[PeterJ]

Hi Immortal

I'm afraid that I don't see any disagreement between this professor and the gnostics. I view the professors book as an explanation of gnosticism, or gnosticism as it is once the contingent muddle is cleared away. I feel that Nagarjuna, Radhkrishnan, Shankara, Kapleau, the Dalai Lama, Lao tsu, Chung tsu and all the others of like mind are authoritative on truth, while Elaine Pagels, Stephen Hoeller, Karen Armstrong, Sean Martin and their like are authoritative on gnosticism, but of course it is possible to doubt this and hold a different view.

iNow, on 24 May 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

A concession that you are responding very irrationally, then?

How so? Looks like a rational response from here.

[immortal]

PeterJ, on 24 May 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

Hi Immortal

I'm afraid that I don't see any disagreement between this professor and the gnostics.

Oh yes, when you reject the truth and accept things which only suite your worldview, how can you find disagreements.

Quote

I view the professors book as an explanation of gnosticism, or gnosticism as it is once the contingent muddle is cleared away.

Contingent Muddle? The pleroma of God and his Aeons are very important for a practicing gnostic, one cannot just clear it away. Why don't you address this rather than acting as though there aren't any disagreements.

Quote

I feel that Nagarjuna, Radhkrishnan, Shankara, Kapleau, the Dalai Lama, Lao tsu, Chung tsu and all the others of like mind are authoritative on truth, while Elaine Pagels, Stephen Hoeller, Karen Armstrong, Sean Martin and their like are authoritative on gnosticism, but of course it is possible to doubt this and hold a different view.

The pleroma of God of the gnostics is as important as the unity, both should be known. If you accept one and doubt the other your view is incomplete which implies the knowledge that you're trying to gain is going to be incomplete too.

And also how can you accept these things and call yourself an atheist, it looks like double standards to me.

[iNow]

PeterJ, on 24 May 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

How so? Looks like a rational response from here.

In your first sentence, you put forth that a "very rational" response is to "think they say different things." You then follow this by saying that you do NOT think they say different things. Ergo, YOU are not putting forth a rational response. I asked if you were essentially conceding that you were irrational.

Quote

If you think they say different things then you are responding very rationally to their teachings, I would say. But I do not think they say different things

It was a rhetorical question, though, as I already have concluded that people who use faith alone to accept extraordinary claims as true are irrational on that subject by definition. Faith is little more than claiming to know things you do not know, and it is not equivalent to the concept of hope.

[PeterJ]

iNow, on 25 May 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

In your first sentence, you put forth that a "very rational" response is to "think they say different things."

I said that if you think they say different things then your reaction is rational. What is there to misunderstand in that sentence?

Quote

You then follow this by saying that you do NOT think they say different things.

Yes.

Quote

Ergo, YOU are not putting forth a rational response. I asked if you were essentially conceding that you were irrational.

Ergo you did not read my words carefully.

Quote

It was a rhetorical question, though, as I already have concluded that people who use faith alone to accept extraordinary claims as true are irrational on that subject by definition. Faith is little more than claiming to know things you do not know, and it is not equivalent to the concept of hope.

Fair enough. I would roughly agree. But there are three or four different meanings of 'faith', and they do not all mean believing in any old nonsense.

immortal, on 25 May 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

Oh yes, when you reject the truth and accept things which only suite your worldview, how can you find disagreements.

What? I can't even think of a reply to this.

Quote

Contingent Muddle? The pleroma of God and his Aeons are very important for a practicing gnostic, one cannot just clear it away. Why don't you address this rather than acting as though there aren't any disagreements.

What? I didn't even mention the plemora of God. Most of religion is contingent muddle, and I see no reason that Gnosticism should be exempt.

Quote

The pleroma of God of the gnostics is as important as the unity, both should be known. If you accept one and doubt the other your view is incomplete which implies the knowledge that you're trying to gain is going to be incomplete too.

Perhaps so. It has no bearing on anything I said.

Quote

And also how can you accept these things and call yourself an atheist, it looks like double standards to me.

Quite easily. But it's a subtle point, and it seems that subtlety is a no no on this forum.

[immortal]

PeterJ, on 25 May 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

What? I didn't even mention the plemora of God. Most of religion is contingent muddle, and I see no reason that Gnosticism should be exempt.

That's exactly what my criticism is, you want to do away with god, can you atleast address my critcisms rather than acting innocent.

Quote

Perhaps so. It has no bearing on anything I said.

Yes, it does. If one includes the pleroma of God as the fundamental nature of the cosmos then it drastically changes your worldview and hence I said that your worldview is incomplete.

Quote

Quite easily. But it's a subtle point, and it seems that subtlety is a no no on this forum.

Yes, I need to ask you, it appears from here that you positively believe in advaita vedanta which falls under theistic religions and contradicts your claim of being an atheist.

[PeterJ]

Sorry. This forum is so frustrating I throw my hands up in the air sometimes. I meant to stay away but, oh well...

My view is that Shankara has the correct view of God. I do not like calling myself an atheist (although sometimes I do, since it's a quick way of putting people's mind's at rest on that point, especially on science forums.) Advaita, the nondual philosophy, does not require that we dispense with God, just that we see Him as a reflection of a more profound underlying truth. That is, God would be an interpretation of the data, if you like, very close to the truth, and close enough to be an effective idea for guiding our thoughts, behaviour and practice, and as an object through which we may gain the benefits of worship, love and devotion, but vanishes for an ultimate understanding.

"Shankaracharya delivered the message of the sages as found in the Vedas and the Upanishads. He emphasized knowledge, but he also maintained a harmonious balance between karma (action) and bhakti (love and devotion). On the one hand, he taught us how to go beyond the realm of maya and attain the pure non-dual knowledge of the absolute Brahman. On the other hand, he showed us how to adjust to the idea of a personal, or personified, God as a stepping-stone to the realization of the absolute Brahman that is nameless and formless."

(Pandit Raimana Tigunait - The Himalayan Masters. Himalayan Institute Press, 2002)

This would be directly relevant to the previous quote from Evagrios the Solitary, the Christian monk, regarding the avoidance of forms and shapes while praying. It also might shed some light on the gnostic and Kabbalistic idea that God is a created being.

No need to agree with me. Just explaining where I'm coming from.

The reason I tend to be a bit outspoken about His non-existence is that I come at this as a philosopher. Shankara view is defensible in 'rational' philosophy, but God, if we take Him to be the ultimate origin of existence, is not. I therefore would not expect anyone with a scientific mind to accept His existence, since this would require faith from someone who will (quite rightly imho) demand argument and evidence. He is, however, defensible as an approximation to the truth, and may often, as Shankara and others have suggested, be indespensible for reaching it. On this basis I would defend the idea of the grace of God, the love of God, the infinite compassion of God and so forth, not as an ultimate view, but as a close approximation to it and vastly useful and important for that reason.

Does that help clarify our differences?

This post has been edited by PeterJ: Yesterday, 12:06 PM

[immortal]

PeterJ, on 25 May 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Does that help clarify our differences?

Yes, it does. Thank you.

[iNow]

PeterJ, on 25 May 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Fair enough. I would roughly agree. But there are three or four different meanings of 'faith', and they do not all mean believing in any old nonsense.

I didn't say that faith meant "believing in any old nonsense," so that would be a strawman of my position against which you've chosen to argue.

I said, "Faith is little more than claiming to know things you do not know, and it is not equivalent to the concept of hope."

Now, here is the challenge for you. Name for us ANY one of those "three or four different meanings of faith" you reference that do not mean "pretending to know something you do not know" and wherein the definition you share is not, in fact, better describing the term "hope" than the term "faith."

Ready? Go.

[PeterJ]

Nope. Don't feel like doing your work for you. Try a dictionary.

[iNow]

Thank you for conceding your inability to address the challenge.