On Not Defining the Divine (a case for Ignosticism)

0 thru 9

This started as a response to the "Three kinds of atheisms" thread, but went somewhat off the topic.

[From Wikipedia:
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.
Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term "God" does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term "God" has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.]

Now, that's a general outline of it. Personally, i don't take an absolutist view on it. I enjoy a good discussion about spiritual matters. Can be quite enlightening. Though a large part of the philosophical problem of religious claims may be their literalism and absolutism, imho. The "Two Truths" doctrine of Buddhism posits that there are two levels of reality or truth: the relative/provisional; and the absolute/ultimate. (One could substitute Plato's Ideals and get nearly the same result.) As I understand the theory, the two levels are not completely separate and unconnected. But let's just say in general that 99.9% of our time and our reality is spent firmly planted in the relative realm. So defining the Divine is problematic to say the least. (I prefer the general terms Divine, Source, Creator/Creation, etc. I usually try to avoid the "G" word so as to sidestep self-contradiction.)

There is nothing necessarily anti-religion or anti-spiritual in this approach. I continue to respect and study the wisdom traditions. There is more in them than one person could probably ever need or understand. But like countless others, i seek to limit the downside of having spiritual or religious beliefs. Just look the news for endless examples. I roughly divide the whole of religious beliefs into two broad general categories: the devotional/personal and the Ontological/Theological. Which are not dissimilar from the earlier mentioned relative/absolute distinction.

As i see it, the devotional mode is very permissive and open. It is a personal experiential mode, and has much to do with feelings, aesthetics, therapies, and an overall spiritual balance. If a person has had an inner experience, and chooses to interpret it in a certain way, who is anyone else to say otherwise? If one doesn't cross into making absolute statements about the nature of Reality, then there is nothing to quarrel with. Of course, qualities like honesty, humility, clear-thinking, diligence, etc. will be extremely valuable to one's spiritual growth and overall maturity. If they decide to share their experiences (a risky endeavor), they would be wise to chose an understanding listener.

The Ontological is where it goes beyond the personal, and it gets legalistic in some ways. Making broad Theological declarations is not necessarily against the philosophical "law", but it is subject to it. Or at least subject to intense scrutiny and skepticism. This is not necessarily as negative as it sounds. A rough comparison would be the fact that everyone may have an opinion about the US Constitution, for example. But (thankfully) not everyone can change the US Constitution at will.

It seems that to make definitive declarations about the Supreme Being(s) presents potential problems on several sides. One is the lack of reverence/heresy risk. This is from the aspect of the believer relative to other believers. It may be difficult to grasp in our Twitterverse, but at one time the Divine Name was too sacred to even be spoken, or was spoken only in very special circumstances. One holdover is the prohibition against using the "Lord's name" in vain. (Although to me, g-o-d never seemed like an actual name because it was kind of general. More like a title or description. But i digress). One also risks being branded a heretic if their proclamations about the Creator are not "kosher".

And on the other end, concerning people that aren't practicing the same beliefs, Theological claims face an even tougher crowd: science, logic, competing religions, atheism, and psychologists both professional and amateur doubting your mental competence.

With all these obstacles, it might seem unlikely that a potential religious visionary would open their mouth at all. But of course, the TV, internet, and bookstores are bursting with helpful people trying to tell us the exact nature of the Creator, the wonderful realm in which they dwell, and what exactly one must do to one day bask in the divine glory. And not just from the mainstream religions either. New Age writers are even more verbose about the details of the Divine. You would think they get paid every time they use the big "G" word. Most of them may be well-intentiond, and some may even know what they are talking about. And if i tried to debunk them (no small task) i would risk violating the proposed admonition against defining the undefinable. But in all honesty, it seems like most of them are permanently camped out on very thin ice. Free speech is definitely a treasure. But what to with all the competing and contradictory claims. Maybe they all have at least a grain of truth in them. Who is to say for sure? Maybe we could regard the Divine the way the Earth circles the Sun at a safe and respectful distance.

Thank you for reading and for your consideration. Please let me know of any feedback you may have.

Noble Dust

I enjoy a good discussion about spiritual matters. Can be quite enlightening. — 0 thru 9

I do too, and I think this is the point of departure for me. I agree that a spiritual experience is a deeply personal matter, and that what you call the "ontological" can get legalistic, or what I would call dogmatic. But I don't think this problem means we can't try to at least describe the divine, if not define. I almost think the emphasis on spiritual experience being subjective and personal can become a way to avoid having debates on spiritual topics that actually interface with those experiences (rather than just analyze them). In other words, it seems to be a common approach of those who haven't had any spiritual experiences; emphasize the personal nature of the experience so as to avoid the topic or tacitly dismiss it. Which is fine, if you don't want to discuss it, but I think insisting on the personal nature of the experience can ultimately lead to an idealism that robs the experience of value. Experiences, even personal ones, have value within a social context. "Keep your religion to yourself", while well intentioned, isn't actually how spiritual experiences play out in real life. It's a pesky fact, but it's true.

In fact, most open discussions I've had with people, on or offline about spiritual experiences have been overwhelmingly positive, and usually leave me more with a feeling of solidarity, rather than disagreement, even if they come from different perspectives of faith, or lack thereof. But these are spiritual discussions, not philosophical ones. It makes me wonder what types of discussions are actually worth having.

It seems that to make definitive declarations about the Supreme Being(s) presents potential problems on several sides. — 0 thru 9

The problem is that spirit is "living", in the sense that it's closer to the chest than analysis. A spiritual experience is often something that seems to not be bound by linear time, and, by definition then, also extremely fleeting. We would think something that breaks linear time would feel "timeless", which we associate with "eternity", or something being endless, but the reality is that by the very nature of our experience of time, anything that challenges our perception of time (within experience) is by nature something fleeting. This often leads us to question the validity of the experience, especially with skeptics on the right and the left.

So the safe thing to do is to analyze it and come up with theology. Rules, ways of thinking about the experience in ways that define and categorize. But this process kills the life of the spirit. Or rather, it kills our perception of that life.

Terrapin Station

Not to hijack your thread--hopefully lots of people will comment on just what you want to talk about--but it's frustrating to me that there are so many religious threads here. Apparently religion/spirituality/etc. is a very major concern for quite lot of people, but I have little interest in it.

Of course, I post in the threads, but because this board is so friggin slow with new topics. If I want to post I'll talk about what people are bringing up, but I'd much rather talk about just about anything else other than religion, and I'd never bring religion up if other people weren't talking about it.

Anyway, re time, which is something I'm much more interested in, it's identical to change on my view, so it's incoherent to say that one can have a timeless experience. To have an experience you must be aware of or think this, then that, etc., and those are changes, that is time.

0 thru 9

↪Terrapin Station

Lol! Yes, there have been a number of recent threads on religious beliefs or the lack thereof. This started as a response to one, but mutated. Maybe it is because of what has going on with world events. Anyway, this point of view has been creeping up on me for a while, and it was helpful to just get it down on paper. And what I wrote in the OP could apply to non-spiritual and purely philosophical experiences, thoughts, and statements. But that could be taken for a given. Philosophy ideally has a rigor, a method of critique that is difficult to apply to spiritual statements. Not that i wish to play at being censor or thought police. Just hope that it could facilitate those type of discussions so they don't end in an impasse. I might edit to make it clearer. Anyway, thanks!

0 thru 9

I do too, and I think this is the point of departure for me. I agree that a spiritual experience is a deeply personal matter, and that what you call the "ontological" can get legalistic, or what I would call dogmatic. But I don't think this problem means we can't try to at least describe the divine, if not define. I almost think the emphasis on spiritual experience being subjective and personal can become a way to avoid having debates on spiritual topics that actually interface with those experiences (rather than just analyze them). In other words, it seems to be a common approach of those who haven't had any spiritual experiences; emphasize the personal nature of the experience so as to avoid the topic or tacitly dismiss it. Which is fine, if you don't want to discuss it, but I think insisting on the personal nature of the experience can ultimately lead to an idealism that robs the experience of value. Experiences, even personal ones, have value within a social context. "Keep your religion to yourself", while well intentioned, isn't actually how spiritual experiences play out in real life. It's a pesky fact, but it's true.

In fact, most open discussions I've had with people, on or offline about spiritual experiences have been overwhelmingly positive, and usually leave me more with a feeling of solidarity, rather than disagreement, even if they come from different perspectives of faith, or lack thereof. But these are spiritual discussions, not philosophical ones. It makes me wonder what types of discussions are actually worth having. — Noble Dust

Thank you very much for your response, it is appreciated. :) I always enjoy your thoughtful posts. And i agree with much of what you say here. Dogmatism as you suggest is a good word to describe the hazard. Certainty is attractive, maybe it is even a human need. I think we need a core belief(s) to build on, or at least to refer to. And i tried to emphasize that i value experiences of a spiritual and/or religious nature. Definitely not intentionally dismissing, denying, or downgrading them. Many people have had enlightenment-type meditation events or near-death experiences. I am in no professional position to judge those, nor do i necessarily agree with those that say that it is all the result of neurotransmitters or something. And like it is suggested in the OP... who am i to say with any certainty that someone's experience either is or is not meaningful, transcendent, supernatural, or even miraculous? Entirely possible, and i'm secretly hoping for it to be true, or at the very least possible. After the experience, what to make of it? Maybe one could visualize a little Zen master saying "you just had a powerful spiritual experience? I believe you. Thank you for telling me. (bows) Best now to continue with your meditation." At least this type of thinking seems to help me integrate the "spiritual realm" with the rest of my life and being. YMMV. The work of Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith, Carolyn Myss, Ken Wilber, Thomas Moore (Care of the Soul), and others, has been most helpful personally. And transpersonally (hee hee).

The problem is that spirit is "living", in the sense that it's closer to the chest than analysis. A spiritual experience is often something that seems to not be bound by linear time, and, by definition then, also extremely fleeting. We would think something that breaks linear time would feel "timeless", which we associate with "eternity", or something being endless, but the reality is that by the very nature of our experience of time, anything that challenges our perception of time (within experience) is by nature something fleeting. This often leads us to question the validity of the experience, especially with skeptics on the right and the left.

So the safe thing to do is to analyze it and come up with theology. Rules, ways of thinking about the experience in ways that define and categorize. But this process kills the life of the spirit. Or rather, it kills our perception of that life. — Noble Dust

Yes, that is an excellent description of the delicacy of the situation, imho. The molten lava of the experience cools and turns into rock, becomes the ground, or even an entire island. Which is natural and useful. We can build our hut and our village upon it, and share a common understanding and foundation with our neighbors. Meanwhile, the shaman remembers the powerful volcano, even though it looks like just a sleepy peaceful mountain.

In the OP, i made mention that boldly defining the ultimate reality is a risky venture, and could possibly border on irreverence when expressed in religious terms. When expressed in philosophical terms even, it risks miscalculation, exaggeration, and potentially hubris. This could all be unintended. An objective and fair critique by a knowledgeable other may possibly be helpful. They may have relevant insight, or perhaps not. They may be simply trying to "tear down one's playhouse" (so to speak). Or instead, they may be acting like a female bird, pulling and tugging at the nest that the male bird has built. Not in wanton destruction, but to verify its usefulness as a nest. (If that is a relevant metaphor). This being a forum dedicated to philosophy, that is to be expected. Spirituality/religious themes may not be on their "home court", but have something to offer the discussion, imho.

Hoping there is some sense in my 2 cents worth. (Y)

Thinker

But in all honesty, it seems like most of them are permanently camped out on very thin ice. — 0 thru 9

I think this statement gets to the heart of the matter. It begs the question of why we are on the ice. It seems the human intellect has a preoccupation with the divine. Whether you are for – against – or just don’t care; is not the point. The point is why do we think about it at all? We think about it because we are insecure. Then we formulate and/or adhere to a formulation that addresses our insecurity. Well, why are we insecure? We are insecure, quite simply, because we do not know very much. What we do know is being bombarded by questions and accusations from every quarter. We even question ourselves – constantly – or we reassure ourselves - constantly. Hence, we are insecure by nature, circumstance, conditioning and disposition. The human intellect seems jittery or nervous about many things.

So the safe thing to do is to analyze it and come up with theology. Rules, ways of thinking about the experience in ways that define and categorize. But this process kills the life of the spirit. Or rather, it kills our perception of that life. — Noble Dust

I think this is a very fine point – well taken. Even if you are an atheist, you have expended a lot of energy developing an “anti-theology” to defend how you feel. The time and energy is very revealing. Is there anybody who never thinks about God – pro or con? I do not know, I have not run across such a person. The human intellect is consumed with organizing, classifying and defining itself – to itself – and then to others. We want to know who we are – and we don’t. Then, when we get a sense that we don’t know what we are telling ourselves is valid – we begin a dialog with others in an attempt to convince ourselves. Isn’t this what I am doing right now?

Apparently religion/spirituality/etc. is a very major concern for quite lot of people, but I have little interest in it. — Terrapin Station

It seems you spend a lot of time and energy on something that you have little interest in?

Yes, that is an excellent description of the delicacy of the situation, imho. The molten lava of the experience cools and turns into rock, becomes the ground, or even an entire island. Which is natural and useful. We can build our hut and our village upon it, and share a common understanding and foundation with our neighbors. Meanwhile, the shaman remembers the powerful volcano, even though it looks like just a sleepy peaceful mountain. — 0 thru 9

No one wants to be homeless. We all seek shelter from the "storms" of life. The weather is constantly changing, just like our thoughts. We build intellectual edifices to shelter us from our own thought storms. Isn’t that why we are here now - talking?

0 thru 9

Now here's a sermon i can't quibble with...

Terrapin Station

It seems you spend a lot of time and energy on something that you have little interest in? — Thinker

I explain this in the post you're responding to:

Of course, I post in the threads, but because this board is so friggin slow with new topics. If I want to post I'll talk about what people are bringing up, but I'd much rather talk about just about anything else other than religion, and I'd never bring religion up if other people weren't talking about it. — Terrapin Station

Obviously I want to post. I enjoy philosophy discussions on the Internet. I just keep hoping that (a) we could be more (inter)active, and (b) we could talk about a much wider variety of topics.

Thinker

Obviously I want to post. I enjoy philosophy discussions on the Internet. I just keep hoping that (a) we could be more (inter)active, and (b) we could talk about a much wider variety of topics. — Terrapin Station

I guess I am confused. You say you want to talk philosophy and yet you come into a discussion about Ignosticism and say you don’t want to talk about it. Are there not enough other subjects that you can dance with? You also have the prerogative to start another thread on anything you wish. Do you want to censor our discussion of Ignosticism? Or do you want to change the focus to “talk about a much wider variety of topics”? I have broadened the focus some on the idea of insecurity as it relates to God – human beings – life. Are you being insecure? Why do you think we talk about God too much?

Roke

↪Terrapin Station

I think about time a lot too. Do you really think it's identical to change? If we were totally indifferent to change, would time still elapse?

Terrapin Station

I guess I am confused. — Thinker

There's no reason for you to be confused. I explained everything you need to know already.

Terrapin Station

Do you really think it's identical to change? I — Roke

Yes.

And re your other question, I'm not primarily saying something about us.

Thinker

Now here's a sermon i can't quibble with... — 0 thru 9

A great video clip!

Thinker

I'm not primarily saying something about us. — Terrapin Station

OK - what are you saying?

I explained everything you need to know already. — Terrapin Station

I guess I missed something - can you explain what it was?

Terrapin Station

OK - what are you saying? — Thinker

Re what he asked me about, that time is identical to change.

Thinker

Anyway, re time, which is something I'm much more interested in, it's identical to change on my view, so it's incoherent to say that one can have a timeless experience. To have an experience you must be aware of or think this, then that, etc., and those are changes, that is time. — Terrapin Station

I had to reread your first post in this thread to get a sense of what you are talking about - my bad. I think time and change go hand in hand; but the question arises - what is time - where does it come from? Who, what, when caused time – where does it come from? This seems like an ontological question. If it is ontological; are we not talking about God again? So, perhaps you do have an interest in God?

Terrapin Station

I had to reread your first post in this thread to get a sense of what you are talking about - my bad. I think time and change go hand in hand; but the question arises - what is time - where does it come from? Who, what, when caused time – where does it come from? This seems like an ontological question. If it is ontological; are we not talking about God again? So, perhaps you do have an interest in God? — Thinker

What is time? It is change.

Where does it come from? The fact that things aren't static. There's no reason to believe that something caused that in my opinion. It's just the way things are. It's a brute fact about the world.

Noble Dust

↪Terrapin Station

If you'r comments about time are in reference to what I said about time in relation to spiritual experience, note that I was referring to our experience of time.

Terrapin Station

If you'r comments about time are in reference to what I said about time in relation to spiritual experience, note that I was referring to our experience of time. — Noble Dust

Okay, but re our experience, you can't have an experience that doesn't involve change. That doesn't really make any sense.

Noble Dust

↪Terrapin Station

I've had experiences that involve the perception of not experiencing change. Where is change happening for you? Physically? Metaphysically? Within space-time? Within experience?

Terrapin Station

I've had experiences that involve the perception of not experiencing change. — Noble Dust

You'd have to describe that in some detail in order for there to be any hope of it making sense to me. If you're saying that you even mentally got "stuck" so that there was just one thought (or one part of one thought) on "pause" say, how would it be an experience? You wouldn't be aware of it happening. Because A is happening and the next thing you know something else, B is happening. It seems the only way for it to make sense is if it seems like all sorts of other things went on "pause" but your thoughts continued to flow. However, that is change.

On my view, everything extant is physical, but that's not necessary for the view of time I'm forwarding.

Thinker

Where does it come from? The fact that things aren't static. There's no reason to believe that something caused that in my opinion. It's just the way things are. It's a brute fact about the world — Terrapin Station

Ok – time is change – no argument from me. It just is, the universe just is – is your argument that we should not ask why it is? In philosophy we ask incessantly – why? Or sometimes we ask – why not? Are you trying to say we should not ask why time exists? Or why things change? We always seem to be plagued with questions of ontology. I like the questions – I like the dance. The questions and answers give us pause and sometimes enrichment. The original thread is about Ignosticism. To quote:

“Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.
Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition.”

I think we should add your idea about time and change to this mix. However, Ignosticism insists that “any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition.” And I would add and/or – explanation. So we are trying to explain or define a theology and/or anti-theology. So we are back to talking about God or anti-God.

Thinker

I've had experiences that involve the perception of not experiencing change. — Noble Dust

I have had this experience too - I call it a still mind.

Terrapin Station

is your argument that we should not ask why it is? — Thinker

Not at all. It's just that I don't buy that there is necessarily a cause for everything. I don't think there's any good reason to believe that.

Roke

↪Terrapin Station

The part you're not saying anything about is the interesting part - the extent to which time is something about us. To me, that's more or less the distinction between time and change. Time is a specific category of change; changes we notice. How this mechanism of 'noticing' works, its thresholds, its limitations in either direction, seems like the key to understanding, and perhaps manipulating, time's "speed".

Terrapin Station

↪Roke

Why wouldn't changes we don't notice be time too?

Thinker

Not at all. It's just that I don't buy that there is necessarily a cause for everything. I don't think there's any good reason to believe that. — Terrapin Station

I think that is a fair assessment, because most of the universe exists independent of our knowledge of how it got here. However, I think it is incumbent upon us to ask as much as we are able – and to continue to ask.

Thinker

The part you're not saying anything about is the interesting part - the extent to which time is something about us. To me, that's more or less the distinction between time and change. Time is a specific category of change; changes we notice. How this mechanism of 'noticing' works, its thresholds, its limitations in either direction, seems like the key to understanding, and perhaps manipulating, time's "speed". — Roke

I find this to be a very good inquiry.

Terrapin Station

↪Thinker

But again, I mean independent of us. Imagine we don't exist at all. I don't think it's the case that everything necessarily has a cause in that situation.

Thinker

But again, I mean independent of us. Imagine we don't exist at all. I don't think it's the case that everything necessarily has a cause in that situation. — Terrapin Station

I find this “image” to be beyond my ability. Unless you mean something like what Noble Dust and I were talking about a still mind – outside of time. We don’t know about a lot of things and we certainly know nothing about – “nothing”.

Roke

↪Terrapin Station

I think words are whatever we want them to be insofar as they facilitate effective idea sharing. So, I don't like time=change because I find it limiting and maybe a touch disingenuous. Both words are useful, which hints that they aren't totally redundant. For example, how do you deal with the phrase/concept 'change over time'?

On Not Defining the Divine (a case for Ignosticism)

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions