What the devil is a "gnostic atheist"?

[Doubting_Thomas]

I'm thoroughly confused. There are a couple of threads where people are using the term gnostic atheist. Whilst I can deduce what they mean (although at first I thought it was a typo of agnostic atheist), this usage us new to me. To me referring to a person or belief as "gnostic" is a direct reference to Gnosticism, a now almost extinct but historically relevant branch of Christianity.

Since when did "gnostic atheist" or "gnostic theist" become recognized?

[Whatkins]

Agnostic theist - "I don't think we can know if there's a god or not, but I choose to believe in one."
Agnostic atheist - "I don't think we can know if there's a god or not, but I don't believe there is."
Gnostic theist - "I know for certain that there is a god."
Gnostic atheist - "I know for certain that there is no god."

I have never actually heard of the branch of Christianity that you are referring to, so I cannot say when the term shifted to what we know it as today. Gnosticism, as far as I know, relates to what we (think we) know.

[Tiberius]

Thomas Huxley used the word "agnostic" to describe his stance on God, which was essentially a very scientific one: I cannot prove that God exists or not, so I cannot say whether I know God exists or not.

He chose the word "agnostic" based on the Gnostic movement, which got its named from the greek word for knowledge. At the time, Huxley never intended for the word "gnostic" to mean the opposite of "agnostic". However, as time went on, and both the Gnostic movement declined and the usage of the word "agnostic" gained traction, the word "gnostic" gradually did come to mean just that.

[Doubting_Thomas]

Thanks for the education, we all learn something new every day. With a bit of googling I can find plenty of recent usage but not sure when the term was coined*, and so far haven't found people like Hitchens or Dawkins having used it.

I wish people didn't use it but that's not a battle I can win.
a) it's a real shame many atheists do not appear to be aware of Gnosticism as in the "gnostic church", and the confusion this term term brings
b) it's a real shame modern atheists start adopting antiquated / overly academic terminology. I like to think atheists have the advantage in intellectual debate but lets not disappear up our collective arses
c) what's wrong with just using "Atheist"?


*Looks like maybe Freethinker is to blame

[Hughsie]

Thanks for the education, we all learn something new every day. With a bit of googling I can find plenty of recent usage but not sure when the term was coined, and so far haven't found people like Hitchens or Dawkins having used it.

I wish people didn't use it but that's not a battle I can win.
a) it's a real shame many atheists do not appear to be aware of Gnosticism as in the "gnostic church", and the confusion the term brings
b) it's a real shame modern atheists start adopting antiquated / overly academic terminology. I like to think atheists have the advantage in intellectual debate at least with the majority of theist arguments, but using this term is atheism disappearing up its own arse
c) what's wrong with just calling the position "Atheist"?*



* I'm one of the many technically "agnostic atheists" but prefer simply "atheist". "Radical atheist" in my bio is a joke and in homage to Douglas Adams.

I prefer to call myself an agnostic atheist than just atheist. Atheist implies that I'm as certain of my position as theists are of theirs and I would never want to appear that close minded.

[Doubting_Thomas]

Can't fault your logic mate, I too cannot bring myself to use absolute terms regarding my belief. I don't think "atheist" is an absolute term, it's a spectrum of essentially similar beliefs.

But my personal view is that "agnostic atheist" should be confined to intellectual discussions that go there. Only atheists and a minority of god slaves have any idea about the subtly. Just like calling a religious person a "theist", I'd wager most wouldn't know what you were on about.

Atheism is still struggling for recognition and equality in many countries and agnosticism waters down the stats.

[Cyberman]

I wish people didn't use it but that's not a battle I can win.

Why would you wish that? I appreciate that the terminology may tend towards confusion for people not in the group, i.e. outside the discussion, but then many people don't understand the distinction between hypothesis and theory either. The terms agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist act to complement each other; the former denotes what a person purports to know, the latter what they believe. That a sect of a particular religion chose to adopt the term gnostic to describe themselves is really neither here nor there.

[The Grand Nudger]

-If- you're willing to allow the great, un-definable, and un-proposed gods into the conversation so that the faithful can beat their own psuedo-philosophical dicks (for whatever reason).....then you can probably never know. Personally, I don't care how much blathering they put into their arguments for the great un-definable un-proposed, gods are a non-entity.

If an idea can be said to die with dignity, the god idea cannot, because it's adherents will not let it.

[Doubting_Thomas]

I wish people didn't use it but that's not a battle I can win.

Why would you wish that? I appreciate that the terminology may tend towards confusion for people not in the group, i.e. outside the discussion, but then many people don't understand the distinction between hypothesis and theory either. The terms agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist act to complement each other; the former denotes what a person purports to know, the latter what they believe. That a sect of a particular religion chose to adopt the term gnostic to describe themselves is really neither here nor there.

My core objections are per my post.

Re Gnosticism & Gnostics, the term was in use from at least around 200AD so the sect(s) got there long before anyone coined Atheism (1400 years after gnostic) let alone "gnostic atheist". At the time Huxley coined "agnostic", "gnostic" only referred to the early Christian type.

Gnosticism is really interesting and relevant to discussion of Judeo-Christian religion, particularly how the bible and doctrine was formed and changed. I haven't read as much on this as I'd like, but recommend it to anyone wishing to poke further holes in biblical inerrancy.

Gnostic related sources:
http://gnosis.org/library/dss/dss.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
http://gnosticschristians.com/ / http://www.gnosticchristianity.com/ <<less academic, more agendered but curious reading

[Cyberman]

I fully understand and appreciate the term as applied to the Gnostic sect. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise in that regard. You yourself identified that the sect is all but extinct, though historically relevant. My point is that languages change with usage, usage being the whole purpose of language, and that what may have been common usage a millennium ago almost certainly will not be today. I admit I'm no expert in obscure religious sects; isn't it just as likely that the Gnostics adopted the name from the Greek, as the idea that the term originated with the sect? Similar to the modern atheist sect, the Brights, using a word commonly used for a completely different purpose?

I personally have no contention with using the words agnostic/gnostic where such usage clarifies ones belief position. Then again, perhaps it's my instincts as a writer that causes me to balk at any limitations placed on my use of language.