Does igtheism even make sense?
I was talking to The Messianic Manic (TMM) the other day about Igtheism (Ignosticism)…which he professes to hold. So I’m kinda working on a post about it for my blog, but there seems to be substantially different views on what “igtheism” means which would dramatically change my arguments against it depending on what one means by it:
Some igtheist would say the following statement:
“Talk about God existing is meaningless!”
But that statement itself isn’t meaningless if “talk about God” has any meaning, which it would appear to do here very act of saying “talk about God” is meaningless does convey some type of meaning of the subject.
or as Dr. Oppy gives the example for igtheism as “it is meaningless to say that there are gods.” and says that statement is false. I agree, since “there are gods” must have meaning for that statement to even be meaningful, and if that statement is meaningful it can not be a true statement and must be false it is as Dr. Oppy notes, self-refuting.
In this case, if a person is just saying that God talk is meaningless because they feel it is a meaningless to discuss similar to discussing if “unicorns” exist or not then it is really just atheism with another name which makes “igtheism” a rather useless position if it is virtually indistinguishable from just atheism. (This case by reductionism leads to just atheism)
Some igtheist say the word “God” has no meaning.
If this is the case, then what are ighteist talking about when they engage with theist? If an igtheist didn’t have any concept of what “God” means after thousands of years of theological and societal discourse then wouldn’t they just say “I don’t know what you are talking about” and then go leave to play their favorite PS4 game or something? How much dialog can be had with an igtheist who just says they don’t understand? Wouldn’t a person engaged with this type of igtheist rather just move on to someone who at least has some type of working understanding of what people are talking about when they are involved in “God talk”. (This case by reductionism leads to just apatheism? Or at the least indifference))
The proposition of theism is cognitively meaningless and not truth-apt. This would be that p=”at least one God exist” is not truth-apt and is not even a proposition. In which case then it is indistinguishable from theological non-cognitivism. I guess one “could” argue that igtheism is the reason one holds to theological non-cognitivism, but I am not sure if merely a word or phrase not being meaningful to someone would be enough justification to hold that a proposition about it existing isn’t truth-apt. (This case by reductionism leads to just theological non-cognitivism)
When you hear someone say that they are “igtheist” which case to they often most fall into?