Ignosticism

Lightkeeper · #1 (**permalink**) 3rd May 2007, 03:28 AM

Quote:

According to Kurtz, ignosticism is compatible with atheism and agnosticism.[4] Theodore Drange, however, sees atheism and agnosticism as cognitivist views.[5] In any case, ignosticism falls under the general category of nontheism. An atheist would say "I don't believe God exists", an agnostic would say "I don't know if God exists or not", and an ignostic would say "I don't know what you mean when you say 'God exists'."

In the entry under "God" in the Guide to Humanistic Judaism, published by the Society for Humanistic Judaism, ignosticism is defined as "finding the question of God's existence meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences."[6] This use of the term "verifiable" is consistent with logical positivism and indicates that the word "God" is cognitively meaningless, but not necessarily emotionally or aesthetically meaningless. It is sufficient to say that an ignostic thinks the idea of God as a being makes no sense.

When the word "God" is spoken, the ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended.

A theistic child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of God: a big powerful man in the sky responsible for certain matters.[7] This anthropomorphic divine conception has been rejected by Spinoza, as well as by Feuerbach in The Essence of Christianity (1841).

A theologian's concept is more complex and abstract, often involving such concepts as first cause, sustainer, and unmoved mover and claiming such attributes for God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. To the ignostic these abstractions, taken singly or in combination, cannot be said to be false; rather, they are muddled, self-contradictory, linguistically empty, or perhaps poetic. Hence, one cannot meaningfully expound on the existence or nonexistence of God.

The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of God (or of any other metaphysical concept to be discussed) before engaging in arguments for or against. From Wikipedia

Any thoughts on this?

Rev. Rex · #2 (**permalink**) 3rd May 2007, 03:54 AM

It's just my opinion, but I just see this as three different ways to say the same thing. I don't mean to have it sound callous, but because of this, I don't see it as making much difference.

**Travis Clementsmith** · #3 (**permalink**) 3rd May 2007, 07:07 AM

I think it makes a degree of sense. I never bought the argument that simply because one has not been exposed to the intellectual concept of God (such as infants and toddlers) that they are therefore atheists because they are "without belief". In most of my encounters with atheism, including my own, atheism was always a reaction, a position of belief, concerning the subject of the divine.

It always seemed a "Did you get your chocolate in my peanutbutter or vice versa" type argument.

"No, no. I'm not an atheist because I don't believe in God, its because I am without belief, that I do not believe in God." It just never struck me as a convincing or even honest answer. I certainly believe a person can genuinely not believe in God. I have difficulty believing a person is "without belief". "Without belief" is either ignorance or knowledge. If ignorant, the ignostic descriptor fits better. If knowledgable, they bear the burden of proof, and since the only proof they accept is empirical, and the absence of proof is not proof itself, they cannot claim knowledge. So I have a hard time with the "I am without belief" position.

-TC

**angeleyes** · #4 (**permalink**) 3rd May 2007, 07:28 AM

I agree with TC (I think! - I had to reread the post a few times!). The way I see it, if one says they don't believe in God, they have to have some definition in mind. Otherwise, they have nothing to "not believe" in.

In other words, if I say that I believe God is "Life," (substitute "Consciousness" or "Love"), who could disagree that He exists?
So, belief or disbelief may in the end prove meaningless, since both involve a concept of man.

vivamis123 · #5 (**permalink**) 3rd May 2007, 10:28 AM

I see that we try to give tiltles to anything possible in order to identify ourselves from others. Titles are like draws. The problem I see with putting people into draws is that it contributes to seeing differences between people instead of seeing simularities. Everyone believes in something, even not believing in anything is a belief.

evangelicalhumanist · #6 (**permalink**) 3rd May 2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Clementsmith

I think it makes a degree of sense. I never bought the argument that simply because one has not been exposed to the intellectual concept of God (such as infants and toddlers) that they are therefore atheists because they are "without belief". In most of my encounters with atheism, including my own, atheism was always a reaction, a position of belief, concerning the subject of the divine.

It always seemed a "Did you get your chocolate in my peanutbutter or vice versa" type argument.

"No, no. I'm not an atheist because I don't believe in God, its because I am without belief, that I do not believe in God." It just never struck me as a convincing or even honest answer. I certainly believe a person can genuinely not believe in God. I have difficulty believing a person is "without belief". "Without belief" is either ignorance or knowledge. If ignorant, the ignostic descriptor fits better. If knowledgable, they bear the burden of proof, and since the only proof they accept is empirical, and the absence of proof is not proof itself, they cannot claim knowledge. So I have a hard time with the "I am without belief" position.

-TC

Although I consider myself an atheist, I have certainly never said that I am "without belief." I have no belief in God, specifically, but I believe quite a few other things, some quite strongly.

I believe in the importance and dignity of the individual, although this is by no means a common belief around the world.
I believe that rational inquiry can find answers to most things, although it may take a long time. And in spite of Godel, I believe that the intuitive mind of man can get around the "unprovability" of certain theorems by the simple expedient of jumping out of the formal system that results in their exclusion.
I believe that the universe is self-existing, not created, although I cannot prove it. It simply seems infinitely more rational than to credit its creation to a conscious entity (who must be what some claim the universe cannot be -- self-existing).
I believe that humans are part of nature, the result of a continuous process of evolution, and not a "special creation" unlikely to evolve further.
I believe that the conscious me, "mind" is not separate from my body, but a consequence of the natural processes of my body. I believe that when my body ceases to live, then my mind must also cease as a consequence, with no possibility of continued consciousness of any kind whatsoever.
I believe that ethics and morality derive directly from human need, and were not the product of some "higher authority."

See, I can't prove any of those things, but I believe them completely.

But what I most assuredly do not believe is that it can ever be right to insert the word "God" whenever we have a question for which no answer is apparent, and call the matter closed.

**Travis Clementsmith** · #7 (**permalink**) 3rd May 2007, 05:29 PM

Yeah, I wasn't specifically referencing you, EH, and I agree with most of what you wrote. I was thinking more of the book I read, Atheism: The Case Against God. I've conversed with atheists that use this argument, and just never rang authentic with me. It was more like a logical argument that no one really lives.

-TC

Lightkeeper · #8 (**permalink**) 3rd May 2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angeleyes

I agree with TC (I think! - I had to reread the post a few times!). The way I see it, if one says they don't believe in God, they have to have some definition in mind. Otherwise, they have nothing to "not believe" in.

In other words, if I say that I believe God is "Life," (substitute "Consciousness" or "Love"), who could disagree that He exists?
So, belief or disbelief may in the end prove meaningless, since both involve a concept of man.

I agree with this. I have never understood what someone means when they say they don't believe in God. They do have to have some sort of definition in order not to believe it. So, it would follow they have some sort of belief about God. They believe God fits their definition and have chosen not to believe in that.

Isn't lack of belief a belief?

vivamis123 · #9 (**permalink**) 3rd May 2007, 06:42 PM

Yes, L.K. even a lack of belief is a belief.

Maybe we need to look closer into: What is a belief? And how are beliefs formed?

And is it possible to experience and/or be aware of anything if we did not have at least one belief. For example children. They have less beliefs..... therefore less fears, less worries???? I guess the question is does it serve us to have some beliefs or one belief and what would that belief be? Could a belief exist that does not offend anyone but includes everyone?

I am?

evangelicalhumanist · #10 (**permalink**) 3rd May 2007, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

I agree with this. I have never understood what someone means when they say they don't believe in God. The do have to have some sort of definition in order not to believe it. So, it would follow they have some sort of belief about God. They believe God fits their definition and have chosen not to believe in that.

Isn't lack of belief a belief?

Well, not quite, LK.

When I say I don't believe in God, I mean I don't believe in any god as I have seen them defined. Thus, I certainly do not believe in the El/YHWH god as presented in the Old Testament. I do not believe in the Christian God as presented, a Trinity composed of God, Jesus and a Holy Ghost. I don't believe in any god for whom the claim is made (regardless of the god's nature) that it created the universe, or sustains the universe, or interferes in the universe. Those are all various definitions of god which I certainly do not believe in.

And by the way, my lack of belief is not a "choice," as you suggest. It is impossible for me to believe in something for which every scrap of evidence that I can perceive (however limited my perception might be) points so strongly against.

But now, let's look at Angeleyes statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by angeleyes

I agree with TC (I think! - I had to reread the post a few times!). The way I see it, if one says they don't believe in God, they have to have some definition in mind. Otherwise, they have nothing to "not believe" in.

In other words, if I say that I believe God is "Life," (substitute "Consciousness" or "Love"), who could disagree that He exists?
So, belief or disbelief may in the end prove meaningless, since both involve a concept of man.

What can I say about this? If we are going to say that "God is 'Life,'" then why not just call it "life?" I can certainly say that I believe in life. In the same way, I can happily say that I believe in consciousness (although I don't necessarily understand what it is) and I believe in love (and I understand even less about that miracle!). But I believe in them as they are. I do not need to attach a new label to them, call them "God" in order to say I believe in them.

If that were the case, then I shouldn't be able to say "I believe in pumpkins" without first saying that "God is Pumpkins."

However, I am reminded that Seneca wrote, according to the Roman beliefs that their emperors could become gods, that Claudius was turned into a pumpkin, so perhaps it might be necessary after all.