Ignosticism: What Is God?

[Lord Emsworth]

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.

You are confusing the words "god" and "god." Look up metaphor.

 

[UnReAL13]

Other Ignostics, if you wish to identify yourself here with a more accurate faith icon, then show your support for an Ignostic faith icon here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7516852/

I feel that there's enough distinction between this philosophy and Agnosticism to qualify it as a separate position altogether. This would more accurately portray our viewpoints rather than just lumping us into the Agnostic or Atheist positions.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A superficial quality of something is apparent rather than real. Apparent in this case being defined as "according to appearances, initial evidence, incomplete results, etc.; ostensible rather than actual".

Ancient people probably saw earth changes occur, as well as viewing the stars at night along with the sun during the day, and attributed this to some "god" or another. Thus making the concept of "god" a superficial quality of the natural universe. A quality that is not obviously real, but only apparently real to those who accept the term based on essentially no evidence.

So that's 'your definition of the term "supernatural", is it? Ok if you want to believe that words have personal meanings that you can ascribe to them at whim, then fine. You might also want to believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the current president of America. Factually incorrect, but eternally amusing all the same....

Maybe I am being a bit sardonic though, as you have reminded me of Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Simply put: When I (sufficiently for the given purpose) understand what you are talking about I can start considering to give my opinion about your concept.

Your comprehension is not a normally acknowledged criteria lexicographers use to determine is a word has meaning!

Why should I trust you over them?

When was the last time OED staff knowed at yout door and said "quatona dear fellow, we have compiled an extensive list definitions describing current English usage. However if you find any difficult to understand (some people have trouble with "hybridisation" for instance), we will revise out list on the ground that your comprehension or lack of it determines the meaning of a word.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

As I´ve told you yesterday recently someone called something "God" that pretty much matches one of my concepts. Consequently I could claim that I am a theist now. Yesterday I called myself an "atheist", today I would call myself a "theist" - without having changed my views one bit.
Likewise, your and my worldviews haven´t gotten any closer, but today we could agree that both of us believe that "God exists".
Does that give you an idea why proper definitions are a prerequisite for any conversation that exceeds mere semantics?
You keep making it sound like it is an inappropriate demand on my part - whilst actually it would be in your own best interests, as well (provided you are interested in meaningful conversation).

I am curious as to 'your definition' of the term "God", and I agree that we need proper definitions (not ones we just make up as we go along).

You know I might walk naked along the street and be charged with indecent exposure. Do you thing I could argue in court "Ah, but I define the word "colthing" as fresh air, so I am obviously not guilty of going without clothes"...? They would probably lock me up and throw away the key, and rightly so.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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?

Whether the noun "God" refers to anything, and whether there is suficient reason for a rational person to believe in God, are different questions to "Does the term "God" actually mean anything in the first place?" Its the latter that we are asked to focus on.

How many people do you think could argue they could rationally and logically define "God"?

How many people do you think could define other everyday terms like "biscuit", "homo sapien" and "pronouncement" off the top of their heads?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Other Ignostics, if you wish to identify yourself here with a more accurate faith icon, then show your support for an Ignostic faith icon here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7516852/

I feel that there's enough distinction between this philosophy and Agnosticism to qualify it as a separate position altogether. This would more accurately portray our viewpoints rather than just lumping us into the Agnostic or Atheist positions.

I would give my support to your request but I do not have posting rights in that thread.

 

[quatona]

I am curious as to 'your definition' of the term "God", and I agree that we need proper definitions (not ones we just make up as we go along).

I neither have nor need my own definition of the term god since I don´t hold any concept that I want to point to with this term. If people want to talk to me about their god concepts I am totally dependent on them explaining their concepts.

You know I might walk naked along the street and be charged with indecent exposure. Do you thing I could argue in court "Ah, but I define the word "colthing" as fresh air, so I am obviously not guilty of going without clothes"...? They would probably lock me up and throw away the key, and rightly so.

I´m not sure I understand the relevance of this analogy. Let me try:
In the discussion about "god" you are seeking you are the lawgiver, the judge, and you charge me for having exposed myself naked?
Something like that?

 

[quatona]

Your comprehension is not a normally acknowledged criteria lexicographers use to determine is a word has meaning!

I guess that´s because I am not a lexigrapher and not talking as such.

"Words have meaning" is nonsense. People ascribe meaning to words.

Why should I trust you over them?

If you don´t want to trust someone when he says he doesn´t understand what you are saying, that´s your perfect prerogative.
Personally, when I want to communicate something I take the feedback that the person opposite didn´t get what I say as valuable and important information, prompting me to explain myself better.
To each their own, I guess.

When was the last time OED staff knowed at yout door and said "quatona dear fellow, we have compiled an extensive list definitions describing current English usage. However if you find any difficult to understand (some people have trouble with "hybridisation" for instance), we will revise out list on the ground that your comprehension or lack of it determines the meaning of a word.

Well, but that´s pretty much what you did. You approached us with the question: What do you regard sufficient and necessary conditions for a term to be meaningful to you? And I answered to the best of my abilities.

A conversation requires a completely different approach than writing a lexicon. Different purposes.

I wasn´t aware, though, that we were about to revise a dictionary.

But while we are at it, there are a couple of other terms that I have problems attaching a meaningful concept to and therefore don´t use myself: "love", "guilt", "responsibility", "freewill", just to name the first that come to mind.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I neither have nor need my own definition of the term god since I don´t hold any concept that I want to point to with this term. If people want to talk to me about their god concepts I am totally dependent on them explaining their concepts.


I´m not sure I understand the relevance of this analogy. Let me try:
In the discussion about "god" you are seeking you are the lawgiver, the judge, and you charge me for having exposed myself naked?
Something like that?

Sorry didn't mean to rile you, it's just whan you said "As I`ve told you yesterday recently someone called something "God" that pretty much matches one of my concepts" I thought you had a personalised definition or concept of God that you might like to share.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Whether the noun "God" refers to anything, and whether there is suficient reason for a rational person to believe in God, are different questions to "Does the term "God" actually mean anything in the first place?" Its the latter that we are asked to focus on.

Clearly it's problematic to say that because we have conflicting definitions. It might mean something, but in an overall sense, it means various contradictory things, like I've pointed out before. As you inquired, I would qualify Ignosticism as asserting that there may not be any single proper definition of God since the belief in God is a personal conviction and subjective to one's perspective and perception of the world around them.

There may be people who define God as the universe; so who are you who may very well believe in a personal God to say their definition is wrong? You're just another believer in "God" in the vaguest nominal sense of the term's usage over history. That's the problem; people seem to think their definition of God is somehow superior to others or more proper or more rational or just normatively better, all of which are hogwash.

How many people do you think could define other everyday terms like "biscuit", "homo sapien" and "pronouncement" off the top of their heads?

I don't expect people to give Webster's or Oxford level definitions of words, but we have more basic and agreed upon standards for these, excluding pronouncemet possibly when we get into difficulties of language in the general sense. But people, regardless of education or culture can agree on something as basic as a biscuit or a dog or a cat or a table or such things. God, on the other hand, leads into a wild goose chase to nowhere, or as Robert A. Heinlein put it, "it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there," or as I've formulated it, "Looking in a dark room for a black cat, finding a white cat and proclaiming you've found the former,"

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Clearly it's problematic to say that because we have conflicting definitions. It might mean something, but in an overall sense, it means various contradictory things, like I've pointed out before. As you inquired, I would qualify Ignosticism as asserting that there may not be any single proper definition of God since the belief in God is a personal conviction and subjective to one's perspective and perception of the world around them.

Agreed that there might not be one definition showing an essence to all uses of "god". I say, so what? Why not just move on to particulars on a piecemean basis?

There may be people who define God as the universe; so who are you who may very well believe in a personal God to say their definition is wrong? You're just another believer in "God" in the vaguest nominal sense of the term's usage over history. That's the problem; people seem to think their definition of God is somehow superior to others or more proper or more rational or just normatively better, all of which are hogwash.

I am caused to think of the ring parable in Lessing's "Nathan the Wise" (which I have not read btw). The idea was to promote respect and tolerance for others views.

I don't expect people to give Webster's or Oxford level definitions of words, but we have more basic and agreed upon standards for these, excluding pronouncemet possibly when we get into difficulties of language in the general sense. But people, regardless of education or culture can agree on something as basic as a biscuit or a dog or a cat or a table or such things. God, on the other hand, leads into a wild goose chase to nowhere, or as Robert A. Heinlein put it, "it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there," or as I've formulated it, "Looking in a dark room for a black cat, finding a white cat and proclaiming you've found the former,"

Agreed that detailed definitions of God can change from faith to faith and even person to person. But that does not lead me to the conclusion the the term therefore lacks meaning. Rather, it's meaning if found in the usage, but the usage is not standardised for everyone, so you will find parochial definitions as you travel the world, that's all. Like the term "reality" in the history of metaphysics, the one term is understood in different ways (here it's physical, there phenomenal, next ideal, sometimes contingent, over there infinite and eternal, now 'naive' and then 'critical' realisms come to the fore, then it's unknowable and elsewhere just plain illusory),...yet meaningful ways.

I don't get the point about cats in a cellar too well.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Having fun btw.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Agreed that there might not be one definition showing an essence to all uses of "god". I say, so what? Why not just move on to particulars on a piecemean basis?

I am caused to think of the ring parable in Lessing's "Nathan the Wise" (which I have not read btw). The idea was to promote respect and tolerance for others views.

Particulars assumes that you've already taken that one position more seriously than all the other competing ones. Why should I take your Catholic Christian perspective as more serious than say a Deist or Pantheist's perspective and definition of GOd? That's a basic difficulty I've had since I was in college at least.

The idea of the ring parable seems to be less about orthodoxy, which I find ironic from your Catholic perspective, as opposed to orthopraxy, which one could argue is somewhat foreign in historical tendency to at least the Christian religion, or was regarded as heresy or the like through the ages.

Agreed that detailed definitions of God can change from faith to faith and even person to person. But that does not lead me to the conclusion the the term therefore lacks meaning. Rather, it's meaning if found in the usage, but the usage is not standardised for everyone, so you will find parochial definitions as you travel the world, that's all. Like the term "reality" in the history of metaphysics, the one term is understood in different ways (here it's physical, there phenomenal, next ideal, sometimes contingent, over there infinite and eternal, now 'naive' and then 'critical' realisms come to the fore, then it's unknowable and elsewhere just plain illusory),...yet meaningful ways.

I don't get the point about cats in a cellar too well.

At the least, you must admit the term "God" becomes superfluous, since it can apply to anything from a rock to the universe to some magical sky daddy. Reality is almost necessarily accepted by metaphysicians to an extent as necessarily subjective. God, on the other hand, is viewed by many I've read to be something beyond our perspective and perception thereof, very much an objective thing/entity. The meanings associated to God are not what I am denying, in fact, I'd accept those as valid. What I don't accept is that people can say they're being fair in equally asserting that they can call their definition "God" as much as the next person, since clearly everyone can't be equally right about what is supposedly an objectively existing thing that has properties completely separate from what we believe about it, right or wrong.

And with cats in a cellar, the point seems to be that theology and speaking about God are so rooted in personal faith, you can find anything in the universe or your sensory experience or psychological experience and then turn it into God and no one would question you since it's a matter of FAITH. The quote from Heinlein continues to say that theology is, I'm paraphrasing, useless and doesn't do any good.

 

[UnReAL13]

So that's 'your definition of the term "supernatural", is it? Ok if you want to believe that words have personal meanings that you can ascribe to them at whim, then fine. You might also want to believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the current president of America. Factually incorrect, but eternally amusing all the same....

Maybe I am being a bit sardonic though, as you have reminded me of Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary".

Okay then, we'll just go with your over-simplified definition "beyond natural".

beyond (bɪˈjɒnd)

— prep
1. at or to a point on the other side of; at or to the further side of: beyond those hills there is a river
2. outside the limits or scope of: beyond this country's jurisdiction

— adv
3. at or to the other or far side of something
4. outside the limits of something

— n
5. the beyond the unknown; the world outside the range of human perception, esp life after death in certain religious beliefs

natural (ˈnætʃrəl, -tʃərəl)

— adj
1. of, existing in, or produced by nature: natural science ; natural cliffs
2. in accordance with human nature: it is only natural to want to be liked
3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical: the natural course of events
4. not acquired; innate: a natural gift for sport
5. being so through innate qualities: a natural leader
6. not supernatural or strange: natural phenomena
7. not constrained or affected; genuine or spontaneous
8. not artificially dyed or coloured: a natural blonde
9. following or resembling nature or life; lifelike: she looked more natural without her make-up
10. not affected by man or civilization; uncultivated; wild: in the natural state this animal is not ferocious
11. being or made from organic material; not synthetic: a natural fibre like cotton
12. illegitimate; born out of wedlock
13. not adopted but rather related by blood: her natural parents
14. music
a. not sharp or flat
b. ( postpositive ) denoting a note that is neither sharp nor flat: B natural
c. flat Compare sharp (of a key or scale) containing no sharps or flats
15. music of or relating to a trumpet, horn, etc, without valves or keys, on which only notes of the harmonic series of the keynote can be obtained
16. determined by inborn conviction: natural justice ; natural rights
17. cards
a. (of a card) not a joker or wild card
b. (of a canasta or sequence) containing no wild cards
c. (of a bid in bridge) describing genuine values; not conventional
18. based on the principles and findings of human reason and what is to be learned of God from nature rather than on revelation: natural religion

— n
19. informal a person or thing regarded as certain to qualify for success, selection, etc: the horse was a natural for first place
20. music
a. Also called (US): cancel , Usual symbol: ♮ an accidental cancelling a previous sharp or flat
b. flat Compare sharp a note affected by this accidental
21. pontoon the combination of an ace with a ten or court card when dealt to a player as his or her first two cards
22. obsolete an imbecile; idiot

So we easily have a variety of definitions to work with now. Do you mean "beyond" as in "further" than what is natural? Or actually outside of our perception altogether?

As far as natural goes, you're obviously not referring to music or blackjack....unless you think "god" is a sound wave of some sort. Or in terms of blackjack, maybe it's the infamous superstitious "ace of spades". In terms of a noun, you could easily be defining your god as "beyond an idiot". So we could call your god an "ultra idiot", "super imbecile", "higher moron", etc.

Then there's definition 18 of natural stating that it's only through reason and intellect that we understand nature, and not divine revelation. Therefore you would have to believe in a "super" Deistic god. If that's supposed to make sense. I think that's actually called Ietsism.

Definition 6 of "natural" clearly states "not supernatural or strange". So something "supernatural" would be "beyond" the natural world, but still "not supernatural". Which again points out why anything that's "beyond" natural, which could simply mean "at the further side of the natural world", is a clear contradiction.

Let's try definition 2 of each word. If something is "beyond", or "outside of the limits or scope of"..."in accordance with human nature". If something is outside the limits of human nature, it can't possibly be in accordance with human nature. Making it entirely impossible to understand anything that could be "supernatural".


That's just me though, I'm finding it rather difficult to construct a non-contradictory explanation of "supernatural". Perhaps you'd like to mix & match.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Agreed that there might not be one definition showing an essence to all uses of "god". I say, so what? Why not just move on to particulars on a piecemean basis?

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Remember the exchange the two of us had somewhere on the first few pages of the thread.

Or how else would you fancy this "mov[ing] on to particulars on a piecemeal basis" should happen?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

That's just me though, I'm finding it rather difficult to construct a non-contradictory explanation of "supernatural". Perhaps you'd like to mix & match.

I think this is rather a good illustration that fumbling around with dictionaries too much does certainly not guarantee success and satisfaction.

Maybe looking towards naturalism, especially metaphysical naturalism is a more promising avenue* for getting closer to "supernatural"?





*Yeah, it appears very promising. But don't look to me if after walking for a while you find yourself exactly you started.

 

[UnReAL13]

LoL The idea that everything 'supernatural' is explainable through natural terms? When we don't even know what constitutes something as "supernatural".Yeah I really don't see that solving anything.

 

[Nooj]

Also, as GrowingSmaller indicated, you can be given you a definition of God and that's falsifiable. God is Miley Cyrus, the singer and actress. She exists, therefore, God exists. Done.

Blasphemer! God is Justin Beiber, may His name never perish.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Particulars assumes that you've already taken that one position more seriously than all the other competing ones. Why should I take your Catholic Christian perspective as more serious than say a Deist or Pantheist's perspective and definition of GOd? That's a basic difficulty I've had since I was in college at least.

I am not interested in apologetics in this thread. It is meant, for me, to be a discussion about whether definitions of "God" have meaning.

At the least, you must admit the term "God" becomes superfluous, since it can apply to anything from a rock to the universe to some magical sky daddy.

So what would you use to replace it? For instance in the bible's "God created the heavens and the earth"?

Reality is almost necessarily accepted by metaphysicians to an extent as necessarily subjective.

Not agreed on. I think that for a psychologist "world views" would be subjective, but most philosophers, when they say for instance that monkeys exist whether we like it or not, or whether we percieve them or not, mean just what they say.

God, on the other hand, is viewed by many I've read to be something beyond our perspective and perception thereof, very much an objective thing/entity. The meanings associated to God are not what I am denying, in fact, I'd accept those as valid.

Ok you are not ignostic then *smiles*

What I don't accept is that people can say they're being fair in equally asserting that they can call their definition "God" as much as the next person, since clearly everyone can't be equally right about what is supposedly an objectively existing thing that has properties completely separate from what we believe about it, right or wrong.

Agreed that if there is a god, then not all definitions can be right if they are inconsistent. As an aside I think that the idea that we can just invent god concepts willy nilly is a bit strange, personally. Maybe we can invent "clothing" concepts willy nilly, and wear fresh air?

And with cats in a cellar, the point seems to be that theology and speaking about God are so rooted in personal faith, you can find anything in the universe or your sensory experience or psychological experience and then turn it into God and no one would question you since it's a matter of FAITH.

Not agreed. You cannot just make the term "God" mean anything, otherwise it will stop having adequate relationship to the core family of qualities. For instance I can't say "this baked bean is God, and I don't mean a creator or superintelligent being of some sort, but I simply call this baked bean "God", perhaps because it's a pinky orange colour, and define it as God, and that is that!" That would be to ascribe a name to something, rather than to thing that something to have divine attributes. It would be asking to saying "Ok officer, I may appear to be naked, but I define fresh air as clothing." See how that one stands up in court!

I think that there is a sorry trend on the internet that says "because there is such thing as a stipulative definition, all definitions are arbitrary and made up. For instance I can define "cat" as "dog" if I like, and this is as good English as anything else".

The quote from Heinlein continues to say that theology is, I'm paraphrasing, useless and doesn't do any good.

Hes entitled to his own opinion, but I don't think too much of it so far. You yourself have said that specific definitions of God make semantic sense, so the term can't always be practically redundant.