"Design your own god" homework

[AChickenCalledKorma]

DD2 is in year 8 and has been asked to design a god/goddess for RS homework. We are an active Christian family and she doesn't want to do it because the Bible says she shouldn't.

I'm interested whether other Christian, Jewish or Muslim parents (or any other faith that has a problem with idols) have had a similar issue arise and how you handled it. Part of me thinks she should just treat the homework as an interesting art project. It's not as if the teacher is asking them to worship what they invent (hopefully!!!). But the other part of me thinks that she has a point and it's good that she's made the connection between what she reads in the Bible and what she's being asked to do.

Allegedly, her older friend refused to do a similar homework and got a detention for it.

"Mainstream science"
What is mainstream science?

What is mainstream science? Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]

Lanza in his book Biocentrism mentioned by Vitalogy seems to be adopting the idea of quantum wave function collapse by the mind. I would say this is a minority view amongst mainstream scientists. Most would say that the collapse, the removal of quantum fuzziness, occurs at the measurement device before we look at it – in accord with a materialist notion of reality.

Having said that, our experience of reality is certainly created by the mind. There’s no redness, violin sounds or pizza smells out there, it’s all in the head.

However I do like the idea of mind-matter dualism at an emotional level, whether or not it’s true. The scientific idea of mind as a product of matter reduces us to automata with no free will.

I’m intrigued by the ideas of Rupert Sheldrake. He’s a dualist and a bête noire of the scientific community. He imagines the mind as being an extended field that exists independently. The field is detected by the brain, rather like a television signal being picked up by an antenna.
Sheldrake has a background in orthodox science and has performed experiments which he claims give credence to his views. He's a bit too 'woo' and subversive for most scientists though. Still I kind of like him for not following the herd!

OutwiththeOutCrowd I was listening to Rupert Sheldrake the other day, he is interesting isn't he. One of the things he mentioned was about the time he questioned the results when measuring the speed of light, I can't remember the word the other scientist used but it was something like fudging the figures and not including how the speed of light actually varies.

I wonder if you were listening to Rupert Sheldrake's banned TED talk Vita?
He talks about dogmas in science that the establishment don't question - and mentioned in passing the term 'intellectual phase locking' being used for 'fudging'!

I'm glad to hear you find RS interesting.

Yes, that was it OutwiththeOutCrowd I also watched some of the interview with Joe Rogan, it's about 2 and half hours long so haven't watched it all yet though.

I'll have a look at that Vita, thanks. Probably best to do it in small chunks!

Not long ago Russell Brand interviewed Rupert Sheldrake about his most recent book Science and Spiritual Practices. You might like that too!

Russell Brand and Robert Sheldrake- wow. That's a perfect storm in our post expert world!

She could just base it on God and write about why he is her perfect God.

Yes small chunks.
I've seen the Russel Brand one too, thanks for the links though.

'intellectual phase locking' I just watched that bit again.

That's a perfect storm The air has been cleared.

Biocentrism is an old 'idea' put forward by Robert Lanza. It is basically pseudoscience similar to what Deepak Chopra preaches (god-of-the-gaps) and has zero validity in actual science.

It is basically pseudoscience similar to what Deepak Chopra preaches (god-of-the-gaps) and has zero validity in actual science. I'm sorry it seems that way to you.

I'm sorry it seems that way to you

Its not my opinion, I just researched current scientific knowledge and 'Biocentrism' is not science. I try to believe in things that are true.

I am sorry you have been taken in by it.

Its not my opinion I prefer to have my own opinions.

As somebody said "You are welcome to your own opinions. You are not welcome to your own facts"

As said up thread it depends on what you're using to measure and test.

Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them. - Buddha
Makes sense to me.

Let's hope the Buddha wasn't involved in medical research. Or ever designed an aeroplane......

Let's hope the Buddha wasn't involved in medical research. Or ever designed an aeroplane...... I think he had more important things to think about or not as the case may be

As said up thread it depends on what you're using to measure and test

Use measurements and tests that have demonstrably been proven to be as close to the truth as possible.

For example when I go to the doctor I prefer they prescribe me proven medicines, rather than homeopathy.

But I get that some people prefer to choose sugar tablets, they do have a placebo effect.
And some people choose prayer, although I think that can land you in jail if its for your children.

Use measurements and tests that have been proven to be as close to the truth as possible. In the case of medicines you have to put your trust in the doctor and the pharmaceutical company. Then if you've used the medicine and all is good, you'll know yourself for next time. In the case of knowing the source or not you can't take the word of another as the truth.

In the case of medicines you have to put your trust in the doctor and the pharmaceutical company Not if you don't want to, these days its pretty easy to research medicines (or any science) and prove to yourself the efficacy of a drug/fact. Unless your a solipsist of course.

However its even easier to educate yourself in how our education, training, qualifying, practicing and evidential systems work with all their checks and balances, to determine how much confidence you can have in someone claiming knowledge.

I certainly dont cross my fingers before taking drug, unlike when I play the lottery.

So it was pretty easy to research Biocentrism and have confidence in a reasonable conclusion that its pseudoscience. No word of mouth, trust or faith involved, meaning the odds are 1 in 13,983,816 there is anything in it.

Putting your trust in scientists and researchers still isn't knowing it personally. Don't get me wrong, if I was sick I'd try all sorts and put my trust in them too.
pseudoscience. Not real knowledge you say, who's to judge how to measure knowledge.
That figure you quoted who and how did they come to that conclusion?
I certainly dont cross my fingers before taking drug, unlike when I play the lottery. What are you crossing your fingers for?

Putting your trust in scientists and researchers still isn't knowing it personally
I just explained that you do not have to trust a scientist or researcher, that's not how it works, science does not progress based on trust. You can know it personally. [facepalm]

who's to judge how to measure knowledge No person measures knowledge. Knowledge is the sum of what can be proved to be true. So judgement is not required.

That figure you quoted who and how did they come to that conclusion?
Having concluded it is not reasonable to 'believe' in Biocentrism, I subtly quipped that it could be true but as likely as me winning the lottery (which has odds of 1 in 13,983,816). Or even less likely than being struck by lightening twice.

What are you crossing your fingers for? Because its a fun tradition, symbolizing a snowballs chance in hell of happening.