I have an education background in science as well as in Spirituality, and the key difference I found in the word "thinking".
Science solves material challenges by using "thinking", whereas Spirituality deals with the other challenges. Science works below the mind, whereas Spirituality works beyond the mind to get to it's goal.
Hmm...I wasn't offering my background to support my point. Moreso to illustrate why I think about critical thinking in the manner I do. It's a learnable skill, basically.
I've got a Bachelor of Teaching (with honours...which makes you wonder about the other muppets in the course...), a Bachelor of Education, have lectured, etc. All these things were of interest to me precisely BECAUSE I see critical thinking as a skill that can be taught and learnt. Never crossed my mind through all that time to think about learners as 'theists' or 'atheists'. Just individuals at different points on a learning journey.
Below/beyond meaning that they use different parts of "thinking"; Science usually thrives on more thinking, whereas Spirituality usually thrives on less thinking.
I don't see it that way. You're drawing a hard line between thinking and non-thinking, and making it a binary choice. There are all sorts of biases people hold which means their thinking is impacted. If you see 'concentration' or 'contemplation' as non-thinking, we're probably going to talk past each other. Instead, if we HAVE to draw binary lines for descriptive purposes, I would suggest that science is procedural thinking, with identified start and end points, and understood objectives. Contemplation is much more free-form thinking, and doesn't have the same requirements or aims...indeed, it doesn't even have consistent requirements and aims. I don't see how that makes it 'non-thought' though.
IF one insists using "more thinking" and refuse using "less thinking" (also described as concentration, contemplation and meditation process), while trying to understand God (and related subjects) I wish them luck, and they need it, lots of it, because all Masters I know, declared that it is a sure way to fail getting there any time soon. But even when walking the prescribed path, very few reach the end. Heart work is hard work.
I've suggested this before, but I think the internet (in particular) can give atheists and theists almost comedically cartoonish views of each other. Atheists aren't all rationality and science and cool, emotionless thought. They're people, some of whom turn them selves into knots by thinking they're more evolved because science, whilst ignoring what science would actually suggest about that. Equally, theists aren't all spirituality and love. They're people, some of whom justify all sorts of behaviour or dehumanisation of others by appealing to a God they've never met...ahem...
I use the prescribed method by Science Masters when solving Scientific challenges, and in a similar way I use the prescribed method by Spiritual Masters to solve Spiritual challenges
This makes most sense, don't you think so?
@stvdvRF
I do indeed. I describe myself as a methodological naturalist, and there is absolutely no reason even a verdant theist can't be the same. It's not about what I believe to be true, it's about how well I can manage procedural thinking when I need to.
Some people are good at science, and some are not. I can't tell from that whether they believe in God.
Incidentally, I mentioned I was an honours student in that Teaching degree. A close friend of mine managed to beat me out for best results (to be fair, she deserved it more than me anyway).
She was a passionate Christian. Somehow she managed to pass maths and science classes as well as magical thinking classes anyway.
