-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science vs. Gnosis
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
hey Idav,
May I borrow this partial post that I sent to a friend of mine.
And may I agree, somewhat, with your comparison of the two:
.
"In wisdom comes the ability for comparing inner thinking,
with that which comes affected by another's thoughts.
A metaphorical transition to the real emotion of being.
The amazing feeling of the air beneath one's wings,
and the appreciation of the air in which we fly....."
.
There is very little difference, no matter how they're spelled..
~
`mud
May I borrow this partial post that I sent to a friend of mine.
And may I agree, somewhat, with your comparison of the two:
.
"In wisdom comes the ability for comparing inner thinking,
with that which comes affected by another's thoughts.
A metaphorical transition to the real emotion of being.
The amazing feeling of the air beneath one's wings,
and the appreciation of the air in which we fly....."
.
There is very little difference, no matter how they're spelled..
~
`mud
swamplizard
Human
My nickle, idav,
Science is conceptually designed and subject to perceptions and perspective.
Gnosis (not to be confused with historical and/or hysterical gnosticism) is the innate knowledge of all that is and might be considered (conceptually) to be the substance of what is.
Gnosis is true, and misunderstood applications of it are not gnostic, but belief.
I am, whether I am aware, or not.
Zero does not exist.
Existence requires infinity.
best from the bogs,
swampy
PS Hi `sandy toed `mud
Science is conceptually designed and subject to perceptions and perspective.
Gnosis (not to be confused with historical and/or hysterical gnosticism) is the innate knowledge of all that is and might be considered (conceptually) to be the substance of what is.
Gnosis is true, and misunderstood applications of it are not gnostic, but belief.
I am, whether I am aware, or not.
Zero does not exist.
Existence requires infinity.
best from the bogs,
swampy
PS Hi `sandy toed `mud
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
idav said:
Though gnosis means "knowledge" or more precisely "secret knowledge", it still depends on "belief" and "faith", because the knowledge rely on "divinely revealed" messages.
The deliverance of the (divine) messages or knowledge in ancient Gnosticism come from using myths based on Judaeo-Christian narratives and religious characters (like Adam, Eve, Noah, Jesus, John, Thomas, etc). Gnosis also deal with supernatural spiritual beings, like great invisible spirit (or monad), Barbelo, Sophia, the demiurge Yaldabaoth, and other aeons and archons.
Gnosis, like other Judaeo-Christian (as well as Islamic) teachings, doesn't explain the natural world (or those of man-made), like the way science try to explain the structure and function of natural phenomena.
The messages or knowledge in gnosis is still every much spiritual matters, which science have nothing to do with. And science doesn't deal with god(s), angels and such, which the gnosis do.
Trying to compare science and gnosis, to find out which is better, is like comparing orange with chicken. They are nothing alike, idav.
You are better off comparing the Gnostic gnosis with other (related) religions.
The knowledge science is finding is also able to unlock these secrets. Science in a way helps humans become more godlike through other means. They both want eternal life. I wouldn't think there would be much of limit to how much is out there.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Perhaps a gnostic is one who knows he or she doesn't know. In that sense, a wise gnostic and a wise scientist might be one and the same.
swamplizard
Human
doppelgänger;2602950 said:
Hey Dop,
Perhaps a "gnostic" is aware of what he/she knows and also "truly believes," (and the difference of the two); thus, understanding that the rest falls within the mind's arena of designated beliefs.
Just a boggy (but shiny new nickle),
best,
swampy
Maybe being aware of "gnosis",
means not being aware of what "gnostism" means.
~
Like that whispering echo coming from out a sea shell.
Like the quiet rolling of a repeating surf.
Like the quiet shuffling of sand under one's feet on the beach.
Like the soft purring of the air beneath a butterfly's wings.
Like the continuous patter of the leaves on the trees.
Like the silence of the stars shining upon one's face.
Like the soothing gooing of a day old child, and the first touch of it's finger.
Like the breeze of warmth rippling the hair on the back of one's neck.
Like awareness of the "now" flighting into tomorrow's promises.
~
Nahhhhhh.....that couldn't be gnosis....could it ?
~
`mud
means not being aware of what "gnostism" means.
~
Like that whispering echo coming from out a sea shell.
Like the quiet rolling of a repeating surf.
Like the quiet shuffling of sand under one's feet on the beach.
Like the soft purring of the air beneath a butterfly's wings.
Like the continuous patter of the leaves on the trees.
Like the silence of the stars shining upon one's face.
Like the soothing gooing of a day old child, and the first touch of it's finger.
Like the breeze of warmth rippling the hair on the back of one's neck.
Like awareness of the "now" flighting into tomorrow's promises.
~
Nahhhhhh.....that couldn't be gnosis....could it ?
~
`mud
Greek knowledge is like that.
swamplizard
Human
Gnosis, the basis of existence; yes, no?
best,
swampy
best,
swampy
If it's knowable then yes.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
The loose definition of Gnosis is the knowledge of oneself.
gnosis is of the philosophical, science is of the empirical world of science.
although we can say the two can meet, when atheist biologists enter the public debate about God and religion for example, or when theistic scientists bring their agenda into this public debate.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Everyone here should know about the Vienna circle and what it represented. Basically it was a group of the top scientists etc of the day that met to discuss the issues related to science and the philosophy of science. The neopositivism movement was debated there at Vienna with only one true dissenter and that was the theist Kurt Godel. The Vienna circle was one of many groups located in Europe discussing 'verificationism' which means ' only statements verifiable through empirical observation are cognitively meaningful.' That is anything that is not provable by empirical experiment is meaningless.
So this is where science remains today, stuck in a tar pit called verificationism and because of it some of the more advanced science disciplines are approaching the limits of its ability to solve and answer some very vexing phenomena and questions.
; {>
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
I was about to start a thread on 'The Logos' when I saw this thread.
I see it that Gnosis and Logos are verb and noun of the same concept.
It seems to me that scholastic science has no appreciation of how the laws of nature
are uncovered by the Theistic theorist being part of the living logic of God: logos.
I can certainly remember when I broke away from formal physics and pursued philosophy
because physics was not answering the fundamental questions of being. Of course it is a terrible
tragedy that I was 'not allowed' to major in physics and philosophy. At that time I was just
beginning to see how the two are intrinsically connected. But also I could see how
materialist thinking can only see the surface of science, but are oblivious to the
living logic that gave rise to its discovery through spiritual pursuit.
It comes as a shock to realize that atheists are virtually incapable of uncovering authentic science
and almost exclusively pursue sophistry as a parody of the genuine science of past centuries.
We often reminisce how Copernicus and Galileo were persecuted by the church, but
those guys had it easy compared to those of us who face down the megalithic obstruction
of atheist academia today.
gnostic
The Lost One
Gnosticism use the word "gnôsis". The other Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity relied on "faith".
Gnôsis is more like enlightenment than faith-based belief.
The belief in Gnosticism differed in many ways to Christianity.
For one it doesn't accept the traditional or mainstream Genesis creation. That everything about Genesis creation and the god of Abraham and Moses are lies.
To them, the god of Abraham and Moses is a false god, a demiurge, an archon. The god who created this physical world and made human from dust or clay, is not a real god.
According to Gnosticism, this demiurge created humans, to trap the spark, or the soul, inside the physical bodies, to steal its (soul's) power. The gnôsis is about recognising that this world is an illusion to trap the souls and ripped away from them by the demiurge at his minions. The gnôsis was meant to reunite the spark with the pleroma, the gnostic version of heaven.
In the story of garden of Eden, God played the part of villain, trying to keep Adam and Eve from attaining gnôsis. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge was a good thing, The first step of reaching gnôsis.
The gnostic myths are very complex, and not really all that easy to understand, but in some sense, the myth make sense. It turn the creator god into villain, while Eve was a heroine, who dared to challenge the false god. It turned the Eden story upside down.
gnostic
The Lost One
Having said all I have said in my last reply, the Gnostic gnôsis, like that if Abrahamic faith, has nothing to do with science.
So if Idav's OP referring to the gnôsis of Gnosticism, then it is nothing alike to science.
If it is just gnôsis in general, then that's really whole different matter.
So if Idav's OP referring to the gnôsis of Gnosticism, then it is nothing alike to science.
If it is just gnôsis in general, then that's really whole different matter.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
Interesting. But I always read the narrative of Genesis in that way. That good and evil are often two sides of the same coin.
Whilst freedom (escaping Eden) is a good thing, there is a certain unpleasantness and suffering from it too. This
inherent dualism is in all things; For good to exist, evil must exist. Free will brings creativity, but also error and more suffering.