Is the word "god" meaningful?

[Falvlun]

A common argument of many atheists is that the word "god" is unintelligible, incoherent, inconsistent, etc, and therefore, they have no idea what you are talking about when you use it, and thus, they obviously cannot believe in something which hasn't even been defined.

As an atheist, I think that argument stinks to high heaven.

So, what say you? Is the word "god" meaningless and undefined? Is it fair to say that you have no concept of what someone is talking about when they use that word? What is the defense of this argument?

 

[Sunstone]

People mean a lot of different things by "god". Most of these things do not correspond to a common experience, in the way that, say, "The red barn on farmer Jone's land", can conceivably correspond to a common experience (i.e. everyone can in theory go see for his or herself what the red barn is). Because in most cases there is no common experience of god, there is no check on what people might or might not mean by god. So when people speak of god it can be difficult -- albeit perhaps not impossible -- to ascertain what, precisely, they mean by that term.

 

[Alex_G]

A common argument of many atheists is that the word "god" is unintelligible, incoherent, inconsistent, etc, and therefore, they have no idea what you are talking about when you use it, and thus, they obviously cannot believe in something which hasn't even been defined.

As an atheist, I think that argument stinks to high heaven.

So, what say you? Is the word "god" meaningless and undefined? Is it fair to say that you have no concept of what someone is talking about when they use that word? What is the defense of this argument?

No it’s not meaningless, not in my eyes, but it is far from well defined in most situations. ( 'dfshdhset' is an example of something meaningless)
I think there is weight to pointing out inconsistencies or shady areas in a person’s concept of it especially when they fervently defend its existence/nature. This isn’t really arguing that you can’t converse with them because you don’t know what it is they're talking about, as if it’s a conversational limitation, (which would be true for 'dfshdhset') but rather a Socratic style inquiry meant to push someone to really ask themselves if they really know what it is they're defending.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The problem is that most people, themselves, don't even have a clear idea of what they mean by "god."

 

[Skwim]

Sure it's meaningful. Although it may be difficult if not impossible to define, for some it does have meaning.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is a noncognitivist argument and noncognitivism is a minority position among atheists.

I do not find it to be very compelling.

 

[Falvlun]

People mean a lot of different things by "god".

"Gods" are a category of things, like "animals". There are very diverse animals, and yet they are all acknowledged as animals.

Diversity is not the issue. For some reason, we are able accept generalizations in other categories, but not gods.

Most of these things do not correspond to a common experience, in the way that, say, "The red barn on farmer Jone's land", can conceivably correspond to a common experience (i.e. everyone can in theory go see for his or herself what the red barn is). Because in most cases there is no common experience of god, there is no check on what people might or might not mean by god. So when people speak of god it can be difficult -- albeit perhaps not impossible -- to ascertain what, precisely, they mean by that term.

Can everyone go see what love is?

Common experience-- and particularly of the physical kind-- is not only what gives words meaning. It is how they are utilized and described, the sorts of concepts and ideas that are connected with them. If you grew up in a culture that talks about gods, you have all the lingual connection you require.

 

[Revoltingest]

A common argument of many atheists is that the word "god" is unintelligible, incoherent, inconsistent, etc, and therefore, they have no idea what you are talking about when you use it, and thus, they obviously cannot believe in something which hasn't even been defined.

I don't recall ever hearing this claim. Every believer I know is able to articulate "god" in terms we both understand. Sure, sure, there is great diversity in their definitions, but that's no problem.

Is it fair to say that you have no concept of what someone is talking about when they use that word?

Believers will often tell me how they use the word "god", but if I have any question then I ask.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Usually when people ask a question like "why don't you believe in God?" I assume they mean an eternal spirit being, that is conscious of its existance and created the universe.

 

[Sunstone]

"Gods" are a category of things, like "animals". There are very diverse animals, and yet they are all acknowledged as animals.

Diversity is not the issue. For some reason, we are able accept generalizations in other categories, but not gods.


Can everyone go see what love is?

Common experience-- and particularly of the physical kind-- is not only what gives words meaning. It is how they are utilized and described, the sorts of concepts and ideas that are connected with them. If you grew up in a culture that talks about gods, you have all the lingual connection you require.

I'm not arguing the concept of god is not meaningful. I'm merely pointing out that the obvious fact that there are multiple concepts of god, and that these concepts are not always reconcilable.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The word "god" is meaningful. Too meaningful. Claim anything is god and you are right (including nothing being god).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It also depends on the context of the question. Let's say someone were to ask an inane question like "why are atheists sure god doesn't exist?" Since I'm not sure god doesn't exist, I might instead answer such a question in a way which points out that to be sure of something, you have to be able to be sure of what it is. Of course, this often goes unnoticed, as I do realize that understanding subtlety, context, and nuance isn't necessarily everyone's strong suit.

 

[Straw Dog]

So, what say you? Is the word "god" meaningless and undefined? Is it fair to say that you have no concept of what someone is talking about when they use that word? What is the defense of this argument?

I used to think I understood what everyone meant by "God". I made a lot of assumptions about people's beliefs as a result. The ignostic approach is Socratic in that it inquires further into the precise language being used to define different "God" concepts for different people rather than just always assuming or projecting one's own vague notion.

The result isn't necessarily theological noncognitivism as it all depends on the particular notion being used. Also, the same person might be an atheist in regards to some God-notions and theist relative to others. Ignosticism is useful to determine what we're even talking about and whether "God" should be treated as a hypothesis rather than as a personal metaphor to begin with.

 

[Straw Dog]

Ignosticism as a term was coined in the '60s by the rabbi Sherwin Wine, who was also a founding figure of Humanistic Judaism. Fun fact!

 

[Falvlun]

It also depends on the context of the question. Let's say someone were to ask an inane question like "why are atheists sure god doesn't exist?" Since I'm not sure god doesn't exist, I might instead answer such a question in a way which points out that to be sure of something, you have to be able to be sure of what it is. Of course, this often goes unnoticed, as I do realize that understanding subtlety, context, and nuance isn't necessarily everyone's strong suit.

Now who's holding a grudge?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Now who's holding a grudge?

Everyone who gets spanked by my indomitable intelligence and razor sharp wit.

 

[Alceste]

A common argument of many atheists is that the word "god" is unintelligible, incoherent, inconsistent, etc, and therefore, they have no idea what you are talking about when you use it, and thus, they obviously cannot believe in something which hasn't even been defined.

As an atheist, I think that argument stinks to high heaven.

So, what say you? Is the word "god" meaningless and undefined? Is it fair to say that you have no concept of what someone is talking about when they use that word? What is the defense of this argument?

Of course the word "god" means something, but without further qualifiers it's impossible to have a conversation about it. Imagine a thread - "do you want to keep the animal I am thinking about as a pet? Yes or no". I can't even begin to answer unless I know whether the OP is thinking about a labradoodle or a hippopotamus.

So it is with God. When someone starts a conversation about some god form or other, they usually assume the reader knows exactly what they are talking about and resist pressure to provide additional information, without which a meaningful conversation is impossible.

In most cases, I make certain assumptions about what kind of god a person is holding in their mind in order to participate in the conversation about it with them. I hold no god concepts in my own mind, being a non-theist, so there is no "default" definition. I must use the definition of whoever I am talking to, and most of the time they refuse to give it.

Even simple distinctions: is it corporeal or not? Is it male, female or genderless? Where does it live? Is it wrathful or benevolent? Does it take a personal interest in our lives? Does it influence events? Etc. how can a god concept be discussed unless we know all this and more?

When I say in threads that I am certain "god does not exist", I am actually saying I am certain the god concept I assume is held in the asker's mind does not exist. I only say such things to people who have demonstrated a clear tendency toward fundamentalism, irrationality and magical thinking, which indicate a lack of clear perception. IF there is anything to perceive, I am certain such people are not perceiving it.

 

[Thief]

I don't see the problem.
God is.....bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.

He is also the Creator.

Stacked deck.

That's the definition as I see it. (hi there!)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ignosticism as a term was coined in the '60s by the rabbi Sherwin Wine, who was also a founding figure of Humanistic Judaism. Fun fact!

Rabbi Wine (z''l) was an interesting guy. The accident came as a real shock.

 

[Straw Dog]

Rabbi Wine (z''l) was an interesting guy. The accident came as a real shock.

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