Talk:Ignosticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Debate 2 from VfD 2.1 why agnostic ? 3 To argue for ignosticism, and that god is irrelevant 4 I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God 5 I think it's Brilliant! 6 Ignosticism and its rational relevance

[edit] Debate

I wouldn't say that ignosticism is close to atheism. Atheism generally involves assertions regarding the existence (in this case, non-existence) of supernatural deities. Ignosticism, however, seems to disapprove of any assertions regarding such manners, hailing them as incoherent. I would say it is closer to agnosticism, because it does, in a sense, claim that knowledge regarding the existence of supernatural deities is unknowable, in the sense that any assertions, or knowledge, regarding such matters would be incoherent. As it is, I think the term "ignosticism" is a bit shaky, and think it should revert back to a form of agnosticism (i.e. "logical agnosticism", or otherwise...) Kevin L. 19:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] from VfD

This is article is nothing more than a definition of a neologism. If we can't use them in our editing then we certainly shouldn't have an entire article on one. Delete --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 07:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • It was not just a dict def when nominated, tho it is a stub & now so tagged. --Jerzy(t) 04:47, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
• Keep: It seems to have a fair amount of currency in non-Wikipedia mirrors. The specific reference to its originator and his organization allows it to be verifiable as well. Geogre 16:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge to Agnosticism and redirect. Mikkalai 22:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge+Redirect or Delete. I have no strong feelings on which of the two --fvw* 06:18, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
• Keep. Andre (talk) 23:49, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:27, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete the neologism. --Improv 21:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • How long does a word stay a neologism? I learned the adjective over 35 years ago when one of two principal newspapers of a major metropolitan area quoted a clergyman's definition that is in practice equivalent to this one. (Don't know if it quoted the same person the article mentions or not.) --Jerzy(t) 04:47, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
• Keep, even if in due time it ends up merged and redirected. This is no more obscure and subtle than the EPR paradox, and both of them just seem so relative to the amount of blood that has been spilled by people who didn't find the filioque clause obscure or subtle. To the extent those qualities are real, they are the lifeblood of relgion and philsophy. --Jerzy(t) 04:47, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
• Keep, sdmb, I reference people to this definition on a weekly basis.
• Keep, Rovenhot 20:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC). This describes me perfectly and is different from all other forms of agnosticism. Traditional agnosticism claims that whether any god exists is unknowable. Ignosticism claims not only that but also that what "god" means is indeterminate. Neologism though it may be, it is a legitimately unique belief with no better name.
• Merge with Nontheism.
• Keep, Like sdmb, I also reference people to this page frequently. Buss 01:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why agnostic ?

Why does the article imply that ignosticism is an agnostic position ? From what the page says, ignostics do not claim "not to know" but simply reject the issue as valid. It seems to me to be very close to theological noncognitivism, which is an atheistic argument. Franc28 20:56, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Theological noncognitivism says that god doesn't make sense, whereas ignosticism is the belief that god is irrelevant to life. They are different enough to be in seperate articles. Also, it is an agnostic stance, because in refusing to address the issue of theism, an ignostic must not know what a god is or if it exists. --Rovenhot 20:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"Theological noncognitivism says that god doesn't make sense, whereas ignosticism is the belief that god is irrelevant to life."

That's precisely the problem, there is no difference. But I think you mistake my post for a demand to merge. I did not have this in mind at all. Just pointing out that the article is wrong when it states that ignosticism is a form of agnosticism. I am an ignostic AND an atheist. Franc28 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there's a world of difference between "god doesn't make sense" and "god is irrelevant". The two may go side-by-side in some cases, but they're certainly not synonyms! The problem is, "ignosticism" doesn't mean that "the existence of God is irrelevant", it means that "the existence of God is meaningless and it's a waste of time to debate it"; the former definition, "god is irrelevant", is actually a type of apatheism. It's likely that most ignostics are apatheists, but it's not the case that most apatheists are ignostics, and there are at least a few ignostics who aren't apatheists (i.e. "I don't believe that the existence of some type of God-being is totally irrelevant, just that 'God' terminology is meaningless").

I would say that ignosticism is probably not a form of agnosticism, because agnosticism is a state of indecision regarding whether God exists, and most ignostics would reject the notion that one can be indecisive about a nonsense term, anymore than they're "agnostic" about whether the color blue licks watermelon babies (and if they are agnostic about that, the term "agnosticism" becomes so broad that it loses almost all meaning). Instead, ignostics would probably be classified as falling under the broad definition of "atheism" (i.e. "lack of theism"), a.k.a. "nontheism". Of course, most ignostics would reject this label too, since many view "atheism" as a meaningless distinction and; but that doesn't make them any less "lacking in theistic belief", and therefore they still fall under the general umbrella of atheism/nontheism. Specifically, most of them would probably be classed as falling under "explicit weak atheism", though probably not all.

If I had to explain the relationship between ignosticism and theological noncognitivism, it would be that "theological noncognitivism" is the argument that religious language in general is meaningless (according to its Wikipedia article), whereas Ignosticism applies exclusively to the word "God" (and synonyms). As a side-note, it appears that both terms are barely mentioned often enough to merit articles: "ignosticism" gets 636 hits on Google, and "theological noncognitivism" gets only 148 hits. (Though note that just "noncognitivism" gets 10,100 hits. Yet we don't have a "noncognitivism" article. Do we need to do some moving to get things where they should be?) -Silence 01:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Actually, there's a world of difference between "god doesn't make sense" and "god is irrelevant". "

You can keep repeating it, but it's still not true. That which is not falsifiable is meaningless. That which is meaningless is unfalsifiable. Both cover the same set of semantics. That's all we need to prove for the proposition "ignosticism is compatible with theological noncognitivism" to be true. The harder part is to correlate theological noncognitivism with atheism - some philosophers disagree on this issue. Personally, I am an atheist and an ignostic, so I find the assertion that ignosticism is agnostic to be trivially silly.

"You can keep repeating it, but it's still not true." - Sure it is, but do make sure to respond to statements like that in the context of the argument they're included in, if you aren't already; I then explained that by "world of difference" I didn't mean that the two are unrelated, just that the two are absolutely, without question not identical.

"That which is not falsifiable is meaningless." - Wrong. The converse, which you state immediately afterwards, is correct, though: that which is meaningless is not falsifiable—because how can you falsify patent nonsense? But that which is falsifiable is certainly not necessary "meaningless", though it may be logically unsound. Even that which is irrelevant or fallacious is not necessarily without any meaning.

"Both cover the same set of semantics." - Again, like I said: all ignostics may be apatheists, but it's indisputable that not all apatheists are ignostics, as many apatheists don't consider "God" terminology or arguments meaningless, they just don't think they're important or relevant to day-to-day life and so choose not to care (or find themselves unable to care). Therefore, while you could make an argument that all people who consider the "God" concept meaningless don't care whether God exists (though I'm still not sure that's entirely true), you'd have a very hard time showing that all people who don't care whether God exists consider the "God" concept meaningless. Don't confuse association with synonymity.

"That's all we need to prove for the proposition "ignosticism is compatible with theological noncognitivism" to be true." When did we start comparing ignosticism and theological noncognitivism in this line of conversation? Seems like you just made a huge leap, from discussing the relationship between "god doesn't make sense" (ignosticism, apparently a type of theological noncognitivism) and "god is irrelevant" (apatheism) to discussing the proposition that ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are compatible. Haudquaquam sequitur.

"Personally, I am an atheist and an ignostic, so I find the assertion that ignosticism is agnostic to be trivially silly." - Good for you. No offense meant to anyone, but I've always found the whole "agnostic" position to be a tad silly; either agnosticism is so broadly defined ("agnosticism is not being completely, 100%, absolutely certain that God does or doesn't exist") that it applies to any sane human being, or it's defined more narrowly and usefully ("agnosticism is being very undecided over whether God does or doesn't exist") and just comes across as atheism without the clear-headed, unbiased rationalism or understanding of scientific method (i.e. theism could theoretically find all sorts of evidence to support its claims, but how could atheism ever learn more about the universe that would make God's existence less likely? no one's going to find a "not-God"...). But that's just me, and I'm digressing. -Silence 05:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"...it appears that both terms are barely mentioned often enough to merit articles: "ignosticism" gets 636 hits on Google" Please don't ever use the number of hits a term 'gets on google' to determine the merit of an article's existance! Homtail 03:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To argue for ignosticism, and that god is irrelevant

On a topic apart from whether to delete the article, I wish to give my opinion on it, although this may also further prove ignosticism's uniqueness. I only recently discovered the name of my belief, but these thoughts have developed in my mind long before.

I agree with the argument that a childish, passive definition of god is too vague to have any real meaning, and so I will ignore it. As for the "theologian's" definition, I also agree that it is self-contradictory, or at least irrelevant. Now I give my reasons. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, I see no definition of God that fits other than that God embodies the entire universe (or, if M-theory is correct, multiverse). If this is so, than God can hardly be omnibenevolent, because that would mean that everyone is happy, and the universe is Heaven. That is certainly not the case, as shown by so many recent earthquakes and hurricanes (what benevolent god lets millions die and suffer?) and so I reject the omnibenevolent Christian depiction of God as being self-contradictory. (Also, I am agnostic, because I do not believe that "benevolence," or any moral, is determinate, since "good" and "bad" are relative.) Even if God were omnipresent, God becomes irrelevant, because we live within the universe, or we all become Buddhists, worshiping the universe as a whole. Since I have a sort of a "come what may" stance on life, I don't see a point in doing so, and thus I remain ignostic. --Rovenhot 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. First, please keep in mind that most conceptions of deities do not state that the deity in question is "omnibenevolent", "omnipotent", or "omniscient". So remember that, even if you are correct, your argument is only the refutation of a few specific gods, not of all of theism in general.

Please explain why you believe that omnipotence and omniscience necessitate omnipresence (or pantheism), because I don't see how that follows at all; if an omnipotent and omniscient God didn't want to be omnipresent, wouldn't that God be able to make himself non-omnipresent? If not, "omnipotent" is a poor term, and you should use the more popular Biblical term ("most powerful", not "all-powerful") instead.

"If this is so, than God can hardly be omnibenevolent, because that would mean that everyone is happy, and the universe is Heaven." - Non sequitur. On what do you base the assumption that because God is "all-good", everyone must be happy? Maybe it's not good for everyone to be happy? Maybe it would be evil to put everyone in Heaven because Heaven's only pleasant for certain people, or maybe Heaven isn't such a great place at all—maybe Heaven doesn't exist because the concept of Heaven is flawed, and the earth is actually the best possible world? This may not seem to be the case because of suffering, unhappiness, etc., but maybe a world without suffering and unhappiness is less "good" than one with it? How can you prove anything either way? How do you define what is "good" or not? Before you can even begin to argue against God coherently, you must (1) define exactly what you mean by "God", and (2) define exactly what you mean by "good".

(what benevolent god lets millions die and suffer?) - One that believes that death and suffering are "perfectly good"? On whose standard of "good" are you basing your definition of "omnibenevolence"? Good is not an inherent quality; something can only be good for someone, it can't just be "good" objectively. It seems like you're trying to define good as "what's good for humans" (which is by far the most meaningful, useful, and sane definition of it), but why should a nonhuman care about human morality? Wouldn't a perfectly good God by God's standards only about what benefits God most, not about what benefits some random trivial creation of God's? -Silence 02:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If your idea of "benevolence" is compatible with permitting others to suffer, you have a very strange definition of benevolence indeed. Remember that the subject is the Abrahamic God, who loves humans most out of all his creation. If this god exists, then, since his most prized creations do suffer a great deal, he clearly cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent all at the same time, though he may be any two of the three without contradiction.

It's important to distinguish between the typical definition of "benevolence" and the notion of "doing what is good". The 1913 Webster's has this to say about benevolence:

Etymologically considered, benevolent implies wishing well to others, and beneficent, doing well.

Note "to others". ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if God were omnipresent, God becomes irrelevant, because we live within the universe, - Why would that make God irrelevant? Might it not be an important, interesting thing to know that the universe is sentient, purposeful, and aware? Furthermore, there are many who believe that God is everywhere in the universe, but not that the universe is synonymous with God—compare your refutation of pantheism to panentheism.

or we all become Buddhists, worshiping the universe as a whole. - Buddhists "worship" the universe? -Silence 02:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Buddhists "worship" the universe?" As far as I understand. I'm not sure about that. --Rovenhot 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this statement is incorrect. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am arguing against a specific religious meme, as I said above: the Christian depiction of God. Omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence imply each other. If "God" had all power and knowledge in the universe, no part of the universe could exist outside of him, because matter is energy. That would be self-contradictory, since although he contained all power, he could not remove any part of himself from himself. If he did, he would cease to be omnipotent. Thus, "most powerful" may be a better description, but the Bible's description from this angle is too vague to be useful to me. Too much of the religion seems to be based on the idea that God can do anything, which cannot be possible and relevant simultaneously. --Rovenhot 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God

I (129.33.49.251) created this article from its redirection to agnosticism last October (2004), argued against its deletion, and made a few more additions later that year. This gives me no special influence, etc, but the content of this article beginning with "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God." is not ignosticism. The statements becomes "I ignore what you're talking about when you talk about God, because there are no verifiable consequences".

This underlies the form of the word: ignosticism, indicating an ignorance of what is meant by a claim of God's existence.

Not the case. Ignosticism is not ignorance of what is meant by a claim of God's existence, but instead an ignorance of the consequences of believing or not believing in God.

The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of God (or of any other metaphysical concept to be discussed) before engaging in arguments for or against.

Not the case. The consistent ignostic awaits verifiable consequences for believing or not believing in God.

The majority of these insertions comes from the user from 67.94.0.46 and began in August of this year. Perhaps I am wrong (I have been before and I will likely be again) but I don't like the current state of the article at all.

Perhaps now the damage has already been done enough that since Wikipedia has defined it so, those who have read it since hold ignosticism to be what the article currently says it is. In which case, ah well.

Lastly, this user's insertions also deleted something meaningful from an earlier version of the article (from user 24.170.23.26):

The defining question for an ignostic (apathetic agnostic) is: How would you behave if it were proved beyond a doubt that there is - or is not - a God? The answer would be, "I would have no reason to act any differently."

This is more the essence of ignosticism as I understand it and why I created the article. Simply proving that god exists or doesn't exist is not important, neither is arguing simply that god exists or doesn't exist. Neither is this nebulous (and non-ignostic notion) of begging the question of "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God.". Only debate around the idea of verifiable consequences of such belief are important.

Restrust 13:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignosticism may be a neologism, but it is a very interesting concept which is very appealing to me. There is however IMO a certain contradiction in it. 'Ignorance' implies not-caring about something, however the definition of Ignosticism seems to apply to people who do have a very strong opinion about the existence of deities and the consequences there of. They just don't want to talk about it until there is irrefutable (scientific) proof of the existence of a deity. It seems to apply to people who feel resentful towards deities and religion and towards what has been done or said in its name. [Is it?] Personally, I feel that scientifically discussing the existence of any deity is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with science. Trying to interpret the bible (or other 'holy' books) and other cultural/historical sources to find scientific proof or falsification of the existence of a deity is just as irrelevant and people that do it come very close to the danger area where these books are taken literally and used as a 'handbook for life'. Whether or not a deity exist, fact is, that throughout history (distant and not so distant) religion has been very important for the majority of people. Atrocious things have been done in the name of it and at the same time many very good things. It seems that in present time people (at least those that can afford to do this) start to ask themselves “what good is a deity or religion to me?”. And so do I. [Is this really something from the 'present time' like I claim?] Ignosticism seems to apply to people that would answer this question with: “nothing, at least not measurable, so I don't care”. This seems to be a very self-centered position towards religion. Maybe this is not the right place to discuss this but I'd like to see if some of the opinions I have regarding this resonate with others.

[edit] I think it's Brilliant!

This concept is extremely well written and I would love to contact the author. I have incorporated Ignosticism into the docrtine of the Church of Reality. I invite that author to contact me about anything else you've written. --Marcperkel 16:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is an excellent article. I think that many, many atheists and agnostics would actually be ignostics, if only they knew the term. Many people only use atheism/agnosticism because they do not know of a better word for their position. Saying "I am an ignostic" is certainly much easier than saying "I'm a believer in Theological noncognitivism" (11 syllables! Argh!). I certainly hope that this word stays on Wikipedia, and will do my best to spread its usage here and outside. Esn 00:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. I used to consider myself ignostic, though now im an Apathiest, which is fairly similar. DemonWeb 01:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ignosticism, when used reasonably, is always situational, not inherent: because there are so many different definitions of "God" and "god" different people use, as has correctly been noted, only certain ones are meaningless or unverifiable or irrelevant—and others are not. It would be unreasonable (in the sense of being logically inconsistent), for example, to be an ignostic with respect to God, but not an ignostic with respect to Santa Claus. (The same for being an agnostic, atheist, apatheist, etc.) In the end, as noted above, the usage of terms like this probably has more to do with the way people prefer to self-identify and express their world-views, and has relatively little to do with meaningful differences of opinion between people. Likewise, whether or not believing in God's existence is important or practical obviously depends on the context, circumstances, and situation one is in. Regardless, though, from a practical standpoint, dismissing any belief or argument on the grounds that it's always meaningless or irrelevant will come across as pretty weak reasoning, to believers and non-believers alike. Such argument tactics were popular in the early 20th century, but people have now come around to the fact that something being inconsistently defined by people in general isn't necessarily defined inconsistently by one specific individual or another; it's possible to have perfectly reasonable and meaningful discussions about deities as long as a coherent definition is adapted at the onset of a discussion. For example, dictionary.com has some very good definitions of God and god to work from. So, it's usually better to address the specific points raised than to dismiss them all as irrelevant or nonsensical just because the person used the word "God"; you'll get more points across in a discussion that way. Though a true ignostic presumably wouldn't ever be interested in such a discussion anyway, as not only the question of God, but also how one views the question of God, is meaningless to an ignostic, and therefore ignosticism itself is a completely irrelevant idea and not worth wasting time trying to tell others about. :) People who consider discussions about God meaningful or significant, at least on some level, are, after all, the only ones who bother to use words like "ignostic". :) Have you ever described yourself as an ignostic with respect to leprechauns? -Silence 02:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ignosticism and its rational relevance

Well, as to the points addressed above it pertains, I believe that it is irrational to attack the validity of the claims of Ignosticism just because the article stresses the importance of the term. Remember that atheists, agnostics define themselves as such when faced with the mayority of people that are theists. If there wasn't a debate about God and infidels, there would be no need for people to write articles about it, don't you think? The same goes for theists - Why use organised religion, if you can go around life with apathic theism (if you believe in God, and everyone else knows he/it's there, why use churches, rituals and the bible?) This argument can be countered by taking it ad absurdum. There is a need to define the different forms of disbelief, and the very concept of its importance isn't debatable I believe. Besides, what do you expect us to do? To write counter-arguments against everyone else's particular definition of God? When theists reach an agreement as to what God is, then call the atheists to counter that argument. The question of Ignosticism remains relevant because there are so many definitions of God (both epistemological, philosophical, religious and so on) that some people (like me and many others) find the question of God plain irrelevant, useless and daft.

--Rodrigo Cornejo 21:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)