Logical fallacies of Gnosticism?

DaftChris

Gnosticism, at least in a modern definition, is the belief that all knowledge in life is ultimately knowable. Everything from God to what our purpose in life is can be proven or revealed.

I'm an Agnostic, which of course is the opposite of a Gnostic; That there are many things in life which are unknowable (like God, etc). I've always felt that being a Gnostic is a flawed way to look at things.

It just seems egotistical that humans, who when compared to the universe are very small and insignificant, think that we know all of the answers? There are those who say that science, logic, and the vastness of the universe itself completely disprove many metaphysical claims. I don't necessarily believe in the metaphysical or supernatural, but I think that the universe itself, in a sense, can point to at least some "evidence" that something may be there. I believe that anything can be possible and all I have to do is look around me and to the sky to reaffirm that feeling. I know that, in and of itself, what I said is completely emotional/anecdotal with no "real evidence" to support it, but I'm not claiming that looking at the world around you will make you 100% that there is more to our existence than now. It's just something I feel can be real and there is no way to prove it, because it ultimately can't be known. Now, let's take what I said, but this time I said that I know 100% that there is something out there. Doesn't that seem illogical? Or at least misguided and flawed?

Sorry if I rambled, I just wanted to pose an inquiry.

person

To me the basis of gnosis is something akin to Indra's net

Buddhism uses a similar image to describe the interconnectedness of all phenomena. It is called Indra's Net. When Indra fashioned the world, he made it as a web, and at every knot in the web is tied a pearl. Everything that exists, or has ever existed, every idea that can be thought about, every datum that is true—every dharma, in the language of Indian philosophy—is a pearl in Indra's net. Not only is every pearl tied to every other pearl by virtue of the web on which they hang, but on the surface of every pearl is reflected every other jewel on the net. Everything that exists in Indra's web implies all else that exists.

A part of each of us is also a part of the net, when we remove our focus on the external world and touch that pearl that touches every other pearl and thus all knowledge.

Of course you can disagree that something like this actually exists. I'm just trying to lay out the basis for a belief in gnosticism.

vinlyn

An interesting issue.

I believe in God, but I don't believe God is directly involved in our lives at all times. Nor do I believe in the response many Christians make -- "God works in mysterious ways." To me it's more like, "We don't really know anything about how God works." Whether or not we'll ultimately learn more about it...not sure.

Dakini

Gnosticism is similar to Buddhism, imo, in that knowledge comes from meditation, deep reflection and intuitive hits that are accessed when the busy left brain is stilled. The difference, obviously, is that in Gnosticism, there's a deity and in Buddhism there isn't. But some Buddhists do speak of accessing "the divine" in a more vague sense. I think it's two different names for pretty much the same thing. Just one is theistic and the other is non-theistic.

how

Many years ago when I read the Nag Hamadi library & the Gnostic Gospels, I was struck by just how much practical common sense was lost to Christianity when they persecuted the Gnostic's into oblivion. The Gnostic's written history clearly predated and conflicted with much of Christian records. I think it even spoke plainly about past lives as I recall, which would be a pretty hard thing for the Bible to square in any way..

Cloud

Isn't it short-sighted to either presuppose you can know everything, or presuppose you can't know anything?

Wouldn't it be smarter to just try to know what you can know?

DairyLama

I'm an Agnostic, which of course is the opposite of a Gnostic; That there are many things in life which are unknowable (like God, etc). I've always felt that being a Gnostic is a flawed way to look at things.

For me agnosticism is the only sensible position because we can't know everything. And it seems to me the most effective method for discovering what we can know is an open-minded exploration - and that will only be hindered if we have a head full of beliefs and disbeliefs.

Ficus_religiosa

I'm an Agnostic, which of course is the opposite of a Gnostic; That there are many things in life which are unknowable (like God, etc). I've always felt that being a Gnostic is a flawed way to look at things.

For me agnosticism is the only sensible position because we can't know everything. And it seems to me the most effective method for discovering what we can know is an open-minded exploration - and that will only be hindered if we have a head full of beliefs and disbeliefs.

But it immediately rises the question "Why?". You don't know why you think "we" can't know everything. It's either a feeling or a philosophically accounted for standpoint.

I think the most sensible position is no position. "Can we know everything?" - I simply don't know. Who is we? What is everything? What is knowing? Three philosophical questions to be answered before it's even possible to discuss if it's possible to answer the question.

DairyLama

I'm an Agnostic, which of course is the opposite of a Gnostic; That there are many things in life which are unknowable (like God, etc). I've always felt that being a Gnostic is a flawed way to look at things.

For me agnosticism is the only sensible position because we can't know everything. And it seems to me the most effective method for discovering what we can know is an open-minded exploration - and that will only be hindered if we have a head full of beliefs and disbeliefs.

But it immediately rises the question "Why?". You don't know why you think "we" can't know everything. It's either a feeling or a philosophically accounted for standpoint.

OK, less of a position and more of an assumption based on experience. And knowing that human senses and percpetion are very limited.

Songhill

DaftChris:

Gnosticism, at least in a modern definition, is the belief that all knowledge in life is ultimately knowable. Everything from God to what our purpose in life is can be proven or revealed.

If you are speaking of gnosticism as it relates to various early Christian schools such as the Valentinian school, your definition is inadequate. What is more, these schools didn't call themselves "gnostic."

For anyone interested in how intellectually to situate "gnosticism" historically, etc., I suggest taking a look at Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category by Michael Allen Williams.

how

.
If it was about early Christianity, my memory of it was that Gnostic was a derogatory label placed on them by the Orthodox church of that time. (meaning.. know it all)

Beej

If you have an hour, and i know many of you do, watch this. You might draw some lines that you weren't aware of.. Or maybe you'll throw the pencil at me, instead.

Beej

anybody watch the video? i'm kinda interested in what your guys take onThe Essenes might be. To me they sound like Buddhists in both practice and philosophy. Jewddhaists? Buddhabrews, perhaps?

Beej

Still nobody?

mindatrisk

I believe that I can know the mind of God and realise God as who I truly am. To me, we are God... but if by that you interpret your human identity as God then that would be a mistake.

This is not a perfect analogy, but consider it like an actor taking the stage in a theatre production... A good actor will become immersed in the character they are portraying, they will think nothing of their normal existence but only of the characters defined existence in that moment, to the degree whereby the actor could almost identify himself as the character, not as the actor. But, however immersed in the character the actor is, and however much he has forgotten about his true life whilst onstage, it would be wrong to believe that the actor-as-character could no longer be aware of his actual actor identity, it would simply require focused awareness and detachment from his current experience to realise his true identity as an actor playing a character.

It is this focused awareness through mindfulness and non-attachment that Buddhists practice to remember who they truly are - the actor, not the acted, but our total immersion in our characters means that we believe that to remember who we truly are requires that we take certain steps... obviously this is untrue, just as it would seem ridiculous for the actor to come offstage and believe that he needs to sit in meditation for an hour, sacrifice a new born lamb to the gods, and then suppress women and subjugate other belief systems in order to remember that he is an actor playing a character onstage in a big production...

Beej

but what about the video? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

mindatrisk

I'll watch the video later. All in God time, my friend! But it's 4.30am here and i've got a funeral to be travelling to in an hour, so it'll be watched another time.

Beej

@mindatrisk- thank you, with sympathy. I bet that you will enjoy it very much, as you had mentioned in another thread about 'Jesus the Buddhist', which the video does not specifically claim, but certainly captures the escence of such a relation. I will patiently await your take on it, and reserve further comment until a dialogue commences. Again, my sympathy to you.

mindatrisk

No sympathy needed, it was no-one I was close to, I was just going to be supportive, but thank you! I'm looking forward to the video, and I will respond asap.

DairyLama

Gnosticism, at least in a modern definition, is the belief that all knowledge in life is ultimately knowable. Everything from God to what our purpose in life is can be proven or revealed.

So does gnosticism make the assumption that there is actually a God to be known?

Cloud

So does gnosticism make the assumption that there is actually a God to be known?

Now that's funny.