Ignosticism

I am curious what you think about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

 

A maze of terminology which has created more logical definitions for people to get lost in.

If you try to define each and every persons philosophy, you wouldn't be able to get anywhere, even if those definitions were incredibly accurate. At some point you have to round things off, which is an act of faith.

When you stare into the face of infinite, faith is all you have to go on.. It's not always a mindless belief in a deity someone sucked out the tip of their thumb, it's a realisation that logic is limited.

Divide 10 by 3, and try and get it back to a nice whole number by the logical method of reversing the sum. You can't, unless you add something else.

 

I'd see it as incorporated as an aspect of atheism but I like that there is a specific term for this. "God" seems to have become a concept ranging from an all powerful deity to apparently just a word which is supposed to signify some mystical meaning.

I think ignosticism should be implemented in philosophical discussions, but i certainly don't expect that to take place on these forums.

 

It sounds like Buddha's position on the subject. Also, similar to the Taoist approach.

 

sounds about right to me. though i can see where there might be inversion problems with the name, that fanatics won't hesitate to exploit. but then that can be expected anyway.

whatever god or gods there are, certainly owe nothing to what anyone thinks they know about them.

a point shared by both baha'u'llah and lao tsu, but most especially emphasized by the latter.

 

So - what they're saying is we'll only talk about god if you define god. Or am I missing something?

 

As a definition of ignosticism, it's correct. As a philosophical position, I agree in part and dissent in part. The definition yokes together two positions: (1) that our concept of God should be coherent enough that we know we're talking about the same thing; and (2) that our concept of God must be falsifiable. With some reservations, I agree with the first proposition and disagree with the second.

I agree with the first proposition, because God is used so differently by different people. For example, I think most people think of God in anthropomorphic terms: the Dude in the Sky, so to speak. Most theologians, philosophers and scientists of religious bent do not think of God this way. As Catholic theologian Hans Kung explains: "The primal ground, primal support,and primal goal of all reality...is not an individual person among other persons, is not a superman or superego." Keep in mind, though, that God is widely regarded as ineffable, so precise definition is probably impossible. The best we can hope for is a ballpark concept

I disagree with the second proposition requiring falsification, because it incorporates positivist assumptions into the discussion that I think are simply inapplicable to human affairs, and perhaps even to science. The falsification principle, associated with Karl Popper, is a modest improvement on the verification principle of the logical positivists. Kuhn argued that it is excessively rigid and has major practical limitations in science: "If any and every failure to (falsify) were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of 'improbability' or of 'degree of falsification.' In developing one they will almost certainly encounter the same network of difficulties that has haunted the advocates of the various probabilistic verification theories [that the evaluative theory cannot itself be legitimated without appeal to another evaluative theory, leading to regress]".

It's limitations are compounded when applied outside the realm of science. Insisting that our concepts be falsifiable would eliminate Liberty, Justice, Truth and Beauty from legitimate discourse. It reflects the premise of scientism that science is the only valid path to knowledge and that left-brain analytical thinking is the only kind that counts. It excludes intuition, creativity and emotional intelligence as contributors to wisdom. Believe it if you want, but I think it's intellectually impoverished.

 

...

 

The definition suggests it only applies to theological concepts. However, I see those concepts you listed as being illuminated by this or a similar philosophy, unless you think they are inherently incorporated with theism.

 

I was speaking of falsification as a general approach. If you confine it only to theism, I'd wonder why. Theism is a product of experience, intuition, and judgment. Those are difficult to falsify--which doesn't mean they're invalid. I'd concede that theism is unfalsifiable. Some versions of it might be, especially fundamentalist views dependent on "inerrant" holy texts. If you point out enough errors and contradictions, you might refute it to the satisfaction of reasonable people, albeit not to the true believers. Many scientists are theists, deists, or pantheists. They have a rational evidentiary basis for their beliefs, although I'd say not a scientific one. By attacking this evidentiary foundation, we might be able to falsify their beliefs. My own faith is a bet based partly on evidence that is falsifiable: e.g., the integrated complexity of the universe. Showing me that there are plausible alternative explanations of the phenomena that are more plausible might cause me to reconsider. But to insist on falsification of beliefs in God that are based on religious experiences, intuitions,or Kierkegaardian leaps of faith is questionable. Seems to me it's just a sneaky way of being a hard atheist without really admitting it.

 

As a belief system I have no problem with it, though it does not fit my own.

But if it is used as a reductionist argument to determine the validity of a belief system, or value one belief system over another, than it is wrong, and based on the fallacy of ignorance, among other fallacies. (The fallacy of ignorance states that you cannot disprove something because there is no proof, nor can you prove something because there is not proof against it.)

As an argument against religion, it is just another attempt to rationalize an irrational aspect of reality. Being irrational does not make it wrong---feelings and emotions are irrational for example. Being irrational simply means that we cannot understand it, or the framework around it in purely rational terms. The conscious mind is more rational, for example. The subconscious is more irrational. The falsification aspect is just another objectivist argument against subjective experience.

But I can understand people having such a belief as their own. At an earlier time in my life I probably would have fit right into that school of thought. I would never hold such a personal belief of someone against them. I would probably enjoy their company more than that of a fundamentalist Christian. I would enjoy discussing religion and other aspects based on their definitions for purposes of argument. But the minute they try to 'force' their beliefs on me, or use these standards to insult my beliefs, then I would probably not associate with them anymore.

 

Being symbols by nature are abstractions it is easy to talk past each other assuming common definition. Just because we speak the same language in form it doesn't mean we share the same meanings in our locally impressed vernaculars. It takes time to learn where each of us comes from so to speak.

 

I would agree with that, insofar as I understand what you're saying.

But in the context of my post, I think I read through the OP twice, just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. And actually I didn't really register anything particularly novel.

 

The falsification aspect seems unsettling to some but taking this for example...

MighT a defined 'sacred moment created in a physical enviornment' potentially help bolster a position rather and provide more than an anecdote?

 

Dude! You mean you actually read all that rubbish I churn out from my hands on the keyboard??? (Just kidding!)

What I have trouble with in regards to the falsification aspect is that a person's subjective experience can be deemed false by another person who can only understand that experience from an objective standpoint.

While many people can look at my experience in the temple and label it as sacred, and perhaps even argue that this experience alone should have given me reason to pursue zen. Others may objectively argue that there is no cosmic value to this experience, it was merely induced by the environment and the use ritual, giving me a false sense of spirituality, and use that to argue against all such experience.

However it was my own subjective experience open to my own interpretation. To me it was nice and enjoyable, but it wasn't enough to prove anything to me. It was too easy for me to write it off to the setting and so forth. It may have been a bona fide experience, but it wasn't bona fide enough for me. However, many things I experience on the Red Road---very few people would believe. They are things that I experienced subjectively (and other times with a group), and only I can speak to how valid they are. Likewise, only I know how skeptically I approached these ways, and what it took to convince me of its validity.

 

Probably the closest we can come to consensus is what I consider to be the basic definition of a higher power; something that is self-aware, and exists outside of the constraints that most of us commonly associate with space and time. Anything more specific is going to conflict with individual viewpoints.

 

No! Use my definition! A self-aware higher power that exists out of the constraints of space and time. ;-)

All joking aside.

Karen_J's definition is all we can all go on. Anything beyond that is our own attempt as human's to make sense of God. Some of us may have a subjective experience through which we gained our own knowledge of God---but that doesn't mean that we have gained an absolute understanding of God. Can a single cell gain knowledge enough to define us as a human being? Or as the Zen Buddhist saying goes, After having eaten your rice, wash out your rice bowl---meaning, once you had enlightenment, clean your mind of all interpretations, assumptions, and conclusions you gained from that.

 

I think that's pretty good as a working definition. I'm not sure the idea of existing outside the constraints of space and time is necessary. And should we add anything about intelligence and/or creativity? And when we define God this way, we should realize we're ruling out more abstract concepts like Tillich's Ground of Being, which rules out God being a self-aware being. But I think we're at least coming to a coherent lowest common denominator that allows us to talk to each other with some agreement on what we're talking about.