Ignosticism is the theological position that argues that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term “God” has no coherent and unambiguous definition. Ignosticism proposes that in order for the question “Does God exist?” to be meaningful, the term “God” must be coherently defined. Without a clear definition, ignosticism claims, the question is meaningless. Ignosticism is sometimes seen as an argument against theism and related beliefs, although some ignostics are theists themselves. The core of the ignostic position is that the word “God” must be defined before there can be any rational discussion about God’s existence.
The Bible does not directly address ignosticism, as it is a modern theological concept. However, the Bible provides a coherent definition of God and His attributes. Scripture affirms that God does exist and that He has revealed Himself to humanity through His Word and through Christ (John 1:1, 14; Hebrews 1:1-2). Here are some key biblical teachings about the identity and nature of God:
- God is the eternal, self-existent Creator of all things (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3; Romans 1:25)
- God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and present everywhere (Jeremiah 32:17; Psalm 147:5; Psalm 139:7-10)
- God is holy, righteous, just, loving, merciful, and gracious (Leviticus 19:2; Psalm 97:2; Psalm 89:14; 1 John 4:8; Ephesians 2:4-5)
- God exists in three co-equal Persons – the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14)
Additionally, the Bible provides abundant evidence that God does exist and actively works in the world. Some examples include:
- Fulfilled biblical prophecy (Isaiah 53; Micah 5:2; Daniel 9)
- Christ’s miracles, resurrection, and claims about Himself (Matthew 9:2-7; John 11:38-44; John 5:18; John 8:58)
- Changed lives of believers (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 5:22-23)
- Intricate design and order in creation (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20)
- The existence of objective moral values (Romans 2:14-15)
In summary, while the Bible does not directly address ignosticism, it provides a coherent definition of God and evidence for His existence. Scripture portrays God as the supreme, personal Creator who has revealed Himself to humanity. This biblical description of God counters the core ignostic claim that the term “God” lacks a clear definition.
Definition and Origins of Ignosticism
The term “ignosticism” was coined in the 1960s by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure of Humanistic Judaism. The word comes from the combination of two terms: “ignore” and “gnosticism”. As the name implies, ignosticism is the position that the question of God’s existence should be ignored because the concept of God is not coherently defined.
An ignostic argues that in order for “God exists” to be a meaningful statement, “God” first needs to be defined in an unambiguous way. Without a clear definition, it is impossible to determine whether the statement is true or not. Ignosticism contends that definitions of God tend to be so vague as to be meaningless or problematic. For example, definitions that characterize God as ineffable, transcendent, all-loving, all-powerful, omniscient, eternal, or maximally great are argued to be cognitively meaningless or incoherent.
A key distinction in ignostic thought is between theological noncognitivism and theological fictionalism. Theological noncognitivism states that religious language is meaningless because there are no verifiable empirical referents. Theological fictionalism claims that religious language refers to fictional entities with no objective reality. Most ignostics lean towards noncognitivism over fictionalism.
In addition to Sherwin Wine, other thinkers associated with ignosticism include P.H. Hare, Theodore Drange, and Austin Cline. Though a relatively new theological concept, ignostic ideas can be found in the writings of past philosophers like Voltaire, David Hume, and the logical positivists.
Key Arguments for Ignosticism
Here are some of the main arguments put forward by proponents of ignosticism:
- Lack of consensus definition – Throughout history and across different cultures there has been no consensus on the definition of “God”. This lack of coherence means the concept of God is meaningless.
- Impossibility of human knowledge – Some conceptions of God describe Him as transcendent, infinite, and fundamentally unknowable to humans. We therefore cannot define God in any meaningful way.
- Meaningless statements – Descriptions of God as “immaterial”, “timeless”, or “maximally great” have no verifiable meaning. God-talk is reduced to absurd and fanciful metaphors.
- Falsifiability – Most definitions of God are unfalsifiable since there are no empirical or logical means to test them. Therefore, statements about God are meaningless.
- Special pleading – Believers fail to apply the same standards of evidence demanded in other spheres of knowledge to the existence of God.
In summary, ignostics argue that the question “Does God exist?” presupposes an understanding of the term “God”, and without a clear definition, the question is meaningless. The burden is on the theist to provide a coherent, unambiguous definition of God.
Responses to Ignosticism
Defenders of theism have provided various responses to ignosticist claims about the meaninglessness of God-talk:
- They point to long traditions of philosophical theology and religious practice that have affirmed meaningful ways to talk about God.
- Analogical language is needed to describe a transcendent being, but this does not mean God-talk is meaningless.
- The Bible and personal experiences of God provide definitions and meaning to the concept of God.
- Lack of total consensus does not imply complete meaninglessness. There can be meaningful discussion of conceptual disagreements.
- Ignosticism sets an unreasonably high standard of meaning and falsifiability that would refute most abstract concepts.
The heart of the issue is whether God-talk can have meaning in some manner even if human knowledge of God is partial or analogical. Can believers meaningfully refer to and think about a transcendent God based on His self-revelation in Christ? Theists argue this is possible despite the lack of exhaustive knowledge about God.
Implications of Ignosticism
Ignosticism has been employed as an argument against theism and as a critique of traditional ways of thinking about God. Several implications arise from the ignostic perspective:
- It neutralizes the controversy about God’s existence by denying the meaningfulness of the question.
- It challenges believers to examine hidden assumptions and unintelligibility in the way they talk about God.
- It casts doubt on classical arguments for God’s existence which presume meaningful definitions of God.
- It functions as a defense for atheism and agnosticism against theistic claims.
- It shifts the burden of proof to the theist to define God coherently before any rational debate.
In general, ignosticism is a skeptical view that questions the meaning and cognitive value of theological language. By declaring talk of God meaningless, it allows ignostics to sidestep debates about the existence of God.
Critiques of Ignosticism
Several critiques have been offered against ignosticism:
- It adopts an excessively stringent view of meaning and falsifiability that would undermine many non-empirical concepts.
- Dismissing theological language as meaningless seems more motivated by materialism than real semantic concerns.
- It underestimates the ability of analogical and symbolic language to meaningfully describe transcendent realities.
- Ignostic standards would declare most abstract discussions in philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, etc. as meaningless.
- It represents a non-falsifiable position – no definition of God could satisfy the ignostic.
Overall, critics argue that ignosticism arbitrarily rules out meaningful discussion of God rather than engaging theological concepts charitably. It inherits logical positivist assumptions about meaning and verification that have fallen out of favor in contemporary philosophy. Many contend that ignosticism fails to show that God-talk is meaningless, only that finite humans cannot define God exhaustively.
Evaluation of Ignosticism
When evaluating ignosticism, several key questions arise:
- Is it unreasonably rigid about meaning and falsifiability? What standards for meaning are appropriate?
- Can analogical language meaningfully refer to transcendent realities?
- Does widespread disagreement about God really imply meaninglessness?
- Are there good reasons to think God has revealed Himself in ways humans can meaningfully understand?
- Does ignosticism dismiss theological language out of hand rather than engage it charitably?
In response, many theists argue that while human knowledge of God may be limited, God has truly revealed Himself in ways that give finite humans meaningful knowledge of His nature. Through Christ, Scripture, conscience, and creation, God has provided a substantial basis for coherent conceptions of His identity.
Additionally, meaningfulness does not require absolute consensus or complete human knowledge. Theists contend that ignostic standards are unreasonably strict, denying meaning to anything not fully knowable or empirically verifiable. In practice, meaningful discussion can still occur despite disagreement and mystery.
Overall, the coherence of theological language depends much on a prior commitment to God’s capacity for self-revelation. Is divine self-disclosure possible? Theists believe God has so revealed Himself, allowing for meaningful God-talk, whereas strict ignostics deny this possibility at the outset.
Conclusion
Ignosticism argues that the concept “God” lacks coherent definition, making the question of God’s existence meaningless. It has been employed as a theological critique and a defense of atheism. In response, theists argue that analogical and symbolic language can meaningfully refer to a transcendent God based on divine self-revelation. The debate reflects deeper disagreements over whether theological language has cognitive meaning and whether human knowledge of God is possible. Further discussion is needed to consider the potential for meaningful talk about a transcendent deity.