Gnosticism

Post Reply New Topic

Having knowledge of something can be frustrating. Why might it be more, or less, frustrating to:

Know God exists, and handle criticism of that from a person who does not believe in God; or

Know there is no God, and handle criticism of that from a person who believes in God?

Probably it is a difficult question to answer if you have not experienced both propositions, but that should not disqualify someone from having an opinion.

I think it is more frustrating to be in the position of knowing God does not exist. I do believe in God, so may be that makes me biased.

I know that I don't know. Criticism from people claiming to know of a positive are easily dealt with. Great claims require greater evidence. Most people's definition of God is a rather fantastical claim which would and should be criticized more.

I think it's just maddening that we can be in a position where there's such a debate.

Scientific progress into neurology would suggest atheism, and as of yet any claims of quantum components in consciousness are seen as highly controversial.

On the other hand we have these vast subconscious supercomputers that quite often would skip a chance to buck another one of our fellow mammals for a good looking date and breeding potential in order to walk a perceived highroad or even just because we'd rather be gentle. It seems like there's a lot in that supercomputer's behavior that conspires strongly toward a very different picture of life than sheer, pragmatic social darwinism would calculate that it should.

I am convinced that most of people's religious experiences are subconscious upwellings, but that makes it all the more interesting to me.

What exactly are you asking?

Apparently you're not talking about the early sect of Christianity called "Gnosticism". You mean "Gnosticism" as opposed to "Agnosticism".

So the question you are asking is this:
Who has it tougher? A nonagnostic theist fending off attacks by atheists? Or an nonagnostic atheist fending off attacks by theists?

Is that what you are asking?

That does seem similar to what I posted.

If general relativity was belief in God, and quantum mechanics atheism, would more people believe in GR because it is easier to explain.

And how can I infer something useful from that.

...yeah, actual Gnosticism is quite different from what's described in the OP. It's pretty cool imo, very down the rabbit hole.

I'm not particularly wild about Christian Gnosticism - mostly it's the dualism and material pessimism that makes it fall apart for me (there's a lot of stuff just as far down the rabbit hole that's neither pessimistic about matter nor daily life). That and the term 'gnosticism' means something significantly broader and gets used by a lot of other traditions which come from very different points of view aside from the belief in apotheosis by way of knowledge and activity along it's lines.

The situation with it is a bit like the use of the word theosophy which has it's own valid meaning but after the 1880's one had to clarify that by theosophy they don't mean Theosophic Society.

Well..for starters my advice to you would be to stop fighting against yourself like you're doing here, and reverse your thinking- try coming DOWN the ladder of abstraction rather than going UP the ladder of abstraction (if you wanna to either explain things to others, or grasp things yourself).

You're wresting with one abstract dichotomy (theism, atheism, and the certainty of either of those) by using an analogy to another even MORE complex, and more abstract dichotomy ( Einstein vs quantum theory). That way lies insanity.

My suggestion would be to bring things down to earth, and make things more tangible. Break things down before you trying building things back up again..

Take something more basic:like the question of "is the Earth flat, or round?" as an analogy.

For extremely primitive people the evidence available was that the earth was flat. But even in ancient times it became clear that there were indicators that the earth is round. And of course now we have space travel and can actually see that the earth looks spherical. So today the simplest hypothesis that explains the available evidence is that the earth is in fact spherical. If you wanna persist in being a flat earther you have to construct convoluted complicated stuff to explain away the evidence that its round. So round is simpler, and flat is more complex. So yes most folks buy into the round idea partially because its simpler. So yes folks are more persuaded by a simpler theory (as long as it explains the data you have). And not only that- according to Occam (in his "razor")-thats exactly what folks SHOULD do:the simplest theory that explains what you're seeing is usually (not sayin that there are not exceptions) the right explanation.

I know that is good advice, sometimes circling around matters in a disorganised manner seems to trigger insight for me, I appreciate you indulging me.

Could my belief in God stem from subconscious upswelling? In the times when I have been helped out by God, whatever God is, I have consciously asked for that help, but it is underpinned by my subconscious belief?

When it appears some supernatural incident, say seeing the future, can happen, I find myself wondering if all thoughts have their origin from outside the brain, that seems incredible, but also th simplest solution.

Some say there is a "universal mind". Its out there in space somewhere, and your brain picks up on it like a radio receiver rather than creating the mind from within. And just like some radios receivers are better than others some folks' brains are better at receiving "the mind" than others. I dunno. Am neither opposed, nor an advocate of the idea.

not really, it's actually a lot easier to dis-prove god than to prove god, especially given no one's ever been able to prove that there is in fact a god

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Well, I have never met a person who could prove evidence of either, but do not find that frustrating at all.