Ignosticism Versus Atheism
Episode: 29 January 2012, Question 3
Should rational people describe themselves as "ignostics" rather than "atheists"? By rational principles, no cognitive consideration should be given to arbitrary assertions. Since the concept of God is invariably a floating abstraction and incoherent in its definition, shouldn't the claim that God exists be dismissed as arbitrary and invalid – rather than being answered in the negative? If so, shouldn't rational people describe themselves as ignostics? In contrast to atheism, ignosticism is "[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." [Wikipedia]
My Answer, In Brief: "Atheism," not "ignosticism," is the proper name to describe a person who reject the claim that God exists, and that's justified not only by the failure of the arguments for the existence of God, but also God's impossible qualities.
Listen Now
- Download: MP3 Segment
- Duration: 10:39
Relevant Links
- Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith
- Podcasts on Philosophy of Religion by Diana Hsieh
- God, Faith, and the Supernatural by Greg Perkins
Topics
Share This Question
Comment Via Facebook
Support the Webcast
The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!
Connect with Us
Comments? Questions? Want more? Be sure to connect with us via Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, RSS, e-mail, and more!
