Do people take religion too serious?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I have to say to all involved in the last few posts that I have really enjoyed reading the most recent posts on the idea of teachers being the ultimate learners. It is so completely true it bears saying on multiple occasions. Educators never stop learning (I've never read an academic source that has attempting to argue contrary to this view). We are tasked with helping children and young people learn to learn (it may be cliche, but when I'm asked the best part of what I think my job is, it is that moment when a child suddenly realises something they didn't know before, that look on their face when at one time what is not known becomes known...... sends chills down my spine). And education is not a static field, it is constantly revised, and without a passion to continue to learn, educators simply CANNOT (and I capitalise this for effect) effectively teach to others what is known. I like the phrase (and again it may be cliche) but the idea of teachers existing to help children "learn how to learn" is not inaccurate.

And as has been pointed out, it is an awesome privilege, and a terrible burden at the same time. We are tasked with the next generation, the responsibility is huge, for if we fail we are doomed. Some people can help children how to learn. Others with lesser abilities can only hope to impart knowledge and hope for the best. I like to think as positively as I can but so often I pick apart my own pedagogy and see flaws that I feel I should have fixed years ago (and therefore often equate myself with those of "lesser ability", I hope for the best but my natural human nature tells me that I fail far more than I succeed, that's a character flaw I do try and work on). Whatever the case, the role of the educator is one entrenched in the realm of the learner, and I hope this is borne out in any work I do with children.

Well said PA, that was so beautiful!

"Claps" I am giving you a standing ovation Robbie, this brought tears to my eyes. I'd add as a teacher our compassion comes from staying connected to learning, this is the most effective way for us to really empathize what it is like for the child who is In the process of learning something. This way we give the things needed, such as patience, understanding, support, over and beyond help and hope; we must walk in our students shoes. I am available till 1 in the morning for the kids I work with, they can text me, FaceTime me, and I will be there for them, and I have had kids do this, sometimes just to have someone to sit with while they finish their homework. And, I can't speak highly enough of having mentors, other teachers who help each other be their most effective ( I'd be nothing without mine). It takes a village, my successes are also my mentors, and the families I work with, and the kids too, it is never all me ( I am just one part in the cog).

Aw man, how awesome you are!! Man, you and PA and quite a few teachers on here. This is what a dedicated teacher is. I was having a conversation with a teacher today at work, and she pretty much says how they spend their own money for things for their classroom. That is selflessness in a nutshell. I will never get over how a librarian from one school spent hundreds to get up to date books for the library. Seriously, there are so many people in my town and towns over are like, why should I help fund if I don't have kids in the school system? Mine are out now, but I think I should still feel better at funding them, because these kids are going to be there for us later. That's why!!!

By the way, Sheri, thanks for the compliment.

[+Sherapy]

Well said PA, that was so beautiful!

Aw man, how awesome you are!! Man, you and PA and quite a few teachers on here. This is what a dedicated teacher is. I was having a conversation with a teacher today at work, and she pretty much says how they spend their own money for things for their classroom. That is selflessness in a nutshell. I will never get over how a librarian from one school spent hundreds to get up to date books for the library. Seriously, there are so many people in my town and towns over are like, why should I help fund if I don't have kids in the school system? Mine are out now, but I think I should still feel better at funding them, because these kids are going to be there for us later. That's why!!!

By the way, Sheri, thanks for the compliment.

Sharon, you are such a beautiful person.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Sharon, you are such a beautiful person.

:blush:

[+Liquid Gardens]

Ahhhh LG you and your multi quotes. No need to adress everything just a couple of points.

physics: The universe is structured and acts like a simulation LG in fantastically similar ways and indeed may be pixilated ( scientists are working on a device right now that will tell us yes or no) . While intelligence may not be the answer it is certainly on the table. To throw it out because of an allergy to religion is not scientific. All simulations that we know of have creators.

Evolution: We know that intelligence can evolve. We know that it might be possible some think inevitable that we will reach a singularity of technological ability. What would ultimate control over everything controllable look like? God maybe? I this is possible why do people think it hasn't happened billions and trillions of times in the past. What would an eternal collection of evolved and transcended races look like? Ever see amoebas form into a slug. Why is the induction of ultimate evolution off the table. Is it because of more allergic reactions to spirituality?

Biology: All criticisms of the NDE actually fit precisely Into what the spiritual persoective would exspect.

Anthropology: The human experience of spirit Is strikingly similar across all of humanity very deep in human past. Yes I know religous meams and narritives take over many times, but at its core are some very amazing and congruent themes. Now could this be because our brains all operate the same?, of course, But why these particular themes. It could have manifested itself in an infinite variety of quirks, but a universal experience of a transcendent reality emerges.

I could go on. But anyone saying that science isn't saying anything about the potential for transcendent intelligence, what some might call a spirit world, even God is simply fooling themselves or has blinders on. While I agree ultimate scientific conclusions need verifiable proof, that's not all that science is good for. Pure logical positivism is like walking to the quick mart with one eye closed and the other looking down a 3ft peice of PVC pipe.

Psycology: no i don't have a degrree in psychology, I have a degree in economics ( arguably a form of psycology), beleive it or not that education does give me a window into why people choose things over others including world views and clingyness to ideas. Economics is not just about money. It's the study of human choice, and arguably that's all we are is a long string of choices. Besides that I have well over 30,000+ hours or 26 years of working directly with people, their quirks, their habits, his they react to things, what happens under stress, what's going on in their lives etc etc etc. Exsperience often trumpts academic degrees at least below the doctorate level. Not to mention the many hundreds if not more books I have absorbed on issues related to people most of which are about psycology, behaviur, autism, Aspergers, ADHD. You see I take my service to people seriously. I'm no amateur LG.

it is refreshing that you recognize the memes devloping in atheistic attitudes, jargon, and arguments LG. My hat is off to you. it really is unbecoming of the message that they should be sending, and frankly the snarkyness and pecking order behavior makes me suspicious.

Personal experiences are very very reliable LG. The fact that things CAN go wrong dosnt mean that they always do or even most of the time do. This is where self evaluation comes into play, and also personal integrity. Why would I agree that my brain is tricking me when I'm 99.9% sure it's not. At best I can admit there is a very remote possability and will accept that possibility if you accept the possibility that it's not.

Hi WCF,

Ha, if you don't like the multi-quotes, no problem, the minimal effort it takes was for your benefit anyway. I'll try to remember that you like large slabs of text instead from now on.

Here's what I think science is saying about the potential for transcendent intelligence: it's possible. That's it, since there is no direct evidence to provide for it yet. Science also says it's possible that everyone's spiritual experiences are only emanating from their own brain and we have evidence that the physical brain under various conditions can produce similar experiences, which gives it a leg up on your alternative.

You bring up logical positivism a lot, can you take a few sentences and explain why it is relevant to these discussions? I know a little about it, but whose argument here relies on it being true? The reason I ask is because, if I'm reading you correctly, I'm taking your whole post as one huge strawman (or at least that the number of hard atheists whom you are refuting is extremely low). The point that I get from your mentions of the various sciences is the same, and I'll use your own words: "it could have", "it's on the table", and "it might be possible". I keep looking for the 'thus' after your mention of LP, and all I can come up with is, "LP is false, thus science doesn't say that my beliefs are impossible", which if so, I agree but I'm not sure why it merits mentioning.

I don't really see much wrong with any atheistic memes as far as arguments, at least concerning theism/atheism. As far as the snarky attitudes and such, to me it deserves a big shrug given the context; I think you may be forgetting who took the first swing, at least in the western world. I do occasionally find it odd when an American of all people complains about atheistic behavior, speaking of 'blinders', you'd need those to not see that these kind of sentiments from some theists exceeds those from atheists both in volume and noxiousness. And what does their snark make you 'suspicious' of?

As far as your view on the extreme reliability of personal experiences, I'm interested to know the truth then about alien abductions. There appears to be a common narrative to these abductions, which is an argument that you find compelling for NDEs, so I would guess you would know quite a bit about the truth of these abductions? I believe I've seen references to both greys and to some type of mantis/insectoids, but I thought somewhere (maybe on UM actually) I heard a third type of alien also mentioned. I would find it unusual if you didn't really know much about alien abductions since these experiences are reliable, it's much more concrete than anything involving an unknown spirit world, all signs point to these being actual physical aliens and obviously this has huge ramifications on our history, science, and potentially our true reason for being here. Am I wrong that you find alien abductions personal experiences 'very very reliable'?

I of course accept the possibility that your brain is not tricking you; again, I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who has argued it's an impossibility. Unfortunately for your position, we have millions of people who are also 99.9% sure that their experiences are not tricks of the brain insisting on their mutually exclusive beliefs being true. I don't think all these people are outright lying, so what does that tell us about the evidentiary value of personal experiences alone, especially concerning the unknown?