skeptic griggsy

With the ignostic argument, I use the Ockham: since natural causes suffice, God is redundant. Either He has no meaning or He is superfluous.
We have no more need of Him as a personal explanation,contrary to Richard Swinburne than we have of Thor to explain the weather, gremlins to explain mechanical problems or demons as my therapist knows to explain mental illness.
Theists have the mere feeling there is some super mind behind and beyond the universe that has purpose, love and a future state for us. The mere feeling is a pareidolia- seeing the man in the moon!
We do not need that mere feeling as our own purposes, human love and this one life suffice; to aver otherwise is to embrace the universal neurosis of religion. That would be as Ellis would have maintained,"mustabatory," a mere want rather than a true need.
Dr.Robert Price's "The Reason-Driven Life" shows that we function best as independent of religion. Reason, not a long dead Galilean saves!

__________________
:: Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong. And his cortical defects might harm his thinking and posting. Logic is the bane of theists.

Jacob

It sounds to me like Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine is just another Jewish, theological charlatan. If he claims to be ignostic (mumble jumble for agnostic) like he professes, then why is it so imperative to hold onto the ethics of Judaism? Are they more valid than the other religions? Why hold onto Jewish traditions by changing them? Were they wrong before? Give me a break.


Jacob

__________________


Religions, movements and even nations
are constructs invented by humans.

They only take on meaning
if humanity chooses to accept them.

Jacob

Humanistic Judaism? This is what you approve of? Hypocrite.

You masquerade as an agnostic while holding fast to the out-dated beliefs of the Jewish religion and all the while, you slander others for their beliefs.

You sir, are the "oily fraud".


Jacob

__________________


Religions, movements and even nations
are constructs invented by humans.

They only take on meaning
if humanity chooses to accept them.

skeptic griggsy

One can be an agnostic furthermore in not seeing any meaning to God as an ignostic, I feel. How can one decide if somehing cannot be defined meaningfully?How can one use the term God ?

__________________
:: Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong. And his cortical defects might harm his thinking and posting. Logic is the bane of theists.

skeptic griggsy

As David Eller notes in 'Natural Atheism," If you ask Theists to define God, they will either balk and say God is unknowalbe and ineffable or they will offer inconsistent and conflicting defiintions."...' The very word and idea is confused, and, therefore any further talk about god must be incoherent and invalid." He notes that the mysterious ways of God argument revels meaninglissness about God: If sometines He answers prayers and sometimes doesn't ,how can we know which is which?" That argiument for mystery really is a cop-out! We do not need be omniscient, for instance, to discern there are pointless evils,showing further that argument fails
Theology is a series of guesses about a mystery,surrounded by others,supposeedly to be Leibniz'a sufficient reason but only obscures!

__________________
:: Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong. And his cortical defects might harm his thinking and posting. Logic is the bane of theists.

marmalade

The problem with defining terms that refer to God is that God is a term that isn't clearly defined. You can use a specific dictionary definition, but the common religious useage of the term God goes beyond any dictionary definition.

So, you can only be atheist or agnostic in relation to specific defintions of God. If the term 'God' isn't defined well enough(too vague, generalized, over-used, contradictory, etc), then maybe weak ignosticism would be valid. But ignosticisism wouldn't be valid towards a specific definition.

skeptic griggsy

No, for any defintion would, I daresay lack meaning. God is love or the depth or ground of being lack meaning. It is all the double-talk like what Prof. Irwin Corey does. Theology is a series of guesses about a mysterious being, surrounded by other mysteries, putatively as a personal explanation[ Swinburne] but only obscures.
And we do not need Him any more than we need Thor in addition to meterological laws to explain the weather, gremlins in addition to laws of mechanics to explain mechanical defects and devils in addtion to psychology to explain mental illness.
Contrary to the shallow Alister McGrath, as redundant He adds nothing to explanations.

__________________
:: Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong. And his cortical defects might harm his thinking and posting. Logic is the bane of theists.

marmalade

I guess it depends on what kind of meaning you're speaking of. If you mean scientific meaning, then yes God could be considered a meaningless term. However, some definitions of God are simply about the wholeness of all the parts, about a creative ordering process to existence. I'm speaking of pantheism and panpsychism.

But there are many other types of meaing besides scientific. Feelings too can have meaning(see the differences between Thinking and Feeling in Jungian Typology). Even if we stick to 'rational' meaning, philosophers and theologians think about all kinds of meanings that aren't scientifically falsifiable. Philosophy and theology don't limit themselves to science.

Basically, we're talking about epistemology. Its not so much about what is or isn't meaning. Rather, its about how do we go about seeking meaning. Which methods are valid and which aren't. If we go this direction, then it could be a long discussion... because, for one, my knowledge about epistemology is limited.

Jacob

Whether or not the signals stemming from one's conscience are provided by unknown, spiritual, guiding powers is debatable; but to the best of my knowledge, these signals are available in all human minds to acknowledge or disregard. The use of our conscience is as close as any one of us can come to realizing God; real or imagined. Why then, create a new religion by blending aspects of Judaism with agnostic thinking?

The traditions founded by Judaism originate from falsehoods made up by a people who bravely but ignorantly attempted to worship an unknown God. Also, agnosticism is not a religion.

Organized religions generally exclude non-members and this promotes tribalism of a sort. The globe is fast becoming a tighter-knit community. We don't need another bogus religion to confuse and separate us.


Jacob

__________________


Religions, movements and even nations
are constructs invented by humans.

They only take on meaning
if humanity chooses to accept them.

skeptic griggsy

I do not limit meaning to science; I just llimit it to what is rational.If God is incoherent ,then He has no meaning. How do we know what are His attributes wihout just guessing them? hjow do we define Him without resort to ad hoc explanations? How can He be more than a pareidolia like seeing the man in the moon or a projection of human traits diviniezed? The via negativa just shows what He is not,thus of no help.
And with the Ockham, we see no use for Him in explanations as again, it would take ad hoc explanatons to expliain Him. Efficient causes are primary ones, there being no need to posit Him as the primary cause as His redundancy adds noting unlike what Alister MsGrath avers. Why would we need Thor as a primary and personal explanation as meteorology explains the weather?
Agnosticism as a method demands evidence.

__________________
:: Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong. And his cortical defects might harm his thinking and posting. Logic is the bane of theists.