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.
On March 03 2013 13:26 sam!zdat wrote: sermo, dear buddy, this is another one of those places where I just have to hope that our audience comes to the RIGHTconclusion
I agree the right conclusion is the correct conclusion in every case henceforth.
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
On March 03 2013 13:38 sam!zdat wrote: 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
don't you see Sermo? WE ARE CAESAR
Oh trust me I know how shitty america is/are in the world. But we do what we must because we can.
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
"Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick. Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick." -Bruce Lee
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
When did I make fun of the religious? And so you're right because you're right because you're right. Criticize everything!
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
I agree religious texts should be treated as interesting literature, but what makes them so special? What makes them so profound? I can see them being read and discussed alongside the works of Homer but I don't see the need to treat them as anything more.
And just for clarification, are you saying there was no critical thinking before religion (i.e critical thinking was born of it) or am I speed reading too fast?
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.
But wouldn't you agree that society should generally try to move away from studying religion. I'm sure it still has some value in it, because religion has been around for a long time and has indoctrinated (unfortunately) some smart people who may have contributed some profound insights. But how many other great works are out there that don't have to do with religion? I just feel like this is kind of a shameful part of human history, that we should try to evolve away from if we can.
Like I'm sure there were some brilliant ideas in many fields that are now defunct, its just that as the world becomes more modernized we try to leave those behind. Any arguments that are worthwhile in religion still exist in some form today anyway; but of course they have all been destroyed.
I mean which should we focus on in schools, some critical analysis of what a religious scholar thought when he was dissecting a holy text, or a great work of philosophy? Or literature? Or poetry? Something that has far more meaning and relevance today? Its just there are better things to focus on.
Also I know you believe reason is a faith...but you're only correct in an extreme, technical way (i.e. reason being unable to justify reason). But its not relevant: Realistically, and practically speaking, reason works. What has brought about everything positive in society? Reason. Religion may have been necessary for a time, but its plainly not necessary in today's world. Religion has been modernized and secularized to the point where it has little relevance - i.e. the pope is just a funny, and to some, lovable celebrity who waves from the popemobile or gives speeches that register a blip on the media, he has no power anymore.
If you're going to dissect reason, you're not going to use something as ridiculous as religion anyway, its going to be reason again (paradoxically).
On March 03 2013 13:38 sam!zdat wrote: 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
don't you see Sermo? WE ARE CAESAR
Oh trust me I know how shitty america is/are in the world. But we do what we must because we can.
This is not a Christian position. I recommend that you reconsider the matter.
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
"Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick. Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick." -Bruce Lee
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
When did I make fun of the religious? And so you're right because you're right because you're right. Criticize everything!
maybe you didn't
If you want to critique (not "criticize") religion, I recommend you start by trying to understand it. I'm just telling you about my own experience. You should think about what you know about me, and decide whether or not you want to take me seriously. margaritas ante porcos (biblical injunction to always drink tequila before eating lambchop)
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
I agree religious texts should be treated as interesting literature, but what makes them so special? What makes them so profound? I can see them being read and discussed alongside the works of Homer but I don't see the need to treat them as anything more.
I don't think they are special. I think the written word is sacred, in general. Those are just texts that need special defending, in our day and age. And they really are quite good.
And just for clarification, are you saying there was no critical thinking before religion (i.e critical thinking was born of it) or am I speed reading too fast?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's as true for Socrates as it is for Bacon.
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.
But wouldn't you agree that society should generally try to move away from studying religion.
No, I've been arguing the opposite rather strenuously.
If you're going to dissect reason, you're not going to use something as ridiculous as religion anyway, its going to be reason again (paradoxically).
On the contrary, you want something PRECISELY as ridiculous as religion
On March 03 2013 13:58 radscorpion9 wrote: Religion may have been necessary for a time, but its plainly not necessary in today's world.
I could not disagree more. I think religion is more important today than it has ever been.
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.
You wanna know what I think prompted that about face? That the Texas GOP wants to legitimize the teaching of flawed Christian ideological science alongside hard science as equals is no secret, and exactly how a political party with tenuous if not outright adversarial relations with school boards and unions is supposed to get this into action is something they've been working on for some time now. I believe it was Roe that earlier lamented how everything becomes politicized; in this case it is sort of the opposite. Texas Republicans are attempting to conceal something very political beneath the veneer of legitimate education reform; let's think, of the major subject areas, which part, when coupled with critical thinking, would seem most troubling to them? (and I say to them because to most outsiders, the answer would probably be every subject )
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Ah, the passage after the passage most likely to be incorrectly preached at weddings...
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
I agree religious texts should be treated as interesting literature, but what makes them so special? What makes them so profound? I can see them being read and discussed alongside the works of Homer but I don't see the need to treat them as anything more.
I don't think they are special. I think the written word is sacred, in general. Those are just texts that need special defending, in our day and age. And they really are quite good.
I'm sorry, special defending? From what? In what way? We're not burning holy books (at least not in an effort to get rid of all of them).
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Ah, the passage after the passage most likely to be incorrectly preached at weddings...
I don't know anything about weddings. I just know good poetry when I read it.
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
I agree religious texts should be treated as interesting literature, but what makes them so special? What makes them so profound? I can see them being read and discussed alongside the works of Homer but I don't see the need to treat them as anything more.
I don't think they are special. I think the written word is sacred, in general. Those are just texts that need special defending, in our day and age. And they really are quite good.
I'm sorry, special defending? From what? In what way? We're not burning holy books (at least not in an effort to get rid of all of them).
It is not necessary to burn books to get rid of them. People just have to stop reading them. Or, worse, the only people who read them are the people who don't read them critically! They need defending from the fashionable and childish attitude that they are worthy of being despised, which could not be further from the truth.
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
I agree religious texts should be treated as interesting literature, but what makes them so special? What makes them so profound? I can see them being read and discussed alongside the works of Homer but I don't see the need to treat them as anything more.
I don't think they are special. I think the written word is sacred, in general. Those are just texts that need special defending, in our day and age. And they really are quite good.
I'm sorry, special defending? From what? In what way? We're not burning holy books (at least not in an effort to get rid of all of them).
The Bible has become a weapon used either for or against. That's what needs to change.
So...you don't think that inventing tools to solve problems is critical thinking?
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
I don't know about poetry, but I am pretty good at Corinthians. It's about spiritual gifts (fancy christian talk for what people are good at), and how the point is to use them to care for others, not self aggrandisement.
This is the part incorrectly preached at weddings
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
So...you don't think that inventing tools to solve problems is critical thinking?
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
On March 03 2013 14:15 ControlMonkey wrote: I don't know about poetry, but I am pretty good at Corinthians. It's about spiritual gifts
your exegesis is unconvincing, but this is maybe not the place
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
EPT
