But also consider the case of not believing in ANY certain belief. In order to make a decision, wouldn't you need to go through a complete thought process for every conclusion you wish to make? I wonder if that's just too time consuming, and besides that, anxiety-producing.

Could it be that humans need beliefs so that they're not constantly overwhelmed with choices, and so that they have some sort of backup automatic answer to most choices/decisions in their life? The redundant Enneatype One (haha) may be an extremely effective person because he doesn't waste time rethinking conclusions that would already be the same under almost every circumstance. He may use thought as a means of carrying out his plans, instead of spending all the time thinking up what his plans should be.

Nay, I think instead of there being less to think about, with enough beliefs on what you find unimportant there is more freedom, time, and energy to think about what you do find important.

~Odyssey


PS: Oh hey, I'm a senior member. (Hm, I must think... should I believe this is a good thing or a bad thing? I mean, this can't always be a good thing because some people are spammers and they get lots of points racked up right away, but since I make a point to have quality posts, that doesn't apply to me. Hm, in the absence of a predetermined belief I have to decide whether I should celebrate, be indifferent, or curse this advancement to 'senior' membership... Do I believe that posting on this board is a good thing? hm... Yes, so I think...) Yay!

PPS: See my point? =) It saves time to believe by default that becoming a senior member is a good thing, even though it's not 100% accurate in all situations or for all people.

See the controller of the universe, Hitchhikers Guide #2.

1 point for me!

I think going into this subject, I would've considered faith and belief to be one in the same. There's a verse in the book of James that states "faith without works is dead." If by beliefs needing faith you mean the active participation of one's conviction, I'd agree with you, belief is dependent on faith. But I'm not sure I can get behind you on the faith being void of thought.

But I guesss that's how you'd divide it up.

As Oddyssey brought up, is relying on our beliefs really an absense of thought or congnitive use of our experience and learning that helps us formulate opinions or direct our actions? If I ride public transporation and immediately sit down would that be considered having a belief in the seat? I'm average sized, I don't have a belief that the seat would give way when I sit. I don't check the seat to see if it can support my weight before I sit. But, how many times has someone (OK, me) riding mass transit in a large city sat down only to find the seat wet or sticky? Could this be considered absense of thought because that person (dummy me) clearly wasn't thinking to feel the seat before sitting?

I think I know what you were going for though, that once you accept a belief it closes off future reasoning on the subject. Plenty of sciences have shown how an adapted set of principles can be harmful or preventive of advancement.

But I threw out the first example as a continuence of what's been brought up in some of the other posts. A question to the question on the table. At what point does one or should one abandon a belief? When does a belief represent death of thought?

If I have to be across town for work at 9 AM, I'll take side or surface streets because the highway/freeways will be too congested. This is my belief from listening to the traffic reports, maybe trying to drive the freeways a few times, etc. Because of the belief I've formed, I could forgo using the freeways for years. But say something happens or I make the decision to drive the freeway and I find myself driving the freeway and I notice it's taking less time than I expected. The next day I try the freeway and again it takes less time. But the day after that I get on the freeway and it's packed. The day after that I'm on the freeway, and it's packed. What do I do the next day?

I suppose this is the part of the post-modernism argument - abundance of choice, (which way do I drive?), firmly held beliefs becoming shattered (I thought that way was the quickest). Was driving the same route really done out of lack of thinking?

A comedian can do a routine across the country, kill every night. One night a five minute bit on taxi drivers totally bombs. The comic no longer does the taxi bit, ever. Is this a revelation in thought or a visit from the wicked, ugly stepsister of faith? DOUBT.

When kids fall off bicycles, strike out, fail tests, we tell them not to lose faith, not to give up. Thus, quitting becomes death.

I know nothing of Tibetan Monks but my guess is their tedious attention to routine keeps their faith going. Christians are called to worship together, pray and the like, not as a matter of earning our salvation but without this dedication one's faith deteriorates. It can be like exercise where one quits working out if one fails to see results. You go to church for a while, nothing really happens, you stop. Or, you workout everyday then get the crap kicked out of you or have a heart attack reaching for some pretzels. Here comes Doubt ready to give you a huge smack on the lips while she still has spinach stuck in her teeth.

I think in chosing to act in faith is not void of thought or what could be called conducting actions without opposition. But, on the contrary, I think having faith/beliefs is chosing to act despite thought or opposition.

I gotta get a megaphone for the meme getting pushed around in the back of my mind every time I visit this site

Rational Meme: Don't I have work to do?

Bully (or Rationalizing) Meme: In a minute, this is all part of warm up...

Depending on the meme, it can also mess with the idea of what you'd rather be doing. (i.e. EverQuest ) Most of them offer some benefit, with varying degrees of likelyhood that it will materialise. 'Dotcoms will keep growing amazingly' offered a substantial financial reward, for instance, and 'pay for EQ' promises amusement.

After careful consideration of myself, I realized I was ignorant on matters of religion, society, philisophy, politics, etc...

(Well maybe not completely ignorant, but obviously inadequate. Religion (or lack thereof, for me) I was pretty much comfortable with, as I'd get in a debate and ponder the questions posed after they were proposed. I would always find a conclusive answer that satisfied myself).

That happened about 4 years ago. I'm a "late bloomer."

I took it upon myself to "relearn" everything I could. Of course, I have my biases.

I questioned EVERYTHING I could think of, and listened to creiticism of others, always carefully taking their advice into consideration. I was a leech (heh...I still am...).

My job and social life allowed me this opportunity. I joke with some I had my mid-life crisis at 22. Anxiety? Yes, but it was my choice so it was easy to deal with.

I also learned what issues need thought, versus the ones that are merely formalities. Maybe I'll elaborate someday...

I try not to "believe" in anything, yet I realize most conclusions fall back to a few core morals and values (and I constantly double check those as well). Regardless, I constantly try to keep myself in check. Ti, such as it is, dominates. I can't help it. Besides, it's welcome, and I find it easier to tell people "I don't know...yet" as I get older. And that makes me smile.


So, depending on how deep you get, you're right. But what's so wrong about re-confirmation of said "beliefs?" I'd like to answer that question and say that's where N dominates. Or maybe Ti has to have it's say as much as possible?

But what is a "complete thought process?" Maybe answered next:

Negative, for me. As I become more familiar with myself and my thought processes, I'll find the paths I've been down before, assuming similiar thought processes, and just jump to that particular conclusion and move onto fitting the current issue at hand into that thought process. BUT, if I notice a dissimiliarity in the situation (when considering other, previously experienced situations) it will be dwelled upon, for obvious reasons (I think).

The situation at hand, for me, always needs to be considered. Tying back to another thread, rules do not always apply, and they are made to be broken, depending on...the current situation at hand.

Or maybe the nature of my "artistic" work (another story) has ingrained this process into me?

Summarizing:

Where would we be if we didn't question the answers?


<edit> After all that, I think flan2dave summarized it nicely in his first response. That's pretty much where I was going. </edit>

<edit2> And apparently I feel particularly long-winded tonight. I'm fine if I'm ignored. </edit2>

That's two questions..

To the first one: I don't know. I've never really made it that far. In many cases, I have found no reason for belief in the first place.

And to the second one: According to merriam-webster, http://http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=belief+ means (taking the definition most relative to the idea) "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence". A synonym of belief is http://http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=faith+:2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs........
So, my question to the question of the question is this. If you believe in God, and have faith that God exists, what is left to think about regarding the existence of God?

I think you just hit the nail on the head with that last sentence. People who believe in God rarely question God's existence and instead think of ways to learn about God's nature, what he wants us to do, etc. Some people would see this as a natural progression, that learning about God's nature is somehow on a "higher" level of thought than merely wondering whether or not he exists. I'm not so sure about that. But I do have to concede that there really isn't much to do on what I call "the God question" (i.e. does he, she, it exist?) except go in circles.

In terms of personality type, I think there's a J/P difference here. A J-type would be more likely to just assume something, maybe even the belief in God's existence, for any reason: a sort of idealism and "wanting" God to exist, the Pascal's-wager logic, etc. P-types especially INTPs, I think, would have more difficulty making that quantum leap in their minds if they're not sure God exists. Maybe the Js are really going about it the right way by just suspending their disbelief and ignoring their inner Doubting Thomas. I don't know.

You know, you just rang a bell - I read someplace that the basic difference between an INTP and an INTJ is that, INTJ believes there is one core Truth and will try to find out what this Truth is; INTP on the other hand, will try to find if such a core Truth exists in the first place.
(Can't remember where I read this though... )

That's not accurate at all. I like INTJs a lot. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if I ever get married, I picture myself marrying an INTJ. Many of the people that I admire most in my life are INTJs. They're intellectual like INTPs, and more driven and reliable. That combination draws me to them.

It depends on the INTJ, of course. My mother, whom I think is an INTJ, has a really strong Se function that really should be illegal for an INTJ. I couldn't do Se if my life depended on it, and my mom's Se and Te functions get on my nerves a lot. With the strongly iNtuitive INTJs, though, I don't have too many problems. They're great fun to have as classmates and teachers.

Things said in jest are most often true

intj-list@yahoogroups.com

Really--you Ps do come up with the better conversations. And I know you guys like the Js. If I like the Ps, you guys like the Js.

I have this weird thing where I think the Grand Order is fair in the absolute sense of the word. If you want to hear something funny--I don't want to be embalmed after death because what if I need everything the way it is? But my faith in the fairness of the Order is strong enought that I know I would be given a break if it wasn't my idea for the embalming. The Order would be cool about it.

My mother is an ESFJ and she has absolutely no idea what I'm talking about 90% of the time. I'm not even in the realm of the possibility of being an alien, her most closely matched reference point. But, I'm her son.

Gosh, you sound like myself in a mirror (Only that I am her "daughter" ) You don't happen to have an INFJ father as well, do you?

Hey barge - thanks. I think I will barge in there to see what is up "Us Ps" - huh... what "us P's"...

Good morning everyone - I just woke up....

www.memepool.com for fun. Entertaining memetics.

Yes, memes are real. For how long were people going "WHAZZUP?!" Some memes are more worthwhile than others.

I've noticed this in some other threads where I won't post, because you've already said it. Flan2dave does it as well.

I suspect my father is an ENFJ. So to him, I'm an under-achieving alien.