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

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

...why do you ignore the problem....You're just adding even more orders of magnitude of improbability, and call it easier and more logical?

Clearly, for any of this to work, then the truth of the ontological conditions of “ultimate reality” must be an inversion of the illusion we are presently experiencing.

In other words, instead of mind being encapsulated in (and dependent upon the existence of) physical matter, in truth, physical matter is encapsulated in (and dependent upon the existence of) mind,...

(a higher mind in the case of this universe)

...wherein the stuff that we call “matter” is simply the infinitely malleable mental fabric through-which mind (consciousness) expresses itself - as is depicted in one of my oft-used personal illustrations:



Ironically, hardcore materialism lends support to what I am suggesting.

And that’s because if it were true that there is literally nothing other than physical matter itself, then that means that our thoughts** and dreams are simply an inward extension of the exact same stuff that the suns and planets are made of.

And the point is that if we humans can willfully manipulate (via our imaginations) the stuff that the suns and planets are made of into anything we wish or desire within the inner-dimension of our own mind,...

...then why couldn’t a higher mind (an entity that we call “God”) do the same thing?

In which case, the ultimate point is that as we stand on the Earth and look out into the universe, we are viewing...

(from a “fetal” perspective)

...the extent to which the mental fabric of reality can be manipulated by a higher mind in the context of eternal life in the proposed transcendent level of existence.

**(Now I know what you might be thinking. You are thinking that our thoughts are just vague and ghost-like phantasms that seem to have no more substance than, perhaps, a weak beam of light.

However, that is not the case when we dream.

For when we dream, the phenomenal structures we experience inwardly seem to be almost as solid and real as the phenomenal structures we experience outwardly in the universe.

You just need to be open to the possibility that in the awakening we will undergo in our second and final birth at the moment of death...

[“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”]

...we will each acquire full-consciousness and full-control over the fabric of our minds.)

Now I realize that this all sounds pretty crazy. And I openly admit that I could be wrong.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the illustration I provided above seems to be a perfect representation of the old Hermetic axiom:

“as above, so below.”

Furthermore, if you reverse that axiom to read...

“as below, so above”

...you will notice how utterly “natural” this concept is, in that the “mammalian” feature of conceiving one’s own offspring “within” oneself, extends to the highest level of life and reality.
_______

If you were to teach that to that bunch of 17yos, how would you put that?

I assume you are talking about the teens mentioned in your earlier post to Tesla:

What has this to do with if God should be taught in school? What do you mean by teaching God? I kind of see 15 yos rolling eyes and sigh here...

Well, first of all, let’s realize that sighing and eye rolling is not limited to school kids, for there are plenty of crusty old materialists on forums such as this who not only roll their eyes when it comes to the topic of God, but also mess their Depends.

Anyway, as to your question,...

(and keeping in mind that this “searching for God in a classroom” business was Tesla's idea and not mine)

...I would present it as is - as a theory (with support material, of course) while trying to dodge the spitballs and rotten tomatoes.

What else would I do?
_______

[BlackChristianMind]

What I meant was that there are ruling families.

No, certainly in the public system, there are not.

I'm familiar with the old conspiracy theories about politics generally -- the Rothschilds and whatnot. But I think they're really inapplicable, at least directly, when it comes to public education. Public education is its own thing. No one person runs it, nor even any group of people. It's been dominated by different interest groups throughout its long history, and it favours none of them in particular. It's just a self-perpetuation machine, lacking any specific agenda, ideology or morality of its own since it was detached from its original roots.

No. You've actually been deceived. It's not a theory. But there's nothing else I can say. You've made up your mind.

[gaffo]

which god/s?

[Immanuel Can]

No. You've actually been deceived. It's not a theory. But there's nothing else I can say. You've made up your mind.

Actually, I really know what I'm talking about on this one...and given my history, I can pretty much guarantee that whomever you may be, you know less than I do about it.

So if I've made up my mind, it's on good information. But okay.

[Tesla]

[... ...]

While you, on the other hand, seem to be insisting that the parameters of the search must in no way include any thoughts or ideas that contain the slightest reference or allusion to any of the world’s religions.

Again, your self-limiting (blinkered) approach to the quest of “where do we look?” seems to stand in stark contrast to the stated purpose of your class.

Anyone who takes critical reading and writing classes learns to examine the authors. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity. The writers of religious thought who wrote the bible are full of antiquities. Even the idea of the soul was an antiquity based on the idea that thoughts were independent of the body. As we now know, they are in the brain. The initial assumption was wrong, so all built on it is wrong...

You seem far too eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, without a doubt, the world's religions are rife with mythological nonsense that must be discarded, but that does not mean that some of their core precepts do not hold some vital clues (i.e., puzzle pieces) regarding the truth of reality.

...I say to look for an 'entity' that could be considered 'God(s) with scientific tools.

And what if an entity who is powerful and intelligent enough to create a hundred-billion+ galaxies of suns and planets out of the living mental fabric of its very own personal being, does not want to be found?

Do you actually believe that our “amoeba-ish” level of scientific tools could overcome such an obstacle?**

I know it was just speculation presented in the form of a thought experiment, but how many times do I have to point out to you the thoroughly plausible idea that the discovery of any definitive and irrefutable proof of the existence of God...

(and, by extension, the truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny)

...could possibly destroy the illusion of objective reality, and potentially put an end to humanity’s existence on this planet?

Furthermore, if you would actually pay attention to what the “tools of science” have already discovered, then you would realize that quantum physics has pretty-much unveiled the fact that physical matter is “mind-like” in nature.

And that’s because it (physical matter) appears to be constructed from a substance that is capable of becoming absolutely anything “imaginable” (just like the substance that forms our thoughts and dreams).

So in that sense, science...

(not from a materialist’s point of view, but from a metaphysician’s point of view)

...is tentatively verifying idealism.

In which case, what do you suppose that might mean with respect to where we need to “look for God” (the alleged purpose of your class)?

**(I suggest that the presumption that you could find God by applying scientific tools to the phenomenal (material) features of the universe,...

...is the equivalent of thinking that you could find the “eye of your mind” by somehow isolating and focusing in on one of the phenomenal features of a dream you had last night.)
_______

You presume too much. The basics of science is to follow the evidence. surly our understanding is incomplete. I'm proposing to throw away the idea that the mysticism and answers supplied by religions be thrown away for the new approach of looking for the 'Idea' of God in a new light, a new approach. You acknowledge that there isn't an answer, and supply theories without evidence. maybe the entity if it exists at all doesn't want to be found. novel idea. maybe we would discover we don't want to find it. maybe it doesn't exist at all. but without looking, truly looking outside the idea, what can you find?

You keep wanting to create this God or gods in your own image, or suggest the information about humanity in the past somehow validates the idea of God or gods. it does not . For humanity to grow beyond ignorance we, the species, must be open minded in looking for real . and that means accepting truth for what it is: not what we want it to be, but what it is.

Given your very literate reply, how can you not understand that? would one still worship the Greek gods? is the sun a chariot? think about what I'm suggesting. admitting ignorance. healthy skepticism. would you kill Socrates again?

[Tesla]

My skeptical-agnostic would immediately derail your classroom with:

Why should I even care about information OR disinformation?

So what if God exists or doesn't?
So what if the Earth is flat or round?
So what if the climate is changing or isn't?
So what if I have free will or I don't?

How do any of these distinctions help me or anyone in practice?

There is a fatalistic view with religious beings in which the future is irrelevant. Many religious want the world to fail because "God" said it would, and "god" will fix it. do you see the problem if that is wrong?

This is a non-sequitur.

The future is not irrelevant, but it is pre-determined. Not precisely (obviously) but the heat death of the universe is what awaits at the end of the line. The problems associated with the arrow of time are obvious.

You are no closer to answering my question: Why should I care about any of it? Why not nihilism?

Why not indeed? that is a personal question to answer. For me, our children and the success of our species is my immortality. what it is to you is a personal decision. I want you and others to make an informed decision. Case in point: science is a blind endeavor, theories are not true answers, but placeholders based on available knowledge that grows daily. Nothing is per-determined, just probable. not necessarily true. there is much yet to discover that could change it all.

[Nick_A]

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.

School has become adept at closing minds and promoting the Great Beast or society itself into God status.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... finds.html

Poll shows students agree with banning speakers whose views they dislike
Up to half of those questioned failed to consistent support free speech
Students feel uncomfortable expressing pro-Brexit views in their classes
It follows similar polls in the U.S. in which students have questioned free speech

Closing the mind has become an art form in secular progressive education so contemplating God is impossible. The environment prevents it. Teaching God requires first allowing for minds to open so as to make the eventual contemplation of God possible. But where do we find such people capable of opening minds? That is the problem.

"Do you wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself." - Abba Evagrius the Monk

In a world captivated by the struggle of agendas the last thing wanted is for people to know themselves opening the mind to experience its connection to higher consciousness.. People have been shot for less. It is safe to say that rational education must take place in private in the presence of people with "understanding". Not easy to find.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Hey, how about that? Simone and I actually agree.

[Nick_A]

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.

Hey, how about that? Simone and I actually agree.

Maybe you are maturing.

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe you are maturing.

Or quietly going to mold.

[Ansiktsburk]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

...why do you ignore the problem....You're just adding even more orders of magnitude of improbability, and call it easier and more logical?

Clearly, for any of this to work, then the truth of the ontological conditions of “ultimate reality” must be an inversion of the illusion we are presently experiencing.

In other words, instead of mind being encapsulated in (and dependent upon the existence of) physical matter, in truth, physical matter is encapsulated in (and dependent upon the existence of) mind,...

(a higher mind in the case of this universe)

...wherein the stuff that we call “matter” is simply the infinitely malleable mental fabric through-which mind (consciousness) expresses itself - as is depicted in one of my oft-used personal illustrations:



Ironically, hardcore materialism lends support to what I am suggesting.

And that’s because if it were true that there is literally nothing other than physical matter itself, then that means that our thoughts** and dreams are simply an inward extension of the exact same stuff that the suns and planets are made of.

And the point is that if we humans can willfully manipulate (via our imaginations) the stuff that the suns and planets are made of into anything we wish or desire within the inner-dimension of our own mind,...

...then why couldn’t a higher mind (an entity that we call “God”) do the same thing?

In which case, the ultimate point is that as we stand on the Earth and look out into the universe, we are viewing...

(from a “fetal” perspective)

...the extent to which the mental fabric of reality can be manipulated by a higher mind in the context of eternal life in the proposed transcendent level of existence.

**(Now I know what you might be thinking. You are thinking that our thoughts are just vague and ghost-like phantasms that seem to have no more substance than, perhaps, a weak beam of light.

However, that is not the case when we dream.

For when we dream, the phenomenal structures we experience inwardly seem to be almost as solid and real as the phenomenal structures we experience outwardly in the universe.

You just need to be open to the possibility that in the awakening we will undergo in our second and final birth at the moment of death...

[“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”]

...we will each acquire full-consciousness and full-control over the fabric of our minds.)

Now I realize that this all sounds pretty crazy. And I openly admit that I could be wrong.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the illustration I provided above seems to be a perfect representation of the old Hermetic axiom:

“as above, so below.”

Furthermore, if you reverse that axiom to read...

“as below, so above”

...you will notice how utterly “natural” this concept is, in that the “mammalian” feature of conceiving one’s own offspring “within” oneself, extends to the highest level of life and reality.
_______

If you were to teach that to that bunch of 17yos, how would you put that?

I assume you are talking about the teens mentioned in your earlier post to Tesla:

What has this to do with if God should be taught in school? What do you mean by teaching God? I kind of see 15 yos rolling eyes and sigh here...

Well, first of all, let’s realize that sighing and eye rolling is not limited to school kids, for there are plenty of crusty old materialists on forums such as this who not only roll their eyes when it comes to the topic of God, but also mess their Depends.

Anyway, as to your question,...

(and keeping in mind that this “searching for God in a classroom” business was Tesla's idea and not mine)

...I would present it as is - as a theory (with support material, of course) while trying to dodge the spitballs and rotten tomatoes.

What else would I do?
_______

First of all you would have to make it understandable.

[Ansiktsburk]

What has this to do with if God should be taught in school? What do you mean by teaching God? I kind of see 15 yos rolling eyes and sigh here...

I love you man. Great direction for the topic.

Ok, well consider this: People look for agency even when it doesn't exist. It is human nature. Coupled with diverse teaching trust is eroding, and like Socrates taught a new god to youths to teach them to be skeptics, and reduce the potential to be swayed by any con artist with a convincing logic, The class is designed to teach two truths. (1: their isn't any real info about 'God(s) 2: Human beings are gullible by default, but critical thinking skills can lesson damage) to get those 15 year olds attention should be as follows:

Ok class. Question. Since this course is designed to explore real scientific potentials for an entity that is 'God' or gods to humankind, lets first explore the potential that our brains could be manipulated from an outside source. Let's say a true AI was built that could hack your brain, and insert ideas into it, or trigger euphoria, Should we call such an entity God? Worship it? How can we tell the difference with such technology in the hands of governments--should it exist--from a God or gods? To define an entity like 'God' we should recognize it will both be real in essence, with data the scientific community could support, But not necessarily a precursor to humanity, but potentially, A product of it. that is to say: mankind could build it.

So first task, everyone write their idea of what would constitute a 'God' or gods considering the potential one was built, or existed before mankind. Where would one look for it outside their minds? MLA format, double spaced and no less than two pages.

So, ansi, what would you write with those two pages?

Now I see the kids starting to listen. This works. And kids around 15 do think about stuff like this. God as an arena for the Big Questions of Life, like?

[Ginkgo]

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.

You cannot teach God non religiously, it is by definition a religious argument.

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?

Probably look for God in the quantum world.

The universe is expanding, apparently infinite. Whats it expanding in?

The universe is not expanding into anything, it is creating space/time as it expands.

[Immanuel Can]

Now I see the kids starting to listen. This works. And kids around 15 do think about stuff like this. God as an arena for the Big Questions of Life, like?

I do know how kids think. You're right to say that they have a great deal of interest and enthusiasm for the Big Questions of Life. But in Atheism, there are not supposed to be any answers. Some Atheists even insist it's a minimal dogma with only one piece of content: "no gods." But even those that recognize its necessary links to other, more comprehensive ideologies, like Materialism or Physicalism, balk at the absolute existential nihilism it also rationally entails. There is no Creator, no reason for which things were created, no destiny toward which things are aimed, no person privileged to say what right and wrong, good and evil are, and no rules along the way that follow logically from that. Life is a colossal cipher.

There may indeed be "Big Questions": but in Atheism, there are no answers. So what's the point of any questions?

I guarantee that the only kids who would still be listening after that are those that have already absorbed Atheism; and them only for a short time. Then you'll lose the whole class for the rest of the term or semester, because you've just told them that nothing about which you're going to study is real.

Most kids start thinking about this stuff early, so you could get them started at 8, or 10, or 12, at a basic level. But around 16 or 17, the questions become more urgent, and students become significantly more neurologically and developmentally capable of dealing with them. But what many have already absorbed from their environment in the West is the intuition that there might be no strategies, waypoints or methods for getting anywhere. They think it's just all a free guess; and free guesses turn out to be boring, because there's no way to do any work on them or make any progress. So for most of them, "religion" is a short subject -- it comes down to "what do you think," and "what does it matter anyway, cuz nobody knows." Or so they believe.

The one thing that wakes them up is any sense that there actually might be an method for figuring out what's what. But default Atheism just tells them you've invited them to a subject that's the rough equivalent of "Unicorn Farming."

And they won't care for that.

[Skepdick]

You cannot teach God non religiously, it is by definition a religious argument.

Then change the definition.

'God' is a very complex metaphysical idea. Metaphysics is often being slandered as being religion. Does that mean we should not teach metaphysics?