Gnosticism and the belief in Evolution

[lifepsyop]

Gnosticism believes that the natural world is something fully separate from the spiritual realm of God.

Gnosticism shuttles divinity off to a realm far away from the natural creation. The creation is necessarily something locked or imprisoned within a certain system of physical laws. Creatures of the world are necessarily a product of this universal system of nature. Evolution is the generation of the diversity of living things according to the universal motivations of nature... e.g. enviromentally induced selection pressures.

So creatures are a result of natural process, the metamorphic procession of the universal material substance through time.

The gnostic mind sees the true spiritual world as something far beyond the material world. The material world is something lesser and brutish, governed by death and decay. And the gnostic finds "God" as a source so far beyond the material realm that this god would not even dirty his hands working with it. The gnostic journey is a transcendance from the realm of physical bodies, and a return to this divine ethereal source of all things, a return to oneness and divine illumination.

The pathway towards this illumination is through gnosis, not through primitive superstitious stories and mythologies, but through the power of human reason which is the one element found in nature that can actually transcend nature.

Gnostics wish to fully separate the realm of the material and spiritual. The material is something rough and degenerate, while the spiritual is something sophisticated and refined and true. The rough stone versus the refined block with perfect angles and measurements. The material world is the dark shadow cast on the wall, while the spiritual world is the illuminating sunlight above.

To have the divine spiritual realm intruding into the material creation in such primitive ways as sculpting people and animals out of the dust of the earth, or getting angry and dumping water over everything and flooding the earth, or marching around the desert in a pillar of cloud... these are seen as primitive folk mythologies using the familiarity of human activity in an attempt to reveal the mystery of the divine... the real "God" would never involve himself in such 'human' ways... these are only parables and moral lessons, mysteries that reveal some sophisticated truth about the divine reality.

The gnostic sees his way of interpretation scripture as far more sophisticated, and looks down on what he sees as a silly and ignorant way of interpreting events in scripture as actual history. This is the primary reason that Biblical historicity is attacked with such fervor... it knocks man off his philosophical high horse. The repeated claim of scientific evidence is a kind of smokescreen to divert people away from what is fundamentally a philosophical disagreement with no power of evidence. It always goes back to a root assumption of philosophical naturalism.

In the same manner, the gnostic will also 'de-materialize' his eschatology, where visions of an actual New Jerusalem city descending from heaven, or of an actual second-coming of the King of Kings with his army of angels to wage war on the rebellious nations... these are likewise viewed as mere symbolism for a divine transformation that is far above the dealings of physical bodies on the earth. The afterlife is seen as something immaterial and ethereal, not a place of physical human bodies and inhabitable cities.

The gnostic Jesus is an ambiguous one, at times nothing more than a teacher of self-enlightenment, or a symbolic 'gnosis'. When the gnostic Jesus speaks about events recorded in scripture, it is always meant to be metaphors and parables, never referring to real events in the material world.

So the fixation on 'naturalizing' everything is a way of fortifying this gnostic belief system. There is the creation of nature itself, which the gnostic admits must have originated from somewhere beyond nature, "God"... however once the rought material state of nature is created, it becomes something impure and unclean that "God" is too far above to be interacting with the way a mere lesser man would interact with a lump of clay.

So this kind of thinking leads to the popularization of Theistic-Evolution, which ultimately becomes a belief in materialistic evolution of the entire universe, the universe as one big alchemical refinery, which is the foundation of modern science and the modern world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Gnosticism believes that the natural world is something fully separate from the spiritual realm of God.

Gnosticism shuttles divinity off to a realm far away from the natural creation. The creation is necessarily something locked or imprisoned within a certain system of physical laws. Creatures of the world are necessarily a product of this universal system of nature. Evolution is the generation of the diversity of living things according to the universal motivations of nature... e.g. enviromentally induced selection pressures.

So creatures are a result of natural process, the metamorphic procession of the universal material substance through time.

The gnostic mind sees the true spiritual world as something far beyond the material world. The material world is something lesser and brutish, governed by death and decay. And the gnostic finds "God" as a source so far beyond the material realm that this god would not even dirty his hands working with it. The gnostic journey is a transcendance from the realm of physical bodies, and a return to this divine ethereal source of all things, a return to oneness and divine illumination.

The pathway towards this illumination is through gnosis, not through primitive superstitious stories and mythologies, but through the power of human reason which is the one element found in nature that can actually transcend nature.

Gnostics wish to fully separate the realm of the material and spiritual. The material is something rough and degenerate, while the spiritual is something sophisticated and refined and true. The rough stone versus the refined block with perfect angles and measurements. The material world is the dark shadow cast on the wall, while the spiritual world is the illuminating sunlight above.

To have the divine spiritual realm intruding into the material creation in such primitive ways as sculpting people and animals out of the dust of the earth, or getting angry and dumping water over everything and flooding the earth, or marching around the desert in a pillar of cloud... these are seen as primitive folk mythologies using the familiarity of human activity in an attempt to reveal the mystery of the divine... the real "God" would never involve himself in such 'human' ways... these are only parables and moral lessons, mysteries that reveal some sophisticated truth about the divine reality.

The gnostic sees his way of interpretation scripture as far more sophisticated, and looks down on what he sees as a silly and ignorant way of interpreting events in scripture as actual history. This is the primary reason that Biblical historicity is attacked with such fervor... it knocks man off his philosophical high horse. The repeated claim of scientific evidence is a kind of smokescreen to divert people away from what is fundamentally a philosophical disagreement with no power of evidence. It always goes back to a root assumption of philosophical naturalism.

In the same manner, the gnostic will also 'de-materialize' his eschatology, where visions of an actual New Jerusalem city descending from heaven, or of an actual second-coming of the King of Kings with his army of angels to wage war on the rebellious nations... these are likewise viewed as mere symbolism for a divine transformation that is far above the dealings of physical bodies on the earth. The afterlife is seen as something immaterial and ethereal, not a place of physical human bodies and inhabitable cities.

The gnostic Jesus is an ambiguous one, at times nothing more than a teacher of self-enlightenment, or a symbolic 'gnosis'. When the gnostic Jesus speaks about events recorded in scripture, it is always meant to be metaphors and parables, never referring to real events in the material world.

So the fixation on 'naturalizing' everything is a way of fortifying this gnostic belief system. There is the creation of nature itself, which the gnostic admits must have originated from somewhere beyond nature, "God"... however once the rought material state of nature is created, it becomes something impure and unclean that "God" is too far above to be interacting with the way a mere lesser man would interact with a lump of clay.

So this kind of thinking leads to the popularization of Theistic-Evolution, which ultimately becomes a belief in materialistic evolution of the entire universe, the universe as one big alchemical refinery, which is the foundation of modern science and the modern world.

While I've agreed with you about some of the critiques we may have about Modern Culture, I think you're not quite hitting this topic accurately. Theistic Evolution isn't Gnosticism.

Just say'n, Bro!

 

[Trusting in Him]

Gnosticism and evolution are not usually considered to be strickly compateable with accepted biblical teaching.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Gnosticism and evolution are not usually considered to be strickly compateable with accepted biblical teaching.

Whether or not Evolution and the Bible are compatible depends upon which conceptual framework, along with any attending assumptions, that one is starting with and working from.

Whatever the framework, Gnosticism isn't analogous to an Evolutionary outlook.

 

[Unqualified]

Are you teaching on Gnosticism? I don’t want to sound an emotional response….. are you going to be the vehicle for Christians losing their faith? God hates gnostic view. It needs to be said. It gives people license to sin while searching for an impersonal god. So that on one level you sin in the flesh and on the other hand you seek perfection and call it godliness. The two do not mix in Christianity.

he called you bro are you a brother? Or a gnostic? These are the false teachers and false prophets in the NT.

 

[expos4ever]

The scientific evidence is what it is - it is certainly not a smokescreen. The theory of evolution is a robust theory - it makes clear, comprehensible claims that are supported by a lot of evidence.

You are trying to spin this as a "philosophical" commitment. It does not matter what philosophical commitments one has - the simple truth is that the theory makes clear testable claims that are supported by the data.

 

[lifepsyop]

Are you teaching on Gnosticism?

I am against Gnosticism as it is ultimately about man trying to be god through his own enlightenment, the temptation of Eve in the garden. Gnosticism is one of the oldest heresies in the church, and now appears to have become widespread in the modern age.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you teaching on Gnosticism? I don’t want to sound an emotional response….. are you going to be the vehicle for Christians losing their faith? God hates gnostic view. It needs to be said. It gives people license to sin while searching for an impersonal god. So that on one level you sin in the flesh and on the other hand you seek perfection and call it godliness. The two do not mix in Christianity.

he called you bro are you a brother? Or a gnostic? These are the false teachers and false prophets in the NT.

I don't think anyone here is supporting Gnosticism of any form.

 

[lifepsyop]

The scientific evidence is what it is - it is certainly not a smokescreen. The theory of evolution is a robust theory - it makes clear, comprehensible claims that are supported by a lot of evidence.

You are trying to spin this as a "philosophical" commitment. It does not matter what philosophical commitments one has - the simple truth is that the theory makes clear testable claims that are supported by the data.

There is the theory or hypothesis and then the underlying philosophical commitment to naturalism. And the latter is not dependent on the veracity of the former.

For example, young-earth creationists make testable claims, (e.g. there should be significant original organic material left-over in dinosaur remains that would not be expected to last 70+ million years) but the underlying commitment to Biblical creation does not rely on those claims being proven true or false. Disproven hypotheses simply mean that they are waiting for 'science to shed new light' on correct ones.

Theories and hypotheses of evolution have come and gone over the centuries but generally have no impact on the underlying commitment to philosophical naturalism.

 

[lifepsyop]

Whatever the framework, Gnosticism isn't analogous to an Evolutionary outlook.

I wouldn't say analogous... more like preferential. If the natural world is completely sterilized of any interference or activity of God, (i.e. a completely naturalistically developed universe operating on universal laws governing all matter) then God can be shuttled or removed to a realm completely separate from and outside of nature, which is where the Gnostic wants God to be.

To the gnostic, this is the divine presence that can only be accessed through human enlightenment. The God of Israel wants His children to submit to his will and obey his written commands. The gnostic finds it ridiculous and superstitious that God would reveal his identity and his will directly through the authors of scripture. Instead, the Gnostic prides himself on discovering God himself through his powers of reason and enlightenment, or Gnosis.

To the gnostic, a god meddling around with the material world would only be a trickster god or demiurge, and so gnostics prefer to locate God as an ultimate source completely removed from nature. This makes Evolution an obvious preference.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wouldn't say analogous... more like preferential. If the natural world is completely sterilized of any interference or activity of God, (i.e. a completely naturalistically developed universe operating on universal laws governing all matter) then God can be shuttled or removed to a realm completely separate from and outside of nature, which is where the Gnostic wants God to be.

To the gnostic, this is the divine presence that can only be accessed through human enlightenment. The God of Israel wants His children to submit to his will and obey his written commands. The gnostic finds it ridiculous and superstitious that God would reveal his identity and his will directly through the authors of scripture. Instead, the Gnostic prides himself on discovering God himself through his powers of reason and enlightenment, or Gnosis.

To the gnostic, a god meddling around with the material world would only be a trickster god or demiurge, and so gnostics prefer to locate God as an ultimate source completely removed from nature. This makes Evolution an obvious preference.

I get that that could be the case with gnostics, but what you're describing is more attuned to what is known as Philosophical Naturalism. Although there are a number of scientists who subscribe to the epistemic metrics of this way of interpreting scientific findings, they are the minority among working scientists. Most operate with Methodological Naturalism instead, which only says that science can't rationally control for any variables related to Divine Powers, so they assume as a method to leave it out.

This later method is different than Philosophical Naturalism which tends to say, "By golly, we have the scientific data and THERE DEFINITELY IS NO SIGN OF THE DIVINE!!!" ... as if they could "know" for sure.

See the difference and as to which one would comport with a form of Gnosticism? Hence, Theistic Evolutionists (such as, say, Francis Collins), who work from within science via Methodological Naturalism are not conflating nor attempting to represent any form of Gnosticism. However, those atheists like Richard Dawkins, who work via Philosophical Naturalism, in a way do reflect a kind of gnostic overture in their claims.

 

[The Barbarian]

So the fixation on 'naturalizing' everything is a way of fortifying this gnostic belief system. There is the creation of nature itself, which the gnostic admits must have originated from somewhere beyond nature, "God"... however once the rought material state of nature is created, it becomes something impure and unclean that "God" is too far above to be interacting with the way a mere lesser man would interact with a lump of clay.

So this kind of thinking leads to the popularization of Theistic-Evolution, which ultimately becomes a belief in materialistic evolution of the entire universe, the universe as one big alchemical refinery, which is the foundation of modern science and the modern world.

I haven't seen logical pretzel-bending like that since someone tried to show that the democrats were behind the Jan 6 coup attempt.

It's always a tip-off that the writer knows nothing at all about evolutionary theory, when they try to extend it to the "materialistic evolution of the entire universe." Evolutionary theory is about living populations and how they change over time. But try to tell that to a creationist programmed to think it's about cosmology.

As Everett Dirkson remarked, people are usually down on things they aren't up on.

 

[lifepsyop]

I get that that could be the case with gnostics, but what you're describing is more attuned to what is known as Philosophical Naturalism. Although there are a number of scientists who subscribe to the epistemic metrics of this way of interpreting scientific findings, they are the minority among working scientists. Most operate with Methodological Naturalism instead, which only says that science can't rationally control for any variables related to Divine Powers, so they assume as a method to leave it out.

Both of which you describe have the same effect of sterilizing the universe of any potential divine intervention. (e.g. the earth must not have been created as the earth, it must have been the result of a process of planetary evolution from stardust) ... whether or not the subscriber to methodological naturalism really believes that in his heart of hearts, he promotes it as reality revealed by the light of 'science'...

See the difference and as to which one would comport with a form of Gnosticism? Hence, Theistic Evolutionists (such as, say, Francis Collins), who work from within science via Methodological Naturalism are not conflating nor attempting to represent any form of Gnosticism. However, those atheists like Richard Dawkins, who work via Philosophical Naturalism, in a way do reflect a kind of gnostic overture in their claims.

What is interesting is both Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins seem to be circling around the same god... Of course Dawkins would not use the language of a "God", but just the same it is an ultimate universal force behind all of reality determining the cosmic fate of all things, an ultimate force that mankind is able to perceive through Gnosis and enlightenment. Both Collins and Dawkins agree that this is the ultimate architect of reality that we discover through human reason.

 

[lifepsyop]

It's always a tip-off that the writer knows nothing at all about evolutionary theory, when they try to extend it to the "materialistic evolution of the entire universe." Evolutionary theory is about living populations and how they change over time. But try to tell that to a creationist programmed to think it's about cosmology.

So.... how do you think the planet earth came into existence? Any theories?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Both of which you describe have the same effect of sterilizing the universe of any potential divine intervention. (e.g. the earth must not have been created as the earth, it must have been the result of a process of planetary evolution from stardust) ... whether or not the subscriber to methodological naturalism really believes that in his heart of hearts, he promotes it as reality revealed by the light of 'science'...

No, that's misrepresentation of what MOST scientists 'do' and how they think about their work. It isn't Gnosticism, and it isn't 'revealed.'

What is interesting is both Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins seem to be circling around the same god... Of course Dawkins would not use the language of a "God", but just the same it is an ultimate universal force behind all of reality determining the cosmic fate of all things, an ultimate force that mankind is able to perceive through Gnosis and enlightenment. Both Collins and Dawkins agree that this is the ultimate architect of reality that we discover through human reason.

And you're quoting Collins and Dawkins from where on all of this? I know you aren't and it shows.

Please stop. It just makes you look like you're all too willing to just talk about this topic and not really represent the voices accurately. Collins and Dawkins couldn't be further apart in their views about the world. If you're going to evaluate them, then you actually need to have read them.

Have I read them? Yes. So, enough of this equivocating Gnosticism with Evolution or any other aspects of science. It's fine to question 'Science' and I have no qualms about that, but you are showing that you're epistemically trespassing into things that ... (forgive the pun) ... you don't know.

 

[The Barbarian]

So.... how do you think the planet earth came into existence? Any theories?

If you go all the way back, far as we can know, Someone said "let there be light."

And in the early universe, that's all there was for a long time, until matter condensed out as the temperture dropped.

Eventually, there were stars and some were really huge. One of them burned out all elements up to (edit: iron), and then imploded as really big stars do.

That produced almost all the other possible elements which blew off into space. That shock wave collapsed a nearby gas and dust cloud,with the debris from that exploding star mixing with the cloud and a new star forming from the collapsing cloud.

In the matter around the star, a number of planets formed. One of them was ours.

As God intended.

Would you like to learn how we know this? BTW, none of this has anything at all to do with evolutionary theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

What is interesting is both Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins seem to be circling around the same god...

Collins is an evangelical Christian. Dawkins is as close to an atheist as it is for a thinking person to be. (He says he can't rule out a god with absolute certainty).

 

[lifepsyop]

If you go all the way back, far as we can know, Someone said "let there be light."

And in the early universe, that's all there was for a long time, until matter condensed out as the temperture dropped.

Eventually, there were stars and some were really huge. One of them burned out all elements up to (edit: iron), and then imploded as really big stars do.

That produced almost all the other possible elements which blew off into space. That shock wave collapsed a nearby gas and dust cloud,with the debris from that exploding star mixing with the cloud and a new star forming from the collapsing cloud.

In the matter around the star, a number of planets formed. One of them was ours.

What a coincidence... you believe the earth was gradually developed by naturalistic processes over time, just as virtually every other evolutionist believes. It's almost as if the belief in Evolution extends beyond biodiversity and to the rest of the universe.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, that's misrepresentation of what MOST scientists 'do' and how they think about their work.

Not at all. I just described methodological naturalism. Only natural causes and effects are up for consideration. Evolution is simply methodological naturalism applied to the study of origins. The conclusion of Evolution is a priori baked into the cake, and it is the methodological naturalist's job to figure out the most likely evolutionary pathways.

Collins and Dawkins couldn't be further apart in their views about the world.

I think they use very different language but are approaching a similar destination. A supreme, ultimate, universal force behind all of reality. Dawkins might refer to the mysterious source of the cosmos that lies before the "Big Bang" singularity where our concept of physical laws break down. Collins refers to a mysterious watchmaker type of deistic god that is ultimately responsible for a kind of generative 'seed' that led to the evolution of the cosmos, but this god has remained completely detached from any kind of interaction with it. A natural universe completely sterilized of any interaction with the divine.

I am wondering if Collins believes any of the historical accounts of the God of Israel in the Old Testament? (probably not as they are generally denied by mainstream science/archaeology)

The gnostic tradition held that this was malevolent lesser god or demiurge, and that the wrath, and plagues, and 'genocides' committed by Israel are evidence of the Old Testament God's evil nature. Gnostics believe that Jesus pointed to the true divine source and represented a God with an identity totally separate from the OT God.

However, denying Old Testament history altogether is a clever way of avoiding the issue.

But it does make you wonder... What is worse? Being upset with God about the things he did or denying he did them at all?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not at all. I just described methodological naturalism. Only natural causes and effects are up for consideration. Evolution is simply methodological naturalism applied to the study of origins. The conclusion of Evolution is a priori baked into the cake, and it is the methodological naturalist's job to figure out the most likely evolutionary pathways.

Ok. If you think this then I'd like to see you 'show' your work (i.e. show your references). I need to be able to verify with my own research as to which scientists you're referring to. Otherwise, I have to assume you're just making up your own private evaluation and putting it forward as 'truth.'

I think they use very different language but are approaching a similar destination. A supreme, ultimate, universal force behind all of reality. Dawkins might refer to the mysterious source of the cosmos that lies before the "Big Bang" singularity where our concept of physical laws break down. Collins refers to a mysterious watchmaker type of deistic god that is ultimately responsible for a kind of generative 'seed' that led to the evolution of the cosmos, but this god has remained completely detached from any kind of interaction with it. A natural universe completely sterilized of any interaction with the divine.

Dawkins doesn't believe in God, period. He's an atheist. You do realize this, right?

I am wondering if Collins believes any of the historical accounts of the God of Israel in the Old Testament? (probably not as they are generally denied by mainstream science/archaeology)

It's usually best to find out directly from the person. Have you read anything or watched any videos from either Francis Collins or Richard Dawkins at all?

The gnostic tradition held that this was malevolent lesser god or demiurge, and that the wrath, and plagues, and 'genocides' committed by Israel are evidence of the Old Testament God's evil nature. Gnostics believe that Jesus pointed to the true divine source and represented a God with an identity totally separate from the OT God.

However, denying Old Testament history altogether is a clever way of avoiding the issue.

But it does make you wonder... What is worse? Being upset with God about the things he did or denying he did them at all?

I don't see why this has to be the case. Personally, while there is a grain of truth to what you're saying, upon deeper scholarly scrutiny, your positioning here breaks down into a false dichotomy. To think Evolution is true doesn't require a wholesale rejection of the Old Testament history. It just requires some deeper, more prolonged philosophical and scientific thinking and conceptual framing.