2. Gnosticism and Agnosticism
Description
This article is from the Rational Investigation FAQ, by Sherilyn sherilyn@sidaway.demon.co.uk.
2. Gnosticism and Agnosticism
[This from a debate on the use of the word "energies" along with
other words and concepts borrowed from science in an astrologer's
attempt to describe his astrological theory]
In article <CNaT1.8497$yU2.18385342@typhoon01.swbell.net>,
"Jason Mathews" <xiii@swbell.net> wrote:
...
> But really, what's the quibble? Dan obviously knows what "energy"
> means in this context. Why don't you tell us Dan? I'm curious to see
> what you know on the subject. How does Ed's use of the word energy
> mean something different than the commonly accepted definition?
...
The standard response to the above seems to be "why ask such a
question when you clearly haven't studied the subject honestly?"
In general, the definition of honest study tends to be set so that a
person who emerges from a course of study still asking questions to
which adequate answers have not been given is judged to lack spiritual
maturity. The issues of motive, hidden agendas, and self-deception
are quite valid, of course, but to judge a questioner by his question
is putting the cart before the horse.
There are two basic views on this issue, which should be well known
to most people from the parable of the Emperor's New Clothes.
1) The gnostic view, which says it's a matter of spiritual maturity,
and if you aren't spiritually ready then you won't understand the
message (see any posting supporting S0ll1g's so-called
"prophecies").
2) The _agnostic_ view (rationalist, though not necessarily
materialistic) that holds that certain knowledge is not possible
through the spirit.
Agnostics will tend to hold others to the same standard to which they
hold themselves, but this is sometimes misunderstood as a demand for
proof. The agnostic simply follows Huxley's dictum
"It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective
truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which
logically justifies that certainty."
Agnostics tend to hold few fixed, certain beliefs, and the number of
beliefs help tends to decrease with time, as the agnostic investigates
more, discovers the value of more points of view, and correspondingly
more reasons to doubt. An agnostic can always be expected to drop a
claim if shown to be unable to defend it rationally, however. The
agnostic position is arguably one of the best defended and most useful
propositions in the history of modern thought. It is adaptive,
open-minded and self-questioning. It rejects the certainty of belief
in favor of the deductive power of reason and experience.
It's actually quite easy for an agnostic to drop all this thought and
examine a non-critical mode of thought. Clearly a belief in astrology
implies that some kind of invisible activity is taking place.
Predicated on this belief, it seems inevitable that there are
influences, which can be called energies, and from this and some
standard grade motor-mechanic buddhism, and some third-hand platonism,
one can build up the whole edifice which Grant Lewi and others have
used. All one has to do is to make one unquestioned assumption, and
the rest follows (it also follows from this that the agnostic must
be aware of potential flaws in his own assumptions).
All it takes to bring the whole thing down is one small, ignorant but
perceptive boy.
I think this is why asking ignorant questions is viewed as so
corrosive to gnostic belief systems, and why skepticism is
regarded by some gnostics as a form of deadly harassment (though most
take a much more stoic view). Asking ignorant questions has
historically worked so well in businesses where critical thought is
important. Science can only grow stronger if questioned. Gnosticism
can only grow weaker if questioned.
Continue to:
My Books
