×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verbiage: T/F, Objective/Subjective, Science/Religion

Chacham (981) writes | more than 8 years ago

PC Games (Games) 15

If there's one thing i have learned with Jung's theory of brain functions, it's that we all think differently. Descartes was wrong. Without outside stimuli, we wouldn't perceive much, but we would judge, and that judgments would be somewhere on the subjective(F)/objective(T) scale, different from person to person.

If there's one thing i have learned with Jung's theory of brain functions, it's that we all think differently. Descartes was wrong. Without outside stimuli, we wouldn't perceive much, but we would judge, and that judgments would be somewhere on the subjective(F)/objective(T) scale, different from person to person.

Ultimately, the ironic thing is, the more objective a person tries to become, the more intolerant of opposing systems they become. It is the T that has his own beliefs and treats everything else as mere amusements, where the F being subjective and creating his own belief system, is very understanding of opposing beliefs. In a sense, because people are subjective, they appreciate others who act the same way.

Ts understand things by pulling them apart and understanding their individual objects. Fs understand things by putting things together and understanding how they work as a whole.

For example, Scientists are usually Ts, philosophers, F.

Perhaps then, that is why Scientists have such a hard time accepting religion. Religion is a whole belief system, where each individual part (usually) only makes sense within the whole. Each part may have a distinct function, but the function is useless without the system. Science, however, is understood in individual parts, and it takes a theory to bring it together. It is the theory that makes no sense without the individual parts. The parts themselves stand on their own.

To take that further, if in Science the individual parts (findings) disagree with the whole (theory), the theory is rewritten. If in Religion the individual parts (understandings) disagree with the whole (belief), the findings are understood differently.

With Scientists being Ts, they are in the relentless pursuit of objectivity. The downside is their tendency to be derisive towards anything subjective. Religionists are generally more accepting of Science (where it does not conflict with their beliefs), and can appreciate other belief-systems even if they condemn them. The downside is their tendency to be afraid of being objective where the religion does not have a(n existing) belief.

If religionists need to be more open-minded to objectivity, Scientists need to be more understanding of subjectivity. We are all a mixture of both qualities, and merely sticking to our preferences limits our growth severely.

Hmm...

15 comments

Arg! Stop being so modern! (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 8 years ago | (#13341545)


For example, Scientists are usually Ts, philosophers, F.


Used to be the same thing.

Artificial boundaries created and enforced by cultural norms are not a good basis for understanding the human mind.

Have you taken a seriously rigorous science curriculum before? You HAVE TO study philosophy. Well at least you are supposed to! :)

Oh, and I would say that people who are objective are critical of those who are not objective, independent of the other's personal set of beliefs. Likewise those who are subjective tend to be critical of others who are objective.

An example, religious nut cases, I'm sorry, religious extremists, tend to be able to at least understand the feelings and emotions that explain why another side is able to hold extreme religious views, but they are unable to understand the actual actions that took place to get the people to that point.

An objective person can go out and look at both side's history, where they came from and so on, and understand the how, but keeps going "yah, umm, but WHY do you guys bother?"

Re:Arg! Stop being so modern! (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 8 years ago | (#13341668)

Kind of like why i can both understand and not understand why you posted this comment?

Re:Arg! Stop being so modern! (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 8 years ago | (#13341851)

General irritation over people forgetting that once upon a time philosophers == scientists.

Re:Arg! Stop being so modern! (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 8 years ago | (#13347615)

Well, sort of. People looked to philosophers for somethings as they look to Scienctists for those same things today. However, Philosophy and Science are two different disciplines.

Re:Arg! Stop being so modern! (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 8 years ago | (#13347980)

  • Well, sort of. People looked to philosophers for somethings as they look to Scienctists for those same things today. However, Philosophy and Science are two different disciplines.


Matter of perspective, much of science is based upon a subset of logic, which was itself wholly spawned from philosophy.

Of course our entire system of mathematics is also just a (comparatively minor!) subset of philosophy.

Re:Arg! Stop being so modern! (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 8 years ago | (#13348530)

You also believe [slashdot.org] that "Philosophy and Religion are the same thing" so that makes science a subset of religion. :)

Of course our entire system of mathematics is also just a (comparatively minor!)

I think i should major in math, minor in science, and take a side-order of relgion.... er...or something like that. :)

Science's Error (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 8 years ago | (#13343031)

If religionists need to be more open-minded to objectivity, Scientists need to be more understanding of subjectivity.

It all comes down to the unknown. The religious person knows that their faith is rooted in something unproovable, and so they adapt by being comfortable with uncertainty. (The right answer to "where did Seth get his wife?" is really "I don't know", the myraid of other foolish answers notwithstanding.)

Paradoxially, the "scientific" person believes that their faith is rooted in fact--and so they are overly dismissive of anything that contradicts them, despite the fact that science is about questioning anything.

Re:Science's Error (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 8 years ago | (#13347711)

The religious person knows that their faith is rooted in something unproovable

That is incorrect. It is very provable, just not always objectively.

The existence of a deity is objectively provable (via logic), well, with the ultimate choice of either time always existing, or a mover creating it. Neither choice is "provable", but most find one or the other so absurd that it is not considered a viable solution. (All objectivity is somewhat subjective.)

and so they adapt by being comfortable with uncertainty.

Not really. No religious person i know of enjoys uncertainty.

(The right answer to "where did Seth get his wife?" is really "I don't know",

Well, being the existence of Seth is from the Bible, the Bible should also answer that question. And that is that Seth had a twin. Presumably, he, like his brothers, married their twin sisters. Unfortunately, the word "es" is rarely translated. It is either a subject definer (like the word "the") or is an implicit "with" (when conjugated it means "with" such as "eeto" which means "with him"), and changes the meaning of the next phrase to apply also to a subordinate. The word "es" preceeds the birth of each of Adams first three sons.

Re:Science's Error (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 8 years ago | (#13352775)

1: Hi, I'm a religious person comfortable with uncertainty.

2: Quote and verse, and translation, please. God allowing incest within his presence is a pretty hefty claim to make when there are at least two other valid interpretations that don't require it.

(those would be, btw, either a repeat of Eve's creation or the inclusion of a near-man in the creation of all the animals.)

Re:Science's Error (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 8 years ago | (#13355981)

Hi, I'm a religious person comfortable with uncertainty

Heh. Guess there's a first time for everything. :)

Quote and verse, and translation, please. God allowing incest within his presence is a pretty hefty claim to make when there are at least two other valid interpretations that don't require it.

Genesis 4:25.

My apologies. I made a mistake. The word "es" was not there. It is on verse 1, next to Cain and Able's birth. Being Abel was dead, that did free up at least one woman.. (BTW Blue Letter Bible [blueletterbible.org] looks great.)

Re:Science's Error (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 8 years ago | (#13356018)

God allowing incest within his presence is a pretty hefty claim to make

Leviticus 20:17 which forbids marital relations between brother and sister calls is a "chesed". The translation here is "wicked" which is an incorrect trnaslation. The word means either "embarassment" or "kindness". It has been said that it means embarrasment, but this word is used instead of a more direct word "Boosha" because it is referring to an earlier "kindness". That is, that G-d permitted incest so that we all come from one family, and to promote harmony amongst all people.

Re:Science's Error (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 8 years ago | (#13358726)

That is, that G-d permitted incest so that we all come from one family, and to promote harmony amongst all people.

So sayeth generations of jewish scholars when asked with the same question by their children.

They may very well be right--but if the source of said wives was important, it would have had at least one verse. It's one of those things, like "where did God come from" or "do aliens have souls" that is irrelevant to the faith. If anything, it's a distraction that harms the effectiveness of the religion as a tool to help man find God.

Another interpretation, btw, if we take your reading as True, is that God didn't forbid incest until after Noah's time, due to the evil and wickedness that arose from the children of Seth and Cain. Ten generations of change would be enough for each of Noah's three sons to take a wife of totally different genetic makeup.

(I won't presume to suggest that God allowed an unusally racist generation of rabbis to edit scripture, but that is just one of the myraid possibilities that show how bad focusing on the details of Scripture before the point can be.)

Re:Science's Error (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 8 years ago | (#13372221)

but if the source of said wives was important, it would have had at least one verse.

Not a major point, but Genesis 5:4 says that Adam had daughters.

To say that Seth married anyone but his sister (or his mother for that matter) requires something other than a straight "common sense" reading. If you're question is "what about incest", the question is of a subjective values-based nature, and therefore should be answered in a subjective values-based way. If you're question is "where did they come from?", the question is of an objective logic-based nature, and therefore should be answered in an objective logic-based way.

I do not think incest was a problem then, as you have pointed out. Therefore the question is who were their wives, i think Genesis 5:4 supplies an ample response.

but that is just one of the myraid possibilities that show how bad focusing on the details of Scripture before the point can be.

To each their own. :)

Re:Science's Error (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 8 years ago | (#13374835)

To each their own. :)

Are you agreeing with me on the "don't focus on the details" line, or disagreeing?

Re:Science's Error (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#13390365)

To pout it coursely: I defnitely believe in focusing on the details; I just don't care what you do. :)

Therefore, "to each their own".
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...