qballnv

THE AGNOSTIC APPROACH: The philosophy of agnosticism, though not a belief system is rather a challenge to the structural integrity of any individual, group or belief system that professes to be the exclusive beneficiary and/or source of divine knowledge. The primary philosophical position of all agnostics, is that as finite, mortal and frequently self-annihilating creatures, human beings are probably ill equipped to adequately prove or disprove the existence of God. God in essence, is an unknowable. In other words, the agnostic’s line of reasoning is simply, you don’t know and neither do I. To further illustrate the presupposition of agnostic ideology, the premise is that human neurological processes are by design limited. They are electrochemically based, narrowly fixed, and faulted by the inherent inadequacy and derisive tendencies of human language, and therefore, probably, based upon these observed factors incapable of appropriating (disassembling, re-assembling and imparting without using vague concepts) the vast and incomprehensible amount of information that would be necessary to “explain” God. As a result conceptualization is as close as humanity can come to any real defining aspects of the character and attributes of God. But an assumption is not proof. The see saw form of agnosticism, weak agnosticism posits that it may be possible, though not unarguable for human beings to become enlightened, that is to say, come to possess some high level of awareness with regard to matters of a spiritual or supernatural origin. The weak agnostic would exclaim, “I don’t know but it is possible that you may”. This to some extent negates the theory of natural human neurological inadequacies, although the ability of one to satisfactorily verbalize this kind of “metaphysical” knowledge, even if they had it, is suspect. On the other hand, strong agnosticism, which says “you can’t know for certain and neither can I”, is technically a belief which may or may not have any basis in reality but is generally inconsistent with logic because one cannot completely eliminate the presence of the anomalous-that someone at some time may indeed somehow come to possess a special connection with some metaphysical source of knowledge, as unlikely as that may seem.
In the broadest sense, agnosticism is a flawed ideology. It fails to address the hard problem of God in a way that presents an unassailable solution.

THE ANGRY (BUT IMPLAUSIBLE) STAND AGAINST GOD
Atheism, perhaps the most antagonistic (and problematic) of all the theological noncognitivist schools of protest is another failed ideology because it seeks to relegate the concept of God to that of an impossibility, a claim that is wholly contestable and unfounded. One cannot disprove the existence of God simply by bringing into question the validity of theologically based assertions. Contrary to the position that most atheists assume with regard to their credo, in any dispute centering on the existence or non-existence of God, the burden of proof rests solely upon the shoulders of the atheist. Why? Because the faith-based convictions of theists and spiritualists provide an amnesty against having to present a preponderance of evidence favoring the existence of God. Theology is not a study based upon attestable claims. It’s a group effort to establish the supreme authority of spirituality based upon the perception some have that certain ancient scriptures are (or were) divinely inspired and that the spirit of God is the sole force that deposits in us certain personal internal convictions. Therefore faith drives the theologian to stand behind his or her beliefs. But atheism is an outright challenge to the legality of faith, which is absurd and once again, unsupportable.

Where ignosticism differs in its approach to the “hard problem” of God is by postulating that human beings have yet to even rationalize the very necessity of such a concept as that of God, much less prove or disprove the presence of divine reality because any patent and absolute description of the nature or facilities of such a being is absent in the concept. The true ignostic would say, “I don’t know what you mean by God, and until you can provide any sufficiently tenable explanation for what you mean by God, the discussion itself is pointless”. Being able to prove or disprove the existence of God is an argument for atheists and theologians to bury themselves under. But to a true ignostic it is simply irrelevant; no one has yet to present an infallible contention for why the concept of God is even remotely necessary, if at all. In other words, perhaps the idea of God is attainable, and truly enchanting, but any exacting and complete explanation or definition of the nature and attributes of such an entity is not, at least not yet, and therefore it is really without any clear necessity. To my way of thinking there is a tear in the fabric of the claim that God is a concept that is necessary. Some pertinent issues need to be addressed first. And the most fundamental set of questions that most assuredly need to be answered (but never have been) before we can qualitatively ascribe the title of “God” to anything at all are; what accurately and completely defines the nature and attributes of “God”, on who’s authority, and most importantly, for what beneficial purpose would it serve to have this information?
The question, like a phone call from the great beyond, is both impossible and literally unanswerable. And much like a Chinese finger trap, it’s embedded with snares. It is a challenge for which there are few takers, and understandably so. The first part of the inquisition, “what constitutes God?” is enough to invite the wrath and/or obliging response of any minimally religious or spiritual person. The controversy is self-replicating, as many different people possess many different beliefs with respect to the true nature and purpose of God. Very few of these traits, with the exception of a few principle ones, are universally accepted. God is generally thought to be all-powerful (omnipotent), all knowing (omniscient), and everywhere (omnipresent), but these are generalizations open to debate, which is where religion and philosophy quickly step in to draw up their respective boundaries, each professing to have special “knowledge” of other divine attributes and God’s overall cosmic agenda. This is indeed tantamount to claiming special (divinely inspired) knowledge of the exact number of neutron stars in the Milky Way galaxy, with Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Existentialism and a whole host of other belief systems peddling their wares as keepers of that holy figure. But if the question were presented to the scientific community, “what is the exact total number of neutron stars in the Milky Way galaxy, and on who’s authority?” it’s doubtful many astrophysicists would step forward to jeopardize their credibility with an answer, because unlike God, the answer demands an absolute.
But God does demand definable boundaries otherwise God is simply an ethereal concept within an ever-expanding and contracting bubble of perception, which is precisely why God, to the advantage of the religionist, can be whatever they choose for God to be. It is the nature of a concept to be molded and fashioned into any number of progressively more revealing aspects. It can be finely tuned to account for any number of emerging anomalies or ideations. Thus, a concept, in practice is just a big gray area, subject to revision as necessary. The problem is that in twenty-first century socio-political language, God is much more of a closed-ended word pregnant with emotive and cultural implications than an objective concept open to discussion. Its origins are in superstition and ignorance and fear.
The prime objective of ignosticism however is not to incite a riot. But God demands more than a definition, it requires a rationalization, which is why the principle challenge lobbied by the ignostic credo is simply this; as it appears to be outside the intellectual and corporeal faculties of any individual or group to present a clear, unbiased, and thoroughly accurate definition of the nature and attributes of God in a manner that is wholly incontrovertible, the “question” of God remains irrelevant, gratuitous and ineffectual to assist in the evolution and quality of life. To comprehend the true root meaning in the title "ignostic", one must exchange the word ignorance for the more appropriate...ignore. As a true ignostic, I choose to ignore that which I have determined to be implausible.