In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Don't teach kids what to think, teach them how to think. Take a moment to reflect on the difference. I myself appreciated coming to understand the distinction.
I don't want them being taught eugenics in school.
See this is why I think you're misunderstanding the difference between "how" and "what". I can only prescribe you meditate on this issue and.....*drum roll* think critically about your beliefs concerning critical thinking.
I have to take issue with this sentence here:
Religion doesn't promote "critical thinking" it promotes compassionate thinking.
It doesn't do that either. It promotes faith, that's all. The reason you get reasonable churchgoers is because they (like probably most people) are not all faith-based. They use reason, and logic. Another thing: we should stop making this a dichotomy between science and religion, when it's really a dichotomy between philosophy and religion, and reason and faith.
On March 03 2013 12:10 Sermokala wrote: But it isn't on their own terms, nothing is done "on their own terms" when they're still developing and being impression-ed to be the person that they become. "teaching them how to critically think" is the same as teaching them to think the way you want them to think, it just sounds better. Science isn't itself an acceptable standard as much as faith is. It is in the matter that you teach it that gives it its benefits or its faults in the practice that it manifests itself.
Separation of church and state was made for the churches benefit not the states. You cannot deny that the interaction of state and science corrupts, as clearly evident in this case, science as much as it would corrupt the church.
While there's a separation of church and state, there is no separation between science and state. Governments pay the salaries of science teachers, they fund scientific research, they subsidize new technologies, etc.
Science, by it's nature, is more objective and useful than religion. If you're complaint is that teaching critical thinking is showing preference to science over religion, well, that's the problem with religion. It doesn't promote critical thinking, it doesn't teachs people to question their beliefs, it teaches people to accept "facts" based on dogma, instead of evidence.
Is one more right than the other? Well, yes, science is how we develop computers, building bridges, maximize crop yield, etc. The physical world operates on the basis of science, and teaching critical thinking skills promotes an increased understanding of science and physical world.
Teaching students to be anti-abortion , pro-creationist, pro gun rights, is teaching them "to think the way you want them to think". Teaching critical thinking is merely teaching them how to think. And it a mode of thinking that has been paramount to human progress thousands of years.
I only concede the point of science being more objective and useful then religion due to the basis of almost all of the religions benifits around us being ever present. The effects to society on both is much a different discussion and I wouldn't concede anything different then it abit with a longer and darker history then what "science is". Religion doesn't promote "critical thinking" it promotes compassionate thinking. Instead of a dogma of survival of the fittest death to the rest it champions the cause of the weak and poor (on good days I will admit are fewer then they really should be). Much to prove this are the differences in between faith based charities and non faith based charities. The world operates on a basis of science but society operates on the basis of religion and the sharing of the burden onto all. I don't know what church you went to but my denomination (the covenant denomination) wildly encourages discussion and debate on the different tentents of the bible. We accept both sides of baptism even! (that is a lot bigger deal if you've spent as much time with religious peoples as I have) religion inherently isn't just the catholic church or any one church really. the bible may be the basis of all christian religions but they are as far apart as Newtonian physics and einsteinium physics are. I have had plenty many discussions on religions and the very basis of a church service being a sermon about a topic makes it as much about discussion and teaching as school itself is these days. Just because your pastor has a belief and opinion about religion doens't inherently make it yours. My view of Christ is far different then some people from my own church. Your idea of the universe can and probably is a lot different then farva's view of the universe and sam's version of the universe.
Your last paragraph is really stupid you really have to admit. Teaching people to think one way or the other doesn't make it any different then teaching them how you want them to think. You want them to "think critically" I want them to think compassionately. I don't want them thinking that mentally disabled people aren't worth keeping alive and caring for so I don't want them being taught eugenics in school. That does mean I want to teach them the way I want them to think and I don't think thats a bad thing as much as you don't think thats a bad thing. At least fess up to your ideas being what they are.
Best yet define at the very least what you think "critical thinking is". Our confusion on what that is is probably causing as much conflict as anything else.
Yep.
I want schools to teach science, because it promotes eugenics and teaches us that retarded people are worthless.
What's the use of stories that aren't even true? Haroun couldn't get the terrible question out of his head. However, there were people who thought Rashid's stories were useful. In those days it was almost election time, and the Grand Panjandrums of various political parties all came to Rashid, smiling their fat-cat smiles, to beg him to tell his tories at their rallies and nobody else's. It was well known that if you could get Rashid's magic tongue on your side then your troubles were over. Nobody ever believed anything a politico said, even though they pretended as hard as they could that they were telling the truth. (In fact, this was how everyone knew they were lying.) But everyone had complete faith in Rashid, because he always admitted that everything he told them was completely untrue and made up out of his own head. So the politicos needed Rashid to help them win the people's votes. They lined up outside his door with their shiny faces and fake smiles and bags of hard cash. Rashid could pick and choose.
If you right-wingers are concerned about the secret left-wing agenda of critical thinking and humanities education, well then, I guess you better start readin them books and earnin them English degrees, now shouldn't you? Better get on that shit, mofos, because THIS comrade's about to beat y'all to the punch...
On March 03 2013 09:30 Sermokala wrote: Well not everyone just all of "us". see for example all of the wars america has fought and won. The education you get in high school and middle school paint a pretty nice picture of everything america has done.
lol not at all, god you are such a ludicrous jingo. There's plenty of unpleasant things that get conveniently left out. like, you know, our penchant for assassinating democratically-elected leaders and replacing them with authoritarian puppet regimes.
Who is "us"? "Real Americans"? n**** please
You being hilariously unreasonable. Making werid out of context reference to books no one has any idea of, trying to pull hostile words from common sense context clues, and then werid insults that arn't even insulting just sad. Like I don't even know why I should be offended from jingo. I had to literally google search that word because I've never seen it before. Then you try and act really cool and use the n word like your totaly not some white guy from texas. I don't even know what you got from that post that tweaked you so hard there really isn't for anything for you to go off on. "us" being americans isn't really that hard of a thing to get. I was the one that suggested that modern education in america was about nationalism and making sure we were all "on the same page" about history.
Like why would you suggest that we get english degrees, we make fun of those guys who got them in college.
if you want to use reason, you HAVE to have faith in reason, because there's no way to use reason to prove that reason works (and even if you could, that wouldn't mean anything, because all inconsistent systems include proofs of their own consistency). I don't really want to get into the whole "history of 20th C. philosophy" thing again in this thread though.
On March 03 2013 13:03 Sermokala wrote: I was the one that suggested that modern education in america was about nationalism and making sure we were all "on the same page" about history.
you're a hypocrite. You are quite literally advocating indoctrination. The point of education is ANTI-nationalism.
If your students are "all on the same page about history," then you are a ludicrous fucking failure of a history teacher.
Like why would you suggest that we get english degrees, we make fun of those guys who got them in college.
And that's why you DONT GET TO COMPLAIN. If you want your side to get represented on the battlefield that is culture, you better train yo'self some culture warriors. If you define yourselves as "people who don't study literature," then you don't get to complain about what "people who study literature" teach in "literature" classes.
On March 03 2013 12:10 Sermokala wrote: But it isn't on their own terms, nothing is done "on their own terms" when they're still developing and being impression-ed to be the person that they become. "teaching them how to critically think" is the same as teaching them to think the way you want them to think, it just sounds better. Science isn't itself an acceptable standard as much as faith is. It is in the matter that you teach it that gives it its benefits or its faults in the practice that it manifests itself.
Separation of church and state was made for the churches benefit not the states. You cannot deny that the interaction of state and science corrupts, as clearly evident in this case, science as much as it would corrupt the church.
While there's a separation of church and state, there is no separation between science and state. Governments pay the salaries of science teachers, they fund scientific research, they subsidize new technologies, etc.
Science, by it's nature, is more objective and useful than religion. If you're complaint is that teaching critical thinking is showing preference to science over religion, well, that's the problem with religion. It doesn't promote critical thinking, it doesn't teachs people to question their beliefs, it teaches people to accept "facts" based on dogma, instead of evidence.
Is one more right than the other? Well, yes, science is how we develop computers, building bridges, maximize crop yield, etc. The physical world operates on the basis of science, and teaching critical thinking skills promotes an increased understanding of science and physical world.
Teaching students to be anti-abortion , pro-creationist, pro gun rights, is teaching them "to think the way you want them to think". Teaching critical thinking is merely teaching them how to think. And it a mode of thinking that has been paramount to human progress thousands of years.
I only concede the point of science being more objective and useful then religion due to the basis of almost all of the religions benifits around us being ever present. The effects to society on both is much a different discussion and I wouldn't concede anything different then it abit with a longer and darker history then what "science is". Religion doesn't promote "critical thinking" it promotes compassionate thinking. Instead of a dogma of survival of the fittest death to the rest it champions the cause of the weak and poor (on good days I will admit are fewer then they really should be). Much to prove this are the differences in between faith based charities and non faith based charities. The world operates on a basis of science but society operates on the basis of religion and the sharing of the burden onto all. I don't know what church you went to but my denomination (the covenant denomination) wildly encourages discussion and debate on the different tentents of the bible. We accept both sides of baptism even! (that is a lot bigger deal if you've spent as much time with religious peoples as I have) religion inherently isn't just the catholic church or any one church really. the bible may be the basis of all christian religions but they are as far apart as Newtonian physics and einsteinium physics are. I have had plenty many discussions on religions and the very basis of a church service being a sermon about a topic makes it as much about discussion and teaching as school itself is these days. Just because your pastor has a belief and opinion about religion doens't inherently make it yours. My view of Christ is far different then some people from my own church. Your idea of the universe can and probably is a lot different then farva's view of the universe and sam's version of the universe.
Your last paragraph is really stupid you really have to admit. Teaching people to think one way or the other doesn't make it any different then teaching them how you want them to think. You want them to "think critically" I want them to think compassionately. I don't want them thinking that mentally disabled people aren't worth keeping alive and caring for so I don't want them being taught eugenics in school. That does mean I want to teach them the way I want them to think and I don't think thats a bad thing as much as you don't think thats a bad thing. At least fess up to your ideas being what they are.
Best yet define at the very least what you think "critical thinking is". Our confusion on what that is is probably causing as much conflict as anything else.
On your point about debates within religion, they are completely inconsequential. Arguments about church doctrine, and the correct interpretation of an ambiguous, contradictory book that is thousands of years old, doesn't increase the health and well being of people, doesn't increase economic growth, it doesn't increase our knowledge of the world around us.
It doesn't even lead to a happier and more fulfilling live as many atheists who don't care about these trivialities, already have happy and fulfilling lives.
To claim that interpreting religious beliefs is like critical thinking is quite insulting. Critical thinking asks for evidence and may involve analysis and calculation, whereas the former is more concerned with fitting the bible to your own beliefs, .e.g ignore the parts about stoning women for adultery, the sermon on the mount is the true message.
sorry parallel, without religion there is no such thing as critical thinking. (european) Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture. you are totally off base on this one. Understanding religion and learning how to read and appreciate religious texts is a very important part of education.
edit: if any american student graduated high school with the critical ability of a Talmudic scholar, e.g., that would be a wild success
On March 03 2013 12:55 Roe wrote: Don't teach kids what to think, teach them how to think. Take a moment to reflect on the difference. I myself appreciated coming to understand the distinction.
I don't want them being taught eugenics in school.
See this is why I think you're misunderstanding the difference between "how" and "what". I can only prescribe you meditate on this issue and.....*drum roll* think critically about your beliefs concerning critical thinking.
Religion doesn't promote "critical thinking" it promotes compassionate thinking.
It doesn't do that either. It promotes faith, that's all. The reason you get reasonable churchgoers is because they (like probably most people) are not all faith-based. They use reason, and logic. Another thing: we should stop making this a dichotomy between science and religion, when it's really a dichotomy between philosophy and religion, and reason and faith.
Teaching them how to think influences a lot on what they think. I don't understand your disconnect on this point. Sam is going to think a lot of communist things are cool because he thinks like a marxist. I'm going to think a lot of capitalist things are cool because I think that the results from their practice shows its a better form of economy.
You saying that you think that I have a misunderstanding on something doesn't really do anything. If your not going to reason on your thought then its just a stupid comment that your making. Sarcasm isn't going to get you anywhere either.
I think you have a large misunderstanding about what religion is because your not religious and don't understand the religion I adhere to and would rather discount it out of hand because your incapable of finding a better argument about it.
On March 03 2013 13:12 Sermokala wrote: Sam is going to think a lot of communist things are cool because he thinks like a marxist. I'm going to think a lot of capitalist things are cool because I think that the results from their practice shows its a better form of economy.
On March 03 2013 13:11 sam!zdat wrote: sorry parallel, without religion there is no such thing as critical thinking. (european) Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture. you are totally off base on this one. Understanding religion and learning how to read and appreciate religious texts is a very important part of education.
edit: if any american student graduated high school with the critical ability of a Talmudic scholar, e.g., that would be a wild success
critical thinking is dependent on religion? so when i think critically, I have to think about religion?
On March 03 2013 13:11 sam!zdat wrote: sorry parallel, without religion there is no such thing as critical thinking. (european) Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture. you are totally off base on this one. Understanding religion and learning how to read and appreciate religious texts is a very important part of education.
edit: if any american student graduated high school with the critical ability of a Talmudic scholar, e.g., that would be a wild success
critical thinking is dependent on religion? so when i think critically, I have to think about religion?
No, you can think critically about everything. the point is that people first started applying critical thought to religion, because that was the most important thing to think about, for them, and they had to solve all kinds of problems of scriptural exegesis. of course, critical thought, despite being the product of traditional religion, ended up being the downfall of traditional religion. but hey man, that's the dialectic for ya'. how you like dem apples
edit: just remember. there's always another turn of the screw
On March 03 2013 13:04 sam!zdat wrote: if you want to use reason, you HAVE to have faith in reason, because there's no way to use reason to prove that reason works (and even if you could, that wouldn't mean anything, because all inconsistent systems include proofs of their own consistency). I don't really want to get into the whole "history of 20th C. philosophy" thing again in this thread though.
On March 03 2013 13:03 Sermokala wrote: I was the one that suggested that modern education in america was about nationalism and making sure we were all "on the same page" about history.
you're a hypocrite. You are quite literally advocating indoctrination. The point of education is ANTI-nationalism.
If your students are "all on the same page about history," then you are a ludicrous fucking failure of a history teacher.
Like why would you suggest that we get english degrees, we make fun of those guys who got them in college.
And that's why you DONT GET TO COMPLAIN. If you want your side to get represented on the battlefield that is culture, you better train yo'self some culture warriors. If you define yourselves as "people who don't study literature," then you don't get to complain about what "people who study literature" teach in "literature" classes.
Like here you go being completely unreasonable again. see History teachers in high school and middle school teach you about history. I don't know what high school you went to but I'm pretty damm sure they didn't go on about how many mexicans died at the alamo and only told you to remember how many Americans died there.
Education isn't anti nationalism is about educating. Where you get anti nationalism flairs out of no where you never go on about and just expect people to take your weird ramblings as facts is beyond me. There was education before nationalism and it still has nothing to do on being for or against nationalism. its just a tool used for nationalism or anti nationalism people.
Like can you honestly just take a step back and see how hilarious you're being with "the battlefield that is culture" or "gotta train culture warriors"? I have no idea where your coming from on why English degrees are important in any way and neither does anyone else reading what your saying.
Like that point I made about education being nationalism in the first place was explaining to you why the texas gop's position was anti indoctrination. The way you managed to turn us both around literally is making you support the texas gops side in this whole education debate we've been running the last few pages. I'm just going to assume you ment to do that and count it as you now supporting my side and I won this whole debate. Thats how hilariously unreasonable you are being.
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Does anyone here know the specifics of the terms used here and what the background behind all this is? We seem to be making lots of judgements based on preexisting notions / stereotypes.
Ok, so higher order thinking skills are a major component of Bloom's Taxonomy, specifically in regards to what Bloom calls the Cognitive domain, to be contrasted with the other two major educational objective domains, Affective and Psychomotor. The Cognitive domain includes 6 "levels"; the bottom three, knowledge, comprehension, and application, are considered the lower order thinking skills, while the top three, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, are considered the higher. While opinions on Bloom's Taxonomy can vary, it's presence in the classroom is practically ubiquitous, due in part to the presence of HOTS alongside the vast majority of standards based education reforms in the United States (think No Child Left Behind+state education testing). Standardized testing notwithstanding, you'd be hardpressed to find many conventional K-12 school systems in the United States that do not include some sort of HOTS in their curriculum. On a more anecdotal note, a number of my friends have become teachers, and not a single one went through their teacher's ed without learning Bloom's Taxonomy and how to apply it in the classroom.
OBE, or Outcome-based education, is basically a catch all term for education modalities that include an empirical educational measure, or a test. What's funny is that the very definition and meaning of OBE is a hotly contested subject amongst educators, for OBE does not prescribe any particular brand of curriculum or education, just that one measure an associated "outcome". Most complaints leveled towards OBE are actually about a particular curriculum's failure, rather than the notion that a test is a useful component of education.
So basically the Texas Republican Party is saying that HOTS is OBE, and OBE is actually behavior modification/parental authority subversion. In other words, they are putting forth this, "Critical thinking=teaching to a test, teaching to a test=behavior modification, therefore bad." They clearly have no idea what they are talking about.
You're telling me that HOTS / OBE are somewhat ambiguous terms. That makes context pretty important. I don't think you can support your conclusion that 'they have no idea what they're talking about' without establishing what that context is.
For example, here's the Texas GOP platform position from 2010:
Knowledge-Based Education – The primary purpose of public schools is to teach critical thinking skills, reading, writing, arithmetic, phonics, history, science, and character as well as knowledge-based education, not job training. We support knowledge-based curriculum standards and tests. We support successful career and technology programs, but oppose mandatory career training. We oppose Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and similar programs. Further, because of an aging U.S. population and global competition, and because much of today’s education teaches children to be employees or perhaps at best managers for employers, we encourage the teaching of entrepreneurial skills and investment skills.
Either they made an incredible about face (not impossible!) or we're missing some important context.
Actually, the 2012 Texas GOP platform rejects the teaching of critical thinking skills:
In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
That's the genesis of this discussion. It's entirely possible there's some missing context here that's being exploited for political gain. Again, they either made a huge platform reversal or there's more to it. In either case I'd need more info than an op-ed piece to pass judgement.
On March 03 2013 13:11 sam!zdat wrote: sorry parallel, without religion there is no such thing as critical thinking. (european) Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture. you are totally off base on this one. Understanding religion and learning how to read and appreciate religious texts is a very important part of education.
edit: if any american student graduated high school with the critical ability of a Talmudic scholar, e.g., that would be a wild success
critical thinking is dependent on religion? so when i think critically, I have to think about religion?
No, you can think critically about everything. the point is that people first started applying critical thought to religion, because that was the most important thing to think about, for them, and they had to solve all kinds of problems of scriptural exegesis. of course, critical thought, despite being the product of traditional religion, ended up being the downfall of traditional religion. but hey man, that's the dialectic for ya'. how you like dem apples
edit: just remember. there's always another turn of the screw
that's what i thought you meant. I just thought it was strange you used that as a reason to say parallel was wrong and completely off base.
On March 03 2013 13:11 sam!zdat wrote: sorry parallel, without religion there is no such thing as critical thinking. (european) Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture. you are totally off base on this one. Understanding religion and learning how to read and appreciate religious texts is a very important part of education.
edit: if any american student graduated high school with the critical ability of a Talmudic scholar, e.g., that would be a wild success
critical thinking is dependent on religion? so when i think critically, I have to think about religion?
No, you can think critically about everything. the point is that people first started applying critical thought to religion, because that was the most important thing to think about, for them, and they had to solve all kinds of problems of scriptural exegesis. of course, critical thought, despite being the product of traditional religion, ended up being the downfall of traditional religion. but hey man, that's the dialectic for ya'. how you like dem apples
edit: just remember. there's always another turn of the screw
I'm almost certain that attaching a rock on a stick came long before religion.
On March 03 2013 13:11 sam!zdat wrote: sorry parallel, without religion there is no such thing as critical thinking. (european) Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture. you are totally off base on this one. Understanding religion and learning how to read and appreciate religious texts is a very important part of education.
edit: if any american student graduated high school with the critical ability of a Talmudic scholar, e.g., that would be a wild success
critical thinking is dependent on religion? so when i think critically, I have to think about religion?
No, you can think critically about everything. the point is that people first started applying critical thought to religion, because that was the most important thing to think about, for them, and they had to solve all kinds of problems of scriptural exegesis. of course, critical thought, despite being the product of traditional religion, ended up being the downfall of traditional religion. but hey man, that's the dialectic for ya'. how you like dem apples
edit: just remember. there's always another turn of the screw
that's what i thought you meant. I just thought it was strange you used that as a reason to say parallel was wrong and completely off base.
because it's extremely ignorant to say that there's nothing useful about studying religion. there's always something more to be learned from studying religious texts, all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
On March 03 2013 13:11 sam!zdat wrote: sorry parallel, without religion there is no such thing as critical thinking. (european) Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture. you are totally off base on this one. Understanding religion and learning how to read and appreciate religious texts is a very important part of education.
edit: if any american student graduated high school with the critical ability of a Talmudic scholar, e.g., that would be a wild success
critical thinking is dependent on religion? so when i think critically, I have to think about religion?
No, you can think critically about everything. the point is that people first started applying critical thought to religion, because that was the most important thing to think about, for them, and they had to solve all kinds of problems of scriptural exegesis. of course, critical thought, despite being the product of traditional religion, ended up being the downfall of traditional religion. but hey man, that's the dialectic for ya'. how you like dem apples
edit: just remember. there's always another turn of the screw
I'm almost certain that attaching a rock on a stick came long before religion.
On March 03 2013 12:10 Sermokala wrote: But it isn't on their own terms, nothing is done "on their own terms" when they're still developing and being impression-ed to be the person that they become. "teaching them how to critically think" is the same as teaching them to think the way you want them to think, it just sounds better. Science isn't itself an acceptable standard as much as faith is. It is in the matter that you teach it that gives it its benefits or its faults in the practice that it manifests itself.
Separation of church and state was made for the churches benefit not the states. You cannot deny that the interaction of state and science corrupts, as clearly evident in this case, science as much as it would corrupt the church.
While there's a separation of church and state, there is no separation between science and state. Governments pay the salaries of science teachers, they fund scientific research, they subsidize new technologies, etc.
Science, by it's nature, is more objective and useful than religion. If you're complaint is that teaching critical thinking is showing preference to science over religion, well, that's the problem with religion. It doesn't promote critical thinking, it doesn't teachs people to question their beliefs, it teaches people to accept "facts" based on dogma, instead of evidence.
Is one more right than the other? Well, yes, science is how we develop computers, building bridges, maximize crop yield, etc. The physical world operates on the basis of science, and teaching critical thinking skills promotes an increased understanding of science and physical world.
Teaching students to be anti-abortion , pro-creationist, pro gun rights, is teaching them "to think the way you want them to think". Teaching critical thinking is merely teaching them how to think. And it a mode of thinking that has been paramount to human progress thousands of years.
I only concede the point of science being more objective and useful then religion due to the basis of almost all of the religions benifits around us being ever present. The effects to society on both is much a different discussion and I wouldn't concede anything different then it abit with a longer and darker history then what "science is". Religion doesn't promote "critical thinking" it promotes compassionate thinking. Instead of a dogma of survival of the fittest death to the rest it champions the cause of the weak and poor (on good days I will admit are fewer then they really should be). Much to prove this are the differences in between faith based charities and non faith based charities. The world operates on a basis of science but society operates on the basis of religion and the sharing of the burden onto all. I don't know what church you went to but my denomination (the covenant denomination) wildly encourages discussion and debate on the different tentents of the bible. We accept both sides of baptism even! (that is a lot bigger deal if you've spent as much time with religious peoples as I have) religion inherently isn't just the catholic church or any one church really. the bible may be the basis of all christian religions but they are as far apart as Newtonian physics and einsteinium physics are. I have had plenty many discussions on religions and the very basis of a church service being a sermon about a topic makes it as much about discussion and teaching as school itself is these days. Just because your pastor has a belief and opinion about religion doens't inherently make it yours. My view of Christ is far different then some people from my own church. Your idea of the universe can and probably is a lot different then farva's view of the universe and sam's version of the universe.
Your last paragraph is really stupid you really have to admit. Teaching people to think one way or the other doesn't make it any different then teaching them how you want them to think. You want them to "think critically" I want them to think compassionately. I don't want them thinking that mentally disabled people aren't worth keeping alive and caring for so I don't want them being taught eugenics in school. That does mean I want to teach them the way I want them to think and I don't think thats a bad thing as much as you don't think thats a bad thing. At least fess up to your ideas being what they are.
Best yet define at the very least what you think "critical thinking is". Our confusion on what that is is probably causing as much conflict as anything else.
On your point about debates within religion, they are completely inconsequential. Arguments about church doctrine, and the correct interpretation of an ambiguous, contradictory book that is thousands of years old, doesn't increase the health and well being of people, doesn't increase economic growth, it doesn't increase our knowledge of the world around us.
It doesn't even lead to a happier and more fulfilling live as many atheists who don't care about these trivialities, already have happy and fulfilling lives.
To claim that interpreting religious beliefs is like critical thinking is quite insulting. Critical thinking asks for evidence and may involve analysis and calculation, whereas the former is more concerned with fitting the bible to your own beliefs, .e.g ignore the parts about stoning women for adultery, the sermon on the mount is the true message.
Its called Christianity for a reason. Because its about that guy in the bible called Christ. If you've read the bible you know that pretty much all of the fights Christ ever gets into are with other religious people and why they're doing religion wrong. Ie the whole stoning the adulterous thing was stooped because jesus reasoned "he who is without sin should cast the first stone on the sinner" which really blows your mind when you hear a sermon on helping people who are on the wrong path. Arguing about religion with other people helps as much as arguing about politics with someone but we do it anyway because it helps us by strengenting our views and our skills as reasoning and thinking. I'm greatly insulted that you would insinuate that I live a less happy and less fulfilling life as someone who wouldn't care for and help children in warez mexico or other things that I'm involved in though my church.
If only you understood what injustice America perpetrates in the world in the name of "freedom," and then put that together with your Christian ideals, THEN we'd be getting somewhere
EPT
