Ignosticism

[dybmh]

Seems to me that you are arguing against your own conclusion.

irony

 

[dybmh]

Ideologies can be defined, and often are. What that means for ignosticism, I am just not seeing.

Are you somehow seeing a choice to be made between ideologies and gods or god-beliefs? Why?

you're probably not seeing it because you are holding a god-concept ( as a category ) in your mind inspite of your denial.

 

[lukethethird]

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

An agnostic understands that no one can gain knowledge from unfalsifiable claims, in other words, if a claim of existence cannot be demonstrated to be true or false due to its wording, there is no knowledge to be had, not just for the agnostic, but for all concerned. Unfalsifiable claims by nature are ambiguous and incoherent in order for the claims to elude testing. Both agnosticism and ignosticism are concerned with the wording of claims as they pertain to knowledge, so there is some overlap there, unlike theism and atheism which are simply statements of belief or lack thereof.

 

[LuisDantas]

you're probably not seeing it because you are holding a god-concept ( as a category ) in your mind inspite of your denial.

Everything is possible, I suppose.

But no. You do not get to decide that so casually and with no evidence.

 

[blü 2]

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?

Speaking as an insider, it's not something I chose, rather something I finally realized.

Useful? Outside of RF, where debating can happen, not very.

I think my own version of it is clear to me. It's the realization that from a human standpoint there are only two ways that things can exist ─ either you can find them in reality (the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses) or they can exist as ideas, notions, concepts, things imagined, in an individual brain.

So when you look at the traditional scale that asks you to place yourself somewhere on the scale from rabid unbeliever to rabid believer, it occurs to me that before I could address the question, I'd first have to have a necessary and sufficient definition of a real God, one found in nature, one who's actually out there and not just a cultural or personal concept with no independent existence.

But so far no one has a definition appropriate to a real God. All the definitions rely on imaginary qualities like omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, infinite, &c &c &c.

So igtheism / ignosticism isn't very complicated. It's the only view that makes sense to me.

 

[crossfire]

After thinking about this for a while, I'm going to put this on the table: "god" concept gains traction when two or more people sympatherically share a god concept. When more people gather together to share the same sympathetically shared concept/vibe, that is communion with "god."

Ignosticism is simply saying you don't Vibe.

 

[LuisDantas]

After thinking about this for a while, I'm going to put this on the table: "god" concept gains traction when two or more people sympatherically share a god concept. When more people gather together to share the same sympathetically shared concept/vibe, that is communion with "god."

Ignosticism is simply saying you don't Vibe.

There is that.

But further, there is also the obfuscation that comes with the taboo against questioning or clarifying what is meant by that "god" word that so many people expect us to accept at face value.

Ignosticism is also the conscious decision to reject that imposition and the deliberate obfuscation and intellectual dishonesty that are required to enable that imposition.

TLDR: Ignosticism, perhaps counter-intuitively to some, helps in the understanding of communion by insisting that we should not pretend to share conceptions of "god".

 

[crossfire]

There is that.

But further, there is also the obfuscation that comes with the taboo against questioning or clarifying what is meant by that "god" word that so many people expect us to accept at face value.

Ignosticism is also the conscious decision to reject that imposition and the deliberate obfuscation and intellectual dishonesty that are required to enable that imposition.

TLDR: Ignosticism, perhaps counter-intuitively to some, helps in the understanding of communion by insisting that we should not pretend to share conceptions of "god".

Counter-intuitively? I would say anti-intuitively, if you are here calling intuition intellectual dishonesty. I wouldn't put intuition into the intellectual dishonesty basket. I would, however, put not questioning intuition into the intellectual dishonesty basket, if that is what you meant. The big question as it refers to ignosticism then becomes this: Does dismissing intuition outright constitute the same level of intellectual dishonesty that refusing to question intuition does?

 

[lukethethird]

Counter-intuitively? I would say anti-intuitively, if you are here calling intuition intellectual dishonesty. I wouldn't put intuition into the intellectual dishonesty basket. I would, however, put not questioning intuition into the intellectual dishonesty basket, if that is what you meant. The big question as it refers to ignosticism then becomes this: Does dismissing intuition outright constitute the same level of intellectual dishonesty that refusing to question intuition does?

Is belief in God based on superstition?

 

[crossfire]

Is belief in God based on superstition?

How did you get that from my post? Intuition is not the same as superstition. Intuition is unconscious/subconscious perception/cognition.

 

[lukethethird]

How did you get that from my post? Intuition is not the same as superstition. Intuition is unconscious/subconscious perception/cognition.

How does intuition deal with superstition?

 

[crossfire]

How does intuition deal with superstition?

They are two different things. Superstition is a sort of impulsive, paranoid behavior, whereas intuition is unconsciously/subconsciously processed perceptive functions and/or cognitions that haven't wholly been translated (been rationalized) into the conscious mind.

 

[blü 2]

Counter-intuitively? I would say anti-intuitively, if you are here calling intuition intellectual dishonesty. I wouldn't put intuition into the intellectual dishonesty basket. I would, however, put not questioning intuition into the intellectual dishonesty basket, if that is what you meant. The big question as it refers to ignosticism then becomes this: Does dismissing intuition outright constitute the same level of intellectual dishonesty that refusing to question intuition does?

My own observation (as an igtheist) is that debate about a real god, one with objective existence, not just fictional, fails at the threshold because no one knows what they're actually talking about. There is no definition of God that I'm aware of (in this context) appropriate to a being with objective existence.

Which is consistent with gods existing solely as things entirely conceptual / imaginary in individual brains.

And as I've remarked elsewhere, there seems to be some background evidence entirely consistent with this proposition, such as no church having a college dedicated to discovering how we can perform miracles ─ deliberate alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality ─ and no department of the military responsible for mounting or defending against supernatural attack.

If I thought such things were for real, I'd regard them as essential. Yet no one seems to notice.

 

[LuisDantas]

Counter-intuitively? I would say anti-intuitively, if you are here calling intuition intellectual dishonesty. I wouldn't put intuition into the intellectual dishonesty basket. I would, however, put not questioning intuition into the intellectual dishonesty basket, if that is what you meant.

No, I did not mean to imply either, mainly because I don't think of intuition as related to intellectual dishonesty in either way.

The big question as it refers to ignosticism then becomes this: Does dismissing intuition outright constitute the same level of intellectual dishonesty that refusing to question intuition does?

Probably, although I don't think that is much of a real problem. It is very hard for human beings to dismiss their own intuitions and other prejudices without a lot of effort and a clear purpose.

 

[crossfire]

My own observation (as an igtheist) is that debate about a real god, one with objective existence, not just fictional, fails at the threshold because no one knows what they're actually talking about. There is no definition of God that I'm aware of (in this context) appropriate to a being with objective existence.

Which is consistent with gods existing solely as things entirely conceptual / imaginary in individual brains.

And as I've remarked elsewhere, there seems to be some background evidence entirely consistent with this proposition, such as no church having a college dedicated to discovering how we can perform miracles ─ deliberate alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality ─ and no department of the military responsible for mounting or defending against supernatural attack.

If I thought such things were for real, I'd regard them as essential. Yet no one seems to notice.

I'm looking at the phenomena which involves processes within the mind here. I'm not looking for "things." I find the idea that mental processes and phenomena can't be discussed because they may or may not differ from person to person to be strange.

 

[crossfire]

No, I did not mean to imply either, mainly because I don't think of intuition as related to intellectual dishonesty in either way.



Probably, although I don't think that is much of a real problem. It is very hard for human beings to dismiss their own intuitions and other prejudices without a lot of effort and a clear purpose.

Is it really wise to dismiss ones intuition? As you watch your thoughts arise and pass away during meditation, do you seek to dismiss the thoughts before they come within the range of consciousness, or do you watch them arise, acknowledge them, and then watch them pass away?

 

[blü 2]

I'm looking at the phenomena which involves processes within the mind here. I'm not looking for "things." I find the idea that mental processes and phenomena can't be discussed because they may or may not differ from person to person to be strange.

The functions of the brain, the "how" of them, and the way their interconnections work have been matters of study since the early 19th century, but since the 1990s, when new tools became available, they've been making steady progress. Awesome subject, awesome results with still a long way to go.

 

[crossfire]

OK, now I have a question here: Is Luke 17:20-23 an expression of ignosticism?

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:


21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.


23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.​

 

[crossfire]

I can present the case for the importance of intuition if you like. I don't want to take this thread on ignosticism out of its specific frame of reference if you want to keep it specifically on track.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it really wise to dismiss ones intuition? As you watch your thoughts arise and pass away during meditation, do you seek to dismiss the thoughts before they come within the range of consciousness, or do you watch them arise, acknowledge them, and then watch them pass away?

That, of course, is the correct method. There are however situations where intuitions are better disregarded.