that God exists.

[Puffi]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Never seen religion so well summed-up in under a minute.

Wow. The part about Christmas is just great. :thumbsup:

[Rohsiph]

Atheist. Specifically a Satanist.

Ah, so . . . um . . . you're specifically not an atheist, then (seeing as how atheism would necessitate belief in no higher beings, whereas satanism would necessitate, at least, an acceptance that a demonic higher being exists). Hum.

My bad, I should've cleared this out better, but think about this: why would any rational person say he's agnostic? Every word has more meaning than what the dictionary says. You have to consider pragmatics. If I say I'm agnostic, what will most people think? They'll think I'm open to the idea of God. That maybe there could be something there... Maybe that something just isn't what the books tell us... That's what being agnostic is to most people, at least where I live.

I still don't see how you've explained sufficiently why being open-minded about something that is, by definition, transcendental is bad.

People have to step out of their illusions of "rationality" and accept that everything they say or do is emotion-based. Science is based on emotion as well. Math isn't 100% perfect. Just because an algorithm works a trillion times, it doesn't mean it'll work the next time. Even abstractions can be altered by people. There is much science can't explain. Precognition is scientifically proven, but people are too afraid to accept it before more studies. Studies that wouldn't be needed for something less shocking. But none of these things could ever make anyone logically deduct that God exists.

Interesting thought--that 100% everything is based on emotion, yet one can't prove anything to any 100% certainties. Notice something there?

Where is precognition scientifically proven? Source, please--and make it one that has been verified multiple times. Not to completely discredit you here, as I'm not trying to say that precognition is impossible, but you're asking us to accept that this thing has been proven, even though nothing can be proven, and that we're cowards if we refuse to accept your claim.

I mean, I agree with you to the point that there are many things science (particularly modern science) cannot explain--perhaps will never explain.

I've struggled with the problems of relativism and nihilism, and think I have, in myself, overcome them. Skepticism has been a lot harder for me to get past (although nihilism has been popping back up with severe force recently). To deny skepticism is to necessarily believe in absolutes across the board--or is it? The position I've come to is to deny skepticism for the sake of being able to function at maximum efficacy/efficiency in my daily life. When considering metaphysical ideas, skepticism often comes back and is welcome.

It's tricky . . . but let's try to avoid jumping to conclusions.

---

As for my own religiosity/spirituality . . . I am not religious, in some ways even anti-religious, but would say that I am rather spiritual in my own ways.

[brewmaster]

Ah, so . . . um . . . you're specifically not an atheist, then (seeing as how atheism would necessitate belief in no higher beings, whereas satanism would necessitate, at least, an acceptance that a demonic higher being exists). Hum.



I still don't see how you've explained sufficiently why being open-minded about something that is, by definition, transcendental is bad.





Satanism isn't belief in a demonic higher being, it's a self-reliant, self-important form of credo, and really has nothing to do with satan.

Second sentence there is spot on.

[Rohsiph]

Satanism isn't belief in a demonic higher being, it's a self-reliant, self-important form of credo, and really has nothing to do with satan.

I'll admit ignorance to the creed therein :)

Wonder why they wouldn't come up with a different name as to avoid the connection to the Judeo-Christian myths, though. Eh, that's probably for a different thread.

Self-reliant and self-important . . . diluted therein, this sounds like a kind of Anarchism to me. Is it pretty much the same thing, just affiliated with the spiritual instead of the political?

[Puffi]

Actually I think there is a form of Satanism that does recognize some sort of higher power, but not all of Satanism is like that... No clue what it's called so I'll just shut up about it.

There have been a few experiments that have been repeated in the study of precognition... The most famous one is where they show people some sort of visual stimuli and record brain functions, and the subjects will know the stimuli will come before the computer has even randomly chosen to show it. There has been some variations of this, too. I can't be bothered to look it up. Just trust me, hah ;) No but seriously, you should be able to find it yourself if you're interested. I've read it from a few books on cognitive (neuro-) science.

Oh and another one is where they touched a subject's arm and he could anticipate whether they'd touch it again or not. The studies are "scientifically" valid. The methods have previously been proven scientific and they were repeated enough to be called scientific, at least in the visual stimuli experiment. I simply can't remember the arm experiment as well. There's something there we don't understand. It could be a flaw in the study methods for sure, but so far no-one has been able to pinpoint it - that I know of.

Why this isn't interesting to most people is that we're talking about imperceivable time differences here. If you see something 0,1 milliseconds before it actually happens, it's not exactly saying you can "see the future." No-one has ever proven anyone can see further than a few milliseconds.

The human brain simply works through emotions onto logic. That's why everything is emotion-based. Sure I'm not 100% sure of this either, but I am sure of it in scientific terms. Science is still based on probability. Like precognition. If you repeat an experiment 1000 times, it doesn't mean it's true. It just means there's a 1/100000000000 chance it isn't. And yes I just made up that statistic. ;)

[Figmentum]

Ah, so . . . um . . . you're specifically not an atheist, then (seeing as how atheism would necessitate belief in no higher beings, whereas satanism would necessitate, at least, an acceptance that a demonic higher being exists). Hum.


You've made a common mistake. Laveyan Satanists are atheist.


Very rarely does Wikipedia accurately describe something... But this is exact:


LaVeyan Satanism is a religion and philosophy founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, self-indulgence, and "eye for an eye" morality, with influence from Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, while its rituals and magic draw heavily from occultists such as Aleister Crowley. Borrowing Crowley's terminology, its adherents define Satanism as a "Left-Hand Path" religion, rejecting traditional "Right-Hand Path" religions such as Christianity for their perceived denial of life and emphasis on guilt and abstinence. Unlike Theistic Satanism, it does not literally worship Satan, but rather uses "Satan" as a symbol for people's natural inner desires.

God
Satanists do not believe that Satan is a god; rather, the function of God is performed and satisfied by the Satanist him/herself. That is, the needs of worship, ritual, and religious/spiritual focus are directed, effectively, inwards towards the Satanist, as opposed to outwards towards a God.

LaVey proposes instead that as all gods are creations of man, worship of an external deity is worship of its creator by proxy. He suggests, then, that the rational Satanist should instead internalize his god, and therefore worship himself; hence the Satanic maxim, "I am my own god."

It follows that Satanism shuns the idea of belief in all other deities as well. Belief in any such externalized deities is generally considered grounds for excluding someone as a Satanist, and devil worship in particular is considered nothing more than a misguided inversion of Christianity.


Also, Satan is only a symbol. We use him as countries do their flag. I'm not part of The Witchcraft area, I don't believe in that. Self indulgence however, is an instinct. Magic, is for fairytale lovers.

[Rohsiph]

You've made a common mistake. Laveyan Satanists are atheist. (etc.)

This is interesting. I still wonder about using a symbol like Satan that is very much theistic, but the concepts you've shared are in many ways appealing.

I appreciate the clarification & additional info. Thanks :)

[Rei]

i've been thinking...

NTJ's are the most likely types to be strongly religious...
NT minds work like theologians... we first rely on our N... we are then driven by J to figure out how to support the N with our T.

just a theory

[ArtisticThinker]

I'm a Christian, and I regularly attend services.

(Deep breath) But the reasons that I believe and attend are not because I raise that way (though I was) or because I'm expected to. It's not even because I use it as a crutch of some sort. I attend because I've come to the conclusion that there is more to life then is scientifically explainable.

I could launch into a looong monologue, but I won't. Short version: I believe what I believe not because I was taught it, or because everyone in my family does. I believe the way I do because, through logical deduction and induction, I have come the conclusion that what is presented in the bible must be at least mostly true. By faith I believe that there is a God, but I do not do so blindly.

Interesting. And why would people assume that the "more to life" is a God ? Did you consider Spirits, Ghosts, High Mountains, Silence, Stars ?? And how is "blindness" a way of seeing things when by its nature and for what it's known for "not seeing" ?

[ArtisticThinker]

i've been thinking...

NTJ's are the most likely types to be strongly religious...
NT minds work like theologians... we first rely on our N... we are then driven by J to figure out how to support the N with our T.

just a theory


Not necessarly. We are strong believers when we believe in "something". The list of things might and might not include religion as it's practiced in our world.

[brewmaster]

NTJ's are the most likely types to be strongly religious...

Really?

I would bet on SFs. NTs are more likely to see through the BS. Neither my T nor N can figure out how one REALLY arrives at being religious. Despite all the theories, that its for emotional comfort, social control, etc., I still cannot really figure out how someone can delude themselves to that point. I cannot see their line of reasoning (if you can call it that)

[Rick]

Things make too much sense to be the result of random chance.

First, I'll apologize for not reading all the posts in this thread.

I came to the same conclusion as what Wolf said, and I'm intellectually surprised that more INTJ's don't agree. By the way, I am a fundamentalist Christian.

We are designers and planners. Being so, I would have expected that our type would have been more likely to look at the world and see intelligent design behind it. :huh:

[ScottH]

Hi all,

I'm new here.

Please forgive me for not reading all the posts. I just wanted to share my 2 cents worth.

I am agnostic. For me, that's a natural consequence of being a logical person; I can neither "believe" out of faith, nor "disbelieve" out of faith, for either would be illogical to me.

But, I see two distinct ways to look at religion.

1) A belief system.
Clearly this is what many people refer to, and why some find it difficult to understand an INTJ being religious. I myself have often said "nobody could truly, deeply 'believe' without evidence," but have come to understand that not everybody is as critical as I, and some people have a much lower threshold of belief than I do.

2) The phenomena of religion
By that, I mean the tendency for some people to look "outside" for answers, to feel safe, secure, watched after, combined with the tendency for like-minded people to coalesce into groups (religions). This makes perfect sense to me.

On the latter, I have often wondered if this is maybe a consequence of our early brain development, a vestige from the time when we felt presence of an omnipotent being (Mom and Dad) for our safety. By implicitly trusting them and by believing them to be infinitely capable, we were made safer and kept from straying (an evolutionary advantage, I'd say). Perhaps we never lose the desire or need for that feeling, the feeling of being "looked after." Perhaps religion fulfills that need for its members.

[Rohsiph]

We are designers and planners. Being so, I would have expected that our type would have been more likely to look at the world and see intelligent design behind it. :huh:

Apologizing that I also haven't read the whole thread (even though I contributed earlier today without acknowledging this--I appreciate your precedent :)), I offer:

the ---universe--- is chaotic such that I find an argument based on intelligent design to be erroneous.

I think it might have been a different post in this message board, but I'm not sure, where someone actually suggested a very interesting reason for why intelligent-design folks would never accept the atheistic argument of looking at the universe as a whole, but this is still the response I like standing by:

it's the numbers. Astronomical scales extend such that it is conceivably probable for our planet to support life--such that there are trillions of planets that don't. It is less conceivably probable that ours is the only planet that supports life, that there are additional trillions of planets for there to possibly be life on.

[The Many]

Hi all,

I'm new here.

Please forgive me for not reading all the posts. I just wanted to share my 2 cents worth.

I am agnostic. For me, that's a natural consequence of being a logical person; I can neither "believe" out of faith, nor "disbelieve" out of faith, for either would be illogical to me.

But, I see two distinct ways to look at religion.

1) A belief system.
Clearly this is what many people refer to, and why some find it difficult to understand an INTJ being religious. I myself have often said "nobody could truly, deeply 'believe' without evidence," but have come to understand that not everybody is as critical as I, and some people have a much lower threshold of belief than I do.

2) The phenomena of religion
By that, I mean the tendency for some people to look "outside" for answers, to feel safe, secure, watched after, combined with the tendency for like-minded people to coalesce into groups (religions). This makes perfect sense to me.

On the latter, I have often wondered if this is maybe a consequence of our early brain development, a vestige from the time when we felt presence of an omnipotent being (Mom and Dad) for our safety. By implicitly trusting them and by believing them to be infinitely capable, we were made safer and kept from straying (an evolutionary advantage, I'd say). Perhaps we never lose the desire or need for that feeling, the feeling of being "looked after." Perhaps religion fulfills that need for its members.

An interesting distinction, I have to say... it makes quite some sense, though. As for me personally, I am (or rather, was) agnostic at heart too, until starting to develop my own philosophy and arriving at various conclusions. Essentially it is epistemologically based in that knowledge (beyond what is necessarily true) is faith; so from experienced phenomena one can only deduct and induct for oneself. The theory I find most likely to be true is evolution, together with an infinite world; an eternal repetition of big bangs - thus I am for all actual intents and purposes an atheist, whilst at the core I am still quite agnostic given that I am aware that my perceptions and theories may be flawed.

[blueback]

I think that you have to consider logic and faith seperately. It makes no sense to say that your faith is backed up by evidence. No matter how much evidence you accumulate, if you have FAITH then you are making a leap that the evidence does not support. You might as well just skip all the evidence since it is superfulous anyway.

My guiding principle is consistency.

If you can be consitent in everything you think, say, and do then you will have achieved the highest goal possible.

When you justify your faith with facts it is obvious you haven't thought through the ideas fully. Faith requires no justification, that is why it is called 'faith.' When you reach a logical conclusion you have to justify it, that is why it is called 'logic.' Therefore, no one who feels the need to justify their faith actually has it. Think about it, what is the point of arguing about faith? In the end you are going to be left with "I believe, and that's enough for me." so what was the point of the argument? The process is moot and if you haven't realized that yet then you don't understand your own faith.

Of course, the same thing applies to those who try to logically argue you out of your faith. The process is like a hamster spinning its wheel, all that effort and you are still in the same place. Someone either has faith or they don't, they might not understand their own mind, but that wouldn't be anything unique. The people who rail against God are just as deluded as those who try to "prove" their faith is the true one.

[Tarrick]

It's not that our faith is proven. It's that there is evidence that supports the line of thought and belief found in our faith.

Faith is simply believing that something has happened that you cannot deductively conclude based on available facts.

[blueback]

1) It's not that our faith is proven. It's that there is evidence that supports the line of thought and belief found in our faith.

2) Faith is simply believing that something has happened that you cannot deductively conclude based on available facts.

I inserted the numbers

1) That is exactly my point. It's not proven, it never will be proven, so attempting to do so is a waste of time. It is impossible to prove faith because when you do so it is no longer faith. By definition you can't have faith in something which is proven.

2) Well, sort of. You are right when you say that "Faith is simply believing..." but you can leave it there.

[cylontoaster]

I'm surprised that so many are religious. I had expected a greater number to be agnostic or atheist due to the very logical nature of this personality type.

I wasn't raised in a very religious household, so hearing about Yahweh punishing man for his wickedness with a flood seems about as plausible as Zeus who attempted to destroy all mankind with a flood because Lycaon sacrificed his son to the gods. For me, God is within the same realm of probability as The Flying Spaghetti Monster or invisible pink unicorns.

In any case, I find religion to be an interesting reflection of human behavior and thought, and in particular explores the boundaries of what should be acceptable behavior in society. It also perhaps fulfills some fundamental desire to give reason to why things happen, or perhaps to relieve the burden of our own actions, if there is some hidden plan for us. However, monotheistic religions tend to have too much of black/white definitions or examples which can cause some problems when relating to other cultures and religions. There is little leeway within "I am right", "there is only one true god", "this is exactly how the world was created". What is interesting about ancient Greek Religion is that even though it contradicted itself in its mythology from region to region, the Greeks did not wage faith based wars. It was more like, oh you call so and so x here, we can him y and we worship him in this way. Of course they fought each other for many other reasons, but it would be nice if we could eradicate war based on simple belief.

Just my .02

Also, what exactly does it mean when you have a "relationship with God"? People say this often, but I never quite know what they mean. I assume it's very one-sided unless you suffer from schizophrenia.

[Puffi]

I believe the way I do because, through logical deduction and induction, I have come the conclusion that what is presented in the bible must be at least mostly true.

It's not that our faith is proven. It's that there is evidence that supports the line of thought and belief found in our faith.

This doesn't make any sense to me. First you have your faith, and then you read the Bible and find support for that faith there? But it's the Bible in the first place that's defined your faith!

Oh and out of pure curiosity, which parts of the Bible convinced you?

[Rei]

Not necessarly. We are strong believers when we believe in "something". The list of things might and might not include religion as it's practiced in our world.

Okay, let me replace the term "religious" with generally "strong believers of things we can't prove."

I mean, obviously there are INTJs who are equally non-religious. I'm a prime example, of course I test borderline for N so I'm more anal about facts than most N's are. But my point was about the extremity.

I'm a Christian, and I regularly attend services.

(Deep breath) But the reasons that I believe and attend are not because I raise that way (though I was) or because I'm expected to. It's not even because I use it as a crutch of some sort. I attend because I've come to the conclusion that there is more to life then is scientifically explainable.

I could launch into a looong monologue, but I won't. Short version: I believe what I believe not because I was taught it, or because everyone in my family does. I believe the way I do because, through logical deduction and induction, I have come the conclusion that what is presented in the bible must be at least mostly true. By faith I believe that there is a God, but I do not do so blindly.

This is really old, and I don't know if I've picked on this before... but...

How can you be sure that what you believe is not a result of your upbringing? To be raised this way means that one has not known a time one did not believe, never been able to imagine a world without a supreme being. How do you know that you would think the same way if you weren't immersed in such an idea since you were a child? It's conditioning, most people are not aware that they are bent into their habits and beliefs. (I have a cool story about this conditioning... but I must not go off topic :laugh:)

[Tarrick]

Simple Rei. I look at the facts objectively, and remove all non-facts from the calculation.

[ChilaK]

The questions I pose here are the following:

Are there any INTJ here that religiously belong to a faith?
If so, what is the reason being making this decision?
If not, what factors (as the world is now) would have to exist for an INTJ to become religious ?

Oh and make sure you bring me some coffee with your reply ^^

1. Yes, I consider myself to be a Christian and attend a church regularly (though I can't say I ruggedly adhere to any particular denominational views and there is much that I am skeptical about when it comes to particular practices regardless of what church or other religious establishment I'm at).

2. Very interesting question. I think throughout life I have approached nearly every situation wanting to thoroughly understand it and to try and "make it better." Thinking about life as a whole this way has caused me to constantly think about life's possible meaning and purposes and how I fit into that. It is this pursuit that has led me to my current beliefs. In particular, noting an inherent beauty to life and specifically in a life lived with the kind of love that Christ preached: sacrifical love (not that touchy-feely "F" business ;) )is at the heart of my faith.

3. Sorry, no coffee on hand :undecided:

[Rei]

Simple Rei. I look at the facts objectively, and remove all non-facts from the calculation.

Oh quit picking at my inarticulate speech.
The question is... what makes you think that all you believe is not because of your upbringing?

What are the facts?

[ChilaK]

The questions I pose here are the following:

Are there any INTJ here that religiously belong to a faith?
If so, what is the reason being making this decision?
If not, what factors (as the world is now) would have to exist for an INTJ to become religious ?

Oh and make sure you bring me some coffee with your reply ^^

1. Yes, I consider myself to be a Christian and attend a church regularly (though I can't say I ruggedly adhere to any particular denominational views and there is much that I am skeptical about when it comes to particular practices regardless of what church or other religious establishment I'm at).

2. Very interesting question. I think throughout life I have approached nearly every situation wanting to thoroughly understand it and to try and "make it better." Thinking about life as a whole this way has caused me to constantly think about life's possible meaning and purposes and how I fit into that. It is this pursuit that has led me to my current beliefs. In particular, noting an inherent beauty to life and specifically in a life lived with the kind of love that Christ preached: sacrifical love (not that touchy-feely "F" business ;) )is at the heart of my faith.

3. Sorry, no coffee on hand :undecided:

[blueback]

Oh quit picking at my inarticulate speech.
The question is... what makes you think that all you believe is not because of your upbringing?

What are the facts?

Rei, you are tilting at windmills.

It does no good to ask someone what they THINK about their own BELIEFS because beliefs don't require thought. No matter how many facts they have lined up to convince you they are right eventually they will reach a point where they will have to ask you to make a leap of faith with them to arrive at the same conclusion. You might as well skip to that leap.

You can't analyze belief and you can't ask someone to analyze their own belief because if they're open-minded enough to actually seriously entertain the possibility their belief is wrong then they don't actually believe it at all. Conisdering a hypothetical situation requires that you allow for the possibility, however remote, that it could be true. A believer can't do that because they already know that anything which contradicts their belief is false by default.

I'm not saying there is anything inherently wrong with belief, most beliefs are pretty benign and most beliefs aren't acted upon very often. I'm just saying that it's not at all hard to understand someone's belief. People often try to complicate the issue with "proof" but you can ignore all that. Just ask them what they believe and take them at their word. I suppose everyone has to find out for themselves, but all I ever found from digging into someone's beliefs was a dead end.

[Tarrick]

Fun facts!

Fact 1: We exist.
Fact 2: The universe is expanding, which means (through reasoning) that the universe is not eternal, and started at one point.
Fact 3: Energy and Matter cannot be created, thus they either must be eternal, or they had to be created by a higher being.

[Rei]

Fun facts!

Fact 1: We exist.
Fact 2: The universe is expanding, which means (through reasoning) that the universe is not eternal, and started at one point.
Fact 3: Energy and Matter cannot be created, thus they either must be eternal, or they had to be created by a higher being.

...
I say matter and energy is eternal.
The expansion of the universe is due to a cycle/chain of chemical and physical reactions that have always been and will always be... in other words... also eternal.


It is as hard for a believer to believe that everything is eternal as it is for an atheist to believe a higher being created everything.
Like I said... would you choose to believe in the "higher being" rather than simply "eternity of being" by default if you were not introduced to the notion of a "higher being" from the beginning?

[Tarrick]

Either mass and energy have always been around and the universe is cycling through death and rebirth through spontaneous "Big Bangs" and "Super Collapses" or there is a God. No other way about it, we agree?

So then, more fun facts!

Fact 1: If everything evolved from something to become something, then they had to go through transitional points during which they would be extremely vulnerable and also have a lower chance of mating successfully due to the probable higher infant mortality rate caused by bad mutations.

Fact 2: Certain secondary functions in creatures would have to appear before the primary ones so the primary ones could function properly; such as the tongue wrapped around the skull of a woodpecker, or the pouch of a marsupial.

Fact 3: Despite all the fossils that we have found, very few are held