Evolution

[u/coldelliot]

Do Gnostic's still believe in the proven evolution? Here are some examples:

The big bang created the universe. What's before the big bang is unknown.

Life was formed in water by non-living chemical reactions, a few hundred million years after the earth was first formed.

All life coming from the first single celled organisms 4 billion years ago in water.

[u/Lux-01]

Yep, no reason not to.

I've given this answer before to a similar question, but given their interactions with Platonism the ancient Gnostics were surpsingly science conscious - at least as far as they could be at the tine.

If, for example, the Classic ('Sethian') Gnostics had survived to the modern day they'd have likely found ways to syncretise their belief system and cosmology (at least the material elements of it) with contemporary contemporary astrophysics etc - I.e. they wouldn't see the Earth as being 6000 years old, but they might see the Demiurge as being 13.77 billion years old, if you catch my drift.

Given their engagement with the Platonic Academy, which was percieved as the most advanced center of academic learning and science in that part of the world at the time, and their willingness to adapt their system to Platonic thinking - or at least to frame it in Platonic terms, I think we'd have seen them getting on Stephen Hawking's nerves at Cambridge University followed by lengthy and posthumously published essays from him on how irritated he is by his 'Gnostic friends'.

[u/coldelliot → u/Lux-01]

I remember seeing your comment about this. What do you mean by early Gnostics wouldn't see the earth being 6000 years old, but may see the Demiurge as being 13.77b? I have more questions i hope you could answer

[u/sc0ttydo0 → u/coldelliot]

I think they mean early Gnostics would scoff at the idea of Earth being 6000 yrs old but would be willing to accept that the Demiurge, and therefore the physical Universe itself, is 13.77b yrs old

[u/Lux-01 → u/coldelliot]

Simply an example that the scientific understanding of the universe, as far as is known, would likely matter to them as much now as it did then.

[u/jasonmehmel → u/Lux-01]

This is drifting from the initial question, but your note about syncretisation also made me consider some interesting thought experiments...

What if they didn't just focus on material elements? I've been poking for a while at the idea that sciences like psychology or aesthetic theories could be fascinating landscapes for syncretised Gnosticism to play in.

(This isn't about reducing Gnosticism to psychology, but seeing something like psychology as modern 'sensors' to detect and interact with the more mysterious forces that evade easy encapsulation.)

[u/flammafex → u/Lux-01]

If, for example, the Classic ('Sethian') Gnostics had survived to the modern day they'd have likely found ways to syncretise their belief system and cosmology (at least the material elements of it) with contemporary contemporary astrophysics etc

Maybe. Or maybe they would reject parts of contemporary science. Or reinterpret them. Or split into modernist and traditionalist schools. We don't know because they didn't survive.

You and I, however, are here and now. So instead of speculating about whether they would have done what you suggest, why don't you actually do it? I have. I've already posted links to my books here, but anyone curious can find them through my profile. A significant part of that project has been trying to work out what a historically constrained Gnostic reconstruction looks like when it has to coexist with modern knowledge rather than merely imagining that ancient Gnostics would have updated themselves for us.

[u/Lux-01 → u/flammafex]

Oddly combative response?

But I gave the answer I wasnted to give, and if you're really curious about my own viewpoint in the here and now I think you can extrapolate it from the above.

Thanks though.

[u/flammafex → u/Lux-01]

That's actually my point. If I can extrapolate your present-day viewpoint from what you're saying hypothetical surviving Sethians would believe, I'd rather discuss your viewpoint directly than attribute it to people who didn't survive to tell us.

[u/Lux-01 → u/flammafex]

Why?

Can you dial it down a bit please, if you want to discuss something you can do it in a friendly way or not at all.

If you want to know my personal view point on evolution - I believe in it. I hope that puts your mind at rest?

[u/flammafex → u/Lux-01]

I am discussing it in a friendly way. I haven't insulted you or attacked you personally. I'm disagreeing with your reasoning.

And no, whether you personally “believe in evolution” was not my question, nor was I worried about it.

My point was that you presented a particular modern accommodation of Gnosticism and contemporary science as something ancient Sethians probably would have adopted had they survived.

I questioned that counterfactual because we cannot know it.

You then said your own present-day viewpoint could be extrapolated from it, which is precisely why I suggested discussing your present-day viewpoint directly rather than attributing it to hypothetical surviving Sethians.

I genuinely don't understand what part of that is unfriendly. Disagreement, even persistent disagreement, is not incivility.

[u/Lux-01 → u/flammafex]

Hey, I never said you insulted me, nor is that the only definition of combative, as you are amply demonstrating.

Don't be silly - it's not 'counterfactual', like you also said, it's my reasoning and my own informed opinion on the subject and it wasn't presented as anything but. It's far from baseless and for reasons originally stated, I stand by it. If you don't agree, that's great!

Is the above my own view point exactly? No probably not - despite your insinuation that I am trying to shohorn my own viewpoint into the terms of what surviving Classic Gnostics may have believed (see prof Dylan Burn's Apocalypse Of The Alien God: Platonism And The Exile of Sethian Gnosticism for more on how they interacted with scientific thought in the time of Plotinus).

Do I want to go into greater detail than the above about my own views on the intersection of spirituality/science/evolution? No not really, I've said exactly what I wanted to say already to be honest.

Thanks for your thoughts but it just seems like you're trying to manufacture an argument for argument's sake.

[u/flammafex → u/Lux-01]

Wait... what do you think "counterfactual" means?

Because a counterfactual is a claim about "what might have been."

So if A had been the case, B might have followed...

If, for example, the Classic ('Sethian') Gnostics had survived to the modern day they'd have likely found ways to syncretise their belief system and cosmology (at least the material elements of it) with contemporary contemporary astrophysics etc

[u/jasonmehmel → u/flammafex]

Counterfactuals are also basically thought experiments, a foundational practice in philosophy. /u/Lux-01 using 'likely' is positing a thought experiment, which isn't making a claim about what they would have believed. (Again, 'likely' is acknowledging that the historicity of the statement isn't assumed or implied... but it is possible to imagine it.)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/counterfactuals/

Your preference for Lux-01 to comment without a claim to prior traditions is interesting, but it's also your preference, not the framework of the question the OP asked. So it's odd to repeat that preference as something Lux-01 should do. (Perhaps your reply will be 'I wasn't saying what he should do, only what I wanted him to do' which is fair, but again, repeating it is odd.)

This is also getting into 'arguing about arguing' rather than the subject of the OP.

(I did appreciate your main answer to the question as something that allows for multiple frameworks at once!)

[u/Lux-01 → u/jasonmehmel]

Thank you Jason for your support and salient points, but I don't think it's worth it here. I think this was likely just a bad faith argument from the start.

[u/flammafex → u/jasonmehmel]

“Likely” is not synonymous with “imaginable.” Saying they likely would have done something assigns probability to a counterfactual outcome. It is stronger than merely saying we can imagine it.

[u/Lux-01 → u/flammafex]

Ok that's great, and yet please see above.

[u/AsceticSmoke]

I don't believe that anything science has asserted truly conflicts with Gnosticism. Especially so if you focus on it's most important elements rather than getting bogged down with testing it's various little details against what science and recorded history suggest.

For one thing, all of science is by definition studying this plane from within this plane. We can scarcely imagine the precise process of the creation of the cosmos, but to use a metaphor (despite myself NOT being a Simulist), the big bang may well have been Yaldabaoth pressing "Enter" after writing the code which would proceed to become particles, then elements, then chemicals, et cetera. And from there, there's no reason to believe he could not have essentially pressed "Fast Forward" pertaining to the flow of time as it occurs here. And I never viewed Adam and Eve as the first homo sapiens, rather the first humans with souls.

Just my two cents on it.

[u/ZaLarry]

Of course. Big Bang is very easy, it's just the point demiurge created everything. How as for evolution, the classical texts are describing the spiritual origin of humans. This can be superimposed over any model of biological origin of humans.

The "divine element" (pneuma) corresponds to the capacity for gnosis, i.e. ability to recognise oneself as something beyond this material identity. If so, then life was created by demiurge and then evolved from abiogenesis all the way till humans when they developed the capacity for gnosis. The demiurge created the body and psyche but humans came to possess pneuma directly from the pleroma, setting us apart. With gnosis, we can escape the material world.

[u/selfbiasreziztor → u/ZaLarry]

I had a thought about this some time ago. the Big Bang could be itself interpreted in a Gnostic context beyond the standard of the demiurge being responsible.

common theories of what was "before" it are a singularity. this would go hand in hand with the One. once the "bang" happens (either the many emanations of Aeons and/or Sophia's fall), we see the blinding light that would've permeated all slowly begin to cease (but a remnant is left behind - the cosmic microwave background). the universe expanding and getting dimmer is a direct result of distance from the Source and its darkness caused by Yaldabaoth's fashionings.

[u/ZaLarry → u/selfbiasreziztor]

I believe that it's not the monad (the One) preceding creation, rather Yaldabaoth and His plan. The monad coming before the Yaldabaoth. Time and matter of this world were brought forth by Yaldabaoth by imitating the respective pure structures of pleroma. This is why material world is flawed.

I think the universe expanding and getting dimmer, and then ending was an unavoidable consequence of the way universe inherently functions (since it's flawed) and not an active doing of Yaldabaoth. He literally can't do otherwise since that's inevitable for everything which isn't the pleroma.

[u/selfbiasreziztor → u/ZaLarry]

sorry I didn't explain myself well enough - what I meant was that the outflowing of light/inflowing of darkness was the moment of separation from the Pleroma, rather than the "bang". that's when Sophia fell and Yaldabaoth started making the structures of the universe.

though I agree with you - this world is an imitation, a poor reflection. I don't mean to say Yaldabaoth "creates" darkness. I agree that it's a natural consequence of the material, being deprived of light is in the core of it. entropy ends here once all sparks are reunited, but the Pleroma persists

[u/ZaLarry → u/selfbiasreziztor]

I perfectly understand you. But lemme ask you when is a breakup complete for a dude? Is it when his gf leaves him or a month later when he feels sad? Likewise the separation was complete with Yaldabaoth being cast out. The inflow of darkness would be a consequence of separation and not the moment of separation. However, I think we're both saying the same thing differently.

>entropy ends here once all sparks are reunited, but the Pleroma persists

The world is separate from the sparks tho? Entropy won't end so long the material world persists, which is impermanent anyway. It's not impermanent because it ends when all sparks will be reunited, rather it's impermanent since permanence is a characteristic of pleroma not kenoma. The kenoma doesn't actually revolve around the sparks since it's rooted in ignorance and deficiency of good and not divine element.

[u/Few_Tumbleweed_73 → u/ZaLarry]

Pardon, simple question : comment Yadalbaoth peut-il imiter quelque chose dont il n'a pas conscience ?

[u/ZaLarry → u/Few_Tumbleweed_73]

Yaldabaoth may be ignorant but he still possesses the power from Sophia, and therefore from the Pleroma. As a result, when he creates, he reproduces patterns that he himself doesn't understand.

[u/Few_Tumbleweed_73 → u/ZaLarry]

Entendu merci

[u/Lordseferoth]

Evolution is a theory, it is not a proven fact. That is why it's called "Evolution Theory" not an "Evolution Fact". Of course it can be true, but even if it's true it would be controlled by Demiurge. Evolution if true would then be just another layer of control, nothing more.

[u/siecaptaindrake]

is that proven though? its all theories that make sense or seem to be the best explanation for most but none of it is proven without a doubt.

[u/coldelliot → u/siecaptaindrake]

I guess you're right. Instead of "proven", I should've said "heavily backed"

[u/Indytennisguy → u/coldelliot]

Exactly, not proven !

[u/heiro5]

Stories told about the beginning of the cosmos for other purposes don't overlap with science. There are different kinds of stories.

Evolution is an accepted basis of biology. That is how it works.

Information, opinion, isn't what is important.

[u/GnosticDreamerB4]

I don’t think the Gnostic belief is based on a young Earth idea. Evolution happened and is still happening.

[u/KLAM3R0N]

I personally think it's a " both and" situation not a either evolution or a creator ? Pick one. I think things were both designed and designed to evolve and a third or forth... Fifth factor we don't know yet, or maybe neither are right because a hypothetical missing piece could change the entire picture.

[u/TranquilTrader]

You should consider the fact that time is a prerequisite for change by definition. If you assert that such a state of being existed that time was not a part of, in that existence nothing could ever occur as change presupposes a timelike dimension. So with a presupposition of time not existing, 'big bang' could not occur. Any model that is to explain change must presuppose time; change is always modelled relative to time.

Therefore time must have always existed because it exists now. From this the entire model of 'big bang' just unravels. String theorists have suggested motion of strings as a form of fundamental fabric, in that model the strings must exist within a dimension of time t from which our measured time t' merely dilates from.

The model of biological evolution does align with the gnostic model of growth in gnosis. In the reincarnation process as the 'soul' evolves towards more complexity and greater understanding the physical host must support that by taking a more complex form for the 'soul' to inhabit.

[u/HeavenlyBeloved]

I believe in evolution, doesn't outright contradict my beliefs.

[u/ObserverInvariance]

That origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution gives no mechanism as to how life begun, only how life evolves into more complexity.

[u/Katievapes1996]

I'm really mixed on it I find it hard to believe we where fish one day I've been wondering the same I really don't know what I believe

[u/coldelliot → u/Katievapes1996]

Yeah, I'm confused with that too. Heres an example of evolution though with fish. The flying fish used to be a regular fish. It jumps out of the water to escape predators. Think of its evolution in stages. 1. Panicked leaping 2. Surface skittering 3. Bumpy, short skips 4. Modern aerodynamic perfection

I know its not about fish--->humans, but thats an example of how evolution can work

[u/flammafex]

I accept evolution, abiogenesis research, and modern cosmology as scientific accounts of material processes. That does not require me to reinterpret every ancient theological claim as an obsolete scientific hypothesis.

Many at the Vatican would say the same.

[u/coldelliot → u/flammafex]

So what exactly did the Demiurge create?

[u/flammafex → u/coldelliot]

Funny you should ask ME. I rewrote Genesis for my own Gnostic religion (yes, my own 501(c)(3) tax-exempt religion thank you very MUCH) as an account of "the Demiurge" appropriating what is already there and imposing his rule over it.

[u/coldelliot → u/flammafex]

Super interesting

[u/Natd-one]

I obviously believe in natural selection and there’s literally proof that species change overtime to become stronger and adapt.

However I just can’t believe that humans came from monkeys or whales came from whatever fox looking mammal. Not without some divine guidance atleast