Ignosticism: What Is God?

[GrowingSmaller]

The whole "lightning storm feeling" experience was the equivalent of what most people call a "gut feeling". There is no "empirical data" to support any type of conclusion from this. It doesn't prove that anything exists, or doesn't exist.

Not a scientific proof, but we get by with less than science most of our workaday lives. IOW not every proof has to be scientific to be a proof.

I don't have a "passion" for atheism, in fact I've made it a point to emphasize my "neutrality" or "neutralism" towards the entire atheism/theism debate.

Ok fine.

If anything I'm more of an apatheist, an apathetic ignostic at that. I don't think a deity has ever been proven OR dis-proven, and either way it doesn't seem to matter.

I suppose you were just bored then, starting the thread?

We still have the same feelings, senses, perceptions and experiences regardless of what might exist in or outside our bubble of reality. Nothing in reality changes whether or not we can ascertain this "ultimate truth".

I disagree. Faith can change both behaviour and outlook.

How do I know something isn't there? I honestly don't know. Which is why I've labeled myself an "apathetic ignostic neutralist".

Ok good for you.

I see the claim "god exists" as being either possibly true OR false, with equal likelihood.

Subjective likelihood, as far as you know that is.

Equipossible if you will.

Cool.

All I'm saying is that it seems random and coincidental to rely on these particular occasions as a way to justify a deity's existence. The evidence is still sorely lacking in this scenario.

Ok the test is complete then, there is not sufficient reason for you to believe.

Now if you can go about proving that lightning storms are the manifestation of a deity, then go right ahead.

I may well, thank you.

At least we're dealing with a semi-clear concept at this point. This is probably a huge part of the reason why the Greeks named Zeus as the god of lightning and the sky. They felt that all that crazy flickering of electricity in the sky must've been the work of a deity.

They could have been right.

It seems much hasn't changed from even the Greek era, as people continue to rely on assumptions based on little to no observatory evidence. Which is why Ignosticism strikes at the heart of the matter: What IS the deity? Not "what does the deity do?" or "how does the deity make you feel?" This philosophy asks for direct knowledge of this thing, whatever it is, which is seemingly nigh impossible to obtain.

OK not all knowledge is direct you know. Do you have direct knowledge of my inward mental life, or of China for that matter?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

At least we're dealing with a semi-clear concept at this point. This is probably a huge part of the reason why the Greeks named Zeus as the god of lightning and the sky. They felt that all that crazy flickering of electricity in the sky must've been the work of a deity.

They could have been right.

How?

It seems much hasn't changed from even the Greek era, as people continue to rely on assumptions based on little to no observatory evidence. Which is why Ignosticism strikes at the heart of the matter: What IS the deity? Not "what does the deity do?" or "how does the deity make you feel?" This philosophy asks for direct knowledge of this thing, whatever it is, which is seemingly nigh impossible to obtain.

OK not all knowledge is direct you know. Do you have direct knowledge of my inward mental life, or of China for that matter?

I have to agree with that though. Direct knowledge is not necessary, even in the case of a Deity. But, tunderstorms and your perception thereof in and of themselves, do not make even indirect knowledge of a Deity. (Except you tie them together, but then this would mean that the ancient Greeks could not have been wrong about their presumed God of Thunder.)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

How?

Thinks "A God was at work in the lightning storm, isn't that obvious?"

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Thinks "A God was at work in the lightning storm, isn't that obvious?"

Yeah, of course. I would ask for a little bit more detail, please. What would distinguish a 'thunderstorm' from a 'thunderstorm plus God'? What is the difference between then and now?

Sure, you could claim that we now know more about thunderstorms than the people did know about them then. But what contradicted the notion of God within them? Or was the notion even confirmed?

ETA: In my opinion, thunderstorms have merely been de-mystified. Which in turn would lead to the question whether de-mystification, and explanation, or certain phenomena is enough to dispell God?

 

[quatona]

Ok what about this as a definitoin of God: a sense of a personal presence comminicating with you from behind or via a lightning storm.

Are you sure you want to define God as a sensation of yours?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Yeah, of course. I would ask for a little bit more detail, please. What would distinguish a 'thunderstorm' from a 'thunderstorm plus God'? What is the difference between then and now?

A mystical experience might indicate God, even thought indications can mislead. Still that seems to be the best us mystics can do.

Sure, you could claim that we now know more about thunderstorms than the people did know about them then. But what contradicted the notion of God within them? Or was the notion even confirmed?

I think what contradicted tham was the spirit of the enlightenment. Things, as Hegel pointed out, seem to go "thesis, antithesis...." but perhaps there is room for the third part of the dialectic, a "synthesis". At least, we might examing the make up of the bathwater before we throw it away.

ETA: In my opinion, thunderstorms have merely been de-mystified. Which in turn would lead to the question whether de-mystification, and explanation, or certain phenomena is enough to dispell God?

Apparently not.

 

[UnReAL13]

A mystical experience might indicate God, even thought indications can mislead. Still that seems to be the best us mystics can do.

It would seem that your "mystical experience" is actually a "Religious Experience", which is common among those with overactive temporal lobes and limbic systems. As Emsworth has noted, what's to distinguish between a "thunderstorm" and a "thunderstorm + god", outside of your perspective?

 

[Gracchus]

It would seem that your "mystical experience" is actually a "Religious Experience", which is common among those with overactive temporal lobes and limbic systems. As Emsworth has noted, what's to distinguish between a "thunderstorm" and a "thunderstorm + god", outside of your perspective?

Religious people interpret the mystical experience in religious terms. If you've seen the elephant, you understand how the blind men went wrong.

 

[brightlights]

I like Tim Keller's definition:

A god is "anything so central and essential to your life that, should you lose it, your life would feel hardly worth living."

Thoughts?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I like Tim Keller's definition:

A god is "anything so central and essential to your life that, should you lose it, your life would feel hardly worth living."

Thoughts?

Shock and horror.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Religious people interpret the mystical experience in religious terms. If you've seen the elephant, you understand how the blind men went wrong.

You claim to have seen the elephant?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yeah, of course. I would ask for a little bit more detail, please. What would distinguish a 'thunderstorm' from a 'thunderstorm plus God'? What is the difference between then and now?

A mystical experience might indicate God, even thought indications can mislead. Still that seems to be the best us mystics can do.

The question was about the thunderstorm vs thunderstorm with God in it. And not about what somebody thinks about the thunderstorm. (You see, this all traces back to the statement that they, the ancient Greeks, could have been right about God in thunderstorms. )

 

[GrowingSmaller]

As for the strict question "whats the difference between a thunderstorm with and without god" scientifically I think there may be no observational differnce. However I am not sure if the "your eminence! one flash for yes, one boom for no, amen! Now, in standard decimal arithmetic, is 1+1 equal to 2?" methodology has actually been tested and falsified in the field as of yet. I would dearly love to see it tried. Imagine the headlines either way! But that would probably miss the point a bit as religious experience is probably a bit more subtle than that as it probably takes higher cortical functioning and intelligence recognition processes. Although people can always argue that it's just a form of seeing intelligence where it is not, due to the brains recognition algorithms being tricked by sophisticated phenomena. Still it's probably more humane and fun a dream than vivisection and factory farming. But take that test as my (outline of an) scientific, experimental test for the apparent presence of an honest and intelligent theistic God. Now all we need is a grant from the John Templeton Foundation to cover the costs of a few beers, a raincoat, a pencil and a notepad.

 

[KCfromNC]

I like Tim Keller's definition:

A god is "anything so central and essential to your life that, should you lose it, your life would feel hardly worth living."

Thoughts?

If food and oxygen are gods, this whole atheism thing is way overplayed. But I think a more likely problem is with the definition you propose.

Sounds like a weak attempt to conflate football, a spouse or money with a supernatural creator of the universe to try and prove that everyone has a god whether they know it or not. Why's it so hard to believe that not everyone needs a god in their life?

 

[brightlights]

If food and oxygen are gods, this whole atheism thing is way overplayed. But I think a more likely problem is with the definition you propose.

Sounds like a weak attempt to conflate football, a spouse or money with a supernatural creator of the universe to try and prove that everyone has a god whether they know it or not. Why's it so hard to believe that not everyone needs a god in their life?

I think that the definition is driving at things that are emotional needs rather than physical needs.

It's not a statement about people's need for a god, it's a statement about human nature. Nietzsche even agreed that we create gods whether we know it or not. It's what we do. We long to worship (richly and completely enjoy) something.

 

[quatona]

I think that the definition is driving at things that are emotional needs rather than physical needs.

It's not a statement about people's need for a god, it's a statement about human nature. Nietzsche even agreed that we create gods whether we know it or not. It's what we do. We long to worship (richly and completely enjoy) something.

Of course you are free to redefine words as you see fit, but then we need a new word for the meaning the original word used to be used for:

Definition of WORSHIP

1
chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)

2
: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence

3
: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual

4
: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <worship of the dollar>

(Worship - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

 

[brightlights]

Quatona you are correct. I believe that the dictionary definition of the word and the biblical concept have two different meanings.

 

[sandwiches]

Quatona you are correct. I believe that the dictionary definition of the word and the biblical concept have two different meanings.

What's the Biblical definition of 'worship' and how and where did you extract that from the Bible?

 

[brightlights]

What's the Biblical definition of 'worship' and how and where did you extract that from the Bible?

As I understand it, I believe the definition is something like: to richly and completely enjoy.

Worship has to do with the foundation of your life. Whatever platform you construct your life on is your foundation. It's the thing that, should it be lost or taken from you, all that you've built upon it is destroyed as well. This is more of an analogy than a definition. There isn't a passage in the Bible that defines worship like we would find in a dictionary, but some passages that lead me to defining it this way are:

Matthew 7:24-27, Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Psalm 51:16-17, Matthew 22:34-40, and others. Time and time again the Bible claims that God is interested in capturing the hearts of his people, not their blind devotion or ritual practices. Though, some practices might be indicative of actual worship. If this is not what is meant by "worship" then I'm really not sure what it means. What could it possibly mean other than this?

 

[sandwiches]

As I understand it, I believe the definition is something like: to richly and completely enjoy.

This is a definition that you're using simply to make it fit what your stance is: That everybody worships a god. The worse part about this is that the rest of your post doesn't even support or follow this definition.

Worship has to do with the foundation of your life. Whatever platform you construct your life on is your foundation. It's the thing that, should it be lost or taken from you, all that you've built upon it is destroyed as well. This is more of an analogy than a definition. There isn't a passage in the Bible that defines worship like we would find in a dictionary, but some passages that lead me to defining it this way are:

This is what I mean. In this paragraph, you've changed your meaning from "enjoy" to "something to do with foundations."

Matthew 7:24-27, Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Psalm 51:16-17, Matthew 22:34-40, and others. Time and time again the Bible claims that God is interested in capturing the hearts of his people, not their blind devotion or ritual practices. Though, some practices might be indicative of actual worship. If this is not what is meant by "worship" then I'm really not sure what it means.

It seems obvious that you're twisted up into knots trying to justify your thinking. Your definitions don't match up with one another, with your usage, or with the given passages. Also, nothing in the dictionary definition says that you worship has to have "blind devotion."

What could it possibly mean other than this?

It means what the dictionary says it means. You're simply equivocating several definitions, some invented by you, to make it seem like every person has a god that he/she worships. So, if you mean to say "to richly enjoy" when using the word "worship," then simply say "richly enjoy" and avoid equivocating it with the dictionary meaning of "worship."

For instance, if we use your first definition, your claim has an entirely different meaning and changes from essentially:

"Everyone worships a god."

to

"Everyone has something they richly enjoy."

So, as you can see, your claim is probably right but only if we use the correct words and not try to sneak in a meaning that you're supposedly not using.

Now, using the correct words and their dictionary definitions, I'd say that yes, there are things I deeply and richly enjoy, but NO I do not worship anything and do not have a god of any kind.