Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games)

Journal Chacham's Journal: Verbiage: T/F, Objective/Subjective, Science/Religion 15

Journal by Chacham

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...

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

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

Comments Filter:

  • 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 t

    • Kind of like why i can both understand and not understand why you posted this comment?
      • General irritation over people forgetting that once upon a time philosophers == scientists.
        • 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.
            • 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.
            • 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. :)

  • 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 t
    • 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
      • 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.)
        • 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 grea
        • 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 fami
          • 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 relig
            • 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 qu

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close