Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

[Tesla]

I'm sure many remember the courts ruled against it.

I argued on science forums in my youth that it should, but due to the attack structure of the forums administrators, I never got to explore the topic to say my peace.

I feel atheist and religious individuals have both blundered, because they decide absolutely one way or the other. I'm Agnostic, yet, not in the traditional sense. I despise religion for defining an undefined. I'd rather to explore, IF an entity existed that could be considered 'God' where do we look?

(ultimate reality assumed that science has the best picture of reality, and no thing that exists is outside of 'existence'. No empty space has been found, nor could be created though it was attempted. Though science through its own admission is potentially wrong, evidence is required as a prerequisite for acceptance as a potential reality.)

OK!

My 2 cents:

the universe is expanding, apparently infinite. Whats it expanding in?
If it were a being with awareness, isn't it more likely its awareness would not be of what is inside of it, (such as our own bodies, and bacteria, which keeps us alive, but we take medicine to kill any that are hurting us. Ever tried to talk to a colony of bacteria?).

There is tons here to discuss, and much not said. I'll let discussions begin if anyone would like to.

[Nick_A]

Hi Tesla

Yes I would enjoy discussing this topic with you since I believe that without the potential for a complimentary relationship between the goals of science and the essence of religion, humanity will not survive the adverse effects of technology.

But first I'd like you to read the following from Simone Weil. Would you agree or deny any value of what she wrote?

"Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong."
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

If the concept were ever included in modern education it could solve a lot of problems. I just don't believe that modern educators as a whole understand what is meant so the duality of blind secularism will remain dominant in the politics which control education

[Tesla]

Wow. Beautiful statement. Perhaps the way Atheism is defined by most in public view would be more the issue than atheists themselves. Religion is a hindrance to faith due to the rules for profit and proliferation. I'm not sure how atheism would 'cure' that, because on the one hand she approaches life with the 'feeling' of God (Existence) is there without definition, while logically she can perform ethically without extreme doctrines loaded with sophistry and conditioning that inevitably destroys growth for strict unbend-able belief.

Thanks for sharing that.

If the concept were ever included in modern education it could solve a lot of problems. I just don't believe that modern educators as a whole understand what is meant so the duality of blind secularism will remain dominant in the politics which control education

The very reason why I'm opening this thread here is because I realize this magazine could open a discussion IF somehow the thread bore fruit. I don';t expect to be the author, or gain recognition. My aim is to inspire necessary change. I don't know how. So I try where I can. remember, the smallest pebble can lead to the greatest landslide.

You recognize that education is both the problem and the solution?

Then before education can go forward, a guide must be written for a curriculum. consider this post and its arguments as beginnings of such a guide. In the right hands, the right discussion could bear fruit. The greatest of educators know the solution is the right education, which as of yet: has not been discovered (but that is another post for another time).

[Nick_A]

Tesla

Glad to see you are open to Simone. Those inhibited by either blind belief or blind denial will these ideas.

Yoda Kazuaki wrote a doctoral theses on precisely your question. Do you agree with how he elaborated on Simone's belief that the primary goal of education is the ability to acquire conscious attention which enables a person to put facts into a conscious human perspective.

If you agree we can discuss what conscious rather than reactive attention is and why it is now only a potential for humanity in general

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/do ... 6/D83776W5

The concern of this study is the loss of the meaning or purpose of education and the instrumental view of education as its corollary. Today, education is largely conceived of as a means to gain social and economic privilege. The overemphasis on school children's test scores and the accountability of teachers and schools is evidence that education has lost its proper meaning. In such a climate, we observe general unhappiness among teachers, school children, and their parents. Society as a whole seems to have given up on education, not only school education but also the very idea of educated human beings. There is an urgent need to reconsider what education is and what its purpose is. However, these questions—once being the primary concerns of philosophers of education—are barely discussed today. I intend to energize the discourse of the aims of education by examining Simone Weil's thesis that the sole purpose of education is to nurture attention.

[Tesla]

If you agree we can discuss what conscious rather than reactive attention is and why it is now only a potential for humanity in general

sure. Don't go to college, use google right? Money is how we measure our value of ourselves. but who to blame isn't important. I'm aware its broken. but first truth has to matter and right now it doesn't. Truth is an opinion. living a 'good' life is subjective. I'm not sure where your going to lead me in this discussion, or how it will relate to teaching 'God'. but it may well prove that doing so would be profitable to the over health of the students.

go on then. lets discuss.

[Atla]

I'm sure many remember the courts ruled against it.

I argued on science forums in my youth that it should, but due to the attack structure of the forums administrators, I never got to explore the topic to say my peace.

I feel atheist and religious individuals have both blundered, because they decide absolutely one way or the other. I'm Agnostic, yet, not in the traditional sense. I despise religion for defining an undefined. I'd rather to explore, IF an entity existed that could be considered 'God' where do we look?

(ultimate reality assumed that science has the best picture of reality, and no thing that exists is outside of 'existence'. No empty space has been found, nor could be created though it was attempted. Though science through its own admission is potentially wrong, evidence is required as a prerequisite for acceptance as a potential reality.)

OK!

My 2 cents:

the universe is expanding, apparently infinite. Whats it expanding in?
If it were a being with awareness, isn't it more likely its awareness would not be of what is inside of it, (such as our own bodies, and bacteria, which keeps us alive, but we take medicine to kill any that are hurting us. Ever tried to talk to a colony of bacteria?).

There is tons here to discuss, and much not said. I'll let discussions begin if anyone would like to.

The infinite multiverse hypothesis (which is kinda becoming a mainstream idea), implies infinitely many natural beings that would appear godlike to us. Ha!

Except there's no known reason to believe that our universe has any (yet). Plus looks like we are bound to this universe, and so are those beings to theirs, so we can't meet them.

[Tesla]

The purpose of education is to have a society that does not self destruct. Humanity is racing towards extinction due to ignorance. How can one tell what is truth if truth is left an opinion? trust happens when enough people agree--right or wrong--and trust is essential to teaching.
good--love of others, self love--these things are necessary to live a life knowing where to find contentment, and how to wear joy. WISE decisions are 'good' and 'right' decisions. in a hunter gatherer setting, societies don't need much glue for trust and cooperation. in current societies we do. Self preservation is tied to societies overall health. an uneducated society will have more violence and less securities than an educated one.

Religions and ideologies divide. education can be the cornerstone to unite the globe because it is universal despite ideologies and religions.

(edited is-if, and-an)

[Tesla]

The infinite multiverse hypothesis (which is kinda becoming a mainstream idea), implies infinitely many natural beings that would appear godlike to us. Ha!

Except there's no known reason to believe that our universe has any (yet). Plus looks like we are bound to this universe, and so are those beings to theirs, so we can't meet them.

Oh science has tons of theories now, many unheard of. That's not the point of the discussion. I just raised one potential to raise the validity of how one might define 'God' in a scientific manner. The real reason for teaching God is to raise awareness of a scientific definition for 'Existence' which is synonymous with many ideas of 'God' or gods.

For instance: to explain what I'm attempting to do, I'll write you a story as an analogy.

Plato and Aristotle are sitting around talking about their theories on the soul. The reality is, they have no Idea how thoughts occur, and Plato surmised that since they are intangible, that they exist independent of the body. now granted, this is happening somewhere around 650 B.C.E. So ill try not to be too hard on them. They did after all invent what still today could be called the modern definition of the soul.

Plato: Oh! my good student Aristotle! what wonderful news have you brought today? I have been thinking about your latest writings on the soul!
Aristotle: My good teacher! I have taken all you had to offer me, and have expounded on it until it makes practical sense to even the most nonsensical student! Oh!? who is your friend.
Plato: This man here is from the future! His name is Tesla. He was telling me he has evidence that thoughts are not independent of the body and is proposing an experiment!
Tesla: Hello! Good day sir! I indeed can prove to you that thoughts require the body, and so that when one dies, the thoughts perish with it! You see here this iron Rod?
[Plato and Aristotle both look over the iron rod]
Aristotle: Well, yes I see it is a magnificent iron rod, quite heavy. But how will it aid in this experience?
[Tesla whacks Aristotle on the head with the rod]
Tesla: My dear Plato, now try to speak to Aristotle.
[Aristotle moans]
Plato: my dear Aristotle! have you been murdered?
Aristotle: unn...munf gom blah...
Tesla: See now my wise teacher? his thoughts have been destroyed by the rod by a simple smack to the head, yet all the body remains intact besides the bump on the head. So when he does die, many years hence, will his soul speak the gibberish that he will now speak the remainder of his days, or will it regain the ability to speak of a soul? The thoughts happen in the brain that is in the head my dear friend, and is not independent of its faculty!

[Atla]

The infinite multiverse hypothesis (which is kinda becoming a mainstream idea), implies infinitely many natural beings that would appear godlike to us. Ha!

Except there's no known reason to believe that our universe has any (yet). Plus looks like we are bound to this universe, and so are those beings to theirs, so we can't meet them.

Oh science has tons of theories now, many unheard of. That's not the point of the discussion. I just raised one potential to raise the validity of how one might define 'God' in a scientific manner. The real reason for teaching God is to raise awareness of a scientific definition for 'Existence' which is synonymous with many ideas of 'God' or gods.

For instance: to explain what I'm attempting to do, I'll write you a story as an analogy.

Plato and Aristotle are sitting around talking about their theories on the soul. The reality is, they have no Idea how thoughts occur, and Plato surmised that since they are intangible, that they exist independent of the body. now granted, this is happening somewhere around 650 B.C.E. So ill try not to be too hard on them. They did after all invent what still today could be called the modern definition of the soul.

Plato: Oh! my good student Aristotle! what wonderful news have you brought today? I have been thinking about your latest writings on the soul!
Aristotle: My good teacher! I have taken all you had to offer me, and have expounded on it until it makes practical sense to even the most nonsensical student! Oh!? who is your friend.
Plato: This man here is from the future! His name is Tesla. He was telling me he has evidence that thoughts are not independent of the body and is proposing an experiment!
Tesla: Hello! Good day sir! I indeed can prove to you that thoughts require the body, and so that when one dies, the thoughts perish with it! You see here this iron Rod?
[Plato and Aristotle both look over the iron rod]
Aristotle: Well, yes I see it is a magnificent iron rod, quite heavy. But how will it aid in this experience?
[Tesla whacks Aristotle on the head with the rod]
Tesla: My dear Plato, now try to speak to Aristotle.
[Aristotle moans]
Plato: my dear Aristotle! have you been murdered?
Aristotle: unn...munf gom blah...
Tesla: See now my wise teacher? his thoughts have been destroyed by the rod by a simple smack to the head, yet all the body remains intact besides the bump on the head. So when he does die, many years hence, will his soul speak the gibberish that he will now speak the remainder of his days, or will it regain the ability to speak of a soul? The thoughts happen in the brain that is in the head my dear friend, and is not independent of its faculty!

Well I'm not sure what you mean. God can be defined in so many ways, but unlike our thoughts which were always observed to be happening and then were eventually found roughly inside the head, no God was found so far (and everyone who claims to have seen God seems to have seen one consistent with their psychology/religion/culture etc.). So isn't any definition kinda arbitrary?

And insides and outsides are most likely human spatiotemporal projections. But 'all of existence' has no inside and outside.
(The idea that the universe is truly expanding is also just a recent guess and doesn't make much logical sense. Maybe just a part of it, that comes from the Big Bang, appears to be expanding so far. So other parts of it would appear to be retracting.)

[Skepdick]

Without going any further (because defining the undefinable is a waste of words, right?) - I agree with you.

Unifying the divide between body/soul - eradicating dualities/dualisms is perhaps one of the tenets of philosophy. It's my tenet anyway.

So when he does die, many years hence, will his soul speak the gibberish that he will now speak the remainder of his days, or will it regain the ability to speak of a soul? The thoughts happen in the brain that is in the head my dear friend, and is not independent of its faculty!

The power of language/speech/self-expression embraced by the soul is the very idea of God in Christianity.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The way I see it - it's exactly the same idea as 'know thyself'. And the parts that are my own addition: to know thyself is to know God. Because you are God.

In so far as labels go - I am agnostic. And I am still making this argument.

[jayjacobus]

Religious leaders attempt to define God but God defies definitions. The only way to learn about God is to experience God. Unfortunately all experience comes from an unseen source. This leads the source undefined.

So, back to books a person goes and discovers that some people have actually seen the source.

No they haven't. They imagined Something or at least interpreted and embellished an experience.

What do I conclude?

There may be a source of spiritual experiences but the characteristics of the source are unknowable and religious texts are speculation and propaganda.

In the middle of the night, I go walking in my sleep...…………………………

When I find what I am looking for, it is within but it may come from an outside source. Thanks be to ……..???????? But does it matter who to thank?

Does God even have an ego that needs attention?

[Nick_A]

The purpose of education is to have a society that does not self destruct. Humanity is racing towards extinction due to ignorance. How can one tell what is truth if truth is left an opinion? trust happens when enough people agree--right or wrong--and trust is essential to teaching.
good--love of others, self love--these things are necessary to live a life knowing where to find contentment, and how to wear joy. WISE decisions are 'good' and 'right' decisions. in a hunter gatherer setting, societies don't need much glue for trust and cooperation. in current societies we do. Self preservation is tied to societies overall health. an uneducated society will have more violence and less securities than an educated one.

Religions and ideologies divide. education can be the cornerstone to unite the globe because it is universal despite ideologies and religions.

(edited is-if, and-an)

Can we agree then the reason for this for this apparently absurd situation as you present it is because we neither know what Man or God and as a result we live in imagination as described in Plato's cave analogy in which we imagine what both Man and God are.

Jacob Needlemn describes this problem in his book "Lost Christianity." He claims that we don't "know thyself." If we lack the power of attention to Know Thyself or have the experience of oneself, how can we expect what you see in the world to be any different than what it is? Here is an excerpt from the preface

http://tiferetjournal.com/lost-christianity/

As once again we witness the horrific engines of war being fueled by religious zeal of one kind or another, and under one kind of name or another, the answer to this question seems obviously to be: Yes, sometimes; Yes, often! Have not the darkest crimes of world history—the insane barbarism of genocide, the bloody crusades, the murder of innocents and the depredation of defenseless cultures– have not many, if not most of these crimes been committed under the banner
of religion or through a quasi-religious frenzy attaching itself to
religious ideals? Put next to these endlessly recurrent horrors, the
intimate comforts of personal religious faith and the day-to-day
individual efforts to live religiously may seem to count for little in the balance scales of human life on earth. Little wonder, then, that so many of the best minds of the modern era entirely rejected religion as a foundation for both ethics and knowledge. Just as the scientific turn of mind seemed to have entirely eclipsed religion’s claim to knowledge, so—it has seemed to many—the same modern turn of mind must inevitably displace religion’s claim to moral authority. Just as religion can no longer show us what is true,
but must yield that task to methods of thought that are independent of
religious doctrine, so neither can religion, it was claimed, show us
what is good, but must now surrender that task as well to the secular mind of modernity.

But in fact, no such assumption of moral authority by secular humanism, has
taken hold or now seems in any way likely or justified. The modern era, the era of science, while witnessing the phenomenal acceleration of scientific discovery and its applications in technological innovation, has brought the
world the inconceivable slaughter and chaos of modern war along with
the despair of ethical dilemmas arising from new technologies that all
at once project humanity’s essence-immorality onto the
entire planet: global injustice, global heartlessness and the global
disintegration of the normal patterns of life
that have guided mankind for millenia. Neither the secular philosophies
of our epoch nor its theories of human nature—pragmatism, positivism,
Marxism, liberalism, humanism, behaviorism, biological determinism,
psychoanalysis–nor the traditional doctrines of the religions, in the way we have understood them, seem able to confront or explain the crimes of humanity in our era, nor offer wise and compassionate guidance through the labyrinth of paralyzingly new ethical problems.

What is needed is a either a new understanding of God or a new understanding
of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific
mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the
heart; or an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal
weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we are meant to be– both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.

But, this is not an either/or. The premise –or, rather, the proposal—of this
book is that at the heart of the Christian religion there exists and
has always existed just such a vision of both God and Man. I call it
“lost Christianity” not because it is a matter of doctrines and concepts
that may have been lost or forgotten; nor even a matter of methods of
spiritual practice that may need to be recovered from ancient sources.
It is all that, to be sure, but what is lost in the whole of our modern
life, including our understanding of religion, is something even more fundamental, without
which religious ideas and practices lose their meaning and all too
easily become the instruments of ignorance, fear and hatred. What
is lost is the experience of oneself, just oneself—myself, the personal
being who is here, now, living, breathing, yearning for meaning, for
goodness; just this person here, now, squarely confronting one’s own
existential weaknesses and pretensions while yet aware, however
tentatively, of a higher current of life and identity calling to us from
within ourselves. This presence to oneself is the missing element in
the whole of the life of Man, the intermediate state of consciousness
between what we are meant to be and what we actually are.
It is, perhaps, the one bridge that can lead us from our inhuman past
toward the human future.

Education with the goal of becoming able to "Know Thyself" would serve to help not only the chaos in the world but also the chaos in our own being. But sadly those in power support the approved secular goals of education. Simone explains:

Simone Weil lamented that education had become no more than "an instrument manipulated by teachers for manufacturing more teachers, who in their turn will manufacture more teachers." rather than a guide to getting out of the cave.

So education which should have the goal of leaving Plato's cave has become dedicated to perpetuating cave life. Is there a way out?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm all in favour of "non-indoctrinatory" religious education. People should be informed, and enabled to make up their own minds.

But there's a fundamental problem with it.

And that is, that the teacher cannot indefinitely suspect the question of truth. If does, and pretends that all "religious" answers are equal, then the subtext of what he's doing says, "None of them is true anyway, so study all equally." In other words, it means Atheism, with "religions" studies as merely curious illusions that various people have. Additionally, it's disrespectful to how people actually understand "religion," because people believe what they believe because they think it's true. So teaching in this way would make it impossible for students to consider the very most important fact to all religious believers -- namely, the relationship between their "religion" and truth.

But if a religious educator does teach about truth, then the question of "which religion is true," or "which religions are more true," cannot be avoided. And that, in a public school setting, is going to upset some people; because there will be winners and losers in that way of telling about religion. Moreover, it's going to require the educator to know what truth is, so he/she can identify which religion is closer to that truth, or has that truth.

So the public system solution to all this is often either to a) water down all religion to the point where it has no flavour at all, just like Dewey did, and maybe make it into a "Judeo-Christian" vanilla moralizing, or b) not to talk about religion overtly at all.

But a) makes the religion bland and unimpressive, and b) means that the secular public system will just have to ignore religion, and thus pretend that one of the most important sociological drivers in history simply doesn't exist, or isn't important at all.

There's no easy solution to this, at least within a secular polity.

[Tesla]

Well I'm not sure what you mean. God can be defined in so many ways, but unlike our thoughts which were always observed to be happening and then were eventually found roughly inside the head, no God was found so far (and everyone who claims to have seen God seems to have seen one consistent with their psychology/religion/culture etc.). So isn't any definition kinda arbitrary?

And insides and outsides are most likely human spatiotemporal projections. But 'all of existence' has no inside and outside.
(The idea that the universe is truly expanding is also just a recent guess and doesn't make much logical sense. Maybe just a part of it, that comes from the Big Bang, appears to be expanding so far. So other parts of it would appear to be retracting.)

That's the point. The teaching of God is to open the understanding that IF there is a God, it hasn't been discovered outside of the realm of idea. And to propose that IF God(s) were discovered, it may not be to human kinds benefit. But! that IF it was discovered there would be unity in the science and education systems that it was real. (NON RELIGIOUS) in the title my friend.

Without going any further (because defining the undefinable is a waste of words, right?) - I agree with you.

Unifying the divide between body/soul - eradicating dualities/dualisms is perhaps one of the tenets of philosophy. It's my tenet anyway.


The power of language/speech/self-expression embraced by the soul is the very idea of God in Christianity.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The way I see it - it's exactly the same idea as 'know thyself'. And the parts that are my own addition: to know thyself is to know God. Because you are God.

In so far as labels go - I am agnostic. And I am still making this argument.

You jumped straight into a religious writing to answer a non religious post...drum-roll...non-religious! the bible doesn't get to have its say, unless you dig to acts (22 vs 19-27?) in which Paul tells the Greeks God is never very far because we live and move inside of God. Religious text could be student inquiry in class if it deals with the "what" of God. the physical aspects. Many religious tend to view God as without any physical portion, no 'real' parts. as tangible as a 'soul'. reality doesn't work that way however, except in the mind.

Religious leaders attempt to define God but God defies definitions. The only way to learn about God is to experience God. Unfortunately all experience comes from an unseen source. This leads the source undefined.

So, back to books a person goes and discovers that some people have actually seen the source.

No they haven't. They imagined Something or at least interpreted and embellished an experience.

What do I conclude?

There may be a source of spiritual experiences but the characteristics of the source are unknowable and religious texts are speculation and propaganda.

In the middle of the night, I go walking in my sleep...…………………………

When I find what I am looking for, it is within but it may come from an outside source. Thanks be to ……..???????? But does it matter who to thank?

Does God even have an ego that needs attention?

Right. So people follow the Jim Jones' of the world without any tool to turn to for their skepticism in the face of any of those who follow any belief system concerning God(s). you cant use the text of a religious individual to prove anything. So we need reason. To basically say, OK, God is a good idea, but if it is real, where is it, what does it look like when we consider what all of the species truly knows about our universe? The teacher needs to leave students with the willingness to accept that sometimes, 'I don't know' is the correct answer, not "um, since no one knows- its true!" which unfortunately is a sophistic tool that is very effective.

Look, people are giving authority to data and beliefs thousands of years old. it is time to update the information. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates..They were wrong about much. But they were right to keep asking, to keep looking for the answers. They founded science. We must keep on that good work.

[Tesla]

I'm all in favour of "non-indoctrinatory" religious education. People should be informed, and enabled to make up their own minds.

But there's a fundamental problem with it.

And that is, that the teacher cannot indefinitely suspect the question of truth. If does, and pretends that all "religious" answers are equal, then the subtext of what he's doing says, "None of them is true anyway, so study all equally." In other words, it means Atheism, with "religions" studies as merely curious illusions that various people have. Additionally, it's disrespectful to how people actually understand "religion," because people believe what they believe because they think it's true. So teaching in this way would make it impossible for students to consider the very most important fact to all religious believers -- namely, the relationship between their "religion" and truth.

But if a religious educator does teach about truth, then the question of "which religion is true," or "which religions are more true," cannot be avoided. And that, in a public school setting, is going to upset some people; because there will be winners and losers in that way of telling about religion. Moreover, it's going to require the educator to know what truth is, so he/she can identify which religion is closer to that truth, or has that truth.

So the public system solution to all this is often either to a) water down all religion to the point where it has no flavour at all, just like Dewey did, and maybe make it into a "Judeo-Christian" vanilla moralizing, or b) not to talk about religion overtly at all.

But a) makes the religion bland and unimpressive, and b) means that the secular public system will just have to ignore religion, and thus pretend that one of the most important sociological drivers in history simply doesn't exist, or isn't important at all.

There's no easy solution to this, at least within a secular polity.

NON religious. When Religion is brought in the teacher can say "This is a look at what God is without religious form. that means "A scientific approach to a possibility without religious input. The students can bring up religion. the teacher must quash it. Most religions don't define their God. The class is meant to offer many possibilities for students to come up with, and then the teacher asks, so where do we 'see' measure' talk to' this God from our technological standpoint. If there is a 'God' it can be found in reality not just the mind.