quick forenote. My post is too long at 11558 characters with 10000 being the limit. So I cutting it up into two posts.
I am reading this thread and like the points brought up on it. I see the practice of religion as an emotional transaction that strongly downplays critical thinking in most instances. It is kinda the "wrong tool for the job" when it comes to religion. If you look at the powerwords of religion you can see how it is the wrong tool for the job. Some of the the words I see that represent religous ideas and ideals are:
Faith
truth
revealed (revelation, spirual knowledged ect)
belief
unconditional love (ulitimate love source of love, love as a noun and existing entity ect)
prophecy
ultimate good, ultimate evil (or substitute absolute for ulimate)
saved
blissful existance (afterlife, nirvana, edan ect)
spirtual communication (telepathy, clairvoyance, two-way prayer ect)
and than you look at the practice of critical thinking you are not going to find these types of words used to make assessments. Instead you will find emperical data, and evidencable analysis.
Wikipedia here offers this on the subject of critical thinking
1) itemize options from all relevant sides and collect logical arguements from each
2) break arguements into their constituent statements
3) examine statements
4) locate opposing claims
5) assess weigh of various claims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
In a statement on critical thinking by Michel Scriven and Richard Paul say this qoute:
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or
problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking
by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and
imposing intellectual standards upon them"
They further articulate that as a result the critical thinker will:
1) raise vital questions and problems
2) gather and assess relevant information
3) thinks openmindly with alternative systems of thought
4) communicates effectively with others in solutions to complexed problems.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml
[/FONT]
If you take those ideas and i can footnote some more at the end of this long post, you will see they are in conflict with most religious groups and institutions. Some of the more glaring dictomies are;
Religious gravitation towards excluvism. The idea of their faith is not an academic proposition but rather an exclusive idea to that group taken on faith. For instance the Christans feel that exclusive Christ is their savior, buddhists feel Buddah was awaken to the truth of life and the Muslims exclusively feel Mohammad was
revealed the Koran by Allah through Gabriel. Weighing the pro's cons and strengths of theories presented is not a componet of religious thought and is outright seen as wrong by dogmatic faiths.
On the gathering and assessing of information the "gathering" is done through prayer, revelation, prophecy and telepathy, as opposed to emperical data, analization of affect of postulated theories and evidencable data. One feels in religion and so it is.
Raising vital questions which is Scriven and Paul suggest is a componet of critical thinking is akin to "loss of faith" in most religious groups. If you don't think this is so just for the purpose of academics next time you go to church, even if you believe Jesus is your savior ask your pastor "What if we got it wrong and Jesus was just another human religious leader just like you?" and see reaction you get. Likewise, as wikipedia suggested in step 1) itemize options from all relevant sides is not applicable because most religions hold the "truth" andt there is only one side to itemize.