Is the word "god" meaningful?

[SageTree]

Full of meaning FOR SURE.
Definable....?
That is more subjective.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It was a car accident I believe. I remember hearing about it several years back. He also signed the latest Humanist Manifesto.

I was a member of an SHJ affiliated synagogue for a number of years and met him a couple of times just prior to his vacation and death.

 

[SageTree]

I was a member of an SHJ affiliated synagogue for a number of years and met him a couple of times just prior to his vacation and death.

LoLz.... read This^ before I read what you quoted.... thought you meant God!

 

[Straw Dog]

To expand: The ignostic treatment involves isolating a particular definition of "God" and then determining whether or not it has falsifiability. Can it be disproven some way? If there's no amount of evidence that could possibly bunk the proposition then one is lead to theological noncognitivism as "God" cannot be treated as a hypothesis. This does leave room for metaphorical interpretations however.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To expand: The ignostic treatment involves isolating a particular concept of "God" and then determining whether or not it has falsifiability.

In fact it does not. Rather, it acknowledges that that the preternatural would be, by definition, ineffable and non-falsifiable.

 

[Straw Dog]

I was a member of an SHJ affiliated synagogue for a number of years and met him a couple of times just prior to his vacation and death.

Oh, wow. I guess you really do know who I'm talking about then. What was he like in person?

 

[Alceste]

To expand: The ignostic treatment involves isolating a particular definition of "God" and then determining whether or not it has falsifiability. Can it be disproven some way? If there's no amount of evidence that could possibly bunk the proposition then one is lead to theological noncognitivism as "God" cannot be treated as a hypothesis. This does leave room for metaphorical interpretations however.

That sounds like my own approach, thus far unlabeled.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I had dinner with him and a few other congregants a coupe of times. It wasn't really enough to "know him as a person." I remember him being very, very bright and reasonably approachable.

 

[Straw Dog]

In fact it does not. Rather, it acknowledges that that the preternatural would be, by definition, ineffable and non-falsifiable.

Meaning that it is inappropriate to ask for empirical evidence of "God" since it doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis with falsifiability to begin with. This doesn't "disprove God", but it does seem to move it into the realm of the metaphorical, as far as statements go at least.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Meaning that it is inappropriate to ask for empirical evidence of "God" since it doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis with falsifiability to begin with. This doesn't "disprove God", but it does seem to move it into the realm of the metaphorical, as far as statements go at least.

As I've quoted more than once in the past:

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience).... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: "You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable." This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues

If God, It is simply beyond the scope of scientific enquiry.

 

[Straw Dog]

I had dinner with him and a few other congregants a coupe of times. It wasn't really enough to "know him as a person." I remember him being very, very bright and reasonably approachable.

Well, I don't want to misrepresent his views. It probably is a mistake to claim that the ignostic position necessarily leads to or is equivalent with atheism. If anything, it could liberate "God" from narrow minded literalism into its own kind of art form.

 

[Straw Dog]

If God, It is simply beyond the scope of scientific enquiry.

Would you then say that a belief in God is non-rational? That is, neither rational or irrational?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think you're engaging in unhelpful wordplay. So, for example, why "non-rational" rather than "supra-rational"?

 

[Straw Dog]

I think you're engaging in unhelpful wordplay. So, for example, why "non-rational" rather than "supra-rational"?

I don't mean to be unhelpful, but I do have fun with wordplay.

What I was getting at, if you're interested, is that since any given definition of "God" taken through the ignostic process potentially disqualifies it as a falsifiable hypothesis about the natural universe, there can be no rational discussion about it. This doesn't make it irrational either because it rests outside the bounds of scientific/rational investigation apparently.

So what is it? It strikes me as something non-rational like art. That's all.

 

[Willamena]

I have heard of this before. What is "the ignostic process"?

 

[Alceste]

As I've quoted more than once in the past:If God, It is simply beyond the scope of scientific enquiry.

This is where it becomes important to get some qualifiers for whatever god concept the theist is holding in mind when they want to discuss the validity of their beliefs. Some qualities attributed to various god concepts are certainly falsifiable, for example whether or not intercessionary prayer or miracle healings have any measurable impact on natural illnesses, or whether the Christian god concept created the world in six days.

 

[Alceste]

I think you're engaging in unhelpful wordplay. So, for example, why "non-rational" rather than "supra-rational"?

It's fairly common in mystical circles, for example philosophical taoism, to distinguish between the irrational, the rational and the trans-rational. The "irrational" mind adheres dogmatically to complex principles and arguments which cannot be convincingly defended with reason. The "rational" mind actually tries to figure out what the heck is going on using empiricism and logic, but often lacks appreciation for experiential, subjective truths like beauty and love. The trans-rational is neither rational nor irrational. Since dogma has been rejected, there is nothing to defend. Since there is nothing to defend, we can be open to the experience of mystical unity, bla ba bla. This perspective makes no sense to anyone but meditators, probably. If you have experienced the world for any length of time without the backdrop of a chattering mind, it will make sense. Otherwise, it won't.

 

[Straw Dog]

I have heard of this before. What is "the ignostic process"?

I call it a process because it's not really a set view like agnosticism.

Essentially it applies the Socratic method of inquiry to any particular definition of "God" in order to clarify it and establish its falsifiability as a hypothesis. Upon failing one is lead to a position of theological noncognitivism.

I'm also taking advantage of a possible bridge with Joseph Campbell's view of God as a metaphor. If it's not a rational inquiry then it must be aesthetic.

 

[billthecat]

Some qualities attributed to various god concepts are certainly falsifiable, for example whether or not intercessionary prayer or miracle healings have any measurable impact on natural illnesses

How can you nullify that concept?

or whether the Christian god concept created the world in six days.

Same question.

How do you practically, logically, show those to be false? Not rhetorical - I'm asking... you believe you can or you wouldn't have said so. So, how could we do that?

 

[atanu]

As I've quoted more than once in the past:

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience).... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: "You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable." This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.
- Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues

If God, It is simply beyond the scope of scientific enquiry.

Allow me to add, please. Whether western or eastern, the essential premise of spirituality, often veiled, is that the Seer/Knower is God. The awareness in us is God or is from God.

Koran often repeats Allah is Knower Allah is Seer. I am sure that other scripture have something similar. Further, Vedanta asks "Who will know the knower? Who will see the Seer?"

So, actually, although God should be the closest thing to the mind, it is not within the scope of externalised mind-sense enquiry.