Category: Theology

Socrates was a Greek philosopher who lived in Athens, Greece from 470 BCE to 399 BCE. Although not the first philosopher, he is credited as being the founder of Western philosophy and the first moral philosopher.

Since he is the ideal of what a philosopher is, I thought it would be interesting if we followed Socrates’ example today. What would happen if we lived like Socrates?

Well, firstly, we would not get a degree in philosophy. Socrates did not go to a University, rather he learned his father’s trade and became a stone worker. He was tutored in reading and writing. He served in the military and served in three campaigns. And after his father passed, he inherited part of his father’s estate.

With the idle time, he started hanging out with some friends and started asking citizens of Athens questions to see if they were wise. He would pop their intellectual ego by showing they were unwise. Eventually, this would contribute to his trial and death sentence.

Socrates was notoriously ugly, so if we follow his example, we should not worry about our looks. He showed indifference to his own appearance and personal hygiene. They say he “bathed rarely, walked barefoot, and owned only one ragged coat.”

Do we really want to follow his example. How many of you honestly think he would be accepted as a philosopher today?

Philosophy used to be a way of life, now it is merely a way of making a living. Philosophy used to be the most important pursuit in a person’s life, now it is regarded as irrelevant, boring, and a complete waste of time.

Philosophy has clearly lost its way.

“If a person is really involved in a religion and really building his life on it, he better stay with [it]…. You can keep an old tradition going only by renewing it in terms of current circumstances…. When the world changes, then the religion has to be transformed.” – Joseph Campbell

Many are leaving Christianity because it is no longer meeting their needs. They see it as out of date and out of touch. The overwhelming evil in the world doesn’t make sense if there is an all good and all powerful being in charge.

Gnostic Christians deny that God is in charge. Rather, Satan is “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4). The good God entrusted Adam with dominion over the earth, and he surrendered it to the devil.

In this and many other ways, Gnostic Christianity improves on Catholic Christianity. As more and more of the Bible is questioned as to its historical accuracy, Gnostic Christians have always maintained that it is primary myths, metaphors, and parables. But so have the mystics.

How do you relate the Bible and the Valentinian writings in the Nag Hammadi Scriptures?

First, what authority do the Valentinian writings have?

Second, what authority does the Bible have?

Third, how do the Nag Hammadi Scriptures and the Bible relate to one another?

These are difficult questions and little consensus among Gnostic Christians. But more importantly, this has to be answered before we can even talk about beliefs.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of ungrounded talk under the banner of Gnosticism. Most talk past one another. Everything strange and weird is found under the banner of Gnosticism. That is why these three questions have to be answered for the conversation can even begin.

How do you know that what you believe is true? That is the question known as epistemology or the “theory of knowledge.”

I don’t think we can know very much for certain. We have to give up that search. But I do think we can discover how probable a claim to truth is.

I will make a complex issue simple. You can tell whether a claim is probably true by applying the three C’s: correspondence, consistency, and consequences.

Truth is the correspondence of a claim with reality. If what you claim matches reality then what you claim is true. If your claim doesn’t match reality then it is false.

The important question is how do you tell whether or not your belief matches reality? By the objective and verifiable evidence for or against the belief. So the correspondence is mostly about a belief matching the available evidence.

The next test of truth is the consistency of the belief with one’s whole worldview. Contraction is a sign that something is wrong, either the belief is false or part of one’s worldview is false.

The final test of truth is the consequences of accepting the claim as true. If you can live it, it may be false. You will know a claim by its fruits. You don’t get bad results from a good belief, nor do you get good results from a bad belief.

This is a very simple epistemology. It is merely the outline for a larger exploration.

I am in pursuit of wisdom, because wisdom leads to flourishing, and flourishing leads to serenity.

But what is wisdom? I don’t think we really know for sure. I have tried a number of times to define it, so here goes another attempt.

Wisdom is the overall perspective from which one sees the true nature of reality and thus correctly interprets humanity’s relation to it.

Many people mistake a set of virtues for wisdom. Prudence, for example, seems like a part of wisdom. But so does justice, courage, moderation, and humility.

I think wisdom is the garden, while the virtues are the fruits.

The virtues, like fruits, show evidence of the health of the garden, that is wisdom. But the fruits are not the garden, and the virtues are not wisdom. You cannot separate them, but you can distinguish them.

So the question is, if you take away the virtues, what is wisdom? It is the overall perspective from which one sees the true nature of reality and thus correctly interprets humanity’s relation to it. From this perspective and insight arise the virtues.

After I originally wrote this post, I had another thought. Maybe I am being too analytical about wisdom. Maybe a simpler definition of wisdom would be better.

I think it is too easy to over define a word. So let me give you my simple definition of wisdom. It is only seven words:

Wisdom is practical insight into living skillfully.

I think this comes the closest to the essence of wisdom in the shortest of time. I think I will use this definition for now.