Atheism, Agnosticism, Gnosticism, Theism

[Dogmatic]

Are Catholics Agnostic or Gnostic theists? I’m not sure, so thanks.

 

[davidv]

Are Catholics Agnostic or Gnostic theists? I’m not sure, so thanks.

Neither? Seems to me the categories are arbitrary and too generic to be of much use.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Gnostic theists, they claim to know a personal/Catholic god exists with specific rules and dogmas to follow.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

According to that chart we would be Gnostic Theists, though no Catholic would actually use that term since the word “Gnostic” has a completely different historical meaning.

 

[Gorgias]

This doesn’t seem to be a particularly helpful set of axes, for a couple reasons:

• The term ‘gnostic’ has a distinct meaning in the context of religion. Here, however, it’s being used in a generic sense, seemingly to mean only something along the lines of “asserts that one knows that his personal belief is true”.
• The box for ‘agnostic theist’ changes the meaning of along the gnosis axis from “claims/doesn’t claim to know X” to “doesn’t claim to know the truth value of X”…

 

[KP3243]

Catholics are Catholics, nothing else

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Catholics are Catholics, nothing else

Well, that’s not very helpful. What if someone said “does that mean Catholics are not Christians?”

 

[White_Tree]

Are Catholics Agnostic or Gnostic theists? I’m not sure, so thanks.

I think there is some confusion here because your labels and descriptions are a little off.

I’m going to go with the other posters on this thread and say your use of the word “Gnostic” is slightly off-base. To be a “gnostic” in the true sense of the word, you have to actually know something. It’s not a claim to knowledge. It’s actual knowledge. It’s like saying, “I am just as cognizant of God as I am of this chair I am seated in.”

In that sense, it is impossible for both a gnostic theist and a gnostic atheist to exist. If God exists, then the Gnostic theist is correct, and the “gnostic” atheist is not gnostic at all, but is just delusional, because his “knowledge” was not genuine knowledge, and therefore he could not be called a gnostic.

The other issue, as some other posters pointed out, is that although I’m sure many of us would love to count ourselves in the lower-right quadrant with the “gnostic theists,” no one here wants to step forward and claim to be a gnostic, because of the connotations that the word “gnostic” has for Catholics.

Now after giving you the runaround, I’m actually going to answer your question. Catholics would be in the “agnostic theist” quadrant. And here is why: Catholicism is based on belief. A person is a member of the Catholic Church because of their beliefs. There are certain beliefs, called “dogmas” that the Church requires people to accept. Failure to accept one of these beliefs is called heresy, and results in latae sententiae excommunication from the Church.

Belief is a term used to refer to something that cannot necessarily be verified, but which is accepted as true nonetheless. If a person were really a gnostic theist, talking about belief in God would seem silly. It would be tantamount to saying “I believe the planet earth exists” or “I believe this computer in front of me exists.” We don’t typically refer to obvious facts as “beliefs.” But to a true gnostic, the existence of God is an obvious fact. It is not a belief at all.

So the very fact that Catholicism is a religion based on beliefs means that it is asserting itself as a brand of agnostic theism.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Are Catholics Agnostic or Gnostic theists? I’m not sure, so thanks.

That would have to be determined on an individual basis. Gnostic as used in this chart, is a confidence label. An individual Catholic could be highly confident or have low confidence in the propositions of the religion.

 

[KP3243]

Well, that’s not very helpful. What if someone said “does that mean Catholics are not Christians?”

That is what critical thinking is for.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m going to go with the other posters on this thread and say your use of the word “Gnostic” is slightly off-base. To be a “gnostic” in the true sense of the word, you have to actually know something. It’s not a claim to knowledge. It’s actual knowledge. It’s like saying, “I am just as cognizant of God as I am of this chair I am seated in.”

Hmmm…since word usage some times evolves over time I decided to try to find much older references to the phrases. I found a couple that differ some what from how I see it being used now. What do you think of these? It seems to be more descriptive of a philosophical position to certain propositions (but not the truth value of those propositions).
Alexander Harrison:

“Let Agnostic Theism stand for that kind of Agnosticism which admits a Divine existence; Agnostic Atheism for that kind of Agnosticism which thinks it does not.”

“Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being. The term “agnostic” does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic.”

But since then I see slightly different uses.

 

[Dogmatic]

So everyone knows, I didn’t make the chart. So thanks to those going along with the charts minor definitions. I was mainly curious if the church claimed to know for sure or not. Which I don’t think it claims to know, since as someone pointed out you don’t need to believe what you know. As to the charts use of claiming to know, I think it is better to put claims to know rather than knows, because two can claim it being different options, but not actually know two opposing things. And the creator of the chart humbly doesn’t assert that one knows and the other thinks it knows. Of course I’m not talking about ancient Gnosticism, that’s very different, but at the root it’s similar. They claimed to know.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

So everyone knows, I didn’t make the chart. So thanks to those going along with the charts minor definitions. I was mainly curious if the church claimed to know for sure or not. Which I don’t think it claims to know, since as someone pointed out you don’t need to believe what you know. As to the charts use of claiming to know, I think it is better to put claims to know rather than knows, because two can claim it being different options, but not actually know two opposing things. And the creator of the chart humbly doesn’t assert that one knows and the other thinks it knows. Of course I’m not talking about ancient Gnosticism, that’s very different, but at the root it’s similar. They claimed to know.

The Church knows, and rightly claims to know, the truth of Her doctrines. We know it with absolute certainty. The Christian faith is not a matter of assenting to something while maintaining reservations about whether it is actually true.

With regard to the existence of God specifically, we not only claim that it is knowable by faith but also that it is knowable by reason.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Gnostic theists, they claim to know a personal/Catholic god exists with specific rules and dogmas to follow.

Incorrect. Gnosticism covers a lot of ground. In its mildest form it claims Theological or Philosophical, reasoning, and private revelations or inspirations, thrump Revealed Truth. In any form, Gnosticism is condemned by the Catholic Church and always has been. In the orthodox Catholic view, Theology and Philosophy are handmaidens of Faith, they help make Faith understandable.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

Catholics certainly hold that we can know, with the aid of natural reason, of God’s existence and that we can affirm some true propositions about him (and that we can discern, to a degree, what those propositions mean). We cannot, however, know God’s substance, since we cannot directly interact with him through the senses. I do not think that would make us “agnostic” in any way, however.

 

[Portofino]

Are Catholics Agnostic or Gnostic theists? I’m not sure, so thanks.

I think Catholics are both “agnostic” and “gnostic”, depending on the context, though the author of the chart could hardly have chosen better terms to make most Catholics bristle at having it ascribed to them (both gnostic and agnostic are loaded terms, in popular usage, just as many a Catholic would bristle at the expression “Jesus was a Jewish heretic”).

Catholics are agnostic regarding:

—what happens to unbaptized infants when they die
—who is in hell, and who is not (they don’t even know, with certainty, whether Hitler is in heaven, hell, or purgatory)
—at what point does ensoulment occur
–whether limbo exists
–are all Marian apparitions authentic
–did Mary die before her assumption, or was she assumed into heaven while she was alive

This is not an exhaustive list, and if anyone would claim that the church claims certain knowledge of any of these points, it does not contravene my own point here, which is that the church does not claim omniscence, and thus professes “agnosticism” over a great many things.

Where the church claims gnosis, knowledge, is regarding such things as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption into Heaven, original sin, the efficacy of indulgences, the resurrection of Jesus (and many other things besides). I believe that, in their view, revelation is certain knowledge, and they are certain that revelation has occurred.

One could make a more nuanced distinction between belief and knowledge, but I don’t think the church does. Belief is posited to be knowledge, as I understand it, including belief based on faith and revelation alone.

Obviously, if the church claims infallibility on certain doctrinal issues, they are indeed claiming absolute certainty, knowledge (gnosis).

For individual Catholics (versus the church), it is different. I recall an anecdote of an illustrious Jesuit educator who admitted to doubt, who didn’t claim to profess certain knowledge. Yet he still considered himself a person of faith. When asked, “do you know for sure that God exists?” he responded, with a smile, “I don’t know for sure, but I am betting on it.”

But it depends on one’s point of view, as even “a high degree of probability” is not the same as “absolute, indubitable certainty” and – as I think someone pointed out – this is a description of emotional attitude, of the feeling of certainty or confidence, rather than a definition of certainty that could be measured by more objective standards.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Portofino

For individual Catholics (versus the church), it is different. I recall an anecdote of an illustrious Jesuit educator who admitted to doubt, who didn’t claim to profess certain knowledge. Yet he still considered himself a person of faith. When asked, “do you know for sure that God exists?” he responded, with a smile, "I don’t know for sure, but I am betting on it."

Sounds like he’s barely started down the path toward God. The closer you come to God, the more convinced you are that he exists. That’s why atheists are not convinced. They are as far from God as they can flee.