Ignosticism

[Heyo]

I beg to differ. Quite on the contrary, Agnosticism seems to have always been a significantly different concept from ignosticism.

Worse still, agnosticism is both a less useful concept than ignosticism and, as you rightfully point out, a less stable one.

Personally I also find agnosticism to be supremely honest but also utterly inconsequential. Everyone should be agnostic, but no one should feel strongly about that.

To be clear, I'm using capitalisation for philosophies, so Atheism, Agnosticism. The colloquial definitions (not capitalised) atheism and agnosticism have completely different meaning.
Capital "A" Agnosticism holds that the existence or nature of god(s) is (soft Agnosticism) or can't be (hard Agnosticism) known. That is basically the same as Ignosticism.
Outside of philosophy the meaning of agnosticism has been watered down to just that the existence of god(s) isn't known - which is the weak fence sitting which atheists criticise and not what I am.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, I am just not seeing it, @Heyo

I can't in good faith say that any form of agnosticism (no matter the capitalization or any other contexts) was ever or will ever be the same as ignosticism.

I don't understand how or why you do.

 

[Heyo]

Sorry, I am just not seeing it, @Heyo

I can't in good faith say that any form of agnosticism (no matter the capitalization or any other contexts) was ever or will ever be the same as ignosticism.

I don't understand how or why you do.

@YmirGF gave the definition of Ignosticism as:

"Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition."

I gave the definition of Agnosticism as:

Agnosticism holds that the existence or nature of god(s) is (soft Agnosticism) or can't be (hard Agnosticism) known.

They are equivalent as they both say: we don't know what a god is, so we can't say if it exists.

How did you interpret the definitions and what are the differences in your opinion?

 

[LuisDantas]

@YmirGF gave the definition of Ignosticism as:

I gave the definition of Agnosticism as:


They are equivalent as they both say: we don't know what a god is, so we can't say if it exists.

How did you interpret the definitions and what are the differences in your opinion?

As I said: those are entirely divergent ideas, and I see no basis whatsoever for claiming equivalence, even hypothetically.

 

[Heyo]

As I said: those are entirely divergent ideas, and I see no basis whatsoever for claiming equivalence, even hypothetically.

How are they different?

 

[LuisDantas]

How are they different?

One deals with the need to specify the subject matter. The other with the properties of that subject matter.

 

[Heyo]

One deals with the need to specify the subject matter. The other with the properties of that subject matter.

And how is listing properties not specifying?

 

[LuisDantas]

And how is listing properties not specifying?

Because the subject matter is speculative and often contradictory in its properties to begin with.

 

[Heyo]

Because the subject matter is speculative and often contradictory in its properties to begin with.

I still don't understand and I guess we'll have to leave it at that for the time being. Maybe the ongoing debate will bring more enlightenment.

 

[Yerda]

How often have you heard of Ignosticism?

Do you feel that it is a sufficiently clear stance?

How useful do you feel it to be, and for which purpose?

Do you expect it to become less or better known in the future? Why?

I remember thinking it was an interesting position.

Some expressions concerning gods are gibberish as far as I can tell and ignosticism seems to be the only reasonable position, but I wouldn't say it is relevant across the board. We can talk meaningfully about any number things without defining them explicitly in every circumstance.

 

[LuisDantas]

We certainly can, @Yerda

As it happens, gods and deities are not among those things. Not at the current moment of human culture, after so many centuries of effort at making the ideas contradictory and confused.

It is usual to talk about Abrahamic-styled deities as if they were in some sense typical. To talk of god-belief as some sort of natural, default situation despite the existence of at least hundreds of millions of theists who are not really "believers" due to the nature of their deities. To talk of the Abrahamic gods as if they were in some sense workable as a single entity despite even mainstream Christians pointing out that the Old Testament and the New Testatement having sharp contrasts in their gods. To presume "for the sake of argument" that Kami, Devas and pagan gods are "roughly similar" to the Abrahamic gods. To discuss whether the Christian Trinity makes sense while also pointing out that the gods that they might perhaps misrepresent are literally the supreme exceptions to any and all logical and rational expectations.

All of those are carelessly hurried choices at best, intentional and bad faith misdirections at worst. IMO it is the very definition of waste of time tospeak of deities or god-beliefs without coming from an ignostic perspective and satisfying its expectations first.

 

[PureX]

No. It says that if you can't be clear about what you claim exists, the claim deserves no further consideration.

The problem here is identifying a "claim" from a statement of belief. Something hardly anyone ever actually bothers to do. There are very few theists that actually claim that their concept of God is a truth that everyone else must accept as such. Most simply state it to be a belief that they choose to accept as true, on faith, knowing that not everyone else does or will. But this never satisfies the atheist, who is so certain his/her rejection of God belief must be shown to be the superior stance to the theist's belief in God that they simply presume all theisr beliefs are absolute truth claims that must be debunked, immediately.

Also, how many people here or anywhere else are really all that clear about ANYTHING? Let's be honest. And how many times have you been clearly told that evidence is not proof, and that you don't decide what is and is not evidence based on whether or not it convinces you. You only decide if it achieves the level of proof, for you (which you clearly have no intention of deciding). And how many times has it been clearly explained to you that the imaginary lack of evidence that you invented for yourself by mislabeling the actual eviedence is not evidence that gods don't exist? And yet how many times have you just continued to blunder onward insisting that there is no evidence, complaining that no one can explain God to you in a way that you will accept, when clearly you have no intention of accepting ANY god-concept, and then dishonestly claiming that you're not really an atheist who believes that no gods exist while constantly arguing that any and every god you've ever heard about doesn't exist?

When it comes to being unclear, I don't think you're in any position to be throwing any accusations.

The petulance comes in when believers object. Many become emotional upon being questioned, or being asked to be clear or provide evidence.

The become emotional becase you are attacking their beliefs, which they HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO PRESENT, because you take everyone else's belief as a truth claim that you must then debunk, immediately and often insultingly.

The skeptic doesn't define gods.

Then he is a fool. Blind skepticism is no more intelligent a choice than blind belief.

If the believer can't be clear about what he claims exists, his claim can be ignored.

The 'believer' has no obligation whatever to justify or explain his beliefs to you or to anyone else. We are free to believe as we choose, and you are not the appointed belief police.

Sorry if that agitates some, ...

It agitates people because it is so arrogant and insulting when you assume that you are everyone else's "belief police" when you clearly are not. And when you are so clearly ignorant biased about it.

but that's how it is with critical thought.

No, that's not critical though at all. That's just arrogance and bias. Critical thought applies to the critic. Not just to everyone else.

 

[dybmh]

How often have you heard of Ignosticism?

Virtually never.

Do you feel that it is a sufficiently clear stance?

Yes.

How useful do you feel it to be, and for which purpose?

It's useful for me. In general, I know to avoid any and all theological discussion with the individual. In particular, of course, it's a case by case evaluation. I'm sure it's useful for them too, for the purpose of arguing with theists and inflating their own ego.

Ignosticism is, imo, probably the most arrogant of all the theological positions, because, before the individual has heard anything I have to say, they have decided that it cannot ever be coherent. That is the literal definition of prejudice. Not only that, but, claiming that making a coherent statement is literally impossible can only be made if the individual knows each and every theological position ever expressed since the beginning of time to the present. That's a ridiculous assumption to make about oneself.

An ignostic is, essentially, denyng the capability of language to express ideas. One might as well be attempting to have a discussion with a petulant 3 year old.

Do you expect it to become less or better known in the future? Why?

Online atheist activism employs it as a tactic in argumentation already even if its adherents don't label themselves as ignostics. I doubt the moniker will become popular.

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh boy. Ignosticism is really misjudged.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The word was coined by the late Rabbi Wine (Z"L). I've had the opportunity to meet him and hear him speak. I found the term useful.

 

[dybmh]

Oh boy. Ignosticism is really misjudged.

Please bring a defintion that defines ignosticism. Otherwise I am using the definition which appears to have been accepted as correct in this thread.

"...the word God has no coherent and unambiguous definition." It is assuming non-cognition before any words have been spoken.

 

[dybmh]

The word was coined by the late Rabbi Wine (Z"L). I've had the opportunity to meet him and hear him speak. I found the term useful.

Does the defintion of ignosticsm in this thread match what he described?

Did the Rabbi share what would qualify as a coherent defintion of a "god"?

 

[VoidCat]

It makes sense to me. There's so many different ways a god or gods can be viewed. I can see why someone would find the idea of wondering if there is a god or not meaning less. Just look at how pagans view a god vs how a monotheist might.

Am i understanding the definition correctly?

 

[PureX]

In order:

1. Ignosticism isn't about the ignostic being unable to define god. It is about the concept being vague or worse to begin with.

Who's fault is that but our own? "God" is a possibility, not a fact. The future is a whole set of possibilities, but is not a fact. We humans live in a world that is mostly comprised of possibilities, not facts, because we are not omniscient, nor clairvoyant, and so we cannot perceive our reality as an intelligable fact. So why are we whining that God is not a fact when almost nothing in our experience of existence, is? And since when do we stop asking questions and contemplating the possibilities of existence just because we don't know all the facts?

2. The unwillingness to accept any definition is not part of the idea of ignosticism, which on the contrary demands definitions.

Yes, that is the petulance I was referring to ... this silly demand for definition in a world that is not a matter of fact. Possibilities involve and include many different resolutions that have not yet become manifested or "defined". Every morning we wake up and face a day that is full of possibilities, and therefor is not yet defined. This is a fact of the human condition. What kind of fool looks at the day ahead and decides he doesn't want to consider it's possibilities because they are not defined yet?

3. Neither is ignosticism about declaring the matter of god's existence invalid. I have no idea why you would think that it is.

Willful ignorance implies that one does not consider that which is being ignored 'valid' enough to warrant consideration.

4. No, I still see no petulance in ignosticism.

All that said, I have suspected for some time that your understanding of god, theism and atheism is considerably distanced from mine, to the point that I don't know that you want to be understood about the subject matter.

The discussion is not about what I want for or from you. Only you can decide what you gain from it, or don't. All I can do is respond to the comments I am being offered as honestly and clearly as I can. What you do with that is not in my control. Nor would I want it to be.

I see theism as simply being the philosophical proposition that God/gods exist, and exist in a way that matters (or should matter) to we humans. Thus, I see the nature and existence of "God" as a POSSIBILITY, not as a fact. But as I stated above, most of existence as we experience it comes to us in the form of a multiplex of possibilities. And we then must choose to act on which ever likely possibilities we want to see manifested according to whatever criteria we are using to decide that. (I call this faith, or acting on faith because it neither requires nor demands that we "believe" the result we desire will in fact be manifested.)

To reject a very useful possibility simply because it is only a possibility is, to me, very childish, foolish, and weirdly inhumane. 'Petulant', in fact. And since this is what a lot of "atheists" are claiming they are doing, I find a lot of atheists to be foolish and 'petulant'. This is not to say that atheism is not a viable possibility in it's own right. Because it is. My argument is not with atheism as a philosophical position. My argument is with why I see most atheists choosing it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just look at how pagans view a god vs how a monotheist might.

How do pagans view plentiformity?