Talk:Ignosticism

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)

Actually, I thought it was just a subset of atheism called "analytic" or "inguistic" atheism. The analytic atheist says the question is meaningless since it can have no bearing on observed reality. That sounds like what the ignostic here is defined as. Technically, the atheist you are refering to is, I believe, the "positive atheist" - that is, the person who asserts that god is falsifiable and has, in fact, falsified it conclusively. 74.93.87.210 23:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I counter that ignosticism is most definitely a form of agnosticism because agnosticism in actual usage takes at least three known forms: "I don't know if God exists," "God's existence is unknowable," and "I don't know what you mean by the term God." Ignosticism is the latter of these three "I don't know" positions and is therefore properly included in the Wikipedia article Agnosticism. Nonetheless, I'm also aware that many atheists include the "theism is incoherent" position of ignosticism among the valid definitions of atheism. So, oddly enough, ignosticism is in practice a form of both agnosticism and atheism--as discussion and debate here further attest. Fredwords 16:41, 6 September 2007 (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)

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". ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 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. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 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)

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 thereof. 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.

————

It would appear that I am user 67.94.0.46, since the criticized statements look like my writing and are consistant with my personal knowledge of the subject. But perhaps better documentation from printed or other sources would help settle this matter. I'm personally communicating with Paul Kurtz on this question since there seems to be some historic issue over who actually coined the term. In a recent speech (August 18, 2007) Kurtz acknowledged that Sherwin Wine invented it. But then Kurtz added that Wine himself claimed to have gotten it from Kurtz!

In any case, in my more than thirty years of familiarity with and use of this term, I've NEVER encountered the view, except here, that ignosticism must necessarily or exclusively be tied to the specific statement: "I ignore what you're talking about when you talk about God, because there are no verifiable consequences." Although the issue of verifiability has always been associated with ignosticism, that association hasn't been limited just to consequences. Philosophic discussions of verifiability have also been related to questions of meaning and hence to discussions of coherency. In this regard, the "ig" in ignosticism is rooted not only in "ignore" but also in "ignorance" (in the sense of "not knowing"). And this isn't just ignorance of consequences of the God claim but also ignorance of the meaning.

Remember, A.J. Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic provided the rationale for a new word once he threw out both atheist and agnostic. He had no replacement term to suggest, however, so ignostic was offered to fill the void. And since Ayer was talking about both consequences and meaning, then it's only reasonable, historically, to view ignostic as addressing both. This is why the statement: "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God" is indeed a legitimate expression of ignosticism. Fredwords 17:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Very nice start article!

Just wandered onto this article and wanted to leave a kudos for those that have done work on it. I hope to be able to contribute to this article in the future! Nemilar 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I've removed some text that appeared to be original research, and I removed the {{verify}} tag as well. Please feel free to request additional citations for the article's current content or to add additional material with appropriate sources. — Elembis (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the general direction of your edits, but I would like to ask why you removed the explanatory paragraphs about the child's/theologian's definition of God. They seemed to do a good job of explaining the reasoning to the reader. Also, the article in its current state does not say where the word "ignosticism" came from; only "igtheism" is cited. Esn 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the anonymous edit because it had removed sources and conflated ignosticism with apatheism, but in doing so I also removed the useful material you mentioned. I think it's back in the article now (sans the historical tidbits, which are in Apatheism where they belong). Thanks for mentioning it, and feel free to fix the page if I've still missed something. =) — Elembis (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

References section

The references section is now woefully incomplete and oversimplified after a few days of somewhat careless edits by too many cooks - one person removing the full citation templates because of a section at the bottom, and another person removing the section at the bottom because of the existence of the (now incomplete) citation templates. I would really recommend that this be cleaned up if possible. Esn 09:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. My edits were geared toward the style outlined at WP:CITE#Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes", which the article once again follows. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 09:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

24 May 2007 edit

I just restructured the article with some content changes that probably deserve mention outside of my edit summary. Among them are that:

• The introduction has been rewritten again. I was not comfortable with the description that, to ignostics, "theism is seen as incoherent because of the scientific untestability of a transcendent god or gods" — it seems to me that one could offer a definition of "God" which is comprehensible but which still leaves God's existence as something which is not scientifically testable. (If nothing else, describing God as some kind of physical being in the unobserved universe would be understandable yet beyond the reach of the scientific method.) I hope the new introduction, which is shorter, does not look as much like word soup as previous versions did. =)
• A paper in a journal has replaced ignosticism.zdnet.co.za as a reference for the claim that ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are essentially synonymous. The latter's Ignosticism article is a mirror of our own, so it's no good as a reference.
• Ignosticism and apatheism are distinguished, with the latter described (according to an article in The Atlantic) as a position which is not incompatible with theism. As an aside, our article on apatheism article currently says that apatheism is a form of nontheism (see [1]), while the article in The Atlantic says it is compatible with theism; the former should be changed or sourced.
• Drange's article is given slightly more space for his distinctions between atheism, agnosticism and ignosticism and his emphasis that any of those positions depends on the particular God concept being discussed.

If any of these changes need discussion, this is the place. =) — Elembis (talk · contribs) 05:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In the lead sentence, it needs to say why it is unintelligible, etc. Also, note that the ignosticism.zdnet.co.za website was not a citation for the statement you said it was, if you look at the former version to your edits. hmwithtalk 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed a huge error in the introduction ("Ignosticism or igtheism is a form of agnosticism") as this is refuted in the very body of the article. Also, I wonder if there might be room for the sentence "An atheist would say "I don't believe God exists", an agnostic would say "I don't know if God exists or not", and an ignostic would say "I don't know what you mean when you say 'God exists'." It explains the differences rather simply and elegantly. Esn 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Hmwith, I confused two sentences. (But the site is still not a valid source for the reasons already given — if we use it, we're making this article cite itself as an authority.) Also, the "An atheist would say..." sentence is back. Thanks to both of you. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, an ignostic says "I don't know if God exists or not, because I don't know what you mean when you say 'God exists'."

Plus, websites all seem to categorize it as such. hmwithtalk 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if ignosticism is a form of agnosticism (or is usually seen as such), we must have reliable sources to make that sort of statement. We currently have three sources (Ayer, Drange, and the Guide to Humanistic Judaism) who see it as distinct and one (Kurtz) who sees it as compatible, so we can't say fairly that it is a form of agnosticism (or that it isn't) without attributing or qualifying the statement. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Are ignosticism and igtheism really the same thing?

Ignosticism according to Rabbi Sherwin Wine: "finding the question of God's existence meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences."

Current introduction, cited to Kurtz: "a form of nontheism that believes no conclusion can be reached about the existence of God because the statement "God exists" is incomprehensible since theism lacks a coherent definition of what god is."

Are those two really the same thing, or are we mixing up two different beliefs here? The first version says that it is meaningless, while the second just says that it is unknowable. The first version gives the reason as the lack of verifiable consequences. The second gives the reason as the lack of a coherent definition of God.

Now, the last point does overlap to an extent; if there's no coherent definition, there can't be verifiable consequences. However, the link between "meaningless" and "unknowable" requires a bit more work.

(Also, the zdnet page shouldn't be used as a source. It's nothing more than a copy of an earlier version of this article.) Esn 19:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned this, because the views of Kurtz and Wine do seem at least a little different in terms of their justifications for their views. Their common ground is that they both see "God exists" as a meaningless statement, so that's probably what the introduction should focus on. The problem is that the Guide to Humanistic Judaism (GHJ) definition seems to require that ignostics see "God exists" as meaningless and that they think this because God's existence is unverifiable. Kurtz's description of igtheism is looser and does not require any particular justification.

I think we should treat the "because it has no verifiable consequences" clause as a description of the justification of some ignostics but not a justification that is required. For example, someone might define theism as "belief in God because of personal revelation", but the fact remains that some people are theists for other reasons. Political and religious labels (like conservative, communist, Confucianism and Christian) are used based on the views people have, not their justifications for those views. The GHJ definition is quite unusual in this respect, and until we can track down something that Wine actually said (since I don't know who wrote the Guide to Humanistic Judaism), I don't think we should take the "because it has no verifiable consequences" bit as gospel. Incidentally, the only other mention of ignosticism in the GHJ article doesn't mention a justification: "Humanistic Judaism is compatible with ignosticism. Many Humanistic Jews find the question of God's existence meaningless and therefore avoid God-language."

A second option is to treat ignosticism and igtheism as distinct views, perhaps merging this entire article into Theological noncognitivism. (I don't think "igtheism" is notable enough as a word to deserve a separate article.) In any case, whether "God exists" is seen as meaningless because it's unverifiable or because it's simply incoherent, the differences in justification should surely be discussed (in the "Coining of terms" section or perhaps a new "Justifications" section).

Nice catch! — Elembis (talk · contribs) 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My analysis is hampered because I do not have access to either one of the works in question. However, the introduction, which is attributed to Kurtz, does not state that it is meaningless, merely unknowable. Yes, there are philosophical arguments which state that "if something is by nature unknowable, we should act as if it is meaningless", but these arguments (I'm sure there are wikipedia articles on them, but I don't know the names) should be explicitly mentioned in the article. The link should be made. Did Kurtz himself subscribe to such a view? I know, for example, that many theists would not agree with it.

Also, as I said before, unverifiable presupposes that the definition is incoherent. Nothing can be verifiable unless there is a coherent definition (must find a wiki page mentioning this...).

It seems to me that there are two things which differentiate ignosticism from strong agnosticism (which is very similar, and is a bit like an earlier step on the evolutionary ladder of ideas). The first is the belief that not only is the existence of God (if a theologian's definition is used) unknowable, but that this makes it meaningless. In other words, it seems that ignostics are in a way strong agnostics who are also verificationists. The second thing (no less important, and perhaps more so) is that strong agnosticism doesn't adress all the different definitions that exist for the word God, instead seeming to assume that it is something like a typical theologian's definition.

According to the weak and strong atheism article, ignosticism is a type of "weak atheism". However, the definition of "weak atheism" seems to be very muddy and not nearly as well developed, so I'd hesitate from accepting the categorization (especially since it's also used for "agnosticism"). It doesn't seem to be a very useful term.

The main difference between ignosticism and theological noncognitivism seems to be that the latter is sometimes used to justify strong atheism: "Some thinkers propose it as a way to prove the nonexistence of anything named "God". In other words, at least some theological noncognitivists aren't "waiting for a coherent definition", but saying straight out that nothing named "God" can ever have a coherent definition.

The main difference between ignosticism and the strong atheists who come to their position through theological noncognitivism is that the strong atheists would say "since the idea of God is meaningless, this means that God does not exist". In other words, unlike the ignostic, they believe that it is possible to deny its existence even if there is no coherent definition of what "it" is (hmm... seems a bit like saying "no" before knowing what the question is).

Does that sound right? Esn 05:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case... what this article really needs is an examination of what the word originally meant (the person who coined it must've explained it back then) and if its meaning has changed since then. It certainly doesn't help that the very first source for its meaning in the introduction (which is much improved, by the way) links to Kurtz from 1992, who used "igtheism" rather than "ignosticism", and that the definition attributed to Rabbi Sherwin Wine doesn't mention the lack of a good definition for "God", instead seeming to be a version of strong agnosticism combined with verificationism (as I stated above). Esn 06:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The "unknowability implies meaninglessness" arguments you mention remind me of logical positivism. I remember that when I ran across Kurtz's book and read the part on igtheism I noticed a positivist vibe, but I can't provide any details until I run into it again.

I think you're absolutely right in describing ignosticism (at least according to Wine's statements) as strong agnosticism plus verificationism: "we can't possibly determine whether 'God exists' is true, so the sentence makes no sense." I think the way Drange and Kurtz describe "noncognitivism with regard to God-talk" and igtheism, respectively, is the other way around: "'God exists' makes no sense, so we can't know if it's true." There are obviously great similarities between their formulations and Wine's, but it seems there are differences, too.

I'm glad you pointed out that theological noncognitivism is used (by George Smith and others) as an argument for strong atheism; that ought to be discussed in greater detail. (Incidentally, I think you meant to say that agnosticism is equated with weak atheism in the Weak and strong atheism article.) I recall that Michael Martin also discussed theological noncognitivism in his Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, but he did so in the first half of his book (see the table of contents), the half which advocates weak (or "negative") atheism. Like you, I'm not sure that Smith's "nothing named 'God' exists" formulation successfully bridges "'God exists' doesn't make sense" and "God (probably) doesn't exist", but the attempt certainly deserves more mention.

Our edits and discussion have led me to think that the Ignosticism and Theological noncognitivism articles should be made distinct by making the former about the view and the latter about the argument, just as atheism and problem of evil, for example, are separate articles. (You'll notice that Theological noncognitivism is already treated as an argument against God's existence in the template at the bottom of its page and is categorized in Category:Arguments against the existence of God.) That would not resolve the problem of figuring out precisely what ignosticism is supposed to be in the first place, but it would be a step. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 08:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Wine's original statement does seem to correspond well with this article's explanation. "if there is no empirical evidence that could possibly establish either the truth or the falsity of the statement ['There is a God'], then the statement is meaningless". Note the "if"; this means that there could be concepts of God with which he agrees, which is exactly what the Drange quote in this article is talking about. Basically, ignosticism seems to be a step higher than either theological noncognitivism or strong agnosticism. Interpreted from Wine's explanation, it is the refusal to state your views until a coherent definition becomes available. If such a definition does not become available, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view. If a coherent definition is given, he could then hold any number of views, depending on the particular definition. Esn 10:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed the intro

I think I've figured out the major difference, and have changed the intro accordingly. The big problem now is that a lot of the article must now be moved into the theological noncognitivism article, because many of the views are actually noncognitivist in nature rather than holding off judgement until "God" is defined (and noncognitivist only if the definition is found to be incoherent). The Drange explanation should stay, as well as the sentence comparing it to atheism and agnosticism. Some things will have to be moved, of course... Esn 10:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple, understandable, and too the point now. Thanks!  hmwith  talk 16:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the first paragraph again (see the diff). The first sentence had bothered me, because I think a great many theists, agnostics and atheists would agree that a coherent definition of God is necessary before any discussion about the existence of God can proceed. Judging from Wine's comments, the difference is that ignostics think that a given definition isn't coherent, not just that it ought to be. My edit (which itself can be improved upon) was an attempt to make that clearer. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 23:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems here. The first is your assertion that most people "would agree that a coherent definition of God is necessary before any discussion about the existence of God can proceed". My own experience seems to point to this not being the case. Indeed, the hardest-to-refute arguments for theism that I've encountered (and, in their own way, the most sophisticated) go something like this: "God is, by his very nature, beyond our capacity to understand, and (because he is all-powerfull) he does not have to make logical sense (because if his existence were bound by the rules of logic, he would not be all-powerfull)". That's one problem - I definitely believe that the statement which you removed is a very important one and should be added back in.

Now onto the second problem: If the quotation from "Spiegel, Ignostic" is correct, Wine actually contradicts himself. One of Wine's statements clearly states that he believes that it is meaningless only if the definition is incoherent. "if there is no empirical evidence". The second statement defines an ignostic as "one who says that the statement 'There is a God' is meaningless by empirical criteria." Do you see the difference there? The second definition is synonymous with theological noncognitivism and igtheism. The first is not (yes, the first definition is also a definition of ignosticism - Wine considered himself an ignostic, and the first statement describes his beliefs. Therefore, it is also a definition as much as the second statement is, even though it doesn't state it outright).

One of the most important characteristics of the first definition is that the person first takes a look at the definition of "God" that is put forward before making a judgement one way or the other. This is NOT as obvious a step as one might assume. Most people believe or don't believe in "God" without once considering that they may have different conceptions of the term (see also that link about children's conceptions of God). This first definition is consistent with this article by Theodore Drange, in which Drange says that the same person may be theist, atheist, agnostic or noncognitivist towards different definitions of God. Drange does not give a name for such a person - one who asks to see the definition before making a judgement - but I had assumed from Wine's first statement that "Ignostic" was the name that he had given for someone who does that.

So, either we try to find more of Wine's writings and clarify which one of the two he really meant - or we mention right in the introduction that there are two definitions, one of which is synonymous with theological noncognitivism and one of which is not. Esn 01:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You're quite right that the "ignostics believe a coherent definition is necessary" bit should not have been removed. I've heard the "God is beyond our comprehension" (or even "beyond logic") line enough that I shouldn't have made that mistake.

I do see a difference in Wine's two quoted statements (and I've double-checked their accuracy and offered more of the quote), but I'm not sure if it's the difference you see. To me, the first sentence looks like a statement of a principle: "God exists" (or "____ exists" for that matter) is meaningless if (not "if and only if") it's unverifiable. The second is the principle's application (and an example of theological noncognitivism): "God exists" is meaningless (because it's unverifiable). Perhaps the contradiction you see is that Wine jumps to this conclusion without declaring what he means by "God"; on the other hand, I don't see where Wine stresses the importance of asking for a definition in the first place. He says "If there is no empirical evidence that could possibly establish either the truth or the falsity of the statement, then the statement is meaningless", but that simply emphasizes the importance of evidence, not the importance of weeding through myriad definitions of "God". The "What do you mean by 'God'?" question is discussed clearly in Drange's helpful article, but it isn't even implied in Wine's statements as far as I can tell, so this edit of mine should be disregarded. =)

I think the important things to stress, or at least the only things we can derive from Wine's words, are that ignostics think "God exists" (1) is meaningless because it (2) isn't empirically verifiable when (3) it should be. What do you think? — Elembis (talk · contribs) 05:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding for so long... I can't craft a good response at the moment, but I'll try to find time within the next few days. Again, sorry for keeping you waiting! Esn 04:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From the definition given by the good Rabbi, it sounds like he simply misspelled agnostic. Neither can be said to be nontheist because neither denies the existance of a God, both say that God might not exist. 199.125.109.27 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, if you read the article, you can see it's different from Agnosticism, although they are somewhat similar, and some find themselves both ignostic and agnostic.  hmwith  talk 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to see any distinction. 199.125.109.11 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism (from the Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), deities, or even ultimate reality is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.

[Wine] held that "if there is no empirical evidence that could possibly establish either the truth or the falsity of the statement ['There is a God'], then the statement is meaningless." He termed himself an "ignostic," explaining that an "ignostic" is "one who says that the statement 'There is a God' is meaningless by empirical criteria." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.109.11 (talk • contribs)

Summarized (in plain English), agnostics are saying that they can't prove if there is a god as it's impossible to ever prove, while ignostics say that they can't prove if there is a god as there is no solid definition of what is a god. They overlap a bit, but they are distinguishable. I hope that this helps.  hmwith  talk 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it's more like this: agnostics don't know if there is a God or not, theological noncognitivists or igtheists say that the existence/nonexistence of a God is impossible to ever prove, ignostics believe that if there is no solid definition of "God", then the existence/nonexistence of a God is impossible to ever prove. There is also a second definition of ignosticism which is exactly the same thing as theological noncognitivism. Esn (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned Up the Introduction

I took a stab at clarifying and cleaning up the wording in the first three paragraphs. For example, it used to say:

If the chosen definition cannot be verified empirically, the ignostic believes that it is not coherent.

This statement wasn't sourced, so I assumed equating unfalsifiability with incoherence is not actually a tenet of ignosticism. In fact, a statement can be completely coherent, but still unfalsifiable. The rest of it was just cleaning up sentence structure and attempts to make it read a little easier. I don't think I changed anything material. --Skidoo 03:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User Edwin McCravy completely butchered the first section. I reverted it. --Skidoo 20:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Skidoo is offensive and dumb. He can make his point without criticizing theism

I beg your pardon? Where have I criticized theism? Skidoo 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all of those changes were for the better. The "sources" in question were actually deleted by someone from this page. I'm not sure why. Does anyone object to restoring that big chunk of yellow text that was removed?

Unfalsifiability was not equated with incoherence in those sources, this is true (this was Kurtz's definition for igtheism, which we found above in the "Are ignosticism and igtheism really the same thing?" discussion to be distinct from ignosticism. But apparently some trace of the definition still remained by oversight). Rather, unverifiability was equated with lack of meaning. So the current sentence can stay as is, except that "falsifiability" should be replaced with "verifiability".

Overall, this article has become somewhat muddier since I was here a year ago... I'd like to fix it up a little. The very first paragraph for example is pretty muddled, I think. And the sentence "In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless." simply makes no sense to me. What is the difference between "term" and "concept"? Esn (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"Ignosticism is a word coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine to indicate one of two related views about the existence of God."

Does anyone else feel the phrase "either of" might be more appropriate than "one of" here? If not, the opening section still isn't clear to me. Sardanaphalus 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think that's just a matter of personal preference. The meaning's the same either way. But I don't care. I don't have a problem with changing it. --Skidoo 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to "either of" as "one of" read as mutually exclusive to me (i.e. "one is called ignosticism; the other, something different, is called something else"). I realize, though, that's just my interpretation. Hopefully, though, no-one will mind. Thanks for your reply. Sardanaphalus 23:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Article tags

I have removed the ActiveDiscuss tag, because the last significant discussion on this article was from Sept/07, and it was favorable. If anyone objects to this, feel free to revert, but please leave justification comments here. Thanks. --Skidoo (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that brilliant.

One can vouch or dis-vouch their positions on God depending on the definition of God.

A God that is a separate entity from the universe that made us for his 9th grade science project - I do not believe. A God that IS the universe - Maybe A God that is me (or you, the reader,) watching himself, maybe also true. God is Earth and the Sun - perhaps. That would be cool.

So an Ignostic is just a different word for just plain undecided. Anyone, theist or not, can be an ignostic.

My $0.02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.212.212 (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a word for the undecided - if you read the article, it is clear that ignostics have a very strong position - that in the majority of cases, there is not a coherent enough definition of god, rendering any consideration of their existance or otherwise meaningless. However, as any such thoughts are then meaningless, it doesn't matter what you do or do not believe - belief can indeed be irrational. So an ignostic person can follow a faith. However, unlike agnosticism or atheism, the term ignostic itself does not require a qualifying belief (both atheism and agnosticism require a definition of god acquired from a belief set, wereas ignosticism works without consideration of the proposition of god put forth). Hope that helps you understand the subject! LinaMishima (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

#2 needs to be rewritten

I don't even understand what this means:

"The view that is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by God?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless."

It sounds like "The view that is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, which asserts that skipping ... is meaningless." If this is correct, it needs to be rewritten. If this is not correct, it needs to be rewritten. Ergo, it needs to be rewritten. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it, and I think it now makes more sense. What are your thoughts? Does it still need more work? hmwithτ 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

examples

These various concepts of non-theism have fuzzy borders and there is dispute over their meanings. If a concept can't be used to predict or describe the world then what use is it? I would love to see specific examples of each non-theistic view. A person who goes about not thinking about gods and the supernatural, who changes the subject when others bring it up is ????? soft atheist? Strong agnostic? A person who shops around all the various concepts of deities and rejects the unprovable ones but may accept the one that appears that is testable and proven is  ????? ignostic? Going down the list of all non-theists with a specific example of each person and their life practices would be so appreciated. 71.86.152.127 (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note on capitalization

As was necessary in the past, I have corrected several grammatical errors, specifically regarding when it is appropriate to capitalize the word god. Upon reading, I found no such instances (excepting where someone is being quoted and their quote contained a capitalized 'God'. That is obviously appropriate).

It is improper to capitalize the word god (excepting the beginning of a sentence of course) unless referring to the Judeo-Christian god specifically, as they tend to use the word 'God', as their god's 'name'. It becomes a proper noun in that case. There were many uses of the word here (nearly all of them), that referred to anything from the 'word god' to the 'concept of god', yet all were capitalized.

The rules for usage can be found at the following Wiki page;

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

from that page;

"The names of gods are capitalized, including Allah, Vishnu, and God. The word god is generally not capitalized if it is used to refer to the generic idea of a deity, nor is it capitalized when it refers to multiple gods, e.g., Roman gods. There may be some confusion because the Judeo-Christian god is rarely referred to by a specific name, but simply as God (see Writing divine names). Other names for the Judeo-Christian god, such as Elohim, Yahweh and Lord, are also capitalized."

Noisforme (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami described in Chaitanya-charitamrita Adi 6.38:

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana

seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana

If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.

So all the great atheists which comprise of 99.99% of the world’s population can become maha-vaishnavas if they get the supreme good fortune of reading this book. Thus in my personal opinion, when this book is published and distributed in mass quantities all over the world, it will break open the gates of the flood of the love of Godhead brought by Lord Chaitanya and His associates and will hasten the advent of the predicted Golden Age in all its glory.