Ignosticism, Theism, or Gnostic Atheism

[Neo-Scholastic]

No we don't. Not unless we are making truth-statements about things that do (or do not) exist. If I don't claim knowledge of something, I don't have to define it. That onus hangs on those who claim knowledge.

In a sense the theologians, a long time ago, did an end run around any attempt we might make at a definition. 

You've no doubt heard of apophatic or negative theology, which simply states that God is so far beyond human understanding that any definition we attempted would be overly limited. Undefinable by definition, so to speak.

From Wikipedia:

"negative theology is as old as philosophy itself;" elements of it can be found in Plato's unwritten doctrines, while it is also present in Neo-Platonic, Gnostic and early Christian writers. A tendency to apophatic thought can also be found in Philo of Alexandria.[3]

According to Carabine, "apophasis proper" in Greek thought starts with Neo-Platonism, with its speculations about the nature of the One, culminating in the works of Proclus.[4] Carabine writes that there are two major points in the development of apophatic theology, namely the fusion of the Jewish tradition with Platonic philosophy in the writings of Philo, and the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who infused Christian thought with Neo-Platonic ideas.[4]

The Early Church Fathers were influenced by Philo,[4] and Meredith even states that Philo "is the real founder of the apophatic tradition."[5] Yet, it was with Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor,[6] whose writings shaped both Hesychasm, the contemplative tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the mystical traditions of western Europe, that apophatic theology became a central element of Christian theology and contemplative practice.[4]

The negative way does not preclude one from making truth propositons about God though...not finite, not limited etc.

[Belacqua]

The negative way does not preclude one from making truth propositons about God though...not finite, not limited etc.

That's certainly true.

I think it precludes a complete definition, though, doesn't it?

[Angrboda]

Ignosticism (per Wikipedia):

Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition

Someone asked about whether the definition of God is incoherent or unambiguous. Those are radically different things. Incoherent is a problem, but one that need be demonstrated. Unambiguous is something else. In general though, people believe things with vague boundaries all the time. Language itself might be viewed as a process of using words whose definition is unclear and unfixed to communicate clear ideas. The vagueness of God need not be an issue for the believer. However it can become an issue when one is trying to communicate an idea of god or persuade someone about God. I think the notion that in those cases one needs an unambiguous definition of God are incorrect. All that is required is a shared usage so that what is being communicated is clear and unambiguous. The principle of charity is important here. If someone is talking about God being a necessary being, one need not have unambiguous definitions about God's perfection or his moral authority, as those are not at issue. We can come to partial agreement about God without an unambiguously complete definition of God. We do so with things all the time. As noted on this forum, there is no unambiguous definition of what a chair is, but we don't consider that a bar to talking about and believing in chairs. Many things are like this. We have no such definition for knowledge or truth or morality, but we don't therefore take the uncharitable stance that any discussion of these things is nonsense on account of that lack. The human mind is built for vague predicates. I think to a degree ignosticism, more than being a stance based on an innocent mistake, can become simply a refuge when one lacks better ideas about God than others. To an extent, that's why I am agnostic about many things these days. Not that I don't have doubts and intuitions, but that I recognize that the ideas I have on such subjects are insufficient to resolve them. I tend to have a less charitable opinion of asserting ignosticism in the same way, though.

[polymath257]

Ignosticism (per Wikipedia):

Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition

Ultimately, it's all very relative. There are multiple various definitions for the term "God", and what may be "God" to some people is not much of "God" to others. But this means there is a problem here with the standard definitions of the word "atheism". For pantheists, for example, God is basically the universe itself and nothing more (that's my understanding at least). Atheists accept the existence of the universe, does this mean they are not atheists per pantheism? Or is it that pantheism is not really considered theism? Maybe atheism isn't just a lack of belief in God, but also a lack of conceptualizing anything that exists as God?

If you define God to be the universe, then I believe in the existence of what you call God. I do, then, question whether you are abusing the language in calling the universe God.

So, in a sense, your last sentence is closest to the truth: anything that exists does not have the properties common language ascribes to God.

---

No we don't. Not unless we are making truth-statements about things that do (or do not) exist. If I don't claim knowledge of something, I don't have to define it. That onus hangs on those who claim knowledge.

In a sense the theologians, a long time ago, did an end run around any attempt we might make at a definition. 

You've no doubt heard of apophatic or negative theology, which simply states that God is so far beyond human understanding that any definition we attempted would be overly limited. Undefinable by definition, so to speak.

That seems to be more an embracing of ignosticism by theists as anything else.

For myself, I tend to go back and forth between ignosticism and apatheism.

[Pat Mustard]

Which theory is most true? What shortcomings (if any) do these theories have? Is someone who hasn't decided on one of these theories "years ago" missing something? Or is the correctness of each theory not so clear?

In terms of specific gods, gnostic atheism is the correct worldview. I have yet to come across a specific, named god that hasn't been clearly and obviously a human creation.

In terms of a generic being that could be considered to hold attributes of godhood, agnosticism is the best position, because there may be some being somewhere which holds some godlike attributes, though these are yet to be commonly agreed upon.

[The Grand Nudger]

The set is, itself, a human creation. If that's a reason to state that any one of them doesn't exist, it's just as much a reason to state that the entire set doesn't exist.

Even in the hypothetical above, you describe coming across some creature that vaguely matches some vague stories somewhere in the galaxy. Let's just propose that we found that creature. It's still not a god.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

At its root, theology is a subject with no content, as there isn’t an unambiguous referent. The word means ‘thinking about God’, but there is no commonly accepted definition of what God is. So, what precisely are you meant to be thinking about?

Dendrology - we all agree what trees are.

Seismology - no one seems to get in a tizzy over the definition of an earthquake.

Proctology - unless you’ve led a remarkably sheltered life, everyone has seen an arsehole.

And so on. All the other -ologies seem to have a readily agreed upon subject, but no two schools of thought seem able to settle anything about God - what it does, where it is, what it wants, and so on.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Competing religions don't agree with each other - but anthropologists and historians have no trouble whatsoever identifying gods. To the point that there are multiple terms for all of the different types of gods we've believed in.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Competing religions don't agree with each other - but anthropologists and historians have no trouble whatsoever identifying gods.  To the point that there are multiple terms for all of the different types of gods we've believed in.

Agreed, but that’s anthropology, not theology.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Nevertheless, that is an answer to the question of what you're supposed to be thinking about, isn't it? Assuming that you don't want to take any given theology's answer directly..which you just as easily could for any question of belief and knowledge about that item.