Ignosticism: What Is God?

[quatona]

Well, if an all-good and personal God exists it would only be reasonable to work through the possibilities, and not just discard them.

Yes, if.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well, if an all-good and personal God exists it would only be reasonable to work through the possibilities, and not just discard them.

Been there. Done that. Case closed as far as I am concerned.

If you wish you can go and call the universe/world all-good, assert that She is also personal and you are good to go.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Doesn't that fact that you are talking about different definition's of God, and different conceptions of the divine nature, betray the fact that you actually have a rational grasp of "God talk" and it's various connotations, rather than being in a position where you cannot make sense of what is on the pages before you?

Just because I can understand the various definitions doesn't mean I agree that there is one universal definition that applies everywhere. That's the deepest difficulty you find in looking into this issue. It's not the issue of the limitations of language, theologians have already accepted that by virtue of analogy or the via negativa.

And it's not the difficulty of rational definition, which I find to be a difficulty people are becoming less inclined to, since any definition of God, it seems to me, is already dependent not on reason so much as faith. Anyone who says otherwise is betraying what they admitted beforehand about the limitations of language and reason in relation to speaking about God.

The third difficulty is one people may never realize because they're so insulated in their own orthodoxy and its definition of God, held to be the most sufficient and even complete definition. In this case, I disagree, because clearly people will vehemently disagree.

The term God is what I find a pointless term. Not the various conceptions thereof, because clearly those are meaningful and useful to people when they try to define what Otto termed in a more neutral sense as the numinous.

And I'd prefer many people to use that, as opposed to such a specific word like God, which when you consider that people use the word to describe various contradictory definitions, the use of the word itself becomes in essence superfluous and hollow. Therein is my critique, the use of the term God and not the the conceptions that people incidentally happen to identify with that term. The term itself becomes useless, but the conceptions themselves will indeed remain. I can't deny that either as a philosopher or a religious studies scholar.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Oh, so its just another 'why bother?' agnostic type word. Well, if an all-good and personal God exists it would only be reasonable to work through the possibilities, and not just discard them. Agnostic seems to lack any good defense if its adherent uses it as a defense for having a lazy intent.

Agnostics are not the same thing as skeptics. Skeptics might be said to be more apathetic, whereas atheist and theist agnostics can be said to at the very least, take the question "Does God exist?" seriously, which I don't as an apatheist and theological noncognitivist. Working through the possibilities would presume that you think the question of the existence of God is useful or meaningful, which not everyone does. This is the key divide between atheists and apatheists, it seems to me.

 

[sandwiches]

"Miley Cyrus, the singer, is God" is a metaphor. As is Received's (a poster around here) user-title, "Dylan = Deity".

None of that is about theology. It is all about music*.

So, in such a context the question "Do you believe 'God' exists" refers to Cyrus' person, life, songs - although the question phrased like that does sound a little odd.

* ok, ymmv

That still didn't answer my question. Do you believe God, as defined in my post, exists?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

That still didn't answer my question. Do you believe God, as defined above, exists?

I did. Look:
"the question [...] refers to Cyrus' person, life, songs".

We already know we are not talking about a fictional character.

 

[sandwiches]

There's a difference between specific god concepts and the god concept as a whole. Ignosticism generally refers to the idea of god in general. We know that their are lots of definitions, but until someone actually works out which one is the correct definition, it makes very little difference to the overall situation. We can reject individual definitions but we have no idea if that definition is the correct one.

Yes, because the point of ignosticism is to look smart.

So, if that's what ignosticism espouses, then what you're saying is that an ignostic takes the stance that the current definitions of 'god' are not correct. How does this differ from an atheist who takes the stance that the current claims of god are incorrect?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Ignostics might be said to be like theological noncognitivists or even apatheists in their regard towards your question sandwiches. They might not even think the question is meaningful, either because they don't think the existence or nonexistence of such an entity matters or more likely, they don't see the word as being specific enough to apply to just one definition. God could mean anything, so one asks why one is to accept any one definition as superior to another when people believe in these definitions by special revelation and faith by association? How many people do you think could argue they could rationally and logically define "God"?

 

[sandwiches]

I did. Look:
"the question [...] refers to Cyrus' person, life, songs".

We already know we are not talking about a fictional character.

Not an answer. Do you believe in God, as defined in my post, 'YES' or 'NO?'

 

[ToHoldNothing]

So, if that's what ignosticism espouses, then what you're saying is that an ignostic takes the stance that the current definitions of 'god' are not correct. How does this differ from an atheist who takes the stance that the current claims of god are incorrect?

From what I've seen, it's not that they think they are incorrect, just that they are insufficient or essentially a mishmash of conflicting definitions. They assume too much, they assume their definition is superior or more rational or any other notion of superiority thereof.

An atheist, like I've said about twice now, I think, takes the question "Does God exist?" as automatically meaningful because one can argue they already have some conclusive notion of what God is, even if they don't believe it exists. Most atheists could be argued to actually be ignostic because they don't concern themselves with the metaphysical question so much as the epistemological ones that then lead to a natural metaphysical conclusion, that God doesn't exist.

 

[sandwiches]

Ignostics might be said to be like theological noncognitivists or even apatheists in their regard towards your question sandwiches. They might not even think the question is meaningful, either because they don't think the existence or nonexistence of such an entity matters or more likely, they don't see the word as being specific enough to apply to just one definition. God could mean anything, so one asks why one is to accept any one definition as superior to another when people believe in these definitions by special revelation and faith by association? How many people do you think could argue they could rationally and logically define "God"?

I gave a clear definition for a word and used the word in a question. It's irrelevant what other people think 'god' means. There is specific context within this conversation to formulate a response. If an ignostic can't answer the question, then it seems they simply wish to avoid it. It seems like ignosticism is all about semantics and nothing about reality or even theology.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Not an answer. Do you believe in God, as defined in my post, 'YES' or 'NO?'

Perhaps it's not a matter of believing in God's existence or nonexistence metaphysically so much as agreeing whether your definition is sufficient/adequate or even coherent in the sense of falsifiability or general demonstration. Which is the larger issue at hand here, it seems. Not whether God exists, but whether we can make sense of the understandings theists present of the God they believe in?

 

[sandwiches]

From what I've seen, it's not that they think they are incorrect, just that they are insufficient or essentially a mishmash of conflicting definitions. They assume too much, they assume their definition is superior or more rational or any other notion of superiority thereof.

Whatever the reason, the point is they reject the definitions. They take a specific stance and more importantly, if you reject the definition as being incomplete or insufficient, this indicates that the ignostic in question has a specific definition of 'god' in mind that they measure all other definitions by. So, in essence, what an ignostic must do is reject all definitions of 'god' that do not match with what he believes 'god' means.

An atheist, like I've said about twice now, I think, takes the question "Does God exist?" as automatically meaningful because one can argue they already have some conclusive notion of what God is, even if they don't believe it exists. Most atheists could be argued to actually be ignostic because they don't concern themselves with the metaphysical question so much as the epistemological ones that then lead to a natural metaphysical conclusion, that God doesn't exist.

The point is not how people know or whether this god is real. The point is that through communication, in a specific context, the question is meaningful and answerable and to pretend that the word can't have meaning because people have different definitions for it, is a mere cop out.

 

[sandwiches]

Perhaps it's not a matter of believing in God's existence or nonexistence metaphysically so much as agreeing whether your definition is sufficient/adequate or even coherent in the sense of falsifiability or general demonstration. Which is the larger issue at hand here, it seems. Not whether God exists, but whether we can make sense of the understandings theists present of the God they believe in?

I didn't mention anything about metaphysics. I asked a simple question about belief not falsifiability, evidence, likelihood, or anything else. And yes, the point is that the question is meaningful within specific contexts and to classify oneself as an ignostic as has been presented in this thread is to take the stance that all theist definitions of god are incomprehensible.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I gave a clear definition for a word and used the word in a question. It's irrelevant what other people think 'god' means. There is specific context within this conversation to formulate a response. If an ignostic can't answer the question, then it seems they simply wish to avoid it. It seems like ignosticism is all about semantics and nothing about reality or even theology.

I can't answer the question because the definitions are insufficient for any standard of falsification or basic coherence. "God" is a term applied to basically anything when you stretch and qualify the definition enough. Not to mention you can continue to specify things about your limits of approaching God until you describe a God that may as well not exist, akin to Antony Flew's invisible gardener example.

Theology doesn't even admit that its definitions are faith based; instead they assert that those definitions are rationally and logically defensible, when that would seem to reduce God to a Deist First Mover instead of anything like they believe. If you expect one to take you seriously, you'd have to prove why the other definitions are lesser than your own definition. Why is your definition of God more appropriate for God in a universal sense when clearly there are others that would contradict particular claims about the properties of that God definition you present? If these are based in faith, then your definition becomes subjective and purely based on your individual convictions that you try to formulate, but cannot therefore use as compelling reasons for others to believe in that God. Ignostics aren't telling people they can't believe in God, but that they should at least admit the subjectivity of their own definitions of God instead of saying they apply universally, when it's clear they don't.

And it's QUITE relevant what other types of theists believe God or gods are, because that is what is the basic question: why are we to take you any more seriously than any other believer in a God or gods if you can't even agree on those definitions in some sense? Let alone the notion of a singular God, which has been defined in so many ways, with nuances involved with supposed heresies and such that make the term God apply to a number of contradictory descriptions of this supposedly singular entity. For example, an entity that is believed to both not interfere in human affairs and yet also is believed by other theists to be active in human affairs.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I didn't mention anything about metaphysics. I asked a simple question about belief not falsifiability, evidence, likelihood, or anything else. And yes, the point is that the question is meaningful within specific contexts and to classify oneself as an ignostic as has been presented in this thread is to take the stance that all theist definitions of god are incomprehensible.

Not incomprehensible, but incoherent because they contradict each other. There is little reason after that fact to prove why one definition is superior to another.

Belief is dependent in some sense on the falsifiability of that belief. If your belief is in something unfalsifiable, then you have to admit it is a faith based belief, something that cannot be proven in any significant sense beyond people taking theological inferences seriously.

The question is meaningful only if you take the question of God's real existence seriously BEFORE considering whether "God" as a term is even coherent when it is applied to multiple contradictory definitions. Which I think is seeing the forest instead of the trees, if you will.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Whatever the reason, the point is they reject the definitions. They take a specific stance and more importantly, if you reject the definition as being incomplete or insufficient, this indicates that the ignostic in question has a specific definition of 'god' in mind that they measure all other definitions by. So, in essence, what an ignostic must do is reject all definitions of 'god' that do not match with what he believes 'god' means.

Not so. I don't have one idea or definition of God that I think God must be, because I don't like such presuppositions about something that is based purely in individual/subjective faith. I reject the definitions as universally applicable to one overall idea of theism. They are definitions of the numinous by subjective individuals or groups, but they are not universal definitions that can all equally apply to God as if they do not contradict each other. Ignosticism doesn't presume one idea of God, they have standards for what would suffice for a sufficient idea of God, which the faithful are unwilling to present without making special pleading for the uniqueness of that concept by virtue of faith. I reject all definitions of God because they are equally meaningless to me as one who doesn't care whether God exists. But that's a particular nuanced idea of ignosticism that overlaps with another system called theological noncognitivism.

The point is not how people know or whether this god is real. The point is that through communication, in a specific context, the question is meaningful and answerable and to pretend that the word can't have meaning because people have different definitions for it, is a mere cop out.

I don't say the words can't have meaning. You clearly aren't reading deep enough when I emphasize that the word God can't apply in the same context of theological belief to completely or at least significantly contradictory definitions of that entity. God cannot simultaneously be immanent and transcendent, non interventionist and interventionist and other potential contradictions that could be said to exist in various properties, such as God being the world itself and also believed to be completely separate from the world. The word is useless.

The meanings are useful, of course, I can't deny that as a scholar of religion. What I can't do is accept that that single term applies equally to all of those contextual and perspectivist definitions. If I don't know the context of the theist in particular using the term, the word God becomes hollow and empty and could mean anything.

A staunch Christian saying they believe in God without telling me they're a Christian means I could just as easily conclude they believe God is the universe or that God is any other non Christian conception of God. And even then we have conflicting Christian conceptions of God, ranging from Unitarian to Trinitarian and other gobbledygook in between.

This is the difficulty. Communication requires a great deal, and I mean a GREAT deal of clarification and contextualization in order to make clear what each individual means when they speak about GOd, otherwise the conversation degrades down to whatever each individual feels about God instead of what they can supposedly formulate in words, even IF they also admit those definitions are imperfect and based in faith.

But then, not everyone does that it seems. Such as an atheist who thinks that the God they deny is one particular God instead of all the varied concepts of God that are equally unappealing to the atheist. Otherwise they wouldn't really be a general atheist, would they?

 

[sandwiches]

God cannot simultaneously be immanent and transcendent, non interventionist and interventionist and other potential contradictions that could be said to exist in various properties, such as God being the world itself and also believed to be completely separate from the world. The word is useless.

I think this sums up what I've been trying to get to. You don't believe that such a God is possible. How is this NOT taking a stance?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I don't think any theologian would believe things that are logically impossible. God being immanent and transcendent is actually affirmed by panentheists, but no self respecting believer would say God is the Deist God but also the Christian God. Let alone the notions of Godhead, Modalist, Trinitarian, Unitarian and Binitarian theology all constituting more jargon and esoteric notions that don't even have compelling arguments that boil down to anything more than scriptural interpretation. I take the stance of an apatheist in regards to God's existence, agnostic in regards to whether we can know it and ignostic in relation to defining "God". Does that help?

A better example of how my logical belief that such a God is not possible is Aquinas' clarifying that God's omnipotence does not extend to things that are logically impossible or that imply a contradiction. The simplest expression is God can do all things that are possible in themselves. This kind of qualification makes discussion more clear, but at the same time, people don't always like to feel any need to qualify what they mean by God, which is why I basically take a purely conceptual approach to God in any sense. God exists as concept and idea, even if those ideas are myriad and contradictory in their nature. But this doesn't mean I take seriously the existence or nonexistence of God in metaphysical reality, which is why I label myself in some sense as an apatheist.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Not an answer. Do you believe in God, as defined in my post, 'YES' or 'NO?'

Is there some sort of point in there? Because as of now, I fear for the worst, and strange deja-vus of science-as-the-atheists'-God, or family-money-you-name-it-can-be-Gods-therefore pop up.

But if you insist on a yes or no answer for your question as to belief, then I have to go with a no. No I don't believe in the subject matter you brought up. I know:
YouTube - miley cyrus
Miley Cyrus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia