Should religion be taught as 'a form of Psychology'?
Yes,as psychological doctrines
Side Score: 25
|
 |
No, it misses the spirituality
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
All these different people have different beliefs and all of them believe they have the right story. o 1 Asia o 1.1 Ainu o 1.2 Hmong o 1.3 Korea o 1.4 Mansi o 1.5 Mongol o 1.6 Orok o 1.7 Shinto o 1.8 Taoism o 1.9 Zen 2 Africa o 2.1 Bakuba o 2.2 Maasai o 2.3 Man Dinka o 2.4 Voodoo o 2.5 Yoruba o 2.6 Zulu 3 Europe o 3.1 Finnish o 3.2 Greek (Classical) o 3.3 Norse 4 India o 4.1 Buddhist o 4.2 Hindu o 4.3 Jainism o 4.4 Sikh o 4.5 Seurat Shabda Yoga 5 Pacific o 5.1 Australian Aboriginal o 5.2 Polynesian o 5.3 Hawaiian o 5.4 Maori o 5.5 Tagalog 6 Middle East o 6.1 Babylonian o 6.2 Bahá'í o 6.3 Egyptian o 6.4 Hermeticism o 6.5 Islam o 6.6 Judaism and Christianity o 6.7 Mandaeism o 68 Zoroastrianism 7 North America o 7.1 Kiowa Apache o 7.2 Aztec o 7.3 Cherokee o 7.4 Choctaw o 7.5 Creek o 7.6 Digueno o 7.7 Hopi o 7.8 Inuit o 7.9 Iroquois o 7.10 Lakota o 7.11 Maidu o 7.12 Navajo o 7.13 Ojibwa o 7.14 Seminole o 7.15 Tlingit 8 South America o 8.1 Inca o 8.2 Mayan 9 Modern o 9.1 Evolutionary Spirituality o 9.2 Mormonism o 9.3 Raëlism o 9.4 Randomness o 9.5 Scientology o 9.6 Wicca A majority of the registered religions are quite ancient; granted very, very few have modern concepts.Simply because it may still be practiced doesn't make it in any way greater than a belief, what someone thinks or omit the fact of 'it'(religion) as an ancient creation. Myths don’t change, all 59 registered religious subcultures attempt to alter an others perspective..(psychology/religion)....of what is 'right'. Where the only form of 'wrong' is to disagree, because they convey a message; usually about morality ( five of the ten commandments are part of many laws,sha.. ) ..Adjusting (on the mass) a wide variation of reality/absolutes for individuals (psychological doctrine). A true cyclical Gorgon Knot but not unidentifiable. Side: Yes,as psychological doctrines
2
points
Using the term ancient, refers to something that can be archaic and obsolete, according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, albeit that this is the 3rd definition of the word. So my point was, you are right in saying that these religions have originated very, very long ago, but that does not make them irrelevant to people's lives today. Calling all religions ancient can sound condescending if you were referring to them as archaic and obsolete, which in the case of your debate, does lose the spirituality of religion. Side: No, it misses the spirituality
2
points
That's rather silly. Ancient is used to describe things, beliefs, societies, religions, and people which originated in or existed long before our present time. It isn't condescending at all, it is factually correct. This is also coming from someone who practices an "ancient" religion from the classical period, Hellenic Paganism. Side: Yes,as psychological doctrines
If the (religious) texts are taught as 'psychological doctrines' children can develop better understandings of the variety of nuances in faiths and eventually chose for themselves what to accept. Perhaps a continent a semester? This way would not favor one faith as being more credible than an other. Side: Yes,as psychological doctrines
I agree but the phrase 'psychological doctrines' confuses me. If we think about the actual nuts and bolts of teaching children about religion, definitions and explanations would branch out from immediate, uncontested truths. For example, a teacher might explain a belief by referring to the corridor outside the classroom door: 'do you all believe this is true children?'. Then, the beliefs of the faithful can be described. Needless to say, the children's reaction to that of which they are unfamiliar would be general incredulity. Imagine this classroom scene: '..and then the prophet climbed onto a horse with wings and flew in the night to another city..'. Side: Yes,as psychological doctrines
|
1
point
Ulterior motives I have not. to 're-brand' is not exactly what I am trying to discuss. I am Identifying a reality in all 'codified religions'. Psychology exists throughout 'it's' text old and NEW. In reading the current discussions about how children should understand religious teachings, this question popped in my head and I thought it would make an interesting debate. Side: Yes,as psychological doctrines
It should simply be taught factually i.e. comparative religion. All humans at some stage of compulsory education should be taught about the facts of as many religions as possible. Who practises what, who believes what happened when, the hierarchies, the demises etc. Side: No, it misses the spirituality
taught factually..?! How is that done? What 'facts do you wish to observe? such as date of conception or active practice..wars- winners / losers..these people were saved by 'this god' not 'that god'.....?Such practices have continued contention between religious sects... Side: Yes,as psychological doctrines
How can we? Most people think that either, they have a brain and a spirit, or a brain and consciousness. As far as I know, we still cannot explain the consciousness of the brain, I mean, it's just a bunch of tissue, like meat... and yet all of this that I know of reality comes from the existence and form of the meat? It may be so, in fact I'm logically inclined to believe so, but if you were to tell a person who doesn't like to think about that sort of thing, they will reject the statement and say that it is the spirit of you that is your consciousness... It's the whole dualist thing, is the mind a seat for consciousness, or is the mind your consciousness? I think religion, or spirituality is important for people, on a psychological level, and would not be so quick to call is a psychology for that reason. You might take away whatever little they have invested in the idea of a soul. I know, if you're like me, you can imagine that you don't have a soul, and that your mind is as far as it goes... your consciousness is only a trick that a machine plays on itself to make it seem as though it's nothing like a machine... but what good does that do for me, as a person? Very little, in fact, I think if I were raised that way I would care less about other people, and less about myself. If though, you have a faint belief in a soul, or maybe to abstract the idea of your consciousness into it's own entity, to say "My consciousness is not the brain, because the brain does not have ideas, the brain has chemicals and electricity", it makes my individuality mean something to me. You know? I am not a biological machine, I am a person. It makes me feel as though I have more value than I might if I thought I was a machine... which i know I am, but to say that even my consciousness is a machine as well, or is a byproduct of a properly functioning machine, to be as it is for the sake of the machine makes even it seem as though it is just as mechanical as that which creates it. The whole point is, without spirituality, a human life is worth less, and if it were taught as a form of psychology, people might begin to think that they are just... machines. Anyway, how would psychology even achieve this? Does psychology teach the origin and nature of consciousness? If so, can I please have an example or a reference to where I can find this, and if not, how would you show people that religion and spirituality is incorrect? Side: No, it misses the spirituality
First i would like to thank you for taking a moment to express yourself. I will try to address each question you presented. "It's the whole dualist thing, is the mind a seat for consciousness, or is the mind your consciousness?" - I don't think this is an issue until much later in a persons understanding of various concepts. "I know, if you're like me, you can imagine that you don't have a soul, and that your mind is as far as it goes... your consciousness is only a trick that a machine plays on itself to make it seem as though it's nothing like a machine... but what good does that do for me, as a person?" - Compassion and emotion is a subjective truth that I leave for the individual to explore as they explore the different religions. People learn to walk at different times and speeds. "If though, you have a faint belief in a soul, or maybe to abstract the idea of your consciousness into it's own entity, to say "My consciousness is not the brain, because the brain does not have ideas, the brain has chemicals and electricity", it makes my individuality mean something to me. You know?" - Faith (for me) is in every act, every choice, every question...Faith is not solely a spiritual matter. I have faith you will read this...I believe that. In the tangible and what I share will affect others; how can that appear not to have meaning? it is a part of my, 'faint belief of a 'soul'.
"The whole point is, without spirituality, a human life is worth less, and if it were taught as a form of psychology, people might begin to think that they are just... machines.Anyway, how would psychology even achieve this?" - If I tell a heroic story about an ant and grasshopper , I include the emotions(compassion), choices (faith) and conflicts (belief). To be detached doesn't imply a cold and un empathetic learning experience. "Does psychology teach the origin and nature of consciousness? " - It attempts to explore it's nature but in no way does it teach the origin of consciousness because it is mainly speculation "If so, can I please have an example or a reference to where I can find this, and if not, how would you show people that religion and spirituality is incorrect?" - How should I know? I am not saying psychology teaches origin of consciousness.I also DID NOT say religion and spirituality is incorrect. Side: Yes,as psychological doctrines
-What are these "various concepts". Why should we teach them psychology before teaching the "various concepts"? -The idea is, if you are to teach them that religion is a form of psychology, you must have something to do with the spiritual aspect. Then, if you're going to properly explain a spirit, you'll need to explain consciousness and dualism... I mean, if you're going to teach this the right way, you should. -I meant, if you take the mechanical part out of the consciousness, you seem to be worth more. -Instead of telling the story of a heroic whatever, you tell a story about how an internal combustion engine runs. You're taking the essence of life out of being conscious and making it only a machine that works out of necessity rather than will. Would this be a good thing? - Ok - I wasn't implying that is what you were saying. I was saying, if you're going to teach the religions as psychology rather than just leaving religion with theology, you're obviously wanting it for some reason... and that seems to me, like an attempt to take spirituality out of it... which is nearly impossible unless you can explain spirituality in psychology. Also, I didn't realize this was your own personal question. Don't take anything I say as an attack. I am just asking questions. Thanks for taking the time to reply. - Side: No, it misses the spirituality
|
