Ignosticism: What Is God?

[UnReAL13]

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 Sherman Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism. It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of god:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

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?

 

[SithDoughnut]

*Ignostic high-five*

As for what a deity is, it's a word created to apply to anything that people want to give a position of authority. It's essentially a title more than an actual description. Whether something is a deity or not, that doesn't change anything other than its perceived status.

Of course, people then use whatever they've applied the word 'deity' to as the standard model for all deities, but in terms of general usage it is nothing more than a status.

 

[UnReAL13]

*Ignostic high-five*

As for what a deity is, it's a word created to apply to anything that people want to give a position of authority. It's essentially a title more than an actual description. Whether something is a deity or not, that doesn't change anything other than its perceived status.

Of course, people then use whatever they've applied the word 'deity' to as the standard model for all deities, but in terms of general usage it is nothing more than a status.

Okay, an interesting concept. The idea that man created god instead of vice versa. Obviously the atheistic viewpoint of a "deity". I notice that your "Faith" symbol actually labels you as "Atheist", how can I change mine?

EDIT: NVM I found the setting under User CP. But there's still no option for "Ignostic". I might have to suggest this to the mods and admins.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Okay, an interesting concept. The idea that man created god instead of vice versa. Obviously the atheistic viewpoint of a "deity". I notice that your "Faith" symbol actually labels you as "Atheist", how can I change mine?

EDIT: NVM I found the setting under User CP. But there's still no option for "Ignostic". I might have to suggest this to the mods and admins.

There's an 'other' option if you want. Personally I think either agnostic or atheist works fine for ignosticism.

 

[UnReAL13]

Yeah, it basically falls within the spectrum of Agnosticism. I actually consider myself an "Ignostic Neutralist", which is the combination of Ignosticism and Agnostic Neutralism. I'm totally neutral to the Atheist/Theist and Weak/Strong Agnostic arguments, but I still require a definition for a deity.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I still require a definition for a deity.

You mean you can't find a single defintion of the term "God"? Or there you find such definitions unacceptable? Suppose it's the latter, do you expect me to come up with a fresh definition before you explain your reasons for rejecting the run of the mill. Let's start a simple lexical defiintion:

source thefreedictionary.com

a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

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.

Meaningless? In what way? To whom? Is this some kind of neo-logical positivism? Are you saying the person compiling e.g. the OED knows less about the meaning of words (specifically the word "God") that you do?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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."

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Meaningless? In what way? To whom?

What? Do you think that that OED definition is coherent? Because I would not know.


Start with "being". From Wiktionary: being - Wiktionary

1. A living creature.
2. The state or fact of existence, consciousness, or life, or something in such a state.
3. (philosophy) That which has actuality (materially or in concept).
4. (philosophy) One's basic nature, or the qualities thereof; essence or personality.​

OK, God is a being. What kind of being? A living creature as in Definition 1?
If yes, in what kind of sense does it live? In the biological sense, most certainly not. But?

If not, then maybe it has something to do with conciousness. Which will of course draw similar questions as above. Is a rock concious? Is a bee? An car alarm?

Or maybe "being" soley makes the statement that "it exists"?

Etc.

 

[UnReAL13]

I still require a definition for a deity.

You mean you can't find a single defintion of the term "God"? Or there you find such definitions unacceptable? Suppose it's the latter, do you expect me to come up with a fresh definition before you explain your reasons for rejecting the run of the mill. Let's start a simple lexical defiintion:

Look, there are various amounts of existing beliefs with a wide variety of descriptions for what a deity actually is. The whole point of Ignosticism is to clarify your viewpoint of whatever that definition may be. I could even make up my own definition, and I have before: Nezzi-Theism - The belief that god is a network or the internet. BTW the definition that you looked up: far too vague and ambiguous. I could interpret just about anything out of that.

Of course I can find the definitions, but which one shall I choose? This is where the Theist must interject and propose a description that the Ignostic may or may not find satisfactory.

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.

Meaningless? In what way? To whom? Is this some kind of neo-logical positivism? Are you saying the person compiling e.g. the OED knows less about the meaning of words (specifically the word "God") that you do?

I'm saying that if the definition lacks clarity or coherency, then the term "god" becomes meaningless. There must be a consistent example of "what god is" to truly and rationally debate the existence of god. Otherwise we'll only be bouncing metaphorical interpretations back & forth, and I'm sure you've seen where that leads. It leads to a pointless discussion that doesn't resolve the issue at hand: What is a deity?

 

[sandwiches]

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:

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?

I see a couple of problems in that it seems this position is a bit subjective using words like 'coherent' or 'consistent,' as GrowingSmaller also notoed. First of all, what do you mean by coherent and consistent? Coherent to whom? Consistent between different people? If so, how many?

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.

OR God is the giant blue dog that lives on the Golden Gate bridge that speaks to people every day as they drive by and can be seen by everyone. It doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist.

So, the question of whether a god exists is not meaningless for specific meanings of a god. And not only that but they can be answered. So, the only way that the philosophy you speak of can be supported is if you reject all definitions of God as incoherent or inconsistent.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I see a couple of problems in that it seems this position is a bit subjective using words like 'coherent' or 'consistent,' as GrowingSmaller also notoed. First of all, what do you mean by coherent and consistent? Coherent to whom? Consistent between different people? If so, how many?

The persons who are about to having the discussion? It might be only one, but can easily be more.

And yes, there surely is a whole lot of subjectivism involved. Yes?

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.

Sure. Then God exists. Now you only need to go and change your faith icon.

I guess that won't happen, though.

OR God is the giant blue dog that lives on the Golden Gate bridge that speaks to people every day as they drive by and can be seen by everyone. It doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist.

Are you sure that the dog doesn't exist? Maybe it is a spiritually blue dog, that spiritually talks to people, and spiritually can be seen by everyone? Just sayin' ...

So, the question of whether a god exists is not meaningless for specific meanings of a god. And not only that but they can be answered. So, the only way that the philosophy you speak of can be supported is if you reject all definitions of God as incoherent or inconsistent.

No, it first and foremost raises the question of what actually is and what is not a God. What is being discussed anyway? Is it Miley Cyrus? (I would say "No, definitely not".) Is there actually anything being discussed?


Or better, how do you tell a world where a God exists from one where God doesn't? How should I?

 

[UnReAL13]

I see a couple of problems in that it seems this position is a bit subjective using words like 'coherent' or 'consistent,' as GrowingSmaller also notoed. First of all, what do you mean by coherent and consistent? Coherent to whom? Consistent between different people? If so, how many?

Coherent and consistent to those who engage in the discussion. It would usually be an Ignostic and a Theist. Once a definition is agreed upon, then the debate can commence. Of course it's subjective. Everybody has their own interpretation of "what god is".

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.

Exactly. If god could be anything, then why not a pop singer? As ridiculous as the option may seem, people do tend to "worship" people like Miley Cyrus. It could be called Hannah-Montana-Theism. Easily falsifiable, but a clear definition nonetheless.

OR God is the giant blue dog that lives on the Golden Gate bridge that speaks to people every day as they drive by and can be seen by everyone. It doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist.

How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Nobody ever proved that Pastafarianism is incorrect.

And obviously this blue dog god that you speak of is non-existent, as you've clarified that it resides on the Golden Gate bridge. So then the next logical step in the process would be for the Theist to present their next definition, if they even wish to continue.

LoL but what if it's like what Lords Emsworth is suggesting, a spiritual blue dog that only appears to those driving down the bridge, if it chooses to? It depends on what you mean by "everyone", as it's impossible for certain people in the world to ever see the Golden Gate bridge.

So, the question of whether a god exists is not meaningless for specific meanings of a god. And not only that but they can be answered. So, the only way that the philosophy you speak of can be supported is if you reject all definitions of God as incoherent or inconsistent.

The whole point is to clarify the debate or discussion. Who or what are we debating the existence of exactly? The Ignostic may take the non-cognitivist approach if they personally feel a definition is incoherent.

Although the fact is, no current definition makes sense or is entirely clear and rational. Without absolute knowledge it's rather impossible to clearly define a deity. The Ignostic doesn't necessarily have to "reject" every description, as anything could be discussed. It just so happens that most of the time the Theist will be attempting to support an axiom that is logically inconsistent.

This is one of those situations where the Theist must provide empirical evidence supporting their interpretation of a deity. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic. It's not that Ignosticism can only be supported by rejecting all axioms, I've even created my own: Nezzi-Theism - the belief that god is a network or the internet. Nobody has been able to challenge me on this definition yet. There are certainly descriptions of a deity that I could accept, i.e. god is an alien. This isn't falsifiable, so the concept can be elaborated upon. As well as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What? Do you think that that OED definition is coherent? Because I would not know.


Start with "being". From Wiktionary: being - Wiktionary

1. A living creature.
2. The state or fact of existence, consciousness, or life, or something in such a state.
3. (philosophy) That which has actuality (materially or in concept).
4. (philosophy) One's basic nature, or the qualities thereof; essence or personality.
​

OK, God is a being. What kind of being? A living creature as in Definition 1?
If yes, in what kind of sense does it live? In the biological sense, most certainly not. But?

If not, then maybe it has something to do with conciousness. Which will of course draw similar questions as above. Is a rock concious? Is a bee? An car alarm?

Or maybe "being" soley makes the statement that "it exists"?

Etc.

Being = existent thing, entity.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Look, there are various amounts of existing beliefs with a wide variety of descriptions for what a deity actually is. The whole point of Ignosticism is to clarify your viewpoint of whatever that definition may be. I could even make up my own definition, and I have before: Nezzi-Theism - The belief that god is a network or the internet. BTW the definition that you looked up: far too vague and ambiguous. I could interpret just about anything out of that.

Where does it need to be inproved or made more precise, plz?

Of course I can find the definitions, but which one shall I choose? This is where the Theist must interject and propose a description that the Ignostic may or may not find satisfactory.

We are working on that.

I'm saying that if the definition lacks clarity or coherency, then the term "god" becomes meaningless.

What criteria establish clarity, coherency and meaninfulness plz?

There must be a consistent example of "what god is" to truly and rationally debate the existence of god.

What do you mean by a "consistent example" plz?

Otherwise we'll only be bouncing metaphorical interpretations back & forth, and I'm sure you've seen where that leads. It leads to a pointless discussion that doesn't resolve the issue at hand: What is a deity?

Please state where the definition provided needs to be improved upon.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A reminder of the definition advanced:


"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

So far I have defined "being" as "existent thing, entity".

 

[SithDoughnut]

A reminder of the definition advanced:


"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

So far I have defined "being" as "existent thing, entity".

So you're saying that polytheistic religions do not have gods?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So you're saying that polytheistic religions do not have gods?

I supopose that the definition given emanates from the Judaistic tradition, and fits that better than others, but that does not make it meaningless (which you might not be arguing, but that is that motive of the thread ).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For the record, to explain the definition (or my interpretation of it)...

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions

being = existent thing
conceived = thought of
perfect = morally perfect. Ultimately can do no wrong, every action positive, although there may be apparent or superficial appearance of negative qualities.
omnipotent = can do all things, within the constraints of logic and morality (cannot do logically impossible or morally deficient).
omniscient = knows all affairs including inner thoughts of man.
originator = one who brought into being, efficient cause
ruler = one with ultimate power, althought He may allow humans to act freely in contradiction to His desires.
universe = the totality of natural being, sun, moon, earth, people, plants etc.
principal = primary, foremost.
object = thing, entity.
worship = religious reverence, prayer, devotion.
monotheistic religion = religion accepting the existence of only one God.


Now that sems to be plain English, although admittedly there may be a further request for a definition of moral good and evil. But prevalently it seems like a meaningful set of ideas, certainly not cognitively equivalent to the nonsense term "hwuwe87J^u4uq6!8)" which it is the OPs thesis, or thereabouts, isn't it?

 

[UnReAL13]

Define "entity". What sort of "being" are we supposed to be dealing with here?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Define "entity". What sort of "being" are we supposed to be dealing with here?

"Entity" = existent thing. Sort of existent thing = spirit. But this could go on for ever. For instance I could ask you to define "dealing with" and just keep on and on and on and on requesting further definitions of the definiens...

A "spirit" is an immaterial intelligence capable of thought, consciousness, emotion and volition. Immaterial means not material, which is a bad form of definition I know (cf "negative definition"), but if you are going to conclude "therefore the term "God" is meaningless like 'hwuwe87J^u4uq6!8)' is meaningless, because it involves a negative definition", I expect you're engaging a non sequitir.

Anyway, would you always use that standard? For example, we use the term "nonexistent", and atheists might say "both God and pixies are nonexistent" or scientists might say "phlogiston is nonexistent" even though it too has a negative definition. Does that mean atheits and scientists both are vulnerable to speaking meaningless nonsense? And what about the term "meaningless", isn't that negatively defined? Therefore, noncognitivism (there we go again).... well you can guess for yourself.