Howard the Duck

I think I'm mostly a Gnostic

a believer seeking knowledge and truth more than what has been written on some papyrus by some people who were sometimes stoned when they wrote it

ProggyMan

That's not really what being a Gnostic is though...

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Don't think anybody phrases it better than Carl Sagan:



Carl Sagan seemed a firm believer in the concept that the universe can be powerful, and unexplainable without the need for a logical motive.

I think it's safe to believe in a God if you can admit existence = God. God in itself is a motiveless, neutral, non-being. God is a set of rules that constructs matter, time, space, and energy. Just as a Judeochristian image it's very well all powerful, all knowing, constant, and works in a fashion that's beyond human understanding. The only difference is that it's entirely motiveless, and cares nothing of the progress of human life (Which, if you observe nature, does it seem to really?).

From my knowledge the closest thing to this is in terms of religion a lot of the concepts of some variations of Hinduism and Brahman. Hinduism still has an insane very inconstant hierarchy of God's, and ridiculous - yet interesting- folklore, though.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

SATCHMO

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you and Mr. Sagan have said. I think that one of the reasons why the popular concept of "God" has taken on a human form in the minds of theist is the way in which humans relate to whatever "God" represents. It's a bit of a double-edged sword. On one hand, relating to "God" as being an autonomous, human-like entity provides a degree of personal intimacy in relating to the whole of all being and the scientific laws that govern existence, which is my way of expressing what God represents as neutrally as I possibly can. On the other hand, by relating to God as if "he" were a human we impose certain human like qualities, like motive, that God, the universe, does not possess.

Hinduism and related Vedantic sects and philosophies really get into the area of pantheistic/solipsistic philosophy, and it's important to note, as it is with any other marginally theistic belief system that each deity in the hierarchy of gods is symbolic of a particular aspect or quality of of the divine. Whether you divide the divine into a pantheon of gods, or espouse the belief in "one true god" you are essentially pointing at the same thing. Atheist and theists both have a difficult time realizing that "god" is both a concept and a symbol that points to something that is very subjective, very experiential, but at the same time very real, as intangible as it may be.

The problem is that a theist will balk at the idea of God as simply being a component of one's own essential, pragmatic psychology and consciousness, one's mind, and an atheist, rather, a materialist, will use that fact to invalidate the entire experience. Essentially they are both doing the same thing with different motives. That is a sweeping generalization; forgive me for that, but it's one that I find is true more often than it's not.

ProggyMan

'Laws' do not 'govern the universe'. This is one of the leftovers of science being seen as an instrument to explore God's creation. The universe (Or 'everything', whatever the hell you want to call it) isn't following rules, it just is a certain way and we extrapolate laws from various patterns we find in nature.

SATCHMO

Aside from nitpicking semantics, I fail to see how anything that you've stated contradicts what I posted.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

In all fairness, there is a basic set of laws that seem to be constant in the universe. Science is very strict on these. If you know the difference from a theory, and a law, and exactly how constant a rule has to be before it's a law, you'll understand that these are pretty well established principles.

Who is going to argue that an atom is not constructed of electrons, neutrons, and protons? Who is going to argue that when something is in a field of gravity that it'll have a force attempting to pull it down? Who is going to argue that motion doesn't create heat, and energy?

My point isn't that the universe is following the rules. My point is that the universe IS the rules, and albeit you can only say they're constant on Earth, and under the broad perception of scientific minds.

When you want to measure a mile, you have to at least trust your measuring tape. Sure, it could be 3/4 of an inch off, or that an inch may not really be an inch by a manufacturer's miscalculation, but it probably isn't. If you sit around being paranoid about the instrument of measurement, you're not going to get anything done in terms of discovery.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

Howard the Duck

I'm just oversimplifying things and taking the roots of it. Most of Gnosticism is too esoteric for me anyway.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

I thought Gnostic meant you believe there is a God but he or she is evil, and a threat to all mankind.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

Howard the Duck

it's more of an impartial, non-judgmental chaotic entity. I shoiulda been clearer - I mean I'm a Gnostic Christian and not just a Gnostic in general. I take in the Gnostic non-canonic Gospels also.