cultural-identity
, community
, ignosticism
There may be positive practical, theoretical, and rhetorical reasons for supporting an ignostic position rather than an atheistic one (see: What is the functional difference between atheism and ignosticism? and Are there any ways to attack the ignostic/theological non-cognitivist position?).
Are there any negative consequences to this shift? If so, what are they? What if the atheist community identified itself instead as the ignostic community?
The most popular response to the question “Do atheists need to define god(s) in order to reject them?” is no, that the theist must provide a definition of god. But then, this is precisely the ignostic response not the atheist’s response (see the definition of ignosticism below). In order to be more accurate in the description of their own beliefs, should these individuals identify themselves as ignostics rather than atheists? If not, why not?
[Ignosticism] can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:
- The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term “God” is considered meaningless.
- The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking “What is meant by ‘God’?” before proclaiming the original question “Does God exist?” as meaningless.
There are at least three negative consequences:
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.