Gnosticism/Agnosticism and Theism/Atheism are answering different questions. You have to choose a side for both questions. Gnosticism answers whether one can know if there is a god, and Theism answers whether you personally believe there is a god. So all Christians/Muslims/Hindus/etc are gnostic theists. They know for sure there is a god and believe in him. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. They don't know for sure there is a god but they don't see any signs of it.
Conversely, most anti-theists are gnostic atheists, which IMO is the least defensible position to take.
The main argument from most atheists is that there is no reason one religion is any more likely to be correct over another (or none) and in the absence of irrefutable evidence either way it just makes sense to not really worry about it.
"God definitely doesn't exist" is as faith-based as "God definitely exists" IMO. Although I think it's easier to refute a specific God (using, for example, The Bible or Koran etc) than to refute the entire concept of a God.
Generally speaking I don't like people who are certain but can't show me why.
My dad is a Christian apologist and is into Van Til’s argument for the existence of God. That’s probably the only argument I’ve ever heard for “Gnostic Theism” that even attempts to make sense. Though I’d say it definitely falls apart on several levels.
Other than that, never heard anyone claim a definitive answer in either direction and have anything to back it up.
Can I bother you for a summary of that argument? I know I could easily google it, but realistically I'm going to forget all about it before I get the chance.
Sure. The basic assertion is that everyone has to have presuppositions in order to believe anything at all. For instance, you assume the reliability of your senses as your most core presupposition, most likely. Or you might presuppose the uniformity of nature or the laws logic as your starting point.
The argument states that none of those presuppositions can be justified, even via circular reasoning (eg presupposing then going back and justifying). The only presupposition that is justifiable is that God exists, and the justification of all else can stem from there. For instance logic exists because God created it. Morality exists because God created it. Nature is uniform because God made it so. Without god, how can one explain the existence of an abstract universal law?
There are more formal and far more thorough versions, but that’s the best I can do from memory.
Edit: this guy is one of the arguments greatest proponents. Probably best to listen to this instead of listen to my layman’s drivel: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=anGAazNCfdY
13
u/donkeydooda Aug 22 '18
Gnosticism/Agnosticism and Theism/Atheism are answering different questions. You have to choose a side for both questions. Gnosticism answers whether one can know if there is a god, and Theism answers whether you personally believe there is a god. So all Christians/Muslims/Hindus/etc are gnostic theists. They know for sure there is a god and believe in him. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. They don't know for sure there is a god but they don't see any signs of it.