Ignosticism Introduced (reviews and criticism welcome)

[InformedIgnorance]

Ignosticism Introduced
When 'I don't know' isn't enough / A Critical examination approach for Agnostics

Attempting to discern knowledge of the unknown is no easy task; since man has first pondered the question of what were those bright things in the sky at night or how do babies get in women's bellies, they have attempted to reason things out. Constantly what they experienced and observed was forced to battle it against what they did not know or things that they had thought they knew. When it comes to attempting to understand or explain things they did not know, one of the things humanity turned through through their intuition was the Metaphysical, myths have abounded through the ages that 'explained' the reality that their audience experienced such as Chariots that dragged the sun across the sky or Turtles that caused tsunamis.

In this discussion I will examine what Ignosticism is, some of the reasons for Ignosticism, how Ignosticism differs from some of the theological positions close to it, how Ignosticism works and limitations of Ignosticism.

One of the most profound and influential areas of Metaphysical thought is that of Theology and there are a wealth of competing or complementary theological positions to explain an extraordinary number of areas where the contemporary understanding of science was (or is) limited.

Over the long course of history many of those myths and the metaphysical 'knowledge' that they presented were discredited as humanity observed phenomenon that contradicted it or were able to develop new understandings as a result of discoveries or technological advancements. However, that is not to say that science itself has not faced similar problems, different schools and theories of science have constantly been under siege, most notably from theology and from science itself.

The result is that in seeking answers mankind has developed ideas or concepts that suffice to meet our contemporary understanding of the situation, or that suffice to explain the situation to another. But as humanity continues to gather information throughout history and in particular as our ability to examine our surroundings through technology continue to change, those ideas and concepts are continually challenged – as is the 'knowledge' that they claim.


What is Ignositicism?

In theology, one of the reactions to the idea that knowledge was constantly challenged and little evidence available to back up claims is Agnosticism, where the individual claims not to 'know' the nature of the preternatural or metaphysical, even believing that it cannot be known. This belief in the ability to 'know' the truth is what separates Agnostics from theists and atheists alike, as both groups believe that they 'know' the truth.

Ignosticism is a departure from Agnosticism in that it attempts to discern this unknown information, beginning with a simple proposition: Define or describe the metaphysical subject.

Beginning with this definition or description, the Ignostic attempts to identify and construct a matching understanding (independent of belief) within their own mind to attempt to reflect the definition or description that they have been given or are contemplating. It is only through the identification of what is understood as the metaphysical concept behind the term being used that there is the possibility of identifying an appropriate intellectual response or position of faith.

Once the understanding of the concept is developed, the Ignostic attempts to evaluate it through the application of the logical framework to ensure falsifiability; tthat the concept or its components can be shown to be false, not that they are wrong, but that it is theoretically possible to show that they are; this is also the Theological Noncognitivist position which will be discussed in more detail later.


Why Bother?

Agnostics claim that there is no way to know the truth; perhaps they are right – however the Ignostic process arises from dissatisfaction with ending the search for knowledge there. Attempting to gain some insight into the metaphysical, the Ignostic approach is an attempt to examine the concepts behind the language we use in as abstract a way as possible while maintaining a frame of reference for intelligent discussion.

There are of course many limitations in this, it relies on the understanding of (though not necessarily belief in) the concept being accurately reconstructed by the Ignostic for examination, it also relies on one other assumption which proves to be the cornerstone of Ignosticism; that components of the definition or description comprising the Ignostic's understanding of the metaphysical subject can be falsified (not that it IS false, but rather that it is logically possible to be capable of being contradicted by observations)..

Ignosticism is an exercise in logically bound defeasible reasoning as it assumes that the logical framework can be applied to the metaphysical subject and uses mainly deductive inferences for examination.


Terms versus Concepts

In discussing metaphysical subjects, difficulties often arise in developing precise definitions of the subject (such as 'God', the 'Soul', 'Spirits', 'Demons', 'Afterlife' and so forth). Descriptions can be vague and inconsistent, the terms used to refer to those concepts are polymorphic, meaning different things for different people and even one person's description of the subject may change over time to reflect their different understanding of the concept. Note that if the Ignostic process arises through contemplation rather than discussion, then the concept is an attempt to reflect the abstract being considered.

All theological positions begin with certain assumptions about the nature of many of the major metaphysical concepts and as such their use of the terms which are used to communicate these concepts may include certain preconceptions and positions about which meaning(s) these polymorphic terms may have. This is particularly true when you consider discussions with individuals who are familiar with inter-faith dialogue as opposed to those which have only discussed such concepts on an intra-faith basis, where the use of internally meaningful dialogue may assume pre-existing knowledge of those preconceptions.

The Theological Noncognitivist position holds that these terms are not cognitively meaningful as it is not verifiable, no meaningful attributes, is incoherent or disjointed; Ignosticism may default to this position in the presence of concepts or concept components that are unfalsifiable, however attempts to apply the logical framework to the definition or description in so far as it can be.

[InformedIgnorance]

Conceptual Examination

It is essential for the Ignostic to be clear on the cornerstone of their examination, the logical framework; should always be explicitly mentioned as an assumption, the Ignostic approach (rather than the Ignostic themselves) has no allowance for subjectivity, which is the domain of personal belief, not knowledge.

Falsification requires that not only does the Ignostic approach rely on the logical framework being applicable to the subject, but through that application, that it is theoretically possible for observations to contradict the subject. Different Ignostics will determine their position on empiricism and verifiability (which lends themselves more towards Agnosticism or Theological Noncognitivism), practical and theoretical falsifiability (which lends themselves more to Agnosticism or Ignosticism) and other forms of criticisabilty.

Where Agnosticism might be seen to challenge the certainty of the underlying claims of Atheism and Theism alike; Ignosticism instead attempts to define those areas of metaphysical knowledge of the subject which may possibly be 'known' to be tautologies, contradictions or possibilities.

However to do so it relies on the applicability of the logical framework, without which Agnosticism is the only recourse for the faithful (lol) Ignostic. The Ignostic examination process does not determine what the user should believe, but rather what may be possible or impossible if the logical framework applies to the subject being analysed to form the basis for logically bounded knowledge; belief is an entirely different matter.

The approach that most easily lends itself to the Ignostic process is an falsifiable attribute based approach. If the subject or components thereof are not falsifiable the term (though not the concept itself) as per the definition and/or description used could be considered cognitively meaningless as the Theological Noncognitivist position holds. Where Theological Noncognitivism argues the term used to describe the metaphysical term is cognitively meaningless if unverifiable. The Ignostic merely argues that it is intellectually meaningless if not falsifiable – allowing for the identifies of possibilities in examination rather than only certainties. In addition the possibility exists for the term and discussion thereof to be cognitively meaningless, yet intuitively meaningful.

Falsifiability is used to demarcate those definitions and descriptions that can be evaluated through the Ignostic process from those that cannot, because of the application of the logical framework to the concept and its components. Components can then be examined through the logical framework, to identify contradictions or logical fallacies both as individual components or in combinations.

Essential in this process is the application of observations from the physical existence into the analysis of the metaphysical existence through the logical framework; it is after-all observations from the physical universe that are used as the basis for falsification.

It is important however to ensure that observations are completely objective, without interpretation or with such interpretations explicitly labelled as assumptions as they create a barrier for the employment of reason and as such they should be readily identifiable; this applies to inductive reasoning as well. These interpretations and extrapolations can be useful as tools by which to examine the subject, however because they are non certain, the 'knowledge' obtained through their application is also uncertain.

Components are evaluated individually and in various combinations through application of the logical framework to identify tautologies, contradictions and possibilities; this is then combined with physical observation for falsification with those that provide contradictions considered impossible through deductive reasoning; however those that are not contradicted are not considered 'true', but merely possible.

Logical Limitations

It is important to note that in the case where the logical framework cannot be reliably applied to the metaphysical subject, it is possible for a subject to both can be true and cannot be true (or false for that matter), such states are contradictory within the logical framework and therefore the Ignostic process is inapplicable to that definition and or description of the subject; which therefore precludes intellectual, but not emotional discussion.

However, merely because the Ignostic process cannot evaluate the concept or its components does not mean that it is without merit; while indeterminable components cannot be examined through the Ignostic process, determinable components may be. In addition, the concept (not just the term) as per the definition and/or description used could be considered to be outside of the logical framework and while therefore of little meaning from an intellectual position could retain its validity from an emotional position, which is closer to the Agnostic perspective.

It is however important to note that if the logical framework cannot be used to evaluate the concept or its components then any attempted use of logic (within the definition or description of the concept itself, or discussions about that concept and its components) is also without logical or intellectual basis, though may retain emotional import.


Conclusion

The logical framework is without doubt the Achilles heel of the Ignostic process as there is no evidence to suggest that the logical framework is applicable to some of these metaphysical concepts; as such in some respects Agnosticism is the more defensible approach.

In comparison both Theistic and Atheistic positions rely assume that at least the essential underlying precepts of the belief system are true. However provided that the assumptions are made clear, Ignosticism is a far more serviceable foundation than Agnosticism for critical analysis and the development of intellectually based parameters for generation or examination of belief systems due to the ability to apply the logical framework (even with provisions).

While the Ignostic process assists identification of tautologies and contradictions which may alter the individual's theological position, Ignosticism itself is not a theological position but rather a philosophical approach to intellectual (rather than emotional) examination of metaphysical concepts; its validity depends on the applicability of the logical framework to the metaphysical.

For example, while I am Ignostic, I personally ascribe to be critical and parsimonious in my method (I believe that the least unfalsifiable attributes should be posited as is possible) particularly in regards to its application on concepts such as 'God'. So, while I believe in a concept of 'God', the one that I personally believe in is a far more abstract concept than that which most other people would credit.

Ignosticism is more of an approach to beliefs rather than a set of beliefs itself. Less defensible than Agnosticism perhaps due to its dependence on logic, but significantly more useful in examining the metaphysical to attempt to come up with anything other than the three simple words 'I Dont Know'.

When the ability to apply the logical framework to the metaphysical is challenged however, no logical argument can be said to be valid or invalid; regardless of whether it is used to support or challenge a statement, in which case challenging the applicability of the logical framework itself means that any discussion can only have emotional not intellectual import as reason is suspended and it becomes a matter of intuition - which is by no means inferior, but cannot masquerade as reason.

Edit: I forgot to mention (will try to remember to edit it in later) that rational discussion is not entirely discounted in the event that the logical framework cannot be applied to the concept; but rather that any such discussion will be limited or bound by the preconditions stipulated as being beyond the logical framework and as such discussions take place within a scope that is bounded by and perhaps categorised by components that may be inconsistent from a logical perspective.

[Straw Dog]

Yeah, I ran into ignosticism a little while back and I can definitely dig its Socratic style of asking more questions rather than positing absolute answers. It also may be a more polite way of inquiring into the beliefs of others without assuming that what you think you mean by "god" is exactly what they mean by "god" since there seems to be a pretty good diversity out there of meanings. We also have to be specific about what questions we are asking. Such as, to the question of "Do I believe in Gods?" I address myself as atheist on occasion due to simple absence of belief in any gods. This is different from the question of "Do I know of any Gods?" I guess I would most likely be an ignostic more so than an agnostic because I'm unable to reach a definitive definition for what exactly is meant by "god" so how can I determine if I know it or can ever know it? In that case, the question of "What do I mean by Gods?" must be addressed before the agnostic inquiry. This invariably leads to the infinite regression of theological non-cognitivism for those who wish to remain logically consistent without investing personal sentiments into their preference of deity definition.

[Quintessence]

Do you have any reputable sources for additional information for those of us interested in exploring further?

Apparently I may be ignorantly calling myself "fundamentally agnostic" when really this term would be a better description of how I tend to approach questions of knowledge. >_<

[Jayhawker Soule]

With regard to "criticism welcome": to write two verbose posts providing a broad overview of ignosticism and fail to mention Sherwin Wine srikes me as irresponsible.

[InformedIgnorance]

As JS mentioned, Sherwin Wine - a Humanistic Jew; was the one who coined the term in the early-mid 60's. I did not mention this, as I personally have no interest in it's history, perhaps others would have liked to follow up on this though so I should have included it. Thank you for pointing that out.

Unfortunately there is not many sources of Good ignostic literature, one of the reasons for this being how relatively new this approach is.

Personally I would like to check out (though I haven't been able to get my hands on them):

• Cohn-Sherbok, D., Harry C. and Rowens, M. 2003, "A Life of Courage: Sherwin Wine and Humanistic Judaism", The International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, Farmington Hills, MI.
• Conifer, S. 2002, "Theological Noncognitivism Examined". The Interlocutor 4. Retrieved 2007-05-24
  --This is supposed to be quite good for its critical examination of the Noncognitivist position, while I question some of the assumptions I believe he may have made based on his conclusions that I read at http://www.strongatheism.net/library...oncognitivism/ I want to check it out anyway as there are very few such discussions and his position may hold more merit than this article seems to indicate.
• Kurtz, P. 1992, "The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge", Buffalo: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-766-3.
• Wine, S. 1978. "Humanistic Judaism", Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.
• Wine, S. 1995. "Staying Sane in a Crazy World", The Center for New Thinking, Birmingham, MI.

Ahhh if only I was still at Uni and could get them to order those in for me.... then it wouldnt be such a costly endevour.

I have personally found wiki to be reasonably informative about the topic and I also liked:

• Drange, T. 1998, "Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism". Internet Infidels. Retrieved on 2007-03-26 from http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...efinition.html
• Unknown (Ed. Duckett, Craig), Ignosticism / Theological Noncognitivism, Retrieved on 2011-12-02 from http://www.control-z.com/czp/pgs/ignostic.html

And I am currently reading and have thus far enjoyed
Kelly, K. 1996, "The logic of reliable inquiry", Oxford University Press, Retrieved on 2011-12-02 from books.google.com

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by InformedIgnorance

As JS mentioned, Sherwin Wine - a Humanistic Jew; was the one who coined the term in the early-mid 60's. I did not mention this, as I personally have no interest in it's history, ...

That strikes me as remarkable.

[InformedIgnorance]

That I have no interest in the origin of a term? Should it matter to me who coined the term?

So long as the term is not demeaning in any way, is accurate in its connotations (which I feel the 'ignorance' that it claims to be a valid statement on its position) and is reflective of my own approach, then does it matter who made up the word or when? It doesn't matter to me if the person was a Jew in the 1960's, a German in the 1930's, a Greek in 400BC or anything else for that matter.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by InformedIgnorance

That I have no interest in the origin of a term? Should it matter to me who coined the term?

Of course not. Why would his thinking be of any interest to you? So much for the 'informed' part of InformedIgnorance.

On the other hand, as someone who has met the man, dined with him, talked with him, I find your easy dismissal disgusting -- but that's just me.

[InformedIgnorance]

I believe that it is the basic purpose, premises, methodology and limitations which are the most necessary for an introduction or overview; its history is not as essential for an appreciation of the approach itself.

Had I been presenting a certain theological position I may have done so, because people want to know where for example certain religious ideologies come from; however people generally do not seem to overly care about the history of non-belief (as opposed to disbelief) positions, so it seemed to be something that would not enhance the brief introduction (which I feel two 'verbose' posts would be brief rather than broad) I gave.


I find his story interesting, however, that has little to do with his coining of the term Ignosticism itself or even its earliest period. Instead, my interest primarily relates to what little I think I know of the story behind Humanistic Judaism and of his own philosophical evolution. I would personally very much like to meet the guy if only to listen to why he arrived at his position originally and how it was to be a Jew who critically examined the need for belief in 'God' as a prerequisite to be a Jew, and arrived at the conclusion that it was not, then the reaction of those around him.

But that would be something of personal interest, rather than relating to the approach itself; which I am not sure would truly add much for the prospective audience for a brief introduction to Ignosticism.