This article was posted here in /r/BadSocialScience, but it's also bad religion!

I have two objections:

1) On a very basic level, I think he covers Gnosticism in an okay sort of way, but because Gnosticism was eradicated when it was so young, there was never really an established canon, theology, or philosophy that could be considered "Gnosticism," so while his overview is somewhat accurate if you were trying to introduce someone to Gnosticism(s), it seems too simplistic to base an entire contemporary argument off it, in my opinion.

2) What I really take issue with, however, is his appeal to "Biblical religion" and how he imposes the biblical canon as it stands now on Gnosticism (which is both problematic and misleading to his audience). When Gnosticism was alive and well there was no established canon, and they had so many additional texts that did support what they believed. Even Irenaeus could not have claimed to be following "Biblical religion" because there was no set "Bible" for him to refer to.

Basically, I just found his argument a bit sloppy. While he claimed to know something about the history of the early church, he completely ignored the history of the biblical canon and the existence of numerous other gospels and texts with competing authorities that the Gnostics (and Irenaeus) would have had access to and would have had reason to give credence to.