Isn't that a bit more like apatheism?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ignosticism
- Thread starter LuisDantas
- Start date
As you wish. I for one don't mind.
Is it?
Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/; a portmanteau of apathy and theism) is the attitude of apathy toward the existence or non-existence of God(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system. The term was coined by Robert Nash, theology professor at Mercer University, in 2001.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
As it addresses an applied philosophical aspect, if taken; it would be an epistemic stance, not a religious one.
The need for a separate term (ignosticism) that limits a general, epistemic view to that of the discussion of a single, specific word (god) is not clear to me, as such stance would necessarily apply to the discussion of any word that one does not define before discussing. And not defining the word to be discussed, is a methodical error.
In other words, such epistemic stance can only derive from failed methodology, because nothing which’s definition is not first agreed upon, can be meaningfully discussed. Agreeing on how any term is to be defined in a discussion, is always an absolute must.
Humbly,
Hermit
I wouldn't have called it a failure of methodology, since it seems to be deliberate. But I would call it a fatal impediment to any discussion of a real god (by which I mean a god who exists in reality, the world external to the self which we know about through our senses).
The alternative to a real god is (in this context) the trivial alternative of an imaginary or purely conceptual god, a god who only exists as an idea in an individual brain.
I've asked, and looked, and never discovered, never been offered, a meaningful definition appropriate to a god with objective existence, such that if we found a real suspect, we could determine whether it was God or not.
Nor have I found any definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time &c would lack.
Instead. as no doubt you've noticed, God is described in imaginary terms such as omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, infinite, eternal &c &c.
Or as we igtheists say, the concept of a real god is incoherent.
Up for interpretation, I suppose. To me it feels like apatheism.
Alright. I will hide it behind spoiler tags since it might be construed as a tangent.
Intuition: unconsciously processed perceptions and or/cognitions.
Perception: how sensory information is interpreted, organized and experienced
Cognition: all processes by which sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, recovered, and used
There are many ways by which one may shift your frame of perception in order to enhance a specific aspect. Two examples would be telescopes for observing the macrocosm and microscopes for observing the microcosm. One would not use a microscope to observe distant galaxies, nor would one use a telescope to observe mitochondria within cells, as those perceptive frames do not gather the data you are looking for. One can also employ a philosophical lens or filter to observe and examine, which might bring a phenomenon into better focus than a different philosophical lens.
Once you learn how to consciously use a perceptive or philosophical frame of reference or lens, that skill goes into your unconscious mind to be stored for later use as needed.
However, it does not need to lie dormant within the unconscious mind when you are not consciously using it. Your unconscious mind can use the frames of reference or philosophical lenses as background processes while you are not actively using them. The unconscious mind can send interesting information gathered from these unconsciously running background processes to the conscious mind in the form of intuition and prompt the conscious mind to investigate the unconsciously gathered or processed information. (See the definition above of intuition: unconsciously processed perceptions and/or cognitions.) However, if the conscious mind summarily dismisses these intuitive signals as a matter of standard operating procedure, then the intuitive feedback will probably be severely hindered. The conscious mind is figuratively lobotomizing its psyche. Sure there might be extreme cases where a lobotomy might be appropriate, but it is certainly not helpful if it is used as a routine procedure.
Perception: how sensory information is interpreted, organized and experienced
Cognition: all processes by which sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, recovered, and used
There are many ways by which one may shift your frame of perception in order to enhance a specific aspect. Two examples would be telescopes for observing the macrocosm and microscopes for observing the microcosm. One would not use a microscope to observe distant galaxies, nor would one use a telescope to observe mitochondria within cells, as those perceptive frames do not gather the data you are looking for. One can also employ a philosophical lens or filter to observe and examine, which might bring a phenomenon into better focus than a different philosophical lens.
Once you learn how to consciously use a perceptive or philosophical frame of reference or lens, that skill goes into your unconscious mind to be stored for later use as needed.
However, it does not need to lie dormant within the unconscious mind when you are not consciously using it. Your unconscious mind can use the frames of reference or philosophical lenses as background processes while you are not actively using them. The unconscious mind can send interesting information gathered from these unconsciously running background processes to the conscious mind in the form of intuition and prompt the conscious mind to investigate the unconsciously gathered or processed information. (See the definition above of intuition: unconsciously processed perceptions and/or cognitions.) However, if the conscious mind summarily dismisses these intuitive signals as a matter of standard operating procedure, then the intuitive feedback will probably be severely hindered. The conscious mind is figuratively lobotomizing its psyche. Sure there might be extreme cases where a lobotomy might be appropriate, but it is certainly not helpful if it is used as a routine procedure.
I'd have said there isn't much sign of igtheism as such there. No one is saying, Whaddaya mean, God? Spell it out! In those days it wasn't a question of god or no god, rather a question of which god or gods.
You may have come across the question of who the Son of Man in fact is ─ there's external evidence that he was taken to be Enoch returning from heaven (who you recall never died, so is assumed to have been assumed), and there's inconsistency in the manner the various gospels' Jesuses refer to that person, some clearly identifying Jesus as Son of Man, others failing to be specific.
Son of Man = the human one (which goes along with the kingdom of god being inside of you.)
Heyo
Veteran Member
Ultimately, yes.
I've posted a talk by Michael Shermer about the development of "superstition" in hominins several times. I can look it up again if you're interested.
lukethethird
unknown member
Thanks, I've read some of Shermers writings, enjoy them very much. I haven't found the talk so that would be great if you could look it up.
Heyo
Veteran Member
lukethethird
unknown member
Thank You.