Ignosticism

[Jonathan McCormack]

Hello, I am kind of a new Orthodox Christian and normally I avoid all debate with atheists, however there is a fairly aggressive person I must be around who, every time I even utter the word 'God' will relentlessly reply, 'Your sentence is meaningless because it has an empty meaningless term, namely 'God.'
According to this person, :"The term 'God' can only be 'defined' in meaningless terms. The entire collection of such terms forms a self-referential and meaningless set."

I've tried saying things like, "well it's meaningful to me etc" but this person will not let up.

This person sounds to me like an 'ignostic'.
If anyone knows an answer to ignostisism, I would greatly appreciate it!

Thanks!

Here's what Wiki says about ignostism :


Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.
It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:
The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
The view that is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by God?" before proclaiming that the original question "Does God exist?" is meaningless.
Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.

Ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are generally synonymous,[2] but the relationship of ignosticism to other nontheistic views is less clear. While Paul Kurtz finds the view to be compatible with both weak atheism and agnosticism,[3] other philosophers consider ignosticism to be distinct.
In a chapter of his 1936 book Language, Truth, and Logic, A. J. Ayer argued that one could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical.[4] Ayer wrote that this ruled out atheism and agnosticism as well as theism because all three positions assume that the sentence "God exists" is meaningful.[5] Given the meaninglessness of theistic claims, Ayer opined that there was "no logical ground for antagonism between religion and natural science",[6] as theism alone does not entail any propositions which the scientific method can falsify.
Like Ayer, Theodore Drange sees atheism and agnosticism as positions which accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition; atheists judge it to be "false or probably false" and agnostics consider it to be inconclusive until further evidence is met.[7] If Drange's definitions are accepted, ignostics are neither atheists nor agnostics. A simplified maxim on the subject states "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" '."
Ignosticism is not to be confused with apatheism, a position of apathy toward the existence of God. An apatheist may see the statement "God exists" as meaningless, yet they may also see it as meaningful, and perhaps even true.[8]
[edit]Dependence on a particular view concerning the word God

Drange emphasizes that any stance on "Does God exist?" is made with respect to a particular concept of what one claims to consider "God" to represent:
Since the word "God" has many different meanings, it is possible for the sentence "God exists" to express many different propositions. What we need to do is to focus on each proposition separately. … For each different sense of the term "God," there will be theists, atheists, and agnostics relative to that concept of God.[7]
As God means very different things to different people, when the word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended instead. A theistic child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of God.[9] Many philosophers and theologians have rejected this conception of God while affirming belief in another conception of God, including St. Augustine, Maimonides, St. Thomas Aquinas, Baruch Spinoza, and Søren Kierkegaard.

Thanks!

[Father David Moser]

Hello, I am kind of a new Orthodox Christian and normally I avoid all debate with atheists, however there is a fairly aggressive person I must be around who, every time I even utter the word 'God' will relentlessly reply, 'Your sentence is meaningless because it has an empty meaningless term, namely 'God.'
According to this person, :"The term 'God' can only be 'defined' in meaningless terms. The entire collection of such terms forms a self-referential and meaningless set."

I've tried saying things like, "well it's meaningful to me etc" but this person will not let up.

This person sounds to me like an 'ignostic'.
If anyone knows an answer to ignostisism, I would greatly appreciate it!

After running through a gamut of (if I say so myself) clever replies and snappy comebacks, the only serious response that I am left with is extreme pity. There is nothing that can be said to such a person that will not help them out.

There are a couple of literary references, however, that come to mind. One is "The Last Battle" by CS Lewis (the seventh and final book in his Narnia series). The dwarves who are determined not to be fooled and who thus miss the beauty around them seem to me to be in the same predicament as your friend. The other is Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass" particularly the conversation between Alice and Humpty Dumpty regarding the meaning of words :
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - nothing more or less"
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master - that's all"
This is but a few lines - the whole conversation sounds like your description of your friend.

Fr David Moser

[Adrian Martin]

I really wouldn't waste my time on someone like that, who is seems more interested in being obnoxious than in the truth. However, I wouldn't totally disagree with him in "theory" because God is ultimately unfathomable in His essence. The great ascetics as well as theologians such as St. Dionysius the Areopagite have all affirmed that all concepts that attempt to define God necessarily fall short. However, this doesn't mean that these concepts are meaningless; just because I am very nearsighted doesn't mean that, when I take off my glasses, that I can't tell that I'm in a forest. The forest is hard to see, and there are many undefined elements, but I can see in part, "through a glass darkly" as it is.

For your own edification, perhaps you should read Fr. Romanides' Patristic Theology. As for your friend/colleague, prayer would probably work better than arguments.

[Ryan]

My reply would be, "colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

[Herman Blaydoe]

In dealing with such people, the words of St. Theophan the Recluse come to mind, to simply reply "So you believe", and go about your business.

[Owen Jones]

One response to your friend is that he did not think this idea up himself! He was influenced by the school of British empiricism, going back to the 18th century. A.J. Ayer was the last British empiricist. There aren't any anymore. British empiricism is dead, except among college freshman, and a lot of epigones in sociology and literature departments.

As far as unfalsifiability, perhaps you could ask him for a definition of himself as a starting point for you two to have any meaningful discussion. What is his definition of himself?

Life doesn't begin with a definition. I do not require a definition before living my life. Unfortunately for many mentally ill people, they insist on such a definition prior to functioning as a human being. They usually require some kind of medication.

[Evan]

Define love.
Define justice.
Define freedom.
Define truth.

Pilate asked Our Lord about the latter, as I recall. He wasn't given an answer. I share the sentiments that have been expressed by others in this thread. Such argumentative tactics reveal a lack of reflection on those who employ them. If we took them seriously, we couldn't affirm or deny anything.

[D. W. Dickens]

I can't tell you if it's profitable to discuss anything with this person.

But I can tell you that the discussion of theism as a phenomenon is possible without needing an operative, falsifiable definition for God. Ignosticism is a clever method to reframe the philosophical discussion into discourse with a predetermined (axiomatic) outcome by claiming to hold a position one doesn't functionally commit to.

It reminds me of someone saying all human behavior is ultimately the result of a single motivator, fear. A person who takes this position has preformed scripts which deconstruct motivations via assumptions that use abstraction to deliberately obfuscate critical details (which would otherwise undermine the position).

Someone doing this is playing a game. Instead of admitting that there is a phenomenon called "theism" that can be evaluated empirically, they substitute the ambiguity of theism's object with theism the subject.

In this case I don't think empiricism is the problem, but the solution. I think the problem here is more in the Ignosticist's abstraction of theism away from any definition by operative norms, rather than a reasonable (if misguided) attempt to demand verification of a controversial phenomenon.

The reason I bring this up is that I have always thought (even prior to becoming Orthodox) that Christians (if they feel spiritually prepared to entertain such challenges) spend too much energy fighting the red herring of empiricism. In every case I remember, it was deliberate obfuscation by abstraction or appeals to axiomatic universals which form the basis of rhetorical attacks against Christians.

In other words, turn skepticism around on them. Evan is partially correct. But I wouldn't distract from the topic at hand with demands for definitions of other universals. I would ask for falsifiable empirical definitions for the actual contents of your opponent's position. Ask him for an comprehensive declaration of the nature of belief itself. Challenge him on any aspect that isn't empirically verifiable. Demand a list of qualifications (all of which must be empirical) that would result in God being sufficiently defined as to warrant further discussion.

Don't let him get away with axiomatic declarations that "such and such isn't thus and so". He has to demonstrate that God CANNOT be sufficiently defined to investigate whether any hypothesis about God can be made falsifiable.

All of this is not to convince him to be Christian by force of rhetoric. That is a pointless exercise (and I believe spiritually harmful to you both). All of this is to demonstrate the inadequacy of personal metaphysics. And to demonstrate that all human experience requires appeals to authority and circular reasoning (which is does).

From there, you can discuss what authorities are more trustworthy and what circular constructions are more elegant. This process is also prejudicial as it still depends on the previously stated inadequacy. When you both realize that this is a lost cause, I believe, you are left naked before the wheel of fire.

This is an existential crisis. Either the person choses nihilism and death, or purpose and life. There is no reason for them to do either. Either they want to live or they want to die.

Keep in mind that what I'm talking about is a kind of cognitive violence. Inspiring an existential crisis is potentially a great and terrible evil. It can only be done in love and with the guidance of spiritually experienced persons. Otherwise it is necessarily going to damage you and your companion.

I would rather you find a way for your companion to experience God by raising his awareness of experience. This seems the more Christlike method. To demonstrate a love towards them that can only come from God. To take martyrdom at his hands. Or more simply to bring him to a vesper's service. Or to give him some material about the life of a saint. Or ask him to read the Gospel of John. All of these things are less harmful.

But there have been a few times in my life where the previous method seemed both necessary and good when handled properly. St Peter did it on Pentecost, St Stephen did it in his sermon as well. St Athanasius does it in On the Incarnation.

Everyone knows God exists. You don't have to prove that. You have to challenge their pride that refuses to admit it. You do that by demonstrating the systematic deficiency of humanity. The empirical evidence of the darkened nous. And be prepared to be martyred for it.

[Evan]

I can't tell you if it's profitable to discuss anything with this person.

But I can tell you that the discussion of theism as a phenomenon is possible without needing an operative, falsifiable definition for God. Ignosticism is a clever method to reframe the philosophical discussion into discourse with a predetermined (axiomatic) outcome by claiming to hold a position one doesn't functionally commit to.

It reminds me of someone saying all human behavior is ultimately the result of a single motivator, fear. A person who takes this position has preformed scripts which deconstruct motivations via assumptions that use abstraction to deliberately obfuscate critical details (which would otherwise undermine the position).

Someone doing this is playing a game. Instead of admitting that there is a phenomenon called "theism" that can be evaluated empirically, they substitute the ambiguity of theism's object with theism the subject.

In this case I don't think empiricism is the problem, but the solution. I think the problem here is more in the Ignosticist's abstraction of theism away from any definition by operative norms, rather than a reasonable (if misguided) attempt to demand verification of a controversial phenomenon.

The reason I bring this up is that I have always thought (even prior to becoming Orthodox) that Christians (if they feel spiritually prepared to entertain such challenges) spend too much energy fighting the red herring of empiricism. In every case I remember, it was deliberate obfuscation by abstraction or appeals to axiomatic universals which form the basis of rhetorical attacks against Christians.

In other words, turn skepticism around on them. Evan is partially correct. But I wouldn't distract from the topic at hand with demands for definitions of other universals. I would ask for falsifiable empirical definitions for the actual contents of your opponent's position. Ask him for an comprehensive declaration of the nature of belief itself. Challenge him on any aspect that isn't empirically verifiable. Demand a list of qualifications (all of which must be empirical) that would result in God being sufficiently defined as to warrant further discussion.

Don't let him get away with axiomatic declarations that "such and such isn't thus and so". He has to demonstrate that God CANNOT be sufficiently defined to investigate whether any hypothesis about God can be made falsifiable.

All of this is not to convince him to be Christian by force of rhetoric. That is a pointless exercise (and I believe spiritually harmful to you both). All of this is to demonstrate the inadequacy of personal metaphysics. And to demonstrate that all human experience requires appeals to authority and circular reasoning (which is does).

From there, you can discuss what authorities are more trustworthy and what circular constructions are more elegant. This process is also prejudicial as it still depends on the previously stated inadequacy. When you both realize that this is a lost cause, I believe, you are left naked before the wheel of fire.

This is an existential crisis. Either the person choses nihilism and death, or purpose and life. There is no reason for them to do either. Either they want to live or they want to die.

Keep in mind that what I'm talking about is a kind of cognitive violence. Inspiring an existential crisis is potentially a great and terrible evil. It can only be done in love and with the guidance of spiritually experienced persons. Otherwise it is necessarily going to damage you and your companion.

I would rather you find a way for your companion to experience God by raising his awareness of experience. This seems the more Christlike method. To demonstrate a love towards them that can only come from God. To take martyrdom at his hands. Or more simply to bring him to a vesper's service. Or to give him some material about the life of a saint. Or ask him to read the Gospel of John. All of these things are less harmful.

But there have been a few times in my life where the previous method seemed both necessary and good when handled properly. St Peter did it on Pentecost, St Stephen did it in his sermon as well. St Athanasius does it in On the Incarnation.

Everyone knows God exists. You don't have to prove that. You have to challenge their pride that refuses to admit it. You do that by demonstrating the systematic deficiency of humanity. The empirical evidence of the darkened nous. And be prepared to be martyred for it.


Perhaps I was being a tad glib. I did not mean to suggest that it would be proper to distract attention from the issue at hand, only to show that such an extreme position is ultimately untenable. As you say, it's circular, in that the individual is affirming that something that doesn't admit of an absolutely precise empirical demonstration or definition cannot be rationally discussed, without empirically demonstrating that something must be empirically demonstrated or defined in an absolutely precise way in order to be rationally discussed.

Such a position falls under its own sword. It is much like relativism in this way-- a relativist will insist that all value is relative and no position or judgment is "true"-- yet this insistence is itself a position/judgment that should not be regarded as more or less true than any other.

Of course, we must go farther than showing the inadequacy of another position. But the degree to which someone is receptive to such a refutation likely will go some way towards revealing whether engaging in more substantive dialogue would be to cast one's pearls before swine.

On a personal note:

I have engaged in such discussions before, with hardened atheists and determined agnostics. The temptation towards prideful behavior is great, inasmuch as such back-and-forths often turn into efforts to "score points" against the other side, without actually bringing about any change of heart.

On the other hand, I have also found that some atheists/agnostics are flummoxed by the notion that there exist Christians whom they come to acknowledge as "intelligent." I am aware that this witness is imperfect, because the wisdom of men must ultimately be regarded as foolishness by Christians, and to be recognized as having worldly wisdom is of little account in and of itself. But I have seen individuals hostile to the faith being genuinely moved by the experience of having encountered one who does not appear foolish, in a worldly sense, to them, and thereby become more receptive to doctrines that they would entirely have dismissed earlier. The fact is, one is less likely to regard your own beliefs as foolish if you can show them that their own beliefs are seriously flawed.

Such discussions are not entirely without merit, I think.

[Jonathan McCormack]

Thanks so much for the great responses! I truly appreciate all your support. I am going to get a copy of F r. Romanides' Patristic Theology. With this, a few quotes from Humpty dumpty, the advice of St. Theophan the Recluse, and a few other insightful remarks, hopefully I will have a much better time around this person.
Really though, I do not argue well, I even said 'how can you define a person?' to which my friend replied 'I will not help you out, if we can not even define a person then you are really in trouble when it comes to God!'
I just want to get along with everyone without compromising the Truth.
Again, I am touched at all the responses,
Thank you!

[Adrian Martin]

Good, but just remember, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like him."

[Max Percy]

Really though, I do not argue well, ...

That is most likely a virtue

[D. W. Dickens]

Evan, thank you for your reflections.

I too think it can be profitable particularly for those of us who accept that some sow, others water, still others reap. You never know what part of the life of a person you are trying to know and love you play.

It is incredibly important that such activities be a sort of martyrdom. We must be set against "score keeping". We only "win" through "losing".

This is one of the reasons why I felt it was safe enough to recommend that with the proper preparation such encounters don't have to be shunned. I believe the key is to avoid sophistry and focus on the darkened nous. Center discussion on human frailty and a firm foundation in "that which exists" and that which other's have testified exists. Present existence, not hypothesis as the basis for exploration and insist you are not an authority outside your own experience.

This keeps you grounded and the conversation on track. Philosophical musings (even within the context of what we know from Church tradition) will tend toward the vain.

If it starts to go wrongly for you or the other party, immediately apologize, accept full responsibility for the break down (for their sake as well as your own) and then politely exit.

[Kelil]

Such is the power of free will, that I can call a flower a broom and decide that both meanings mean nothing to me, for such is the power of free will. I suppose its a bit like me saying I'm English and dont understand a russian word such as stzvetok ( which means flower ) the word has no meaning to me because I'm english and dont understand it, but my desire to find out what the word means helps me understand it better and therefore I understand the russian word now as flower and it therefore has meaning to me. It is the same with God, your friend needs to experience God and come to know him before the title ''God'' will have any meaning to him.

Pax Christi
Kelil <3