Ignosticism

[dybmh]

Creationism is coherent, it makes sense to you?

That's not what I said; creationism is not the topic.

I asked: "creator" is clear, coherent, and easy to understand. do you deny it is easy, clear, and coherent? if so why?

---

Looking at this, see below, when I say it was "created by" MC Escher, is it clear, coherent, and easy to understand?



This one word "creator" defeats any claims of ignosticsm and theological non-cognitivsm. It really is that simple. imo.

 

[lukethethird]

That's not what I said; creationism is not the topic.

I asked: "creator" is clear, coherent, and easy to understand. do you deny it is easy, clear, and coherent? if so why?

---

Looking at this, see below, when I say it was "created by" MC Escher, is it clear, coherent, and easy to understand?

View attachment 82124

This one word "creator" defeats any claims of ignosticsm and theological non-cogntivsm. It really is that simple.

People create things, that much is clear.

 

[dybmh]

People create things, that much is clear.

You're not answering the question.

If a clear coherent useful defintion exists, then all claims of ignosticsm and and theological non-cognitivsm are defeated. Do you deny it?

InB4: it is useful to know that there is a "creator" because it cultivates awe, respect, and wonder for the natural world. Not required, but still useful.

None of this defeats Agnosticsm nor Atheism. It just exposes ignosticsm and and theological non-cognitivsm as gimics deserving very little respect. imo.

 

[lukethethird]

You're not answering the question.

If a clear coherent useful defintion exists, then all claims of ignosticsm and and theological non-cognitivsm are defeated. Do you deny it?

InB4: it is useful to know that there is a "creator" because it cultivates awe, respect, and wonder for the natural world. Not required, but still useful.

None of this defeats Agnosticsm nor Atheism. It just exposes ignosticsm and and theological non-cognitivsm as gimics deserving very little respect. imo.

The word creator applies to what a living species is, because living species on this planet intentionally create things, you have yet to offer an unambiguous and coherent explanation for how creator applies elsewhere, and you still haven't come up with a coherent and unambiguous explanation for god, you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself, meanwhile, ignosticism is alive and well.

"InB4: it is useful to know that there is a "creator" because it cultivates awe, respect, and wonder for the natural world. Not required, but still useful."

It does nothing of the sort, it merely amounts to question begging thereby rendering it meaningless.

 

[dybmh]

The word creator applies to what a living species is, because living species on this planet intentionally create things, you have yet to offer an unambiguous and coherent explanation for how creator applies elsewhere, and you still haven't come up with a coherent and unambiguous explanation for god, you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself, meanwhile, ignosticism is alive and well.

None of that is relevant to the meaning of the word "creator". How they create is irrelevant to understanding the meaning of the word.

Going back to the MC Escher image. You don't need to know how the image was created to easily understand the meaning of the words "created by".

The same is true for any car or truck or anything manufactured. I don't know ( precisely ) how my tablet was created. But it was "created by" Samsung. I don't even need to know any details about "Samsung" to understand the meaning of the words "Samsung created this tablet". The same for my truck. "Created by" Ford, 1994. That's it. super simple.

"InB4: it is useful to know that there is a "creator" because it cultivates awe, respect, and wonder for the natural world. Not required, but still useful."

It does nothing of the sort, it merely amounts to question begging thereby rendering it meaningless.

Of course it does. Just not for you. Again, I mentioned this to @LuisDantas, these sorts of claims require Extra-Sensory-Perception. You cannot claim "It does nothing of the sort" without Extra-Sensory-Perception of my thoughts and emotions.

It is meaningless to you. It is incomprehensible to you. It is ( seemlingly ) useless to you. That's all that any person can say in truth.

I said "seemingly", again, I mentioned this before, because there's a mild paradox for "usefulness". If something is known to be "useless" that is extremely useful, because that specific thing is avoided.

Current relevant example: If theism is known to be useless, per the definition, because it is incoherent, then, the incoherence becomes very-very useful. It is useful because the individual knows to spend their time and energy on other things. The incoherence IS useful. Useless becomes useful. So this whole "is it useful" benchmark poofs into self-contradiction as soon as it is propped up in this way as a required condition for a valid defintion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which theism, @dybmh ? There are many thousands.

 

[dybmh]

Which theism, @dybmh ? There are many thousands.

Does it matter?

If the definition is incoherent, then it is inherently useful for the purposes of spending time and energy elsewhere. Because of this the definition of the theological position "ignosticsm" is itself incoherent. The two conditions "incoherence" and "useful" do not adhere. If the defintion is incoherent, then it is inherently useful. These two conditions do not stick together for the purpose of rejecting theism. Ignosticsm is literally incoherent itself.

Therefore, imo, it is a useless theological position, but it is useful to avoid any discussions about it or theology with someone who is rigid about identifying themself in this way.

So, how's the weather where you are? How's your family? I hope they're well, and how are you?

 

[Copernicus]

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 came to this thread late (as usual), but I've read through 7 pages to come up to speed as best I can. Speaking as a linguist who has worked professionally with words and languages for roughly half a century, I would like to offer some thoughts on the subject of definitions and meanings, which are very different things.

Word meanings are complicated and messy, but they can be studied and described coherently. The late Charles Fillmore, one of the 20th century's greatest semanticists (also a former teacher and mentor), once defined natural language for me as "word-guided mental telepathy". That is, its purpose is to transmit and receive thoughts, pieces of which are encapsulated in words. Loosely speaking, meanings are bundles of associated experiences that are common to the speakers of a language. Conventional usage shapes what a word means, and that is something which I believe @LuisDantas agrees with. Every word carries some ambiguity and none are devoid of meaning. Otherwise, they simply would not be useful to speakers of the language. So it cannot be right to say that the word God is devoid of meaning. Nor does the fact that its meaning is complex and messy render it any different from other common words such as dog, book, fingernail, or unicorn. I know that some people here think that the meanings of those words would be much easier to determine than God. I would disagree, but that's because I know the extent of my ignorance about word meanings better than they know theirs.

Word definitions are heuristic statements about word usage. That is, they are intended to help someone discover a specific usage of a word in a language discourse--the piece of the meaning that a speaker intends to transmit to the mind of a listener. We never transmit the entire meaning of a word when we speak--all of its possible senses and usages. We only transmit a piece of it. So we can all admit in this thread that the word God has more than a single definition. There are many possible ways to define it, because people intend to convey only specific senses or usages when they speak the word God. This, I think, is what @dybmh has been trying to say--that ambiguity does not render a word meaningless and does not justify taking a stance of igtheism.

What validates a word definition? Can we just define words any way we please? Is there any authority that can verify once and for all what a word means or what is the best way to define it? Professionals who define words are called lexicographers. They create definitions, not word meanings. Sometimes they create bad definitions, but usually not nearly as bad as the definitions that untrained, self-appointed lexicographers on the internet create. I have seen professional lexicographers battle each other over how many word senses a definition should contain and how to describe those word senses succinctly. Their fights can get even nastier than the ones in internet discussion groups, because they have bigger and nastier vocabularies to fight with.

My own opinion about igtheism, insofar as it has been discussed here, is that it makes more sense to argue over what the nouns god (common noun) and God (proper name) mean than whether they have meaning. If they didn't mean anything, nobody would have any reason to argue at all. Word usage is always subject to negotiation, but words are only useful if more than one person can agree on how to use the word. Otherwise, thoughts stay in that individual's head and don't get transmitted to other heads.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sigh.

 

[lukethethird]

I came to this thread late (as usual), but I've read through 7 pages to come up to speed as best I can. Speaking as a linguist who has worked professionally with words and languages for roughly half a century, I would like to offer some thoughts on the subject of definitions and meanings, which are very different things.

Word meanings are complicated and messy, but they can be studied and described coherently. The late Charles Fillmore, one of the 20th century's greatest semanticists (also a former teacher and mentor), once defined natural language for me as "word-guided mental telepathy". That is, its purpose is to transmit and receive thoughts, pieces of which are encapsulated in words. Loosely speaking, meanings are bundles of associated experiences that are common to the speakers of a language. Conventional usage shapes what a word means, and that is something which I believe @LuisDantas agrees with. Every word carries some ambiguity and none are devoid of meaning. Otherwise, they simply would not be useful to speakers of the language. So it cannot be right to say that the word God is devoid of meaning. Nor does the fact that its meaning is complex and messy render it any different from other common words such as dog, book, fingernail, or unicorn. I know that some people here think that the meanings of those words would be much easier to determine than God. I would disagree, but that's because I know the extent of my ignorance about word meanings better than they know theirs.

Word definitions are heuristic statements about word usage. That is, they are intended to help someone discover a specific usage of a word in a language discourse--the piece of the meaning that a speaker intends to transmit to the mind of a listener. We never transmit the entire meaning of a word when we speak--all of its possible senses and usages. We only transmit a piece of it. So we can all admit in this thread that the word God has more than a single definition. There are many possible ways to define it, because people intend to convey only specific senses or usages when they speak the word God. This, I think, is what @dybmh has been trying to say--that ambiguity does not render a word meaningless and does not justify taking a stance of igtheism.

What validates a word definition? Can we just define words any way we please? Is there any authority that can verify once and for all what a word means or what is the best way to define it? Professionals who define words are called lexicographers. They create definitions, not word meanings. Sometimes they create bad definitions, but usually not nearly as bad as the definitions that untrained, self-appointed lexicographers on the internet create. I have seen professional lexicographers battle each other over how many word senses a definition should contain and how to describe those word senses succinctly. Their fights can get even nastier than the ones in internet discussion groups, because they have bigger and nastier vocabularies to fight with.

My own opinion about igtheism, insofar as it has been discussed here, is that it makes more sense to argue over what the nouns god (common noun) and God (proper name) mean than whether they have meaning. If they didn't mean anything, nobody would have any reason to argue at all. Word usage is always subject to negotiation, but words are only useful if more than one person can agree on how to use the word. Otherwise, thoughts stay in that individual's head and don't get transmitted to other heads.

I think descriptions of god contradict themselves, such as god created us and is all caring yet many babies are born into disease and starvation only to die, so in that sense descriptions of god are meaningless, and since they can contradict themselves they are incoherent.

Also, the world does not come with any inherent meaning, as individuals we assign meaning to whatever happens to appeal to us. One man's trash is another man's treasure might apply here, if we substitute worth with meaning.

 

[dybmh]

Sigh.

why the sigh?

 

[dybmh]

I think descriptions of god contradict themselves, such as god created us and is all caring yet many babies are born into disease and starvation only to die, so in that sense descriptions of god are meaningless, and since they can contradict themselves they are incoherent.

That's just garden variety atheism.

Perhaps, it could be agnosticsm if the claim is "there are so many contradictions no one can possibly know if there is ..."

But it's definitely not ignosticsm.

Also, the word does not come with any inherent meaning, as individuals we assign meaning to whatever happens to appeal to us. One man's trash is another man's treasure might apply here, if we substitute worth with meaning.

That's basically true. It's a matter personal taste which words express meaning and resonate with each individual person. I use the word 'naturally' a lot. It resonates with me.

That's why I said, "it's meaningless to you" "it's incomprehensible to you." To you. That's all. You don't like god, or theism, or mayo, or green-eggs-and-ham. So what?

 

[Copernicus]

I think descriptions of god contradict themselves, such as god created us and is all caring yet many babies are born into disease and starvation only to die, so in that sense descriptions of god are meaningless, and since they can contradict themselves they are incoherent.

Contradictions are inherently false statements by virtue of the meanings of words used to make the statement, so they have to be meaningful in that sense. Paradoxical statements such as "This statement is itself untrue" are also meaningful, but incoherent by virtue of the words used to form the statement. So it is by virtue of meaning that you know the statement is either false or is a claim that lacks a truth value. When you say that a claim is "meaningless", you aren't really saying that it literally lacks meaning. What you are really saying is that there is something wrong with the meaning that it has. So, I know I'm being pedantic here, but I really hate the word "meaningless", which doesn't exactly mean what it seems to say. You can't really deny the existence of a god, if the word god has no meaning. It is a word in common usage, and, by virtue of that, it has meaning. It stands for something in the minds of speakers to the extent that they can argue over the existence of what it names. Part of that argument can be that its meaning contains logical contradictions.

Also, the world does not come with any inherent meaning, as individuals we assign meaning to whatever happens to appeal to us. One man's trash is another man's treasure might apply here, if we substitute worth with meaning.

Quite correct. The meanings of words are conventional. That's what Plato's Cratylus is all about--a debate over whether meanings are "natural" (i.e. inherent) to the words that convey them or conventional.

 

[lukethethird]

You can't really deny the existence of a god, if the word god has no meaning.

I would be denying the figment of one's imagination if in fact I assume that that is what god's existence amounts to. In other words, what existence would I be denying, the existence of a figment of one's imagination? I suppose I cannot deny the figment of one's imagination. How would one apply meaning to someone else's figment of their imagination especially if it doesn't line up with yet another's figment? Does meaningless ever come into play here or is that just a word to avoid?

 

[Vinayaka]

Personally I don't see it as redefinition, but rather definition.

It is a necessary if often neglected first step for any meaningful discussion about god-related matters.

Although I'd never heard of it, I concur with the premise, and have had far too many futile conversations with myself and whomever I was conversing with speaking about 2 very different things. However, 'God' isn't the only troublesome word. There are many. I can see it gaining ground in the future, as more and more people realize the futility of being on totally different wavelengths, and living in different paradigms.

 

[Copernicus]

I would be denying the figment of one's imagination if in fact I assume that that is what god's existence amounts to. In other words, what existence would I be denying, the existence of a figment of one's imagination? I suppose I cannot deny the figment of one's imagination. How would one apply meaning to someone else's figment of their imagination especially if it doesn't line up with yet another's figment? Does meaningless ever come into play here or is that just a word to avoid?

We can certainly imagine and talk about the existence of things that don't exist. If the purpose of language is to transmit thoughts from one mind to another, why would such thoughts not be transmissible? What we have in common with other people is that we have similar bodies, similar perceptions, and similar ways of interacting with reality. So we build concepts out of those shared experiences and attach those concepts to words, whether spoken, written, or gestured. Meanings are just commonly shared experiences that we assemble and combine in our minds into unique thoughts that we communicate to others through language.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that it's also important to recognize that words like God do have components of meaning--attributes--that are perfectly reasonable and easy to understand. For example, people who pray to God believe that "it" can hear and understand their prayers. Some even attribute masculine gender to "him", although one would think that feminine gender would make more sense for a creator god. There are other components of meaning that are harder to imagine--omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. Those who argue that "God exists" don't have to buy into all of the omnimax attributes, but some will seek to rationalize them. Others will seek to argue that those properties are beyond human understanding, but they are still attributes. I think that those who adopt the label "igtheist" are just taking the position that the hard to imagine (or unimagineable) bits spoil the entire concept--render it "meaningless". Personally, I don't see a lot of daylight between that position and someone like myself, who is just a conventional atheist that rejects belief in gods, including the one called "God" by monotheists. But I understand that people like to categorize and label people and things. It's in our nature, and that's how we invent words.

 

[lukethethird]

I think that it's also important to recognize that words like God do have components of meaning--attributes--that are perfectly reasonable and easy to understand. For example, people who pray to God believe that "it" can hear and understand their prayers. Some even attribute masculine gender to "him", although one would think that feminine gender would make more sense for a creator god. There are other components of meaning that are harder to imagine--omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. Those who argue that "God exists" don't have to buy into all of the omnimax attributes, but some will seek to rationalize them. Others will seek to argue that those properties are beyond human understanding, but they are still attributes. I think that those who adopt the label "igtheist" are just taking the position that the hard to imagine (or unimagineable) bits spoil the entire concept--render it "meaningless". Personally, I don't see a lot of daylight between that position and someone like myself, who is just a conventional atheist that rejects belief in gods, including the one called "God" by monotheists. But I understand that people like to categorize and label people and things. It's in our nature, and that's how we invent words.

I wonder if igtheism better describes why an atheist cannot formulate a belief in a god as opposed to the atheist that just simply doesn't formulate the belief or share in the belief with theists. The atheist says to the theist, I don't believe you while the igtheist says I cannot believe you even if I wanted to and here's why.

 

[lukethethird]

I think that it's also important to recognize that words like God do have components of meaning--attributes--that are perfectly reasonable and easy to understand. For example, people who pray to God believe that "it" can hear and understand their prayers. Some even attribute masculine gender to "him", although one would think that feminine gender would make more sense for a creator god. There are other components of meaning that are harder to imagine--omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. Those who argue that "God exists" don't have to buy into all of the omnimax attributes, but some will seek to rationalize them. Others will seek to argue that those properties are beyond human understanding, but they are still attributes. I think that those who adopt the label "igtheist" are just taking the position that the hard to imagine (or unimagineable) bits spoil the entire concept--render it "meaningless". Personally, I don't see a lot of daylight between that position and someone like myself, who is just a conventional atheist that rejects belief in gods, including the one called "God" by monotheists. But I understand that people like to categorize and label people and things. It's in our nature, and that's how we invent words.

I can easily recognize that words like God have meaning, but I think meaningless in the terms of igtheism is quantitative rather than definitive. The theists' god can mean a lot to the theist but it can mean little or nothing at all to the igtheist. Why, not because the definitions aren't there, they are there and they work fine in mythologies, but rather that they become ambiguous and incoherent when applied to the real world. It's sort of like logic, you got your logic and then you got your sound logic.

 

[dybmh]

igtheist says I cannot believe you even if I wanted to and here's why.

which is a limitation, a lack of capability