Why (in my opinion) ignosticism is weak as skeptical thought schools go

[Buddha Dharma]

Ignosticism which is also called theological non-cognitivism is a non-theist approach to the god question. While ignostics are by definition atheist- they do not approach the god question in the way most atheists do.

That is to say- ignostics do not typically attempt to refute anything about theism because their position is there's nothing to refute- with an especial emphasis on this premise.

Theological non-cognitivism is the idea not only that gods do not exist, but that gods cannot be discussed because no one can describe what a god is. Ignostics are typically gnostic atheists on the grounds of seeing god as an inadmissible concept.

A typical argument you will get from an Ignostic about theism is that we only talk about god by referencing other concepts, or we each create gods as reflections of ourselves.

In my view, there is a flaw in both of these arguments against theism.

The problem with the argument 'that god has no reference point except to describe it using other concepts' is that the very nature of human language as a faculty employs reference to 'other'. Nothing is ultimately talked about without comparison. It's the nature of the beast.

Ignostics might as well be criticizing the flaws in human communication as they see it. That's the issue with that argument.

The other argument is also pretty poorly thought out because humans internalize knowledge by making it personal. Saying we all make god in our image so there's no such thing is like saying because I don't like black beans and someone else does- black beans is just something a bunch of people made up.

This argument doesn't actually refute the possibility of a god, but it might call individual views into question.

As I said, it seems to me more like Ignostics are criticizing human communication and how we internalize information.

I now welcome any Ignostics present to attempt to 'set me straight'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bad form to use your own false definitions and to use words designed to insult. In creation debates here the word "creatard" is probably banned. Your attempted slur should be too.

Theists simply do not like the fact that the burden of proof is upon them. Now you are making false claims about others too justify an inflammatory term.

Are you embarrassed by the fact that you have no rational support for your beliefs?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ignosticism which is also called theological non-cognitivism is a non-theist approach to the god question. While ignostics are by definition atheist- they do not approach the god question in the way most atheists do.

That is to say- ignostics do not typically attempt to refute anything about theism because their position is there's nothing to refute- with an especial emphasis on this premise.

Theological non-cognitivism is the idea not only that gods do not exist, but that gods cannot be discussed because no one can describe what a god is. Ignostics are typically gnostic atheists on the grounds of seeing god as an inadmissible concept.

A typical argument you will get from an Ignostic about theism is that we only talk about god by referencing other concepts, or we each create gods as reflections of ourselves.

In my view, there is a flaw in both of these arguments against theism.

The problem with the argument 'that god has no reference point except to describe it using other concepts' is that the very nature of human language as a faculty employs reference to 'other'. Nothing is ultimately talked about without comparison. It's the nature of the beast.

Ignostics might as well be criticizing the flaws in human communication as they see it. That's the issue with that argument.

The other argument is also pretty poorly thought out because humans internalize knowledge by making it personal. Saying we all make god in our image so there's no such thing is like saying because I don't like black beans and someone else does- black beans is just something a bunch of people made up.

This argument doesn't actually refute the possibility of a god, but it might call individual views into question.

As I said, it seems to me more like Ignostics are criticizing human communication and how we internalize information.

I now welcome any Ignostics present to attempt to 'set me straight'.

I wouldn't say that I'm an ignostic, but I do have sympathy for their position. I think you're misrepresenting - or at least misunderstanding - it a fair bit.

If you have a workable definition for "god," I'd love to hear it, whether it's based on other concepts or not.

Personally, I agree with the ignostics in that the term "god" is so poorly-defined as to be meaningless. However, where I depart from the ignostics is that I recognize that we can acknowledge that certain entities are and aren't gods by the social conventions surrounding them: Thor and Jehovah? Gods. Superman? Not a god. Divine messener Mercury? A god. Divine messenger Gabriel? Not a god... etc.

It may - and IMO probably is - impossible to come up with a coherent definition for God that explains why these things are and aren't gods, and we'll never have a complete list of gods and non-gods, but that doesn't change the fact that we know definitively that some things are gods snd some things aren't.

 

[Polymath257]

What an ignostic would say is that attempts to define God have more problems than, say, attempts to define 'chair'. So the problem isn't just that all references have issues, but that God references have much deeper issues than referents to other things that we typically see around us.

This can be seen in ordinary theology, by the way. The whole point of 'negative theology' is that anything we can say about God is missing the point: that all that can actually be said is negative propositions like 'God is not unjust'. The point is that *all* comparisons to God are ultimately invalid. But, from this position, the question arises as to whether there is a referent there at all. And *that* is the ignostic issue.

As for knowledge being personal, there is an aspect in which this is correct. But there is also an aspect to which the knowledge that there is a chair in this room is NOT a personal question. It is a public, objective, question. And the issue of theism isn't whether people have personal opinions, it is whether there is an objective reality. So, the variety and inconsistency between personal constructs makes the question of objective reality germane. If everyone has a distinctly different conception of God, in what sense are they even talking about the same thing? And if they are not, in what sense is the term God properly defined?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ignosticism which is also called theological non-cognitivism is a non-theist approach to the god question. While ignostics are by definition atheist- they do not approach the god question in the way most atheists do. . .

I now welcome any Ignostics present to attempt to 'set me straight'.

Ignosticism to me may be the indifference to the belief in one view or religious belief God because it is not relevant to an argument in the contemporary world. It can be an indifferent view of any belief in God from any religious perspective. Many agnostics are indifferent to the existence of God.

I believe in God, but I am ignostic to the God described in the Christian Bible, and Hebrew scriptures. These views are ancient cultural artifacts of a human view of God(s) at the time. I believe God revealed the laws and spiritual teachings and values, but they are heavily cloaked in the mythical images created by the human culture at the time. I believe the apophatic universal God of the Baha'i Faith is a worthwhile concept of God that is relevant to the contemporary world, may be argued for the existence of God..

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Theological non-cognitivism is the idea not only that gods do not exist, but that gods cannot be discussed because no one can describe what a god is.

Ignosticism does not include the position that gods do not exist, nor that gods cannot be discussed. It's merely the self-evidenctly true that we cannot discuss whether something exists or not until we have a clear understanding of what we are discussing. Shouldn't everybody be an ignostic, even theists? When a Christian tells me that God exists, shouldn't he have a clear idea of what he is claiming exists?

Ignostics are typically gnostic atheists on the grounds of seeing god as an inadmissible concept.

Ignostics may or may not be gnostic (strong) atheists. Or theists. The essential quality required to be ignostic is to expect a clear definition of what a god is.

I have one for monotheistic gods and one for the gods in pantheons. The former is a sentient creator of universes.

A typical argument you will get from an Ignostic about theism is that we only talk about god by referencing other concepts, or we each create gods as reflections of ourselves.

Not this ignostic. Nor any other that I have read who self-identifies as ignostic. We simply don't argue about unclear concepts.

Do you believe that zorks exist? What's that, you ask? Exactly. Using the word God in place of zork is no less unclear a statement.

In my view, there is a flaw in both of these arguments against theism.

Yet the ignostic is not making an argument against theism, and as discussed, might be a theist himself. It seems to me that many of the dharmic theists and Baha'i might be ignostic.

Shunyadragon refers to apophatic gods, which sounds to me like he's saying that no clear description of God is possible, although he can speak for himself. He did, however, claim to be ignostic regarding the Christian god.

Polymath just referred to negative theology, which sounds like the same idea. They might both be ignostic, and yet one is a theist, the other an atheist.

Ignostics might as well be criticizing the flaws in human communication as they see it. That's the issue with that argument.

Now you're closer to where I'm coming from. This is nothing but a semantic issue. What are we talking about when we use the word God?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ignosticism which is also called theological non-cognitivism is a non-theist approach to the god question. While ignostics are by definition atheist- they do not approach the god question in the way most atheists do.

That is to say- ignostics do not typically attempt to refute anything about theism because their position is there's nothing to refute- with an especial emphasis on this premise.

Theological non-cognitivism is the idea not only that gods do not exist, but that gods cannot be discussed because no one can describe what a god is. Ignostics are typically gnostic atheists on the grounds of seeing god as an inadmissible concept.

A typical argument you will get from an Ignostic about theism is that we only talk about god by referencing other concepts, or we each create gods as reflections of ourselves.

In my view, there is a flaw in both of these arguments against theism.

The problem with the argument 'that god has no reference point except to describe it using other concepts' is that the very nature of human language as a faculty employs reference to 'other'. Nothing is ultimately talked about without comparison. It's the nature of the beast.

Ignostics might as well be criticizing the flaws in human communication as they see it. That's the issue with that argument.

The other argument is also pretty poorly thought out because humans internalize knowledge by making it personal. Saying we all make god in our image so there's no such thing is like saying because I don't like black beans and someone else does- black beans is just something a bunch of people made up.

This argument doesn't actually refute the possibility of a god, but it might call individual views into question.

As I said, it seems to me more like Ignostics are criticizing human communication and how we internalize information.

I now welcome any Ignostics present to attempt to 'set me straight'.

Easy. Where's God right now so people can agree with theists aside from whatever thoughts come out of a person's head by way of suggesting this or that is somehow a proof of God?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Bad form to use your own false definitions and to use words designed to insult. In creation debates here the word "creatard" is probably banned. Your attempted slur should be too.

I don't see how this was an attempted slur. I think you're being a bit overly defensive. I thought I had something interesting some people might find worth some thought. I guess not...

Is this honestly how you're going to get with people that criticize atheism, rather you think we do it poorly or not? The only problem you could possibly have with me is that I'm critical of atheism, or I try to be.

Ignostic is a working term, so I can't imagine I used a slur anything like what you said.

Now you are making false claims about others too justify an inflammatory term.

I'm sorry if I've made you feel like that. That isn't my intent. Atheists can criticize theists and make what is frankly sweeping statements about religion, but if we ever dare to criticize atheism we're just horrible people?

I am sorry. I don't want to discuss subjects that emotionally antagonize anybody. I wouldn't be a Buddhist if I persisted in what is clearly hurtful to someone, so I won't make a thread like this again.

I sincerely apologize if I've caused you any mental duress. Forgive me.

I think you're misrepresenting - or at least misunderstanding - it a fair bit.

Maybe I am. I only have the arguments non-cognitivists have used on me to go by. I didn't pull this thread from my imagination despite being accused of ulterior motive.

If you have a workable definition for "god," I'd love to hear it, whether it's based on other concepts or not.

I'll admit that I probably can't furnish a definition an Ignostic especially would call 'working'. I can admit that. I'm not sure that's because any definition isn't actually 'working' though, or because Ignostics have no actual idea of a working definition of god they'd accept as such...

but that doesn't change the fact that we know definitively that some things are gods snd some things aren't

Here you're right, which is problematic for Ignostics no? I wouldn't want to leave you without an explanation of what I mean though, in agreeing with you.

As a philosopher I know full well that some god ideas can be reasonably ruled out, and I wouldn't blame anyone for it in such a case. IE: an omnipotent god as Christians usually mean it.

I daresay that I could be called atheistic, or at least doubting of such an understanding. The Christians I have encountered that do so are probably not wrong to suggest polytheists are atheists toward their conception of god.

(Note: I'm on my tablet today, so my responses may be slower than I like. This site seems to lag on my tablet)

 

[Buddha Dharma]

What an ignostic would say is that attempts to define God have more problems than, say, attempts to define 'chair'. So the problem isn't just that all references have issues, but that God references have much deeper issues than referents to other things that we typically see around us.

I don't see how that necessarily follows, but I can see how it might within a wholely empirical approach.

Would you deny for example that religions typically claim to have a working method for testing their claims? Naturally, these methods appear questionable from where a scientist may be standing.

This can be seen in ordinary theology, by the way. The whole point of 'negative theology' is that anything we can say about God is missing the point: that all that can actually be said is negative propositions like 'God is not unjust'. The point is that *all* comparisons to God are ultimately invalid. But, from this position, the question arises as to whether there is a referent there at all. And *that* is the ignostic issue.

That goes for a certain approach with monotheism perhaps. In such a case however, it still remains possible even if unproven that the kind of personal god beyond reference in the world COULD exist.

I'm a polytheist, so my views about gods are different.

As for knowledge being personal, there is an aspect in which this is correct. But there is also an aspect to which the knowledge that there is a chair in this room is NOT a personal question. It is a public, objective, question.

I don't think I disagree with this premise at all.

If everyone has a distinctly different conception of God, in what sense are they even talking about the same thing? And if they are not, in what sense is the term God properly defined?

You don't think people can talk about the same thing in widely different ways? I'll leave you with that question I guess because I'd like you to expound more. Thank you for being thoughtful and thorough.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I believe in God, but I am ignostic to the God described in the Christian Bible, and Hebrew scriptures. These views are ancient cultural artifacts of a human view of God(s) at the time.

This seems an interesting statement for a Baha'i to make. It's intriguing to be sure and thank you for introducing me to a theistic usage for Ignostic.

I'd ask at what point this Ignosticism might come near questioning that Baha'is and Christians have the same God? Do you see what I mean?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Ignosticism does not include the position that gods do not exist, nor that gods cannot be discussed.

Yes I see I was wrong in my previous understanding.

Shouldn't everybody be an ignostic, even theists? When a Christian tells me that God exists, shouldn't he have a clear idea of what he is claiming exists?

I will have to give this thought, since being given a clearer explanation of Ignostic has made my previous understanding invalid. I hope you won't mind if I have some time?

Ignostics may or may not be gnostic (strong) atheists. Or theists. The essential quality required to be ignostic is to expect a clear definition of what a god is.

Yes I see that now.

Yet the ignostic is not making an argument against theism, and as discussed, might be a theist himself.

Yes, I didn't know and admit I was wrong. I was presenting Ignosticism as some atheists had explained it to me. People aren't always clear, so thank you for being.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Easy. Where's God right now so people can agree with theists aside from whatever thoughts come out of a person's head by way of suggesting this or that is somehow a proof of God?

I think you're probably being a bit unreasonable in your expectations of theists, but it's okay. I know theists and atheists tend to approach knowledge differently because theists accept authority where an atheist might not.

 

[shunyadragon]

This seems an interesting statement for a Baha'i to make. It's intriguing to be sure and thank you for introducing me to a theistic usage for Ignostic.

I'd ask at what point this Ignosticism might come near questioning that Baha'is and Christians have the same God? Do you see what I mean?

Sure, I understand. In all religions there is a human element of the 'Source' some call God(s). Particularly in Hebrew and Christian scripture there is a description of a hands on anthropomorphic God, or sometimes God(s), and it carries forward into the doctrine and dogma of Christianity. I am ignostic on the existence of these God(s) based on an ancient human view. I do not say the God of the OT and NT does not exist, but the human view of God created by the believers at the time is not defensible in a coherent argument.

In one of my poems:

God is not a chessplayer
with the white pieces.
God is the sea
and we are the fishes.

Add to note: In the recent history of Judaism the anthropomorphic God(s) of the OT faded, through the influence of Jewish mysticism, the intellectual movement in Judaism during the Renaissance, and midrash, and an apophatic God of Judaism became central to their belief.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think you're probably being a bit unreasonable in your expectations of theists, but it's okay. I know theists and atheists to approach knowledge differently because theists accept authority where an atheist might not.

It's just noting the obviousness of what's actually going on around you versus what's going on inside your head.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It's just noting the obviousness of what's actually going on around you versus what's going on inside your head.

I am not sure how differently Buddhism treats what is going on around 'you' as separate from what is in 'your head'. In fact, I'd tend to say that the Buddha rejected mind-body dualism as it existed in his time, and the practice of his teaching seems to invite the practitioner to discard any seeming difference of mind and matter as further illusion.

I don't mean to make this about our shared religion instead of ignosticism, but that's just honestly where your post made my mind go. I've questioned awhile now if Buddhism is saying to discard mind-body dualism or not. I think it seems to be, given that the Buddha saw the mind as able to lead the body- and vice versa. How separate could they be in such an approach?

The Buddha seems to have thought that mind-body dualism was one of the fundamental misunderstandings humans have about our existence that leads to harmful views and actions. He believed the Dharma could then be understood to co-opt both mind and body approaches.

Any division would be for mere use in language. It is concluding mind and body may not be separate, that leads to questioning how much any seeming division of self and other is factual.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I was presenting Ignosticism as some atheists had explained it to me. People aren't always clear, so thank you for being.

No problem, my friend.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am not sure how differently Buddhism treats what is going on around 'you' as separate from what is in 'your head'. In fact, I'd tend to say that the Buddha rejected mind-body dualism as it existed in his time, and the practice of his teaching seems to invite the practitioner to discard any seeming difference of mind and matter as further illusion.

I don't mean to make this about our shared religion instead of ignosticism, but that's just honestly where your post made my mind go. I've questioned awhile now if Buddhism is saying to discard mind-body dualism or not. I think it seems to be, given that the Buddha saw the mind as able to lead the body- and vice versa. How separate could they be in such an approach?

The Buddha seems to have thought that mind-body dualism was one of the fundamental misunderstandings humans have about our existence that leads to harmful views and actions. He believed the Dharma could then be understood to co-opt both mind and body approaches.

Any division would be for mere use in language. It is concluding mind and body may not be separate, that leads to questioning how much any seeming division of self and other is factual.

Then Theism and Atheism wouldn't even be an issue for consideration, save for the irony by which dualistic views present themselves for which a harmonious undifferentiated result is expected through what can be considered as a contradiction.

Things like this oftentimes makes my mind focus on the writings of Dogen. ;0)

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Well you should know not necessarily, given how Buddhists view gods typically, compared with Abrahamics. Gods are in the cycle. They themselves need guidance.

 

[sayak83]

Ignosticism which is also called theological non-cognitivism is a non-theist approach to the god question. While ignostics are by definition atheist- they do not approach the god question in the way most atheists do.

That is to say- ignostics do not typically attempt to refute anything about theism because their position is there's nothing to refute- with an especial emphasis on this premise.

Theological non-cognitivism is the idea not only that gods do not exist, but that gods cannot be discussed because no one can describe what a god is. Ignostics are typically gnostic atheists on the grounds of seeing god as an inadmissible concept.

A typical argument you will get from an Ignostic about theism is that we only talk about god by referencing other concepts, or we each create gods as reflections of ourselves.

In my view, there is a flaw in both of these arguments against theism.

The problem with the argument 'that god has no reference point except to describe it using other concepts' is that the very nature of human language as a faculty employs reference to 'other'. Nothing is ultimately talked about without comparison. It's the nature of the beast.

Ignostics might as well be criticizing the flaws in human communication as they see it. That's the issue with that argument.

The other argument is also pretty poorly thought out because humans internalize knowledge by making it personal. Saying we all make god in our image so there's no such thing is like saying because I don't like black beans and someone else does- black beans is just something a bunch of people made up.

This argument doesn't actually refute the possibility of a god, but it might call individual views into question.

As I said, it seems to me more like Ignostics are criticizing human communication and how we internalize information.

I now welcome any Ignostics present to attempt to 'set me straight'.

There is some merit here.
For example when a person says "an apple" or a "cow", she can point to an object out there in the word that is not a human creation and is observable. However, when one talks about gods, the only thing one can point to are human creations (scriptures, testimonies, idols). If in addition, one asserts that one cannot meaningfully communicate internal mystical experiences to others through language, then ignosticism becomes plausible.
My two cents.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see how this was an attempted slur. I think you're being a bit overly defensive. I thought I had something interesting some people might find worth some thought. I guess not...

Is this honestly how you're going to get with people that criticize atheism, rather you think we do it poorly or not? The only problem you could possibly have with me is that I'm critical of atheism, or I try to be.

Ignostic is a working term, so I can't imagine I used a slur anything like what you said.

The problem is that it appears to have an untrue slur. Did you or did you not base the term on the word "ignore"? If that is the case it is a slur and it puts the burden of proof upon you to demonstrate that atheists ignore something.

I'm sorry if I've made you feel like that. That isn't my intent. Atheists can criticize theists and make what is frankly sweeping statements about religion, but if we ever dare to criticize atheism we're just horrible people?

I am sorry. I don't want to discuss subjects that emotionally antagonize anybody. I wouldn't be a Buddhist if I persisted in what is clearly hurtful to someone, so I won't make a thread like this again.

I sincerely apologize if I've caused you any mental duress. Forgive me.

It is not a problem if you criticize it honestly. This does not appear to be the case. In another post you used the term "non-cognitive" this implies that people are not thinking. That is another slur. There is a huge difference between not knowing and not thinking. A better term that already exists for not knowing is agnostic. Most atheists are agnostic as well. They will tell you that they do not know for sure if there is no god or gods.