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

[bahman]

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.

I think it should, with the arguments, against and in favor.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm saying, let's not be indoctrinators on behalf of Atheism. Let's be open, and do the inquiry.

Lets not be indoctrinators on behalf of religion.

Of course. That's why the alternative is open inquiry, not pre-deciding on a position.

Atheism is like religion. Pretending to know what isn't known.

Well, if religion is "pretending to know what isn't known," it's not going to be worthy of anyone's study. But Atheism, yeah, it's that, alright.

The object of looking for God outside of religious context doesn't endorse either.

Actually, it does. It brackets off the question of truth, which means it arbitrarily pre-rules in favour of Atheism.

Look at it this way: As Marshall McLuhan famously said, "The medium is the message." What he meant is that if you communicate something in a particular way (medium), you can accidentally skew the content (message).

So, for example, if you tell students, "Our course will absolutely refuse to consider the truth claims of religion in regard to God," then everyone's going to understand you to be saying that those claims are not true, not relevant, and not worthy of investigation, even. In other words, they're going to understand you to be saying, "Religion does not tell us any truth about God."

Is that how you want it to be read? Because that still sounds like Atheist indoctrination to me.

[Immanuel Can]

I think it should, with the arguments, against and in favor.

That's what I'm saying. But I am suggesting that the term "non-religiously" is inevitably going to skew the study in favour of Atheist indoctrination. So I would change it to "openly."

[Atla]

Is that because God can't possibly exist, in your estimation? Because that's the only way that deduction would follow: they'd be listening to something that definitely was not real, so they're psychotic; or pretending to, so they're charlatans.

But it is your considered view that there is NO possibility that anyone could ever hear from God?

But then, why would you admit that you're less then absolutely certain that God doesn't exist? That will ruin that argument.
Just unlikely.
What makes it "unlikely"? Is it that even though God might exist, you think it's "unlikely" He does? So it's more "likely" that the people who claim to have heard from God are lying or psychotic?

Of course it's more likely that they are psychotic or lying. We know a lot about how people hallucinate, yet have never seen this God in any way that they are talking about.

You still have yet to ask something that isn't obvious?

[Tesla]

What makes it "unlikely"? Is it that even though God might exist, you think it's "unlikely" He does? So it's more "likely" that the people who claim to have heard from God are lying or psychotic?

Fairly recently, A pastor concluded that there wasn't a devil or a hell. he lost many followers, and as a youth pastor took part of many exorcisms including one of his girlfriend. it was NPR but I cant find the link. When pressed on how he could perform exorcisms and conclude that there wasn't a devil or hell, he said that belief is powerful enough to create in people the idea of themselves being possessed even when they are not. (throwing up, twitching, etc).

When anyone gets in their head a truth (true or not) it becomes true to them. The goal of a class on God is to open the minds of people to a truth: their is no conclusive evidence of God(s) in any tangible study-able form, and it remains an open idea and question. Many will reject that, because they don't believe that. for them, its settled. but in reality, the questions remain. So to direct individuals to examine what God or gods could be in their tangible existence with scientific evidence, is to invite that maybe a belief they hold is wrong. no one can grow with a closed mind.

Their is no likely or unlikely. there is belief and no scientific evidence. So, its just as likely as unlikely. But I must say, religions I feel are incorrect, less likely to hold any truth on the matter. Science is in a better position to explore potentials of greater existences that can communicate or think, or hold and power over the greater aspects of what exists. Religions control people through peoples beliefs, and people are the writers, people are the executors. To have a God or gods that's real, they would be the executor, not people.

Super smart aliens? conscious planets? sure maybe. but lets prove it after we consider it. but not believe it without evidence to support it besides belief alone.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course it's more likely that they are psychotic or lying. We know a lot about how people hallucinate, yet have never seen this God in any way that they are talking about.

I'd actually agree with you that it is far more likely, if someone says they've heard from God, that they're lying or hallucinating. Especially if the purported visions or revelations were mutually contradictory. So granted.

However, I would reserve this possibility: that somebody might have, assuming God exists. IF He exists, I can't even think of a reason that would be improbable anymore. Why would it be hard for God to speak?

So shouldn't we investigate those revelations and visions, to find out if God has spoken?

[Immanuel Can]

...their is no conclusive evidence of God(s) in any tangible study-able form, and it remains an open idea and question.

Well, that first phrase is debatable, as the fields of Apologetics and of Natural Theology show. However, "open" is a good thing.

no one can grow with a closed mind.

Yes. That's my reason for wanting to throw out the "non-religiously" criterion. It's actually closed-minded.

Their is no likely or unlikely. there is belief and no scientific evidence.

Sorry. I hate to disillusion you but scientific evidence is all probabilistic. There's no empirical or scientific studies that are not.

But I must say, religions I feel are incorrect, less likely to hold any truth on the matter.

What makes you think this is the case?

Super smart aliens? conscious planets? sure maybe. but lets prove it after we consider it. but not believe it without evidence to support it besides belief alone.

I quite agree. But I think you've got an artificially hard distinction between "evidence" and "belief." I don't think there's anything incoherent if a scientist says, "I have good evidence, therefore, I believe the solution is..." In fact, that's just the way a real scientist should talk.

[Tesla]

I think it should, with the arguments, against and in favor.

That's what I'm saying. But I am suggesting that the term "non-religiously" is inevitably going to skew the study in favour of Atheist indoctrination. So I would change it to "openly."

As I said before, if the religious text gives a clue to WHERE this entity is, it could be a topic. like christianities paul saying "in him we live and move and have our being"

Ok, great. so we are like bacteria floating inside of it? then since bacteria cannot see the heart or brain or hands or anything beyond the body, we cant either? ok well if that's true, and bacteria gives us a stomach ache, we take medicine and kill the bacteria...so if we are in that body..and we gave it a tummy ache, would a black hole fly in and suck up our solar system? hrm..maybe maybe..but then...what if Paul's wrong? how do we communicate with a being that would have a difficult time, like us having a conversation with bacteria? or? how can we know? oh we cant yet...so, lets explore intelligence as a factor, and maybe communication, which would have to have a way through the electromagnetic spectrum to communicate, or would it? *throws up hands* ah well. maybe that's wrong anyways, what else would an entity have to be in its physical location within known science to be 'real' and findable besides imagination?

remember...No evidence implies its still just an undefined idea. To get to evidence we must look in the right place, all the while admitting it might not exists at all. religious text that is directing to "Your heart and mind" isn't what the class is about, because the heart and mind and belief can all create something that doesn't exist and lead nations to accept a delusion, a scam, because such is the nature of the human mind. EVIDENCE and scientific backing is the only valid evidence the course can accept if it is to have any value at teaching the truth: no one knows.

[Atla]

Of course it's more likely that they are psychotic or lying. We know a lot about how people hallucinate, yet have never seen this God in any way that they are talking about.

I'd actually agree with you that it is far more likely, if someone says they've heard from God, that they're lying or hallucinating. Especially if the purported visions or revelations were mutually contradictory. So granted.

However, I would reserve this possibility: that somebody might have, assuming God exists. IF He exists, I can't even think of a reason that would be improbable anymore. Why would it be hard for God to speak?

So shouldn't we investigate those revelations and visions, to find out if God has spoken?

Even if there's a God, why would he only speak to a few people, and deceive others?

And the investigation of claims reveals that people typically hallucinate a God or gods according to their culture/religion/psychology etc. (sometimes commanding them to kill followers of other gods)

There are also non-psychotic people with fragmented minds, who mistake another personality or personality fragment in their head for God.

You can investigate these claims all you want and find a contradictory mess, and still no sign of an actual God.

[Tesla]

Yes. That's my reason for wanting to throw out the "non-religiously" criterion. It's actually closed-minded.

It isn't a religious course, its a science one, and must live within the realm acceptable to scientists. This idea of teaching God in school has ZERO probability of success if its a religious course. There are already christian schools, classes on religious thought and ideologies in colleges around the world.

ZERO classes attempt to determine what God(s) would look like outside of religious thought. That is the point.

The court case was one where religious people wanted their beliefs inserted to the theory of evolution classes schools teach. In this instance, the exploration of God as a science potential is to allow that, under the premise that it explains what science needs to be able to study such an entity.

That's why religious discussions are not welcome. it is off topic in the context. belief in God(s) is the starting point, and the end is an agnostic approach that opens the door to potential discovery in science on the topic.

see?

[bahman]

I think it should, with the arguments, against and in favor.

That's what I'm saying. But I am suggesting that the term "non-religiously" is inevitably going to skew the study in favour of Atheist indoctrination. So I would change it to "openly."

As I said before, if the religious text gives a clue to WHERE this entity is, it could be a topic. like christianities paul saying "in him we live and move and have our being"

Ok, great. so we are like bacteria floating inside of it? then since bacteria cannot see the heart or brain or hands or anything beyond the body, we cant either? ok well if that's true, and bacteria gives us a stomach ache, we take medicine and kill the bacteria...so if we are in that body..and we gave it a tummy ache, would a black hole fly in and suck up our solar system? hrm..maybe maybe..but then...what if Paul's wrong? how do we communicate with a being that would have a difficult time, like us having a conversation with bacteria? or? how can we know? oh we cant yet...so, lets explore intelligence as a factor, and maybe communication, which would have to have a way through the electromagnetic spectrum to communicate, or would it? *throws up hands* ah well. maybe that's wrong anyways, what else would an entity have to be in its physical location within known science to be 'real' and findable besides imagination?

remember...No evidence implies its still just an undefined idea. To get to evidence we must look in the right place, all the while admitting it might not exists at all. religious text that is directing to "Your heart and mind" isn't what the class is about, because the heart and mind and belief can all create something that doesn't exist and lead nations to accept a delusion, a scam, because such is the nature of the human mind. EVIDENCE and scientific backing is the only valid evidence the course can accept if it is to have any value at teaching the truth: no one knows.

Spiritual beings live in higher dimensions. We don't have access to their worlds but they have access to ours.

[Immanuel Can]

I think it should, with the arguments, against and in favor.

That's what I'm saying. But I am suggesting that the term "non-religiously" is inevitably going to skew the study in favour of Atheist indoctrination. So I would change it to "openly."

As I said before, if the religious text gives a clue to WHERE this entity is, it could be a topic. like christianities paul saying "in him we live and move and have our being"

Well, if it DOES "give a clue," then the text is being truthful...and truth re-enters as an important issue. Why isn't the Koran / the Gita / the Dhamapada / the Tao or whatever, giving us this clue? That would be the next question.

Ok, great. so we are like bacteria floating inside of it?

No, that's not what that passage means. You can see that from the context. You were in favour of teaching "religious context," weren't you?

EVIDENCE and scientific backing is the only valid evidence the course can accept if it is to have any value at teaching the truth: no one knows.

I'm a big believer in evidence. I agree. And we should let the evidence take us wherever it takes us...not rule beforehand that the only place it can take us is to Atheism or "non-religion." It might not take us there at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Even if there's a God, why would he only speak to a few people, and deceive others?

He wouldn't be "deceiving" others. As you say, those others would be psychotic or charlatans, as you say. I'm just suggesting that it's quite possible not all of them are that.

You can investigate these claims all you want and find a contradictory mess, and still no sign of an actual God.

Or, hidden with that heap of claims, you might find some truth. But you'll never know if you don't dig through the pile.

[Atla]

He wouldn't be "deceiving" others. As you say, those others would be psychotic or charlatans, as you say. I'm just suggesting that it's quite possible not all of them are that.

I mean why would he talk to only some people but not talk to others, thus deceiving them into believing that he doesn't exist?

Or, hidden with that heap of claims, you might find some truth. But you'll never know if you don't dig through the pile.

Well I tried to some degree but didn't find anything.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes. That's my reason for wanting to throw out the "non-religiously" criterion. It's actually closed-minded.

It isn't a religious course, its a science one, and must live within the realm acceptable to scientists.

But science deals only with the created material world. If you think you're going to find God inside a beaker, or pinch Him with Vernier callipers, or warm him up over your bunsen burner...well, good luck with that.

But then, the same is true of the universe. You're not going to get all of that into your telescope or microscope either.

This idea of teaching God in school has ZERO probability of success if its a religious course.

Quite the contrary. If it's ruled as "non-religious" in advance, it has no chance of teaching anything else but that God is a delusion. We'll have "cooked the books" for that.

There are already christian schools, classes on religious thought and ideologies in colleges around the world.

Yes. It makes you wonder, doesn't it, if they don't know anything, why they keep doing all this studying...

ZERO classes attempt to determine what God(s) would look like outside of religious thought. That is the point.

The problem is it means nothing.

Schrodinger, the famous scientist of the cat thought-experiment, identified this problem. He showed that there are ways of trying to "investigate" something by which your investigation method predetermines what you will be able to see. It warps your evidence.

Trying to study God "non-religiously" is just like that: you'll never see anything but the proposition, "God does not exist": and God Himself has said that's the way it's going to be. You don't discover God without taking the right attitude. It just doesn't happen. He has chosen to make it that way.

That's why religious discussions are not welcome.

Well, then, you've ruled out your own subject matter before you started. I wouldn't do that, if I was trying to "educate" anybody in anything. If you don't know whether God exists inside or outside of religious forms of thought, why would you rule from the outset that such knowledge must exist outside?

There's no way you could know that, because it's prior to all investigation. It cooks the books. I just think that's indoctrination.