So that's what I mean: you'd have a lot to establish if you have to disprove scientific theories to make your philosophy work. I start with science and with naturalism because they support themselves.

But I agree that science doesn't answer all meaningful questions. Nevertheless, your religious view might be in danger of subscribing to a god of the gaps. I don't think supernaturalism can "solve" anything, because it "explains" only by positing a great mystery. That's a pseudoexplanation.

Nikolai Berdyaev might be closer to an existential Gnostic. But "existentialism" is as wishy-washy a term as "Gnosticism." I'm comparing only some of the main ideas which are still relevant despite the existential movement having fallen out of fashion decades ago.

Knowledge condemns. Art redeems. I learned that as an artistic writer who did a doctorate in philosophy. We should try to see the dark comedy in all things.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store