Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
25. I've had a lot of strange conversations in my life, including odd conversations about epistemology.
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 09:39 PM
Jun 2013

I can't say that I've had one about God and epistemology, nor can I say I've had any sort of a personal encounter with God.

The basic concept of God is that it is unknowable, so knowledge is not in my view the best way to understand or experience a concept of God. Most religions start from revelation, that is, whatever we know of God is revealed by God since, again, it is unknowable and unreachable by human efforts alone.

That said, I make a point of knowing what my religion, Catholic, teaches about what it considers to be revealed and I make an effort to learn what other religions teach as well.

Beyond that, since I believe what my religion teaches, I mostly look around and see how it plays out. For the most part it holds together.

I've been around atheists since college. One was a close friend who overtly rejected Catholicism and made his point by throwing a crucifix in a trash can. I thought that was stupid and we argued more about him being an ass than about belief, knowledge or faith.

I also spent a lot of time with American communists (very much into revolutionary communism) whose concern with religion, faith, or atheism was very definitely an afterthought. It had nothing to do with religion or faith because it was irrelevant to dialectical materialism (a position I agree with) and opposed religion so much as it was aligned with the ruling classes and class oppression. Given that this was the era of Vietnam, soon to be followed by Reagan, and before the ascendence of the religious right, it really didn't come up much. However, I am confident that if asked today what the enemy is, capital, not religion, would be the focus of the battle. So, I guess atheism was irrelevant to that as well.

Now, I'm pretty close friends with a professional clown who I met at Kids' Night at the local Perkins Restaurant. He says he simply doesn't believe in the same tone that others say they don't like squash.

I suppose, overall, I don't get the big deal about viciously countering atheism and viciously countering theism. If pressed, I would give the same answer the clown gives, I prefer belief, it makes sense to me at sits well with me. If pressed further about the causes of repression and oppression, I would give the same answers my old comrades gave: the atheist/theist argument is for the most part a petit bourgeois squabble that only divides and continues to allow the grand bourgeoisie to maintain.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Had to look up UPG - unverified personal gnosis, I am assuming. cbayer Jun 2013 #1
It's discussed further down in the article. rug Jun 2013 #2
Caught me in not reading the whole thing, lol. cbayer Jun 2013 #4
When a claim is unprovable and unfalsifiable.... MellowDem Jun 2013 #3
You are limiting the term "rational" to "scientific". rug Jun 2013 #6
I'm not limiting the term... MellowDem Jun 2013 #9
That is not the premise. rug Jun 2013 #15
Yes, that is the premise... MellowDem Jun 2013 #18
"It's widely known and accepted." rug Jun 2013 #19
don't worry.. some of us bystanders read you loud and clear. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #21
That would be your problem right there. Well, one of them. gcomeau Jun 2013 #33
Of course you can. Let me tell you what your problem is. rug Jun 2013 #37
Wow... gcomeau Jun 2013 #38
No, read it again. rug Jun 2013 #39
ok, I read it again. gcomeau Jun 2013 #40
Good, then you should know we we were discussing the concept of rationality, not proof of God. rug Jun 2013 #41
Perhaps I am not the one who needs to read things again. gcomeau Jun 2013 #44
Since the unkowable is, well, unknown, I would argue that taking a cbayer Jun 2013 #8
You have the question wrong... MellowDem Jun 2013 #10
So do you claim to hold the truth? cbayer Jun 2013 #12
Sure, on some things... MellowDem Jun 2013 #14
But do you specifically claim to hold the truth on the existence of a god or gods? cbayer Jun 2013 #16
It is not similar to what fundamentalists do... MellowDem Jun 2013 #20
It's a lot like it, IMO. cbayer Jun 2013 #22
Not at all, it's called having a position... MellowDem Jun 2013 #27
God of the gaps Act_of_Reparation Jun 2013 #23
God of the gaps is an argument used to prove there is a god. cbayer Jun 2013 #24
what a wonderful post Stargazer99 Jun 2013 #5
They're not my words. The author has a pretty good blog at the link. rug Jun 2013 #7
Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge durbin Jun 2013 #11
So it is. rug Jun 2013 #13
That's funny, I thought asking for personal information durbin Jun 2013 #17
I've had a lot of strange conversations in my life, including odd conversations about epistemology. rug Jun 2013 #25
"The basic concept of God is that it is unknowable" durbin Jun 2013 #26
What the hell are you talking about? rug Jun 2013 #28
Busted. rug Jun 2013 #30
Cool. I knew it was him but he really backed off when challenged. cbayer Jun 2013 #31
Damn, he's persistent. okasha Jun 2013 #35
Which is not a great quality when you just aren't very good at something. cbayer Jun 2013 #36
What about revelations from God that had to be exterminated along with the people that "heard" them? eomer Jun 2013 #42
Gauguin was a pig. That does not diminish his art. rug Jun 2013 #43
You said how you think we know things about God; my point is a different take on that. eomer Jun 2013 #45
Then we have two different opinions. rug Jun 2013 #46
Just to be clear, okasha Jun 2013 #47
I'd prefer not to be rude, so I'm merely going to characterize this article as "piffle" . . . MrModerate Jun 2013 #29
If UPG is roughly equivalent to unprovable gobbledygook, I concur. Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #32
It is. gcomeau Jun 2013 #34
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Making Light: All Religio...»Reply #25