The Ignosticism Position

Ignosticism is not a belief or a non-faith or a worldview.  It is really a principal position when entering into a discussion or debate about ‘What is God?’ and ‘Does God exist?’

I’ve actually seen several slightly differentiating definitions of this, on different websites.  With several christian websites having one variation of definition:

*That Ignosticism is the concept that all talks of God and Religion are ultimately meaningless because all talks of God are purely assumptive and assume too much because no one has comprehensive knowledge of God or know God. 

Ignosticism as according to the Christian Apologetic website C.A.R.M.:

Ignosticism is the position that all religious systems profess too much knowledge about God.  It would say that any talk of God is ultimately meaningless because to speak of God requires assumptions of God and his attributes, and that such assumptions cannot be validated.  Ignosticism is similar to agnosticism and atheism since it is a denial of sufficient knowledge of God by which we are accurately able to relate information about him

However that differs variably from many of the academic and secular definitions of ignosticism:

*That Ignosticism is the position that every and all other theological position of God including agnosticism & atheism are ultimately meaningless until God is accurately defined & described. 

To be more explanatory, ignosticism is actually the position that all religious systems and beliefs are considered equal under the guidance of relativism and theological noncognotism until their Religion and God are accurately defined.  And Theological Non-Cognitivism is the cognitive stance that all religious language is purposely vague and cognitively meaningless.  It also pleasantly includes that any talk or debate of God is vague and meaningless until “God” is defined. 

For those that might be unfamiliar with the Ignostic position, premise one of Ignosticism states as according to Advocatus Atheist:

1) The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed

2) If the definition provided is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God is meaningless.

Furthermore in the ignostic position before we can have a meaningful conversation about god, we have to adequately define “God“.  Ignosticism is the view that the question of whether or not God exists is inherently meaningless until ultimately defined.  And if defined, is it falsifiable?  It takes the firm stand in saying that; I refuse to take a position until ‘god’ is properly and positively defined.  The reason for this ignosticism position, is because in some religious debates the topic and definition god is intentionally left vague because if you define the essence of this divine religious deity then it is possible to prove falsifiability or nonexistence.  And when not empirically defined, this is were Ignosticism falls back into it original state; that since God cannot be defined then we cannot even discuss the issue when the descriptive definition of a celestial being by the believer is not given.

Now that we have defined Ignosticism, but not “God“, let’s have some fun and define God…Click Here to Define God and learn how others also defined God.

Related Articles

Theological Noncognitivism and Ignosticism (neverthoughttoquestionwhy.wordpress.com)

Ignostic igtheists or weak atheists – what’s in a name? (bridgingschisms.org)

We are Ignostic (churchofreality.org)

Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Non-Theism, Ignosticism, (braciodotme.wordpress.com)

About these ads

About M. Rodriguez

When I first received Christ salvation, I made it a priority to read the whole bible and I did. But it was the Bible that made me question my faith. For I found it flawed and lacking. Due to this I launched a personal inquiry/investigation into my faith, and ultimately realized that the Christian God of the Bible was indeed man-made. Now I Blog about those findings and life after Christ.
This entry was posted in debate, god, religion, skeptic, youtube and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Ignosticism Position

  1. unkleE says:

    Would you call yourself ignostic?

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      In this area I really don’t know what to call myself. I’m not really sure if any label accurately describes me. And where I am at. I’ve considered atheist, agnostic, agnostic atheist, even ignostic, ignostic atheist, and Christian atheist.

      My wife thinks I should call myself Christian agnostic.

      To a degree, they all describe me. But none of them identify me.

  2. Pingback: What is God? | The BitterSweet End

  3. arkenaten says:

    Must be honest never heard of this term before, but I do like it.
    I wonder, is a Christian actually able to describe their god?
    As you are a former Christian, Marcus,I would be VERY interested to hear your description of what God is (from your former point of view)
    Maybe even do a post, it would be fascinating.

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      I would be happy to do one on that topic. However I remember you said most of the official reports on Nazareth and the historicity of it.

      Considering that is something I have not researched in depth. I was wondering if you would to do a guest post on that topic. ?

  4. htttp://igtheist.blogspot.com

    http://ignosticway.wordpress.com

    Google: Lamberth’s the ignostic-Ockham and ignosticism. The first finds ignosticism pervading
    atheism, despite what others find. And, and no matter how one defines Him, the argument still applies! Definitions without evidence for them are meaningless. Definition, faith, postulation and presuppositional apologetics cannot vouchsafe His existence!
    Ti’s by analysis, not dogma or a priori, we naturalists can indeed proclaim that He cannot possibly exist! And this gnu atheist goes to the heart of silly theism: we owe putative God nothing! He owes what the one-way street claims. Google Fr. Meslier’s the problem of Heaven.
    Theology is a subject without a subject! We can fathom Prof. Irwin Corey better than the double-talk of the theologians! Advanced theology means advanced sophistry!

  5. Very descriptive post, I enjoyed that a lot. Will there be a part 2?|

  6. Pingback: Confessions | On the Apex

  7. Pingback: Understanding the Atheist Unbelief | The BitterSweet End

  8. Pingback: God, the Meaningless Topic | The BitterSweet End

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s