Ignosticism: What Is God?

[sandwiches]

Condescending much? We're not talking about any random "question" here, we're talking about one of the most ambiguous subjects of all.

As in the Christian god? How can I even know which version of "god" is correct?

No, I have shown you a picture of what we call a shepherd's dog. It would of course be better to see one live, but there you go. You are just giving names to stuff that you can perceive, or better yet, your are naming your perceptions. Here you have a picture of a shepherd's dog. This, or similar.

Of course, this could either be
(1) just naming what you have seen before. "Oh, these are Shepherd's Dogs. Good, now I know."
(2) or showing you something new and supplying the name. "Oh, I have never seen one of those before. They are called Shepherd's? Good now I know."

I doubt it. At best, you have an illusion. And I would wager that the question if you believe in God refers to a set of behaviour. Do you go to church? Are you baptized? Do you pray? Do you see a connection between odd occurences? Do you feel certain emotions? Do you accept the Papacy? Is there, like, something, like, more? And so on, and so forth.

All legitimate questions. But all besides the point. Or not?

I mean we could simply go and point to all the beauty, or the order inherent in the world and then say, "Whatever is behind that (beauty, order) that is God." This would be similar with showing a picture of a dog. And hey, why not?

Of course, this would make mince meat of atheism. And besides, this does not really fit the behaviour, now does it?

OTOH, what do they mean when they talk about God? I have heard the assertions that "God" is beyond our understanding. And that we have only metaphors to form a very, very hazy picture. And then there is mysticism.

Long story short, you're both telling me that you haven't the foggiest what someone means when they ask "Do you believe in God?"

Now, you don't understand it because of the many meanings, interpretations, semantics, and blah blah blah. But I'm sure if someone asked you "Have you ever been happy?" or "Do you find crying babies annoying?" you'd understand them both well enough for communication to take place, even though 'happy' and 'annoying' can vary wildly from person to person or are you both telling me me that you're also ignostic to those questions?

 

[UnReAL13]

What we don't "understand" is your concept of "god". Clarify your axiom, and you'll get the answer or non-answer that you're seeking.

 

[quatona]

Long story short, you're both telling me that you haven't the foggiest what someone means when they ask "Do you believe in God?"

Now, you don't understand it because of the many meanings, interpretations, semantics, and blah blah blah. But I'm sure if someone asked you "Have you ever been happy?" or "Do you find crying babies annoying?" you'd understand them both well enough for communication to take place, even though 'happy' and 'annoying' can vary wildly from person to person or are you both telling me me that you're also ignostic to those questions?

In my experience the question whether undefined keyterms provide a sufficient basis for successful communication depends greatly on the nature and purpose of the communication.

 

[quatona]

Well I am an atheist regarding certain conceptions of God for instance that of theistic Satanism.

So you´re an atheist theist?

I don't see how that is not warranted, so long as the context is mutually understood sowe don't misunderstand my intention.

When someone asks me the question "Do you believe in god?" most of the time I don´t understand the intention and the context. In most cases when I tried to answer according to the intention and context I guessed the further process of the conversation showed me that my guesses were wrong.
I´m not a great fan of intention reading, anyways.

Furthermore, in most of the discussions about the term "atheist" many people do not at all care about the context but start with "You say you are an atheist, so you saying [insert assumptions based on the weird atheism-concept of the person speaking]."

Just yesterday I came across a god concept that described a view that I can easily accept (needless to say it didn´t have anything to do with an omnipotent omniscient creatorbeing a la Christianity, though). What do you think: Should I call myself a theist henceforth? Or should I call myself a theist in certain contexts and an atheist in others?

I think the proper answer to "Do you believe in god?" is always "God? What do you mean?". As far as I understand it correctly, that´s ignosticism in a nutshell.

 

[Blackmarch]

So we're talking about some ultra powerful, man-like being that possesses all possible knowledge? What's to distinguish this concept from simply an ultra powerful alien that possesses all possible knowledge?

why would the two concepts cancel each other out?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Long story short, you're both telling me that you haven't the foggiest what someone means when they ask "Do you believe in God?"

Now, you don't understand it because of the many meanings, interpretations, semantics, and blah blah blah. But I'm sure if someone asked you "Have you ever been happy?" or "Do you find crying babies annoying?" you'd understand them both well enough for communication to take place, even though 'happy' and 'annoying' can vary wildly from person to person or are you both telling me me that you're also ignostic to those questions?

To put it quite bluntly ... If God is like happyness or annoyance you can go and pack your atheistic bags.

There is no way that the state of happyness or annoyance do not exist; "happyness" and "annoyance" are labels, names given to certain emotions no matter what (these) emotions are exactly. No matter if materialism is true, or idealism, or dualism, or whatnot, the state of being happy or annoyed or some such are real. This is as it is with the Shepherd's Dog, point and label. This *points metaphorical finger* ---> "Happy"

Now enter God. We can and sometimes do the very same thing. I have even given you examples, but I can easily give you more:
The beauty or order which is perceived to be inherent in the world *points metaphorical finger* ---> "God" is what upholds these.
Moral Values that are nearly universal (or are at least perceived to be) *points metaphorical finger* ---> "God" is their source.
Mystycal experiences *points metaphorical finger* ---> This is (one of) "God's way to communicate" with us.
... etc

But that ^^^ is hardly enough. A putative question "Do you believe in God" ask more than a putative question "Have you ever been happy."

Or is it enough?

Pick your poison.

 

[UnReAL13]

why would the two concepts cancel each other out?

This is not the point I'm trying to make.

Let's say for instance that we're trying to identify a "shooting star". One person might think it's a comet or asteroid. Another person might think it's a UFO. And a third party may be under the impression that this is an actual star, shooting across the universe. We could even get crazy and throw in the possibility of a gamma ray burst.

Without some type of real "observation", giving at least a semi-accurate description of this celestial event, how can we ever be certain what this "shooting star" actually is?

 

[Blackmarch]

This is not the point I'm trying to make.

Let's say for instance that we're trying to identify a "shooting star". One person might think it's a comet or asteroid. Another person might think it's a UFO. And a third party may be under the impression that this is an actual star, shooting across the universe. We could even get crazy and throw in the possibility of a gamma ray burst.

Without some type of real "observation", giving at least a semi-accurate description of this celestial event, how can we ever be certain what this "shooting star" actually is?

you can't.

Mine would be along the lines of what you make of it does not change what it is, whether you can't see it, see it in part, or fully, and whether you draw accurate conclusions or not.
Nor does that mean you cannot act upon it without complete and perfect data on it.

However what happens when you distrust those who have made accurate observations?

 

[UnReAL13]

you can't.

Mine would be along the lines of what you make of it does not change what it is, whether you can't see it, see it in part, or fully, and whether you draw accurate conclusions or not.
Nor does that mean you cannot act upon it without complete and perfect data on it.

However what happens when you distrust those who have made accurate observations?

Who has ever conducted an "accurate" observation of a deity?

 

[Blackmarch]

Who has ever conducted an "accurate" observation of a deity?

those who have met him.

 

[UnReAL13]

those who have met him.

Is this a fact, or is this your personal opinion masquerading itself as absolute truth? I'm willing to bet on the latter.

 

[sandwiches]

What we don't "understand" is your concept of "god". Clarify your axiom, and you'll get the answer or non-answer that you're seeking.

So, again, you really haven't the foggiest what people mean when they ask you if you believe in God?

To put it quite bluntly ... If God is like happyness or annoyance you can go and pack your atheistic bags.

There is no way that the state of happyness or annoyance do not exist; "happyness" and "annoyance" are labels, names given to certain emotions no matter what (these) emotions are exactly. No matter if materialism is true, or idealism, or dualism, or whatnot, the state of being happy or annoyed or some such are real. This is as it is with the Shepherd's Dog, point and label. This *points metaphorical finger* ---> "Happy"

You simply seem to be asserting this without explaining why the questions I presented can be understood despite the fact that happiness and annoyance are 100% subjective and unquantifiable, yet you find the question of god so perplexing and unanswerable.

Now enter God. We can and sometimes do the very same thing. I have even given you examples, but I can easily give you more:
The beauty or order which is perceived to be inherent in the world *points metaphorical finger* ---> "God" is what upholds these.
Moral Values that are nearly universal (or are at least perceived to be) *points metaphorical finger* ---> "God" is their source.
Mystycal experiences *points metaphorical finger* ---> This is (one of) "God's way to communicate" with us.
... etc

But that ^^^ is hardly enough. A putative question "Do you believe in God" ask more than a putative question "Have you ever been happy."

Or is it enough?

Pick your poison.

I think I' starting to see what's going on. You seem unwilling or hesitant to accept that you even understand the question because you feel that even doing that is somewhat akin to accepting that god is real or even possibly as real as emotions. However, merely understanding a question or proposition does not mean you have to accept it or that you're validating it.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

those who have met him.

Means what?

 

[Blackmarch]

Is this a fact, or is this your personal opinion masquerading itself as absolute truth? I'm willing to bet on the latter.

it's fact for those who have met him.
Who said anything about absolute truth?

 

[Blackmarch]

Means what?

that they shared what they observed from such events.

 

[UnReAL13]

it's fact for those who have met him.
Who said anything about absolute truth?

Who has met who exactly? So you're saying this knowledge is completely subjective to the person who thinks they've met this "guy"?

 

[Blackmarch]

Who has met who exactly? So you're saying this knowledge is completely subjective to the person who thinks they've met this "guy"?

Facts change all the time.


.. as in, Met a being that appeared as a man and was able to convince them that he was God.

 

[UnReAL13]

Facts change all the time.


.. as in, Met a being that appeared as a man and was able to convince them that he was God.

So you worship David Koresh?

 

[Blackmarch]

So you worship David Koresh?

may i direct you to this?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

So, again, you really haven't the foggiest what people mean when they ask you if you believe in God?

Sometimes I do indeed have but the foggiest what people mean. And sometimes I wonder what they possibly can mean. (Can't be much, though. )

You simply seem to be asserting this without explaining why the questions I presented can be understood despite the fact that happiness and annoyance are 100% subjective and unquantifiable, yet you find the question of god so perplexing and unanswerable.

You don't get it.

We can treat happyness/annoyance just as referring to you-know-that-kinda feeling. "100% subjective and unquantifiable" (<<-- your words, not mine). We can treat it sans grandiose metaphysical waffle. Of course.


And we can also do this when it comes to belief in God.




What I don't get is, why don't you, sandwiches, do that? Why don't you, sandwiches, put your money where your mouth is and go and change your faith icon from atheist to deist, pantheist, taoist or whatever. Afterall ...

You understand what people mean when you are asked about happyness or annoyance or some such. Right?
You must, otherwise your train of thought does not make a lick of sense.

You also believe that these 'exist.' Right?
Of course you do, everybody experiences happyness/annoyance at times.

You might not have know what these are exactly, but that is ok. The above two hold true, no matter what anyway.



Now enter God. Could easily be a similar story.


Do you find that the world is beautiful, or do you find the world to be orderly. Yes?
Go and change your faith icon. Because that is seeing God's influence in the world.

You might not have know how this works exactly, what God's influence in the world is exactly, but that is ok.


Or is it??? You tell me.

I think I' starting to see what's going on. You seem unwilling or hesitant to accept that you even understand the question because you feel that even doing that is somewhat akin to accepting that god is real or even possibly as real as emotions. However, merely understanding a question or proposition does not mean you have to accept it or that you're validating it.

You made the comparison between a (probably) non-ommittal, chit-chatty question after happyness/annoyance on one hand, and God on the other. Not me. I am trying to get trough your skull that a serious inquiry about philosophical questions is not on the same level as chit-chatty banter.

(And as an aside, a serious philosophical inquiriy into the nature of emotions such as happyness etc might easily produce similar trainwrecks as the "God-quesiton".)