Ignostic regarding evolution.

[GrowingSmaller]

This is how Ignosticism works. It's not that I'm onto another method, it's the same method for the same overall concept. Being Ignostic towards certain things makes sense if there's an obvious lack of understanding for the terminology. But you clearly understand the concept of "evolution", and I assure you I'm genuinely perplexed by the concept of "supernatural".

I thing you will have to prove that all that exists is natural. It is not a logical truth afaik.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I thing you will have to prove that all that exists is natural. It is not a logical truth afaik.

Depends entirely on the definition of 'natural' and 'supernatural'. Are ghosts supernatural? They emit light, they alter temperature, they can move objects... are they not natural things?
If so, is 'supernatural' not just a term used to describe something a bit spooky that, in all probability, doesn't exist?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Depends entirely on the definition of 'natural' and 'supernatural'.

Ok if all things are by definition nartural then it is a logical truth that there cannot be any supernatural things, but I think when people say that the supernatural does not exist they are meant to be refering to an alleged contingent and synthetic truth about the world rather than merely affirming a particular linguistic convention which makes it logically impossible, a priori, for any statements to the contrary to be true.

I might want to say "Alien life does not exist, because I define it to be a nonexistent thing, as no life is alien to its habitat" but that would just be silly word games. No, go on, seriously, why don't you save NASA a few million $ a year?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok if all things are by definition nartural then it is a logical truth that there cannot be any supernatural things, but I think when people say that the supernatural does not exist they are meant to be refering to an alleged contingent and synthetic truth about the world rather than merely affirming a particular linguistic convention which makes it logically impossible, a priori, for things to be otherwise.

Perhaps, but this is similar to the ignostic's position: the term is so loosely applied that to inherently be sceptical of the supernatural to the point of disbelief is quite rational, in my opinion.

If I say I have a new theory on plate tectonics, and you say you have a new theory on how whale music amplifies crystal healing, which is more credible?

I might want to say "Alien life does not exist, because I define it to be a nonexistent thing, as no life is alien to its habitat" but that would just be silly word games.

True, but again, we can concretely define 'alien'. Can we concretely define 'supernatural'? If we can't, it's an invalid concept to which all people should rationally be a-supernaturalists (â le a-theists).

 

[sandwiches]

I reckon that one can be ignostic about pretty much anything. All one has to do is to keep on asking for clarifications of terminology, branching on forever, and then argue that this implies the original term is meaningless. Anyone prepared to argue that "evolution" is actually a meaningful term, and I'll play at being ignostic?

I have to side with you here as I still see "ignosticism" as merely being obtuse and pretending you don't understand the question to claim you have no stance on it.

 

[quatona]

I thing you will have to prove that all that exists is natural.

...particularly when some things are cultural or unnatural.

It is not a logical truth afaik.

What is a "logical truth"?

 

[quatona]

Ok if all things are by definition nartural then it is a logical truth that there cannot be any supernatural things, but I think when people say that the supernatural does not exist they are meant to be refering to an alleged contingent and synthetic truth about the world rather than merely affirming a particular linguistic convention which makes it logically impossible, a priori, for any statements to the contrary to be true.

And that´s why some people don´t claim "the supernatural doesn´t exist" but instead ask those who operate with the term "supernatural" to be clear as to how they distinguish between "natural" and "supernatural", a process in which they are not only asking for the definition of "supernatural" but also of the contrasted "natural" that the person is using. That´s exactly what ignosticism is about - if I understand it correctly.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have to side with you here as I still see "ignosticism" as merely being obtuse and pretending you don't understand the question to claim you have no stance on it.

You can also just pretend to understand the question. And then go and plug in a "Yes" as a 'answer', that is as good as a "No", or a "Cancel", or ... "42".

 

[Gracchus]

I have to side with you here as I still see "ignosticism" as merely being obtuse and pretending you don't understand the question to claim you have no stance on it.

I don't know about that. I do know the more I examine something the more I find that I don't know about it. So, taking a single stance on a subject is surely to limit and deceive yourself. You have to look at it from all spaciotemporal angles, or at least as many as possible.

To stubbornly that maintain one point of view is completely correct is ... idolatry(?)

 

[sandwiches]

You can also just pretend to understand the question. And then go and plug in a "Yes" as a 'answer', that is as good as a "No", or a "Cancel", or ... "42".

I gave instances of when the question could be comprehensible but you rejected my definition as incomplete, "not better than the rest," or simply wrong, meaning that you must already feel like you know or have some idea as to what the correct, complete, or best definition is.

I don't know about that. I do know the more I examine something the more I find that I don't know about it. So, taking a single stance on a subject is surely to limit and deceive yourself. You have to look at it from all spaciotemporal angles, or at least as many as possible.

To stubbornly that maintain one point of view is completely correct is ... idolatry(?)

I'm not saying one should maintain that one stance is correct. I am simply saying what I've been saying all along: A question is deemed meaningless or incomprehensible only within the specific context of the discussion in which it is presented. Therefore, one can only be ignostic within the specific a context of the discussion in which the question is presented.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I gave instances of when the question could be comprehensible but you rejected my definition as incomplete, "not better than the rest," or simply wrong, meaning that you must already feel like you know or have some idea as to what the correct, complete, or best definition is.

Hmmm, looks to me like you are appealing to my ideas. Fine.

Let's just say that I have the idea that "God is inherently incomprehensible." So, if you have something that is comprehensible the only conclusion is that it can't be God.



I think that there is a serious weakness in your train of thought.

 

[sandwiches]

Hmmm, looks to me like you are appealing to my ideas. Fine.

Let's just say that I have the idea that "God is inherently incomprehensible." So, if you have something that is comprehensible the only conclusion is that it can't be God.

I think that there is a serious weakness in your train of thought.

As I've stated before, if you do have a definition, then there should be no excuse in understanding the question.

I understand that you're trying really hard to appear neutral but the reality is that makes you appear evasive. As GrowingSmaller said, you seem to take apart a question endlessly to avoid having to answer it. It's disappointing but, so far, this is how I feel the discussion has gone:

Person A: Do you believe in God?
Ignostic: What is "god?"
Person A: It's XYZ.
Ignostic: That's incomplete/wrong/inconsistent with the rest of humanity's definition of "god."
Person A: But do you believe in God defined as XYZ?
Ignostic: Why should I accept this definition? How is this better than other definitions? This is a metaphor. Theologians wouldn't agree. Et cetera, et cetera...

Now, to put this into a more realistic setting, this is usually how the discussion could go with me, if I were to take a bit of a long way to answer:

Person A: Do you believe in God?
Me: What is "god?"
Person A: It's the supernatural being who created the universe.
Me: Seeing as I don't know of any evidence of this being and anything that exists would be natural, as in "of nature" by definition, no I don't believe in this "god" as you defined it.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

As I've stated before, if you do have a definition, then there should be no excuse in understanding the question.

That it fantastic news. Here let me repeat my first post to the "Ignosticism" thread:

Strong Atheist/Ignostic here.

I do realize that there is a multitude of different concepts of "Gods", but not any of them will do. For instance, a "philosophical" concept of God, i.e. something that is very basic and very diluted, does not cut it. Neither am I out for metaphors, or flowery language in general.

What I am out for when considering the existence of God, though, if looked at in plain daylight, will be contradictory (and very hazy at that). So no qualms about saying "There is no God. Now cry me an agnostic river."

Link: http://www.christianforums.com/t7516771/#post56213114

Looks like I am right all along.

I understand that you're trying really hard to appear neutral but the reality is that makes you appear evasive. As GrowingSmaller said, you seem to take apart a question endlessly to avoid having to answer it. It's disappointing but, so far, this is how I feel the discussion has gone:

Person A: Do you believe in God?
Ignostic: What is "god?"
Person A: It's XYZ.
Ignostic: That's incomplete/wrong/inconsistent with the rest of humanity's definition of "god."
Person A: But do you believe in God defined as XYZ?
Ignostic: Why should I accept this definition? How is this better than other definitions? This is a metaphor. Theologians wouldn't agree. Et cetera, et cetera...

Now, to put this into a more realistic setting, this is usually how the discussion could go with me, if I were to take a bit of a long way to answer:

Person A: Do you believe in God?
Me: What is "god?"
Person A: It's the supernatural being who created the universe.
Me: Seeing as I don't know of any evidence of this being and anything that exists would be natural, as in "of nature" by definition, no I don't believe in this "god" as you defined it.

Not to sound as a total jerk here, but you do realize that there is an equivocation in your response to person A?
Person A obviously takes "supernatural" in the sense that something is (a) not natural, but (b) still can exist. And you just go and re-define "supernatural" it to (a) not natural, and (b) cannot exist.

If it makes you happy, I guess.

 

[sandwiches]

That it fantastic news. Here let me repeat my first post to the "Ignosticism" thread:

Link: http://www.christianforums.com/t7516771/#post56213114

Looks like I am right all along.

I think we're speaking WAY past each other here. You're speaking of your beliefs and being a strong atheist and I have no clue how that's relevant to what you quoted from me.

Not to sound as a total jerk here, but you do realize that there is an equivocation in your response to person A?
Person A obviously takes "supernatural" in the sense that something is (a) not natural, but (b) still can exist. And you just go and re-define "supernatural" it to (a) not natural, and (b) cannot exist.

If it makes you happy, I guess.

That's sort of the point. I answered the question as *I* best understood it. If the person thinks I'm mistaken, he can try to correct me. However, despite all this the fact remains that the question is meaningful and most importantly comprehensible and answerable.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think we're speaking WAY past each other here.

I believe so too.

Just because somebody (me for instance) can produce some sort of answer, or has some kind of idea, it does not mean in a long shot that I necessarily know what the other person in going on about.

You're speaking of your beliefs and being a strong atheist and I have no clue how that's relevant to what you quoted from me.

Yes, what has that got to do with the price of rice in China?

That's sort of the point. I answered the question as *I* best understood it.

Which may, or may not be a good answer ...


But you also asked a question. You asked what was meant. Only to go and to disregard the answer that you were given, and answer the way that you understood anyway.

If the person thinks I'm mistaken, he can try to correct me.

I am certain that person has got a different definition of "supernatural" in mind than you ...

However, despite all this the fact remains that the question is meaningful and most importantly comprehensible and answerable.

No, it just shows to me that you have made a statement. It does not demonstrate that you understand what the other person would or would not identify either as God or as supernatural entity.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Perhaps, but this is similar to the ignostic's position: the term is so loosely applied that to inherently be sceptical of the supernatural to the point of disbelief is quite rational, in my opinion.

I have repeatedluy given my definition, is that not exact enough. The word "set" has many meanings, but that does not mean we do not use the word, does it? It seems to meayour setting out to give theistic terminology special treatement.

If I say I have a new theory on plate tectonics, and you say you have a new theory on how whale music amplifies crystal healing, which is more credible?

I guess neither, until they are evaluated.

True, but again, we can concretely define 'alien'.

What is a concrete definition. Never heard of one.

Can we concretely define 'supernatural'? If we can't, it's an invalid concept to which all people should rationally be a-supernaturalists (â le a-theists).

I am getting all conclusion and no edification here,.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

...particularly when some things are cultural or unnatural.

What is a "logical truth"?

A logical truth IRC is something true by definition, like a triangle having 3 sides. A logical truth is true in all possible worlds, and our knowledge of them derives from semantics rather than observation.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

And that´s why some people don´t claim "the supernatural doesn´t exist" but instead ask those who operate with the term "supernatural" to be clear as to how they distinguish between "natural" and "supernatural", a process in which they are not only asking for the definition of "supernatural" but also of the contrasted "natural" that the person is using. That´s exactly what ignosticism is about - if I understand it correctly.

How to distinguish experientially, I take the question to be? Not quite sure. Maybe if yo see a "ghost", and are not regarded as insane, then that could be a supernatural experience. I think that the catholic church has a set of criteria that must be met for a visionary experience to be validated. Sanity, morality, religosity IIRC are the main points of analysis.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have repeatedluy given my definition, is that not exact enough.

I wasn't aware you had. Could you give it again, or cite the post in which you did?

The word "set" has many meanings, but that does not mean we do not use the word, does it? It seems to meayour setting out to give theistic terminology special treatement.

Not really. Atheists and sceptics make the same mistakes; Gould used fallacious semantics with NOMA, for example.

I guess neither, until they are evaluated.

Really? You wouldn't be more sceptical about the whale music than plate tectonics?

What is a concrete definition. Never heard of one.

A definition based on other accepted definitions.

I am getting all conclusion and no edification here,.

If 'supernatural' is semantically null, or if it denotes a logically incoherent concept, then no rational person should believe in the supernatural.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I wasn't aware you had. Could you give it again, or cite the post in which you did?

The supernatural is (at least) a subset of the non-natural.

Not really. Atheists and sceptics make the same mistakes; Gould used fallacious semantics with NOMA, for example.

Ok.

Really? You wouldn't be more sceptical about the whale music than plate tectonics?

What if your theory is that plate tectonics is caused by smurfs meddling in the Earth's core, and that whale music simply enhances the placebo effect?

A definition based on other accepted definitions.

Ok. Ty.

If 'supernatural' is semantically null, or if it denotes a logically incoherent concept, then no rational person should believe in the supernatural.

Sounds fine to me.