INTP's and Religion

[SoSaysSunny]

CORRECTION:
This forum does show recent posts at the bottom of the
Advanced Compose Message page.
Evidently, I'd just never scrolled that far down.

Originally Posted by Azrael

First of all, I am "agnostic" about essentially all information that is not a priori. All information received from experience is inductive and therefore subject to change.

Originally Posted by Azrael

It would still need to be "empirical," even if they could not reproduce it nor present it for others.
For example, intuitions wouldn't really be evidence even for an individual...nor would "faith." True evidence must be directly observable through the senses.

I had to look up a priori .because you were using the term in a different way than I'm used to hearing it ("an a priori assumption" -- a prejudgment due to evidence not presented, usually derogatory because such evidence isn't presented for review).

From the Wikipedia definition of a prioiri, I sum it up to be a definition or deduction in a proof, using reason only -- not experience / experiment.

A decision to be an Atheist due to a perceived logical contradiction would not count as empirical evidence.

And yet you said you structure your belief system off of a priori evidence. Are you using the term in a different way?

You are really quite the puzzle ... You internally doubt the existence of everything and yet your highest-regarded evidence is empirical, intrinsically experiential. How odd! (not that I don't have my own oddities)

Originally Posted by Azrael

It is always less than ideal to use eyewitness testimony as evidence for anything, which is why science rejects such things.

I agree, believing something just because someone else told you so isn't really evidence and is frankly a bit intellectually dishonest.

But I disagree about science rejecting eyewitness testimony. The person who records the data is reporting what he saw. Science does prefer reproducibility to confirm the data with other eyewitness testimony but this really becomes a consensus among the group and anyone outside the group may rightly doubt their findings and test for themselves. Much of science can't reproduce the experiment and get the same results (astronomy is passive research and quantum mechanics is inherently irreproducible).

Originally Posted by Azrael

Even if I were to see Zeus with my own eyes, I would still recognize that belief in him would still be "illogical." Why? Well, the uniform and repeated experience I have had would be reduced to absurdity were I to accept the event as "real," rather than leaving room for the much more likely possibility that I was simply suffering a delusion of some kind.

I agree that such an experience would cause a person to doubt his sanity. And so it should. But does that mean that you COULD NOT be convinced of its reality, whether through repeated occurrence or another's corroborating description?

[skycloud86]

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

Hi SkyCloud86 !

I see you around the forums and typically agree with your logic most of the time. These statements, however, ring with a certainty that is not merited by the evidence on hand.

One of the problems I have with a lot of people is their unscientific language, even from scientists themselves. Now I don't know you or what you do for a living, so maybe expecting scientific language is an unfair expectation. But here's my gripe, anyway:

Scientists (true scientists) present their findings (data) and qualify their conclusions with "error bars", a measure of their certainty. By nature and by culture, scientists are skeptical about any accepted belief and, with this skepticism, they research further to find better solutions and explanations. When a scientist becomes too wedded to his beliefs, he ceases to innovate and becomes a dogmatist rather than a scientist. If new-found data contradict his conclusions, then something is wrong. Models must adapt or be scrapped in order to incorporate all reputable data (e.g.: Newtonian Physics & Relativity).

INTPs, in general, are supposed to be skeptical of the Establishment and the Common Wisdom. It is part of our Perceiving trait to want to make our own rules, to decide for ourselves from the data, and to change our minds if new information presents itself.

So I am surprised that you feel so certain as to be an Atheist, rather than an Agnostic. But, then again, the personality types are not pigeon holes, rather a spectrum of varieties, so perhaps you are not the typical INTP.

Regardless, I wholeheartedly accept your choice not to believe in a God. I just wish your tone reflected an acknowledgment that this is your choice, your decision, and that others' choices are just as valid as your own.

Well, I'll keep the language unbiased from now on. I cannot know for sure if there is a god or not, so my post was inaccurate.

[SoSaysSunny]

Originally Posted by Azrael

Generally, I try to maintain as close a proximity to "standard definitions" as possible to prevent confusion by either party, but fair enough.

I agree. But even "standard definitions" vary. I believe that many, if not most, interpersonal conflicts could be avoided by settling on definitions before discussion.

Originally Posted by Azrael

The trouble that I have with this definition is that it is more of an epistemological, rather than metaphysical stance. Like I said earlier, I am "agnostic" about all things a posteriori, including gods. But, this says nothing of whether I believe in gods.

Okay, then by your definition, I would be "undecided." I find this to be a sort of silly category though, as I would be just as "undecided" about the tooth fairy.

My original post was discussing people who are certain about the existence or non-existence (or unknowability of the existence) of God. How they came to that certainty, what proofs they would accept, etc., was not at issue.

Originally Posted by Azrael

Theological noncognitivism actually presents a very interesting point regarding the subject of gods. The only reason that I don't personally subscribe to it is that it would seem such strictly object-based ontology would leave little room even for the abstract concept of "I."

... or love ... or hate ...

What I don't like about the view is the assertion that a topic is meaningless.

For all of human history (and lots before that), man has wrestled with the topic. And for someone to up and declare the terms and topic meaningless, incomprehensible, and undiscussable is a bit presumptuous, I think.

The example in Wikipedia was:

The sentence X is a four-sided triangle that exists outside of space and time, cannot be seen or measured and it actively hates blue spheres is an example of an unthinkable proposition.

I don't like this example because:

• It starts out self-contradictory
  • "four-sided triangle" ... A triangle is defined as having three sides.
• Then it goes fuzzy
  • "outside of space and time" ... Is that
    • outside of OUR space and time ... What about alternate universes? I don't believe in them but I can conceive of them
    • outside of space and time as we understand it ... Who says something can't exist because we haven't understood yet? Physicists are currently promoting a 10-dimensional reality around us in String Theory.
    • or a place with 0 dimensions? ... Self-contradictory again, "side" indicating extension in at least one dimension.
• Then it goes all wimpy with practical limitations
  • "cannot be seen" ... There are lots of things that are too small to see, even with technology. Take electrons, for instance. We can see their effects and infer their existence but not see them directly.
  • "cannot be measured" ... Don't even get me started here ... We can't measure the mass of neutrinos. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle even says that it is impossible to measure both the location and velocity of a particle at the same time. The more precisely you measure one, the less precisely you can measure the other.
• Then it goes all wacky definition on us
  • "it actively hates blue spheres" ... So now it isn't a geometrical figure but has personhood? Or is it a triangular shaped alien prejudiced against the enemy blue spheres? WHATEVER!

I know this wasn't your example, but you can see my frustration.

Some religious people reject as incomprehensible the concept of the Trinity (that the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can together comprise one God). They say that we have no experience with such a concept and that it is impossible to comprehend such a thing.

Scientists, however, discuss photons (light) as being both a particle and a wave at the same time. But particles are discrete (individual) things and waves act as continuous (spread out) things. The reality is that photons are "wavicles" (a commonly used made-up term), things that behave one way in one experiment and another in a different one. Language has to play catch-up to experience. We have to define new words to hold a collection of concepts.

Just because our language draws comparisons to our daily lives does not mean that we cannot conceive of something having both seemingly-contradictory properties. And, indeed, we do conceive of it because it exists.

We cannot limit our imaginations by our language!

Originally Posted by Azrael

Di nulla. Thanks for a great conversation!

THANK YOU ...

Originally Posted by Azrael

From a standpoint of true "certainty," I would definitely classify as a strong agnostic. However, for the sake of pragmatism, I accept the epistemological suppositions of empiricism to form my worldview.
Since one cannot perfectly justify any epistemological suppositions, uncertainty is essentially implied in any statement made within those suppositions. Because of this, I still am comfortable asserting "This chair that I am sitting on exists" (considering this "knowledge," though uncertain) unless someone is specifically drawing attention to my method of acquiring such information.

Back to me declaring you "odd".

Originally Posted by Azrael

Alright, I'll go to bed now. I'll respond in the morning - have a good one!

Thanks ... But by telling me you would return in the morning, now I feel compelled to stay up and answer this message too. *sigh*

[SoSaysSunny]

Originally Posted by skycloud86

Well, I'll keep the language unbiased from now on. I cannot know for sure if there is a god or not, so my post was inaccurate.

No Problem!

[LemonSqueeze]

Raised Christian, pretty much vanilla Protestant.
Lost my faith over a slow lengthy process of 4 years this in essence was me applying some research and thought to the subject of religion, God and spiritualism.
I'm now a Agnostic Atheist. My general philosophy borrows partially from Existentialism, Care-based Ethics, Empiricism and Methodological Naturalism.

About Theological noncognitivism:

The argument itself (as will be presented in this article) may be generally formalized as follows2:

1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:

A. Primary Attributes
B. Secondary Attributes
C. Relational Attributes.

2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)
7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library...oncognitivism/

[SoSaysSunny]

Originally Posted by Coffee Grinder

About Theological Noncognitivism:

The argument itself (as will be presented in this article) may be generally formalized as follows2:

1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:

A. Primary Attributes
B. Secondary Attributes
C. Relational Attributes.

2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
.
.
.

First, let's define our terms ...

I'm guessing that existants are things which exist.

What, exactly, constitutes a Primary Attribute?

How, exactly, are you defining God?

What are the requirements for Positive Identification?

Now, on to the argument ...

What is your proof that The term God lacks a positively identified primary attribute?

[LemonSqueeze]

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

First, let's define our terms ...

I'm guessing that existants are things which exist.

What, exactly, constitutes a Primary Attribute?

How, exactly, are you defining God?

What are the requirements for Positive Identification?

Now, on to the argument ...

What is your proof that The term God lacks a positively identified primary attribute?

*points to linked article in previous post*

I'm not a proponent of the theological noncognivitist position so I generally aren't entirely familiar with it.

I thought it was a necessary FYI.

A number of reasons that have led me to believe that at least the Christian religion is false.

1) Miracles. God parted the red sea, set towns ablaze, gave sight to the blinded, turned people into salt, raised people from the dead. And suddenly when the scientific method arrives and we're actually able to document miracles and study them they suddenly become far more subdued or disappear entirely. They become events that have at least plausible naturalistic explanations. There is not one single naturalistic explanation for a person's body to suddenly transform into salt.

2) The erosion of religion's explanatory powers when it comes to phenomena. Religion use to explain many phenomena that are now considered naturalistic in nature. Disease for example use to be punishment from God. But nowadays we have found out that diseases are rather indiscriminate in who they afflict. There does not seem to be a pattern whereby those that moralistic or follower of a certain religion has a statistically fewer diseases than the rest of the population. I think the only places where Theists can hold a slight footing would be origin of the universe and maybe morality.

3) The imperfection of creation, 99.9999% of the universe lacks the conditions for life. In surveying Earth, it seems that God loves bugs and microbes far more than he loves humans. Looking at humans themselves, having a shared pathway for both air and food is just silly. (Don't forget testicles!).

[Kevinaswell]

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

I believe that faith is continuing to believe what has already been proved to you when it may no longer be convenient / comfortable.

And I'm more than willing to discuss anything religious with anyone.

Some people have faith that black people are the scum of humanity.

I sure hope this type of logic doesn't stick around :(

[SoSaysSunny]

Originally Posted by Kevinaswell

Some people have faith that black people are the scum of humanity.

I sure hope this type of logic doesn't stick around :(

Me, too ! (hope it doesn't stick around, not think poorly of blacks)

I was more describing faith in a person or thing, not a value judgment.

For example: When you go up to the observation deck of a high rise building and look down with your face against the window, your heart may race from the dizzying height. You calm yourself, however, because your experience with glass is that it is solid unless struck very hard and so you have faith you will not fall out. This is faith or trust from experience, something you may have to remind yourself you already know because of the circumstances.

Another example: If a friend snaps at you, you may feel like they don't care about your feelings. You remind yourself that the person has been a loyal friend for years and so you cut them some slack, guessing that maybe they're stressed out or having a bad day. You have faith that the person doesn't hate you from one experience because they've gained your trust over time. If you have a friend in perpetual grump mode, you may have to remind yourself about this a lot.

Faith in God can be much like those examples, trust built by the experience of his benevolence over the years, demonstrated in a variety of ways that mean something to you in particular. I have my stories but they may be unconvincing for you ... It is a relationship, not a thought exercise. It is kin to the difference between knowing everything about a person without meeting them and actually meeting the person. Two different things, entirely.

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

From the Wikipedia definition of a prioiri, I sum it up to be a definition or deduction in a proof, using reason only -- not experience / experiment.
A decision to be an Atheist due to a perceived logical contradiction would not count as empirical evidence.
And yet you said you structure your belief system off of a priori evidence. Are you using the term in a different way?

I don't believe I said that; perhaps there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. Let me try to clarify my opinion on this matter:
All a priori information is necessarily true. It is essentially "certain."
However, this information only provides very basic rules and parameters for metaphysical speculation. One cannot determine the existence of anything with pure logic other than perhaps himself.
So, for me to hold any sort of "worldview," I must accept an epistemological stance (or a method of acquiring supposed "knowledge.") For this purpose, I think that the most rational stance is empiricism - the belief that knowledge arises from sensory perception. This requires inductive reasoning, which is by nature uncertain. However, it is still the most reliable method available to us.

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

You are really quite the puzzle ... You internally doubt the existence of everything and yet your highest-regarded evidence is empirical, intrinsically experiential. How odd! (not that I don't have my own oddities)

Hehe, perhaps. But, this is because I don't believe any entity's existence can be proven using logic. Empirical evidence is the next best thing.

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

I agree, believing something just because someone else told you so isn't really evidence and is frankly a bit intellectually dishonest.

But I disagree about science rejecting eyewitness testimony. The person who records the data is reporting what he saw. Science does prefer reproducibility to confirm the data with other eyewitness testimony but this really becomes a consensus among the group and anyone outside the group may rightly doubt their findings and test for themselves. Much of science can't reproduce the experiment and get the same results (astronomy is passive research and quantum mechanics is inherently irreproducible).

I still see a strong difference between the testimony of a person who very possibly has an agenda versus a researcher who is merely attempting to document and interpret data.

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

I agree that such an experience would cause a person to doubt his sanity. And so it should. But does that mean that you COULD NOT be convinced of its reality, whether through repeated occurrence or another's corroborating description?

Oh, no. This is why I would say that schizophrenics, for example, would have no proper method of determining what is real. If you have uniform and repeated sensory experiences with an entity that is not "real," there would be virtually no rational way for you to determine that it is false.

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

I agree. But even "standard definitions" vary. I believe that many, if not most, interpersonal conflicts could be avoided by settling on definitions before discussion.

Agreed! I was only concerned with the way your definitions seemed to claim that I was not actually an atheist.

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

My original post was discussing people who are certain about the existence or non-existence (or unknowability of the existence) of God. How they came to that certainty, what proofs they would accept, etc., was not at issue.

Alright, well I would say that "nothing is certain" (minus a priori rules/logic), but I do not believe in gods.

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

... or love ... or hate ...

What I don't like about the view is the assertion that a topic is meaningless.

For all of human history (and lots before that), man has wrestled with the topic. And for someone to up and declare the terms and topic meaningless, incomprehensible, and undiscussable is a bit presumptuous, I think.

Hmm, well I find it to be just as fair of a philosophical position as anything else.

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

The example in Wikipedia was:

I don't like this example because:

• It starts out self-contradictory
  • "four-sided triangle" ... A triangle is defined as having three sides.
• Then it goes fuzzy
  • "outside of space and time" ... Is that
    • outside of OUR space and time ... What about alternate universes? I don't believe in them but I can conceive of them
    • outside of space and time as we understand it ... Who says something can't exist because we haven't understood yet? Physicists are currently promoting a 10-dimensional reality around us in String Theory.
    • or a place with 0 dimensions? ... Self-contradictory again, "side" indicating extension in at least one dimension.
• Then it goes all wimpy with practical limitations
  • "cannot be seen" ... There are lots of things that are too small to see, even with technology. Take electrons, for instance. We can see their effects and infer their existence but not see them directly.
  • "cannot be measured" ... Don't even get me started here ... We can't measure the mass of neutrinos. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle even says that it is impossible to measure both the location and velocity of a particle at the same time. The more precisely you measure one, the less precisely you can measure the other.
• Then it goes all wacky definition on us
  • "it actively hates blue spheres" ... So now it isn't a geometrical figure but has personhood? Or is it a triangular shaped alien prejudiced against the enemy blue spheres? WHATEVER!

I know this wasn't your example, but you can see my frustration.

Well, the trouble is that many gods fit every criteria in the above example quite well. Let's take the Judeo-Christian God for example:
1. Starts out with logically contradictory attributes: omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence
2. Exists externally from the universe (including space-time) and yet is simultaneously omnipresent within it.
3. Cannot be seen, heard, measured, etc...
4. Actively hates "evildoers," and plans to punish all infidels for eternity.

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

Scientists, however, discuss photons (light) as being both a particle and a wave at the same time. But particles are discrete (individual) things and waves act as continuous (spread out) things. The reality is that photons are "wavicles" (a commonly used made-up term), things that behave one way in one experiment and another in a different one. Language has to play catch-up to experience. We have to define new words to hold a collection of concepts.

Just because our language draws comparisons to our daily lives does not mean that we cannot conceive of something having both seemingly-contradictory properties. And, indeed, we do conceive of it because it exists.

But particles and waves are not necessarily contradictory entities, as these terms have also arisen from scientific discovery. If evidence points to something previously inconceivable, then adapting to a new perspective on the natural world follows suit. However, without any evidence or experimentation to justify this, it would be silly to propose such a thing.

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

Back to me declaring you "odd".

Proud of it!

Originally Posted by SoSaysSunny

Thanks ... But by telling me you would return in the morning, now I feel compelled to stay up and answer this message too. *sigh*

Haha, sorry about that.