Tesla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:32 pm
NON religious.
Yes, I know that's what you asked. And I was suggesting that it can be done, is maybe the only available alternative: but it's going to distort its subject matter very badly, because it's going to assume that the secular standpoint is the "right" one from which to view "religion," and thus will send the metamessage that no religion is true.
When Religion is brought in the teacher can say "This is a look at what God is without religious form.
Well, that already assumes that "religion" is the study of things that don't exist. And how important can any such study be, then? How do we expect students to be interested in "religion," if the way we study it tells them right away that it's only the study of a delusion?
"A scientific approach to a possibility without religious input.
What would you then be studying? Would it be, how many people believe each delusion? If so, it's merely a sociological-statistical matter, and can probably be comprehensively answered very quickly.
But how are you going to study the
particular features of each religion, especially their reasoning in believing in a God or gods at all, without reference to questions of truth? You're really going to have to bludgeon your students not to ask the main and obvious kinds of questions.
The students can bring up religion. the teacher must quash it.
That's what I mean. Instead of responding to what the students want to know, you're going to have to "quash" their questions, and force them not to ask them anymore. That doesn't sound very responsive to their needs, and it actually sounds a little indoctrinatory: "Don't ask that question! Just listen to what I tell you matters."
Most religions don't define their God.
Oh, this isn't true at all. For sure, Judaism does, Christianity does, and Islam does, a bit. Mormonism does, Hinduism does -- in fact it has millions of 'gods' as well as the primary Oneness. Polytheisms definitely do. Gnosticism does, if you consider the demiurge; if you consider their 'god' the Abyss, then it leaves it hanging...I think that's pretty much false, in almost every case.
Now, to be sure, some have more complete and coherent accounts of the entity or entities in which they believe; but all of them have some description of the Divine. In fact, it's one of the primary features that designates a real "religion" rather than merely a "religious philosophy."
The class is meant to offer many possibilities for students to come up with,
They don't know anything about the subject yet. How do they "come up with" anything at all?
...and then the teacher asks, so where do we 'see' measure' talk to' this God from our technological standpoint.
Who says it's even possible to speak to God "from a technological standpoint"? You mean, "Where can we find God on Google?" Or do you mean, "What's His cell number?" Obviously not. So what's "technological" about knowing God?
Do you mean "technological standpoint," or do you mean "secular worldview"? I think you must mean the latter. But that's precisely the problem: from a secular worldview, one does not know anything about God. Knowing God will incline one not to be secular at all.
If there is a 'God' it can be found in reality not just the mind.
Absolutely. But how do we explore that without entering into the question of which "religion" can get us to this reality? And again, we're back to the truth question.
An alternative: let the students ask the questions they want to. Let the teacher and the students explore the questions together, including the question of truth. And where they arrive, that's where they arrive. Let's not "cook the books" in advance, and "quash" anything in order to produce a secularly-desired outcome. Let the truth speak, and the chips fall where they may.
As a matter of fact, there is a whole field of study, known as "Natural Theology" that deals with this very subject. But people who are already convinced of Atheism don't tend to want to know about it.