Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does anyone else think that religious difference and debate is more like a battle between personality types?
To me, this kind of information (see link) supports that idea. And perhaps those who hate religion probably just have a problem with "ISFJ" prickly pears in general.
I had to think about that a bit. I's say - no, it isn't about that.
(1) it is about the validity of the religious claims themselves. This is a matter of Data and reason - not personalities
(2) the apologetics, tactics and rhetoric used also follows particular patterns. This is based more on what kind of religious buy -in the apologist has than personality. For example a Bible literalist creationist will argue a different kind of apologetic from a cafeteria Christian, even though within those parameters, we can find personality -based differences, the style of Fogma determines the apologetic.
(3) the instict of Faith and personal cred. is joined at the hip. The apologetics methods and progress (or regress, rather) to evasions, irrelevancies and escape strategies without having to admit defeat is standard theist apologetics, no matter what the personality -type is.
Atheist skepticism is of course nothing to do with personality -types. It is sound use of validated data and logical reasoning and whether it is done well or not matters more than personality -types.
I won't go too far into it, but 'personalities' is more often part of a theist apologetic ad hominem way of escaping an argument that they are losing on data and reasoning.
Does anyone else think that religious difference and debate is more like a battle between personality types?
To me, this kind of information (see link) supports that idea. And perhaps those who hate religion probably just have a problem with "ISFJ" prickly pears in general.
I had to think about that a bit. I's say - no, it isn't about that.
(1) it is about the validity of the religious claims themselves. This is a matter of Data and reason - not personalities
(2) the apologetics, tactics and rhetoric used also follows particular patterns. This is based more on what kind of religious buy -in the apologist has than personality. For example a Bible literalist creationist will argue a different kind of apologetic from a cafeteria Christian, even though within those parameters, we can find personality -based differences, the style of Fogma determines the apologetic.
(3) the instict of Faith and personal cred. is joined at the hip. The apologetics methods and progress (or regress, rather) to evasions, irrelevancies and escape strategies without having to admit defeat is standard theist apologetics, no matter what the personality -type is.
Atheist skepticism is of course nothing to do with personality -types. It is sound use of validated data and logical reasoning and whether it is done well or not matters more than personality -types.
I won't go too far into it, but 'personalities' is more often part of a theist apologetic ad hominem way of escaping an argument that they are losing on data and reasoning.
While I agree with some of what you've said here, I also disagree with some of it. Whether a person accepts that all of creation can be explained by "data and reason" could be a facet of personality types. There are scientists and there are artists. The artist is more the "creative" type, while the scientist is more of the "rational" type...broadly speaking. And, sadly, seeing how so many discussions around the whole god/no god thing turn into ugly name calling and less than adult comments, obviously emotion and personality are involved. We are not computers.
Does anyone else think that religious difference and debate is more like a battle between personality types?
[/url]
The desire for continuous debate (or need to prove one is ‘right’) in regard to someone else’s belief (or disbelief) isn’t so much related to personality as it is to psychological health, in my opinion.
The desire for continuous debate (or need to prove one is ‘right’) in regard to someone else’s belief isn’t so much related to personality as it is to psychological health, in my opinion.
yes, accepted personality disorders is a reflection of the "psychological heath".
The desire for continuous debate (or need to prove one is ‘right’) in regard to someone else’s belief (or disbelief) isn’t so much related to personality as it is to psychological health, in my opinion.
In my case, it's sometimes related to boredom.....there is no way to prove right or wrong on this topic, IMHO. I do like to read what posters have to say and consider the arguments, but it's sad when it deteriorates into insults and name calling.
In my case, it's sometimes related to boredom.....there is no way to prove right or wrong on this topic, IMHO. I do like to read what posters have to say and consider the arguments, but it's sad when it deteriorates into insults and name calling.
True, perhaps it is boredom in some cases - either way, that comes back around to psychological health, especially when it involves (in some cases) hours and hours of invested energy into what boils down to, more often than not, grade-school insults and the need to be ‘right’ which do not vary much in content day to day.
I don’t believe in gods; but I’m not about to spend hours of trying to convince a believer they are ‘wrong’ - and yet, I would consider myself a strong and outspoken personality. This is why I say it has more to do with psychological health than personality type.
While I agree with some of what you've said here, I also disagree with some of it. Whether a person accepts that all of creation can be explained by "data and reason" could be a facet of personality types. There are scientists and there are artists. The artist is more the "creative" type, while the scientist is more of the "rational" type...broadly speaking. And, sadly, seeing how so many discussions around the whole god/no god thing turn into ugly name calling and less than adult comments, obviously emotion and personality are involved. We are not computers.
Art is a human construct. It tells us about how we work - in certain ways, but science (data and reason) tells us about how the rest works. Any claims about that have to be validated by 'data and reason' or they carry no credibility.
In my case, it's sometimes related to boredom.....there is no way to prove right or wrong on this topic, IMHO. I do like to read what posters have to say and consider the arguments, but it's sad when it deteriorates into insults and name calling.
Yes it is. mind, saying that someone is not arguing rationally is not an insult (if the point can be validated, of course - just saying 'you are irrational' is pretty insulting, if it isn't validated) , but it can be the start of some.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
