Religion and belief

[Angilion]

Gnosticism is an early Christian Theological Movement generally regarded as heresy by mainstream Christianity rather than a particular philosophical position in the same vein as Agnosticism/Atheism/Theism et al.

That's true, but what can you call the positions which would be described as gnostic if the name wasn't already taken? Agnosticism is the position that a person shouldn't claim something to be objectively true unless they can objectively prove it true, so what do you call the position that a person can claim something is objectively true without objective proof, that something is objective truth because they feel it is?

 

[platinum87]

Hitler believed in something too. Too bad he didn't get to nuclear weapons, I'd rather the entire world was wiped out somewhere around 1946, then we wouldn't have to trouble ourselves any more with these questions.

 

[Castiel]

That's true, but what can you call the positions which would be described as gnostic if the name wasn't already taken? Agnosticism is the position that a person shouldn't claim something to be objectively true unless they can objectively prove it true, so what do you call the position that a person can claim something is objectively true without objective proof, that something is objective truth because they feel it is?

I think you need to consider that certain terminology is simply unrelated, Agnosticism was coined by Thomas Huxley and comes from the Koine Greek 'a'-without and 'gnosis'-Knowledge , so it is just not related to Gnosticism, it simply shares a linguistic base in its etymolgy.

In answer to the second part of your question, I do not think that you can claim objective truth without objective evidence, that doesn't necessarily mean the evidence has to be Scientific or Material Evidence, simply that the evidence used to support an individuals position is assessed without prejudice or bias. It depends on how you define 'objective' and the context in which the term is used to some extent.

We broadly use the term 'Faith' to describe a position that doesn't rest on material evidence and the narrower philosophical position known as 'Fideism' refers to a position that Religious Truth is a matter of Faith alone and cannot be established using scientific (or objective in this context) materialism.

 

[Castiel]

But why should views of approved religions be given so much more consideration? e.g. automatic respect enforced by rules (e.g. these forums) and by law in many places (including the UK).

Your reply isn't to what I wrote in my post.

Because all too often an individuals religious belief is used as an excuse to justify persecution and discrimination against that individual. Equally it can be used to justify that persecution against another individual, therefore Freedom of Religion is important in a Free Society, and rules are necessary to ensure or at least encourage those Freedoms for everyone, regardless of their Faith or Philosophical Position.

There is a difference between respecting someone's right to hold and practice a Faith or Religious position in a free society and being objectively critical of said positions, Freedom of Speech and the right to be critical is also important in a Free Society and you can be critical of a religion or position and respect those beliefs in relation to the person holding them at the same time.......However all too often the criticism is based not on objective and knowledge based critical judgements but is based on a kind of criticism that used to be called Zoilism, which is not objective and based solely on attempting to belittle or offend the individual as well as the beliefs themselves.

There is no easy answer in weighing the relative rights of certain Freedoms when they conflict with each other, particularly at the extremes of their implementation, we simply do the best we can.