It is an indisputable fact that LIIs are much more prone to embrace spirituality/mysticism, theism, and other superstitious beliefs than ILIs. And that is exactly what the theory suggests too, because LIIs are much more averse to empirical facts than ILIs.
ILIs are empirically minded and drawn to "positivistic" attitudes towards science in general, whereas LIIs tend to criticize positivistic, objectifying, reductionistic science for being inhuman, for reducing humans to "objects", etc. LIIs are drawn to phenomenology, hermenutics, and other relativistic and subjectivistic perspectives. The overall pattern is extremely clear here. You simply have to study more if you don't see it.
Exactly. Hume was
![Extroverted Logic](images/smilies/Te.gif)
ego, and the whole empirical tradition in philosophy stems from Hume. Logical positivism, various forms of naturalism, objectivistic perspectives -- ALL of that is
![Extroverted Logic](images/smilies/Te.gif)
.
The continental tradition in philosophy, stemming from Kant, including various forms of non-naturalism, subjectivism, and relativism, various attempts to clearly separate the natural sciences from the study of man as a human being, as a "subject" and as an "agent", various forms of historicism -- ALL of that is
![Introverted Logic](images/smilies/Ti.gif)
. If you have studied philosophy, you know that INTjs and other
![Introverted Logic](images/smilies/Ti.gif)
thinkers have tended to believe in God. INTjs tend to be theists, whereas INTps tend to atheists. It is clear as day that
![Introverted Logic](images/smilies/Ti.gif)
is much closer to spirituality/mysticism than
![Introverted Intuition](images/smilies/Ni.gif)
.
![Extroverted Logic](images/smilies/Te.gif)
thinkers in general are more correct than
![Introverted Logic](images/smilies/Ti.gif)
thinkers. Hume himself was probably an ILI, but it doesn't really matter. Both ENTjs and INTps are drawn to similar perspectives on science and the study of man and nature. Both ENTjs and INTps are objectivists, they are critical towards relativistic ideas, they are strongly empirical, and they prefer the "hard facts" to mumbo-jumbo. That's why INTjs are our born enemies when it comes to philosophy and science.
From our perspective INTjs are unscientific and superstitious. From the INTj's perspective we are too reactionary, too reductionistic, too "cruel", too inhuman, too market-oriented, too focused on empirical facts, etc.