Ignosticism

[Hollow Bastion]

Do you believe that ignosticism is a valid theological position to take? For those who don't know, here's a basic way of defining it, pulled from wiki:

"An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" '."

(source)


And no, it's not a typo of agnosticism.

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

Sure. Absolutely a valid position. But not one that I think conflicts with agnosticism or atheism.

 

[Wehrmacht]

I think the stance is very logical, since it brings up an important question most people don't really think of. Most religions are pretty specific in the kinds of gods they describe, and that's a lot of assumptions to be making about something that can't be empirically verified by us at all.

 

[Hidden]

Ignosticism is what my mother resorted to when I became insistent upon my question of whether or not Santa Claus existed.

I think ignosticism presents an important concern, as basic as "define your terms" in general discussion. It is not, however, a theological position--if anything, it is the repudiation of theology. Because how can one discourse on the gods if the word (-logos) god (theos-) itself is meaningless? Ignosticism is not the formation of any new knowledge; it is only the refusal to go beyond a fundamental (and truly vexing) problem. The ignostic would never make it past the first two lines of the Dao De Jing (Tao Te Ching):

The way you can go isn't the real way;
The name you can say isn't the real name.

(English version by Ursula K. LeGuin)

 

[Square Ninja]

*post*

thread over everyone go home

 

[Hidden]

thread over everyone go home

Why does this always happen?

 

[Square Ninja]

Why does this always happen?

because you're largely smarter/do more homework than most everyone on this site

 

[Hidden]

I disagree. But even if that were true, it shouldn't close down discussion.

 

[Turn]

I don't generally dispute it but, repeating Sam, I don't see how it's so inherently separate from Atheism and Agnosticism that it would need to be at all. Even calling it a "variation" or "subgroup" seems redundant.

 

[mz. eggsy]

Ignosticism is what my mother resorted to when I became insistent upon my question of whether or not Santa Claus existed.

I think ignosticism presents an important concern, as basic as "define your terms" in general discussion. It is not, however, a theological position--if anything, it is the repudiation of theology. Because how can one discourse on the gods if the word (-logos) god (theos-) itself is meaningless? Ignosticism is not the formation of any new knowledge; it is only the refusal to go beyond a fundamental (and truly vexing) problem.

Yeah, it's not an actual (or a very passionate) assertion, rather more of a whistleblower for a linguistic discussion, pointing out very old flaws in language. At the same though it can be used as to question the nature of God, I suppose, which I can foresee it ending up as a "why is there something and not nothing" exchange (which you've said).

So I guess all I'm trying to add is that it's not USELESS as a practice in discussion but a very silly position to take due to a technical frivolity.