Ignosticism: What Is God?

[GrowingSmaller]

May I answer? With a counter question?

What do you know about superstring theory? Probably about as little as I do.

AFAIK I think it is curreltly experimantally unfalsifiable. But physicists regard it a semantically valid and coherent all the same.

Also, mathematics in general is not falsifiable experimentally, so ought I regard that as meaningless too?

 

[UnReAL13]

Ok I will tentatively go along with ignoisticism in its various forms, for the sake of having an education.

@ unreal: WHat other terms am I to be ignoistic about. I cannot falsify "I exist" personally, so should I be ignostic towards it. What about superstring theory - is that semanticn nnally void?

You phrase the question as if you're already knowledgeable on the subject. Do you know what superstring theory is? Because the related aspects of quantum mechanics are very well defined.

You're proving your existence by logically replying to me. Nice try.

You could be Ignostic towards gravity. Nobody knows what this force actually is. The same goes for dark matter. The concept of "love" is also very nebulous and subjective.

Ignosticism really only works for unknown concepts or concepts that could be interpreted into a vast multitude of definitions. Which is why it was designed for the sole purpose of tackling the "god" question.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

AFAIK I think it is curreltly experimantally unfalsifiable. But physicists regard it a semantically valid and coherent all the same.

Also, mathematics in general is not falsifiable experimentally, so ought I regard that as meaningless too?

Sorry, I meant that as a rather personal question. What do you know about it? Or alternatively, what do you know about it?

Because, if I honestly look towards myself, I would have to admit that I know preciously little about superstring theory. So, now, if I were talking to you about superstring theory - keep in mind that I probably have a pretty weak understanding of it - the meaningful content would (have to) be pretty, pretty low.

-----

OTOH, the sentence "I exist" is a decent pointer*. At least, a decent pointer to what to some extent is similar with the receiver of your 'message.'

* Wittgenstein nonwithstanding

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sorry, I meant that as a rather personal question. What do you know about it? Or alternatively, what do you know about it?

AFAIK its a model of physical reality which used higher spatial dimensions to meld QM and Relativistic theory into one whole. where as without those dimensions the theories cannot be unified.

Because, if I honestly look towards myself, I would have to admit that I know preciously little about superstring theory. So, now, if I were talking to you about superstring theory - keep in mind that I probably have a pretty weak understanding of it - the meaningful content would (have to) be pretty, pretty low.

But you accept theres a fallacy "I don't understand it, therefore it's meaningless"?

OTOH, the sentence "I exist" is a decent pointer*. At least, a decent pointer to what to some extent is similar with the receiver of your 'message.'

But can you falsify "I exist" whilst you (the subject in question) are still alive and aware?

* Wittgenstein nonwithstanding

cool.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You phrase the question as if you're already knowledgeable on the subject. Do you know what superstring theory is? Because the related aspects of quantum mechanics are very well defined.

But can it be falsified using current levels of technology. I thought it was outside of our technological competency to test it's predictions. So, it is well defined and yet (currently at least) unfalsifiable. Perhaps it is currently meaningless, but will become meaningful when the next generation of atom smashers is built?

You're proving your existence by logically replying to me. Nice try.

I know that I exist. But can you falsify the first person statement, made about yourself, "I exist" (i.e. "UnreAL13 exists!")? You cannot prove it to be false if you are alive, and I take it you believe you cannot prove anything at all when you are dead. So for you "I exist" is unfalsifiable, isn't it, so is it therefore meaningless to you?

[note to thread noobs, UnreAL13 had said that there must be a 'falsifiable definition' of a term if the term is to be regarded as meaningful.]

Ad if you want to argue that other people can falsify "UnreAL13 exists" when you die, doesn't that belief depend on the unfalsifiable assumption that the world and other people in it will continue to exist, independently of the mortal coil of your experience of them, when you die???

You could be Ignostic towards gravity. Nobody knows what this force actually is.
The same goes for dark matter.

But they are defined in part through physical phenomena like acceleration or deviation of trajectory, and in that respect, have cognitive content (or not?).

The concept of "love" is also very nebulous and subjective.

I always thought it was something like a deeply felt affection and attraction for another. Oh well.

ignosticism really only works for unknown concepts or concepts that could be interpreted into a vast multitude of definitions. Which is why it was designed for the sole purpose of tackling the "god" question.

First you say its falsifiability that gives meaning, now it's a lack of ambiguity. Is it both? I have commented on falsifiability. As for ambiguity, doesn't that mean having many meanings rather than none?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

AFAIK its a model of physical reality which used higher spatial dimensions to meld QM and Relativistic theory into one whole. where as without those dimensions the theories cannot be unified.


But you accept theres a fallacy "I don't understand it, therefore it's meaningless"?

No. I'd rather even argue the opposite. Just because something is rather well understood and well defined, it does not mean that anybody who uses the matching word is really saying much.

But can you falsify "I exist" whilst you (the subject in question) are still alive and aware?

Falsifiability does not have all that much to do with it. If I point you to a rock, and say "Look at that" then what is to falsify?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Falsifiability does not have all that much to do with it. If I point you to a rock, and say "Look at that" then what is to falsify?

I redirect the line of thought "so what to falsifiability?" to UnreAL13, who said that a term must have a 'falsifiable definition' it it is to be regarded as meaningful.

As for the rock, you can falsify the statement "a rock is over there" if a rock is not over there. But you cannot falsify the statement "I exist" if you do not exist. So, I am merely demonstrating that one statement is falsifiable for you, whilst the other is not. But as I have said, if you don't think falsifiability is relevant, (IIRC it is meant to be relevant to meaningfulness), then go argue with UnreAL13 as it's him who brought the matter to the table.

Or is it "All hands on deck, I smell a theist!!!" time?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I redirect the line of thought "so what to falsifiability?" to UnreAL13, who said that a term must have a 'falsifiable definition' it it is to be regarded as meaningful.

As for the rock, you can falsify the statement "a rock is over there" if a rock is not over there. But you cannot falsify the statement "I exist" if you do not exist. So, I am merely demonstrating that one statement is falsifiable for you, whilst the other is not. But as I have said, if you don't think falsifiability is relevant, (IIRC it is meant to be relevant to meaningfulness), then go argue with UnreAL13 as it's him who brought the matter to the table.

Or is it "All hands on deck, I smell a theist!!!" time?

I haven't been following that discussion all that closely I must confess.

Although, the comment about falsifiability I made was in relation to something that you are just pointing to, without making big claims about what lies is beneath superficial appearance. "I exist" and that is it (for now).

Another thing that comes to the mind is, that if you wish to tell two presumably different things/concepts/etc apart from each other you will need something that you actually can use to distinguish them. If they are, apart from the names given to them, indistinguishable, ... . Falsifiability might be such a tool here. Not sure about others, atm.

 

[UnReAL13]

But can it be falsified using current levels of technology. I thought it was outside of our technological competency to test it's predictions. So, it is well defined and yet (currently at least) unfalsifiable. Perhaps it is currently meaningless, but will become meaningful when the next generation of atom smashers is built?

Nobody here is trying to argue that superstring theory is meaningful in any way, or that it's even correct. Unless you believe that superstring theory is connected to "god" somehow.

I know that I exist. But can you falsify the first person statement, made about yourself, "I exist" (i.e. "UnreAL13 exists!")? You cannot prove it to be false if you are alive, and I take it you believe you cannot prove anything at all when you are dead. So for you "I exist" is unfalsifiable, isn't it, so is it therefore meaningless to you?

Why would I even need to falsify your existence to prove that your statement "I exist" is meaningful? I know the meaning of the statement already, so this point is null and void.

[note to thread noobs, UnreAL13 had said that there must be a 'falsifiable definition' of a term if the term is to be regarded as meaningful.]

Ad if you want to argue that other people can falsify "UnreAL13 exists" when you die, doesn't that belief depend on the unfalsifiable assumption that the world and other people in it will continue to exist, independently of the mortal coil of your experience of them, when you die???

But they are defined in part through physical phenomena like acceleration or deviation of trajectory, and in that respect, have cognitive content (or not?).
I always thought it was something like a deeply felt affection and attraction for another. Oh well.


First you say its falsifiability that gives meaning, now it's a lack of ambiguity. Is it both? I have commented on falsifiability. As for ambiguity, doesn't that mean having many meanings rather than none?

You're attempting to skew the entire argument by making this a question of whether or not anything is meaningful if it isn't scientifically falsifiable. This is not what Ignosticism is about. If the definition of god is unfalsifiable, then the question "Does god exist?" is rendered meaningless. The concept of god can still have meaning, if clarified or elaborated upon, but the question of the existence of god becomes meaningless.

You can keep trying to play this game of "I'll just be Ignostic towards everything". Well this doesn't really work unless you're trying to relate something to the "god concept" somehow, some way. It's not like typical Agnosticism, which can be applied to any ultimate claim of knowledge. Ignosticism was designed for the sole purpose of determining the nature of a deity.

 

[ivebeenshown]

...but what IS ignosticism? I mean, what IS it, how is it DEFINED, man?

 

[UnReAL13]

...but what IS ignosticism? I mean, what IS it, how is it DEFINED, man?

This is the philosophy I subscribe to and it seems to be the most logical & rational stance to take. Here's the wiki definition to better explain:

Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:
The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

Many agnostics carry a bit of disdain for this viewpoint as they feel it halts the discussion. I feel that agnostics take too much pleasure from vague & ambiguous arguments which they admit is "unknown" to begin with.

The whole point is to find a coherent and consistent definition for the term "god". What could a deity be manifested as? The earth? The sun? Milky Way galaxy? The universe itself (pantheism)? Is it energy? A fundamental force of some kind? An alien? An inanimate object (animism)?

So many possibilities to choose from. So what do you think a deity actually is?

Ignosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is no reason to clarify the term "Ignosticism" any further. The wiki article clearly defines it for all intents and purposes.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Nobody here is trying to argue that superstring theory is meaningful in any way, or that it's even correct. Unless you believe that superstring theory is connected to "god" somehow.

Are you saying the one of the most advanced expressions of modern science could actually be meaningless. I certainly am not. That people spend years in university and postgraduate education learning how to understand and interpret symbols and equations that are in fact semantially void, only some of the brightest minds in the world haven't realised it yet, perhaps being so engrossed by the glamour of it all?

Why would I even need to falsify your existence to prove that your statement "I exist" is meaningful? I know the meaning of the statement already, so this point is null and void.

But you have said (via the OP) that unfalsifiable definitions are meaningless. Therefore, if you apply that rule consistently, the first person statement "I exist" is semantically void. So, either it is void, or the principle has to go.

You're attempting to skew the entire argument by making this a question of whether or not anything is meaningful if it isn't scientifically falsifiable. This is not what Ignosticism is about. If the definition of god is unfalsifiable, then the question "Does god exist?" is rendered meaningless.

Ah I see. Ty for the explanation.

The concept of god can still have meaning, if clarified or elaborated upon, but the question of the existence of god becomes meaningless.

But in what way does it become meaningless? Surely the question "Does God exist?" is still a valid expression in the English language? Just like the question "Do I exist?". And the expression "Higher spatial dimensions of superstring theory exist" is valid too? If that's right, you'll have to explain your particular concept or definition of meaning, because it's apparently not the ordinary one that usually applies when speaking good English. I hope your answer's not going to be "Ignostics say it's meaningless, so therefore it's meaningless, end of story!". Sorry for being a little sardonic, but isn't that in the style of Humpty Dumpty when he said:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

Also another note, reading Wikipedia... "Thus, Popper urged that verifiability be replaced with falsifiability as the criterion of demarcation. On the other hand, he strictly opposed the view that non-falsifiable statements are meaningless or otherwise inherently bad, and noted that falsificationism does not imply it." So for Popper, the guru of falsification, unfalsifiable statements are not meaningless, they are simply not scientific (i.e. the demarcation of science involves falsifiable theories).

You can keep trying to play this game of "I'll just be Ignostic towards everything". Well this doesn't really work unless you're trying to relate something to the "god concept" somehow, some way. It's not like typical Agnosticism, which can be applied to any ultimate claim of knowledge. Ignosticism was designed for the sole purpose of determining the nature of a deity.

But why pick on God (or theists)? Why single us out for the ignostic brand of punishment rather then the "I exist"s or the "superstrings exist"s? That just makes it seem like a contrived conspiracy against religion based on arbitrary principles (that is if possible hatred of religion can be considered an arbitrary principle), rather than points of genuine philosophical interest or value.

 

[UnReAL13]

Also another note, reading Wikipedia... "Thus, Popper urged that verifiability be replaced with falsifiability as the criterion of demarcation. On the other hand, he strictly opposed the view that non-falsifiable statements are meaningless or otherwise inherently bad, and noted that falsificationism does not imply it." So for Popper, the guru of falsification, unfalsifiable statements are not meaningless, they are simply not scientific (i.e. the demarcation of science involves falsifiable theories).

I'm gonna need to see the link to that wiki article before properly replying to this.

But why pick on God (or theists)? Why single us out for the ignostic brand of punishment rather then the "I exist"s or the "superstrings exist"s? That just makes it seem like a contrived conspiracy against religion based on arbitrary principles (that is if possible hatred of religion can be considered an arbitrary principle), rather than points of genuine philosophical interest or value.

If you can't rationally define your "god", then there's no reason to debate the existence of "it". Whatever "it" is supposed to be. That's the whole point this philosophy hinges on. You seem to think that the true nature of a deity is an "arbitrary principle" in this matter, when this is the key fundamental question that people have been asking for ages and eons.

So you've basically just surmised that the "actual nature of a deity" is of "no genuine philosophical interest or value". Perhaps you should re-think this assertion. There is no "conspiracy" surrounding Ignosticism. What would anyone have to gain from this? I suppose you'll then tell me next that the New World Order and the Illuminati generated this philosophy in order to deface the Christian doctrine. Hey, that might even be a good story for a Dan Brown novel

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm gonna need to see the link to that wiki article before properly replying to this.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can't rationally define your "god", then there's no reason to debate the existence of "it". Whatever "it" is supposed to be. That's the whole point this philosophy hinges on. You seem to think that the true nature of a deity is an "arbitrary principle" in this matter, when this is the key fundamental question that people have been asking for ages and eons.

So you've basically just surmised that the "actual nature of a deity" is of "no genuine philosophical interest or value". Perhaps you should re-think this assertion. There is no "conspiracy" surrounding Ignosticism. What would anyone have to gain from this? I suppose you'll then tell me next that the New World Order and the Illuminati generated this philosophy in order to deface the Christian doctrine. Hey, that might even be a good story for a Dan Brown novel

You seem to be missing the point. You have said that God is meaningless because it does not have a "falsifiable definition". So when I ask if other things (self, superstrings) are also meaningless if they do not have "falsifiable definitions" then you say I am missing the point that ignosticism is specifically designed with the term "God" in mind.

So it seems to me you are saying:

Person A (ignostic): Terms defined such that the statement that they exist cannot be falsified by science are all meaningful, except for the term "God".​

Person B (theist) : Why is the term "God" meaningless whilst others are not?​

Person A (ignostic): Because the term "God" as defined is not falsifiable.​

If that's your argument, you ought to remind yourself of the fallacy of 'special pleading' before we both carry on. Either that, or I am misunderstanding your stance in a major way.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I don't think ignosticism ever tried to confront the issue of falsifiability of every concept. At best, they deny that the term God has any real use. One can understand that there are various concepts that happen to be named God, but one still has to question why that word has to be the one used in relation to those concepts. Falsification in science has some variability to it beyond simply being able to be experimentally demonstrated. Probability comes to mind, but it seems to me that any attempt to defend the rationality of belief in God only proves the point of ignosticism; that any person believing in God should admit that their definition is unfalsifiable and based primarily, if not solely, on faith and subjective interpretation of events.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

It also occurs to me that ignosticism can be said to be very particular in its critique of theological language as incoherent, so that they could easily be labeled in a specific sense as theological noncognitivists as opposed to noncognitivists or radical skeptics in the general sense of language as incoherent unless it is falsifiable. That really appears to be our biggest difficulty in communication so far

 

[UnReAL13]

I don't think ignosticism ever tried to confront the issue of falsifiability of every concept. At best, they deny that the term God has any real use. One can understand that there are various concepts that happen to be named God, but one still has to question why that word has to be the one used in relation to those concepts. Falsification in science has some variability to it beyond simply being able to be experimentally demonstrated. Probability comes to mind, but it seems to me that any attempt to defend the rationality of belief in God only proves the point of ignosticism; that any person believing in God should admit that their definition is unfalsifiable and based primarily, if not solely, on faith and subjective interpretation of events.

^^^This....

It also occurs to me that ignosticism can be said to be very particular in its critique of theological language as incoherent, so that they could easily be labeled in a specific sense as theological noncognitivists as opposed to noncognitivists or radical skeptics in the general sense of language as incoherent unless it is falsifiable. That really appears to be our biggest difficulty in communication so far

^^^And This.



And the wiki article on "falsifiability" debunks your entire argument (GrowingSmaller) as to why the term "god" shouldn't come under scrutiny with the very 1st line of the article itself:

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment.

Since there is no way to conduct an observation or physical experiment of "god", the term is unfalsifiable.


Furthermore, the term fails to meet the requirements for verificationism as well:

In the philosophy of science, verificationism (also known as the verifiability theory of meaning) holds that a statement must, in principle, be empirically verifiable for it to be both meaningful and scientific

Obviously no popular definition of "god" or "deity", even "supernatural", "spirit", "soul", etc.... is empirically verifiable.


So GrowingSmaller, I think it's about time for you to end your straw man argument over Ignosticism and start at least making an attempt to rationally define the term "god". Otherwise, we the Ignostics must conclude that the term is "meaningless". Your name suits you well, as your line of reasoning is continuously "GrowingSmaller".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't think ignosticism ever tried to confront the issue of falsifiability of every concept. At best, they deny that the term God has any real use. One can understand that there are various concepts that happen to be named God, but one still has to question why that word has to be the one used in relation to those concepts. Falsification in science has some variability to it beyond simply being able to be experimentally demonstrated. Probability comes to mind, but it seems to me that any attempt to defend the rationality of belief in God only proves the point of ignosticism; that any person believing in God should admit that their definition is unfalsifiable and based primarily, if not solely, on faith and subjective interpretation of events.

^^^This....
​

Wrong go and reread the definition of ignosticism given in the OP where is explicity states:

"Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of god (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of god is not considered meaningless; the term "god" is considered meaningless. "


If the OP (whick quotes the wiki entry, as quoted above) is not reliable then why does UnreAL13 explicitly state at the top of this page: "There is no reason to clarify the term "Ignosticism" any further. The wiki article clearly defines it for all intents and purposes."

In addition to my prior request I want to know what it is for a concept of God to be meaningful but for the related term "God" to be meaningless. I have honestly never come across that distinction before, and it's is not intuitive to me precisely what the speaker intends to convey.


​

It also occurs to me that ignosticism can be said to be very particular in its critique of theological language as incoherent, so that they could easily be labeled in a specific sense as theological noncognitivists as opposed to noncognitivists or radical skeptics in the general sense of language as incoherent unless it is falsifiable. That really appears to be our biggest difficulty in communication so far.

^^^And This.

But you can't just claim objective incoherence or meaninglessness without giving a standard whereby we can judge is a term or a sentence has meaning. Or you might, but why should anyone believe you? After all, maybe you're just hung over, or don't have sufficient grasp of the language, or something.

I have repeatedly asked for criteria for determining meaninfulness, and IIRC the best that has come our way is something akin to "unfalsifiable definitions are meaningless". So please, for the nth time, would one of you ignostic types please explain the necessary and sufficient conditions of meaningfulness. I have a right to make this request because obviously you feel that the standard I use (the term "God" is found and defined in a good dictionary, and therefore is a meaningful word in English) is not appropriate. I am looking for a general rule of linguistics such that if term x meets these conditions, then term x is meaningful.

Or if its about questions, then what conditions must be met by questions if they are to be regarded as meanigful?

And the wiki article on "falsifiability" debunks your entire argument (GrowingSmaller) as to why the term "god" shouldn't come under scrutiny with the very 1st line of the article itself:

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment.

When did I say that the term "God" ought not be scrutinised? In fact I said in another post that analysing meanings of terms we are working with before we begin was a good analytic philosophy skill. I can't find the post I need to link to so I'll just reiterate the point here of that's OK.

Since there is no way to conduct an observation or physical experiment of "god", the term is unfalsifiable.

And?

Furthermore, the term fails to meet the requirements for verificationism as well:

And?

Obviously no popular definition of "god" or "deity", even "supernatural", "spirit", "soul", etc.... is empirically verifiable.

And? Are you a logical positivist or something? I thought they had all died of old age.

So GrowingSmaller, I think it's about time for you to end your straw man argument over Ignosticism and start at least making an attempt to rationally define the term "god".

Look, if you can finally give me the criteria by which a word is to be regarded as meaningful, then we can begin a properly rational debate? Obviously, the fact that a term belongs to the English language and is to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary is not good enough for you. So please, what objective standards or conditions must be met?

Otherwise, we the Ignostics must conclude that the term is "meaningless". Your name suits you well, as your line of reasoning is continuously "GrowingSmaller".

I am still waiting.

 

[UnReAL13]

Look, you seem to be blatantly ignorant to the "theological" aspect of "theological non-cognitivism". You also seem to be taking the whole scope of this philosophy as some sort of personal attack on theists themselves. Until we clear up these misconceptions of yours, I don't see this conversation going in a rational direction.

But why pick on God (or theists)? Why single us out for the ignostic brand of punishment rather then the "I exist"s or the "superstrings exist"s? That just makes it seem like a contrived conspiracy against religion based on arbitrary principles (that is if possible hatred of religion can be considered an arbitrary principle), rather than points of genuine philosophical interest or value.

When did I say that the term "God" ought not be scrutinised? In fact I said in another post that analysing meanings of terms we are working with before we begin was a good analytic philosophy skill. I can't find the post I need to link to so I'll just reiterate the point here of that's OK.

It's actually quite astounding to read your responses. You appear to continue forgetting what you've previously written. I'll look forward to reading more of your back-pedaling as you attempt to rationalize this contradiction.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ho ho ho. Merry Christmas to you too. I never said that theism ought to be exempt from scrutiny, but was only asking that if falsificationism can be used as a starting point for a critique of the meaning of "God" or "Does God exist?" (or whetever, I am still not exactly sure what the ignostic stance is actually meant to be), then why can't it be applied to other positions too (superstring theory was one of my examples). Not having a decent answer to this is the reason I said you might be guilty of the fallacy of special pleading. In that context I said you seemed to be attacking theism in an arbitrary fashion, which is misread as a request that you do dot criticise it at all.


Now thats cleared up, would you go back to post #278 and answer my requests for objective criteria of meaningfulness (needed because obviously you don't trust lexicographers and dictionaries), and also an explanation of what it means for a concept (of God) to be meaningful but not the related word (the term "God").

If you can't or won't deal with these issues I can only imagine that you are avoiding addressing the difficulty your theory seems to be in. I am not saying it won't pull through, but I simply cannot accept, and sometimes cannot even make sense of it at present.