Re: [lbo-talk] Atheists identified as America’s mo st distrusted minority

Andy F andy274 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 23 15:09:38 PST 2006


On 3/23/06, Wendy Lyon <wendy.lyon at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/23/06, jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > What's the difference between No Religious Belief and Agnostic?
>
> Possibly to account for people like me who can't entirely shake the
> religious beliefs we were raised with, in the same way a lot of
> otherwise rational people can't shake superstitions about walking
> under ladders and the like. I definitely wouldn't consider myself a
> believer, but at the same time I couldn't honestly say that I have
> *no* religious belief, so I settle for "agnostic".

With a flash of self-recognition I recently learned of the term "ignostic":

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignostic>

For most purposes, this view may be considered a form of agnosticism (sometimes referred to as "apathetic agnosticism"), and falls under the general category of nontheism. But it is a particular form. From this approach, the "I don't know" of agnosticism ceases to mean "I don't know if God exists or not" and becomes "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God." This underlies the form of the word: ignosticism, indicating an ignorance of what is meant by a claim of God's existence. Until this ignorance is cleared up, the ignostic is justified in ignoring putative arguments for or against.

So, when the word "God" is spoken, the ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended.

A child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning: a big powerful man in the sky responsible for the weather and other such matters. The ignostic is probably atheistic toward this notion, regarding the balance of evidence to deem against it. In taking this view the ignostic is in agreement not only with all atheists but, ironically, with any serious modern theist.

A theologian's concept is more complex and abstract, often involving such concepts as first cause, sustainer, and unmoved mover and claiming such attributes for God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. To the ignostic these abstractions, taken singly or in combination, cannot be said to be false; rather, they are muddled, self-contradictory, linguistically empty, or perhaps poetic. Hence, one cannot meaningfully expound on the existence or nonexistence of 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.

-- Andy



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list