Belief systems you've dismissed and why

smacl

A&A Forum has been very quiet of late so I thought I'd start a thread looking at how we all arrived at our various atheist or agnostic positions in life and the belief systems we've encountered and rejected on the way. I'll start

Raised atheist by atheist parents, neither of whom had any interest in Christianity. Christian mythology never seemed even vaguely credible to me, while at the same it was pervasive growing up. I used to actively despise Christianity in my younger years, having suffered a fair amount of bullying for not being a Christian as a kid. In later years, I've become more tolerant of it and have a few close friends who are deeply religious including a priest. I still don't find the belief system credible and distrust the hierarchy, but find many believers are sincere in their beliefs and are quite possibly better people as a result. I suspect Christianity was originally envisaged as a socialist religion built on love and compassion which was altered to suit the interests of those controlling it.

Loved mythology as a kid, notably Greek and Norse, having been given a copy of the Larouse Encyclopedia of Mythology at a young age. Would have dearly loved for some of them to be true, but alas.... Still really enjoy mythological fantasy, ranging from American Gods to Circe to Ah Pook.

Took an interest in Taoism/Daoism as an adult due to a long involvement in Chinese martial arts. Still find aspects of daoist philosophy very useful in day to day life and keeping grounded. I also continue to practise taiji and some qigong, but find the more esoteric stuff like much of Chinese medicine entirely dubious. Experience has shown be there are as many charlatans in this sphere as in any Western religion. I find Chinese mythology and classics are also great fun.

Holidays and work in North Africa and the Middle East are my limited reference for Islam. As with Christianity, nothing to suggest the mythology is credible but met a lot of very warm and friendly Muslim folk along the way. Managed to avoid the more fundamental types and regimes but have read enough to have many problems with the religion, rather more so than Christianity.

I'd consider myself an incidental atheist, insofar as I don't believe in any god or gods and doubt that I ever will. I'm also a secularist, in that I'm of the opinion that people should be allowed publicly express any religious beliefs they care to just so long as they don't try to force those beliefs on others or deny other people their own beliefs.

How about you guys?

magicbastarder

i was raised catholic*, but i think the rot started to set in somewhere between my communion and confirmation - my memory of it seems to point to the power of prayer being the cause. they'd extol the virtues of prayer to us, a moment of sanctity to converse with god, and i never felt anything more than absolutely nothing praying. zero, i never got any greater sense than that i was just talking into a void.

FWIW, i loved ghost stories, those 'marvels and mysteries of the unexplained' books, a reasonable amount of fantasy fiction as a kid (possibly no more than other kids) but while i was fascinated by the idea that something might exist on another level, i think i was too sceptical to believe.


*in a recent phone conversation with my mother, it turns out she, a catholic in her 70s, didn't know about transubstantiation. she laughed when i explained it to her, in a 'you're being absurd' way. she told me 'no-one actually believes it's *actually* the body and blood of christ, that's just symbolism', so it appears i was raised catholic by an unwitting protestant.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

I thought I'd start a thread looking at how we all arrived at our various atheist or agnostic positions in life and the belief systems we've encountered and rejected on the way.

Unfortunately a hard one to answer for me because unlike many Atheists, I never went theist and then went back. I think my Atheism, though I do not call it that, came from a mix of some intelligence with some stupidity.

What I mean by that is I read a LOT from an early age. Way ahead of my peers in reading. And I gravitated heavily towards fantasy and SF (back in my day calling SF Sci-Fi outed you as a no nothing noob hehehe).

So when my teacher started reading the Bible to us in school once a morning and once before home time..... it was just "Story Time" for me.

So it is not that I became Atheist. Rather I was so stupid, dumb and oblivious I actually reached a relatively late age (I think it was 11ish but I am not 100% sure now in retrospect. I suspect Confirmation had something to do with it.) before my brain suddenly clicked it "Hang on..... there is some people believing this stuff?????"

It had not even occurred to me before that point this stuff was being taught to us as real or true or as a legitimate view of the world. God and Jesus were no more to me than Odin and Thor from comic books. Just another two super heroes fighting villains with magical powers.

I used to think how lucky I was to be alive in a world not just full of great super hero stories.... but even in school our teachers were reading some of it to us too.

The feeling I got then that people actually believe that nonsense has never left me even now 30 years later.

smacl wrote: »

Loved mythology as a kid, notably Greek and Norse

Did you get around to that Stephen Fry book on Greek Myth? It was on my radar to read it ages ago and I forgot, and you just put it back in my head again. I wonder is it worth the time?

magicbastarder wrote: »

*in a recent phone conversation with my mother, it turns out she, a catholic in her 70s, didn't know about transubstantiation. she laughed when i explained it to her, in a 'you're being absurd' way. she told me 'no-one actually believes it's *actually* the body and blood of christ, that's just symbolism', so it appears i was raised catholic by an unwitting protestant.

Micheal Nugent said similar tongue in cheek on BBC and RTE Radio that when you dig down on the beliefs most Catholics turn out to be protestant and most protestants turn out to be atheist

When I was "kidnapping" and experimenting on the cracker bread I found similar when talking to many people. Rather than following church teaching on the subject, most catholics fell into three main categories.

1) Those who thought it was an actual physical change.
2) Those who thought it was a real but undetectable spiritual change.
3) Those who thought it was symbolism only and no change occurred.

Which surprised me too at the time. But regardless of which category they were in none of them were too sure about it all. Catholic School education seems to not actually instil much in the way of specifics of catholic teaching somehow.

magicbastarder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Micheal Nugent said similar tongue in cheek on BBC and RTE Radio that when you dig down on the beliefs most Catholics turn out to be protestant and most protestants turn out to be atheist

yeah, i did point out to her that the majority of 'catholic' atheists know a lot more about catholicism than most practicing catholics.

once you've rejected one belief system for atheism, i wonder what it takes to adopt a different belief system? i'm not referring to jumping from christianity to islam, for example, i mean with atheism as an intervening stage.

i'm reading a book about fungus at the moment, and the author at one point takes LSD in a lab environment as part of research; but mentions that the feeling of oneness reported by many LSD/psilocybin users, often never quite leaves, and some hardcore secularists have swung back to some sort of belief system as a result. i must check his footnotes for a source.

nozzferrahhtoo

magicbastarder wrote: »

the author at one point takes LSD in a lab environment as part of research; but mentions that the feeling of oneness reported by many LSD/psilocybin users, often never quite leaves, and some hardcore secularists have swung back to some sort of belief system as a result. i must check his footnotes for a source.

Sam Harris would be one of the more well known examples of that. He has taken many such mind altering substances and while he still reports to be completely atheist he calls himself "Agnostic as to what happens to consciousness after death".

Other than that, I have not heard him espouse any suspect or dodge ideas about consciousness. In fact quite the opposite, I have heard him rubbish some pet theories some people have such as the brain being a "receiver" of consciousness from an external source and so on. But clearly the experiences with drugs have had a lasting effect of some sort.

Back when I used another site similar to Boards (it was called City Data forum) there was a particular nut job of a theist over there who claimed to have been atheist for over 50 years before a drug experience in what he called "Deep meditation" led him to meet a presence that in his view simply HAD to be a god. And so he became Christian over night.

I never got any coherent reply off him as to why 1) It "had" to be a god and 2) Why that specifically meant Christianity was true rather than just theism in general despite some years of asking. In fact his aggressive and insulting and even threatening replies to me ended up with the moderators deciding to ban either of us from speaking to the other ever again Not the first time an atheist got sanctioned because a theist couldn't control himself I guess.

But there is a user who posts very infrequently in our forum here who had all those experiences on drugs and meditation and many more besides. And he seemingly at no point has seen "a god" as being a worthy, let alone mandatory, explanation for any of them.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Did you get around to that Stephen Fry book on Greek Myth? It was on my radar to read it ages ago and I forgot, and you just put it back in my head again. I wonder is it worth the time?

Got it as a freebie on audible but have yet to listen to it, must get back to it. For retelling of Greek Legends, Madeline Miller's 'Song of Achilles' and 'Circe' are good fun. Neil Gaiman's book on Norse Mythology is also worth a punt. For the younger one's Andrew Sach's read of Geraldine McCaughrean is a great way of getting kids into this stuff, beautifully read and a favourite of my two when they were younger. Apropos of Sachs and SF, John Cleese does a decent reading of Dante's Inferno which I got to having read Niven and Pournelle's rather entertaining take on it.

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm reading a book about fungus at the moment, and the author at one point takes LSD in a lab environment as part of research; but mentions that the feeling of oneness reported by many LSD/psilocybin users, often never quite leaves, and some hardcore secularists have swung back to some sort of belief system as a result. i must check his footnotes for a source.

Huxley's 'Doors of Perception' springs to mind though no doubt there are others. The psychoactive effects of ergot poisoning are strongly connected to witchcraft from memory.

magicbastarder

my wife has read both the gaiman and fry books, reckoned the fry one is a little more accessible, that the gaiman one seemed to be his own interpretation to a degree, but definitely enjoyed both.

looksee

I was raised 'relaxed'/conventional CofE though it suited my parents to send me to Sunday School at a local Methodist chapel as a young child. I enjoyed it but it didn't make much impression on me. Then I was to be Confirmed into the CofE and for whatever reason I could not see any connection with it, though I went to services occasionally, as the mood took me. So I left and started going to a Methodist church some distance away, it was a fair walk but I had started going to Guides there and gradually got involved in the services, the youth club (which was great, a life-moulding experience), the Sunday School as a teacher, though that only lasted about a year, Bible classes, Sunday Club (a kind of rather formal youth club), and anything else that was going on. I went until I went abroad at 21.

I enjoyed the Methodist services and the whole vibe of friendliness and sociability. I vaguely thought I was religious but it didn't really 'take', without thinking about it too hard I was not convinced. I didn't get over the 'belief' hill, not in a deep way. I am basically a very pragmatic and practical person, though I have some artistic ability and enjoy fantasy.

Then I went abroad and met and married an Irish Catholic. I might have become a Catholic if the church (and my husband) had been any more inclined to welcome me into that faith. As it was there was a barrier of 'we don't have to recognise you because you are a pagan' and at the same time a sense of someone winning or making a political score if I did convert. So I (genuinely) reared my kids as Catholics, as I had had to promise I would, and didn't go any further with it. I was the on-going fount of knowledge in the house about Holy Days and Catechisms and Church rules though. Gradually the nonsense and hypocrisy of the whole business, along with some unfortunate minor incidents that put me off, took over and I realised that in fact I didn't believe any of it, and some of it was actually damaging.

I am perfectly happy for other people to have faith, provided they don't try to organise my life on that basis, but for myself it is not something that matters. Oddly I now find it very difficult to attend a church service/Mass, this is something that has emerged gradually and in the last couple of decades, its a bit strange that something that does not matter to me creates quite strong reactions in me.

seamus

Long story short, I abandoned Catholicism itself around 15/16. Don't entirely remember any epiphany about it. I think it was a combination of the fact that I found the catholic "motions" boring, the absurdity and small-mindedness of much of the teachings, with a smattering of rebellion in there. It quite suited me to declare myself not Catholic anymore.

That pretty much ruled out all of the Abrahamic religions for me in one fell swoop. Islam appeared even more small-minded and barbaric. Judaism opaque and elitist. I flirted very briefly with the idea that I might have made myself by default some form of protestant, but ultimately realised it wasn't all that different to catholicism.

Buddhism seemed to be the next logical step; a way of searching out "spiritualism" and a greater sense of purpose without any specific nod to a deity.

I say that like I sat down with books and read about this stuff. I didn't. Just kind of made it up based on what I thought I knew.

By the time I was 17/18 any "search" for a new religion had stopped and I kind of settled on, "I'm not part of any religion, but I believe in a higher power". That was more than enough to satisfy any itch that might need scratching or any question on religion.

It my mid-20s before the question really popped up again. And I realised I had been holding onto this "higher power" thing partially as a comfort blanket for myself, but also partially because it makes other people comfortable too. "I believe in God, I'm just not a member of a religion", is far more palatable to people than, "I'm atheist".

That caused me to shed this notion of God; a higher power didn't *need* to exist. Wishful thinking didn't make it any more necessary or likely.

It also led to a second realisation; there was no need for purpose or meaning. When I was somewhere between 10-13, my mother had made a comment along the lines that everyone had a purpose in life and would eventually find it. I (eventually!) realised this wasn't an objective truth. The objective truth was that my existence (or anyone else's), didn't require a purpose, or a meaning. We want to believe that our existence has meaning, that without us the world or the universe would be lacking in some indisposable cog. But the fact of our existence doesn't require it. Existence doesn't have to have purpose or meaning. It can just be a thing that happens for no reason.

There's not really any need to "dismiss" other specific belief systems after that. All belief systems are ultimately the search for purpose or meaning. But when there's no evidence that purpose or meaning even exists, it seems pointless to search for it.

smacl

seamus wrote: »

All belief systems are ultimately the search for purpose or meaning. But when there's no evidence that purpose or meaning even exists, it seems pointless to search for it.

What many religions will claim is that certain truths are self evident and hence can dispose of the need for empirical evidence. Doesn't really work in my opinion if the religion in question is claiming an objective truth but reasonable enough once we're in subjective realm of self-realisation or metaphysics, as is the case with much of Eastern religion. This doesn't mean to say you won't find yourself knee deep in bull shít in those religions either. More so that ambiguous claims are difficult to tackle with empirical methods.

Even in religions claiming objective truth, I think it is fair to say that many religious people do find meaning in their beliefs, even if their notion of truth might be very different from my notion of the same.

I don't believe life is meaningless so much that each of our lives is finite and really only has meaning to us and those close to us.

seamus

I've no issue with the concept of subjective meaning and purpose.

In many ways once you accept that there is no objective purpose to your existence*, you are free to invent your own.

*Or if there is, it is unknowable.

smacl

seamus wrote: »

I've no issue with the concept of subjective meaning and purpose.

In many ways once you accept that there is no objective purpose to your existence*, you are free to invent your own.

*Or if there is, it is unknowable.

Taoism is an interesting one here as it starts out on the premise that the universe is essentially unknowable. While you can and should improve your understanding of it, that understanding will never be complete. Very much a philosophy of working with what you've got on the basis of being a small active component of a larger whole. I find it sits well with contextualism, e.g. rather than trying to be the best, aspire to be your best in as much as the ever changing situation allows.

I also go with the idea that life is a finite journey rather than a destination and should be cherished as such. I find the carrot and stick manipulation of the masses carried out by religions that include promises of eternal life or eternal damnation to be utterly deplorable. Marx certainly nailed it on that one.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Taoism is an interesting one here as it starts out on the premise that the universe is essentially unknowable. While you can and should improve your understanding of it, that understanding will never be complete.

That is interesting because if I were to describe science to someone and use your text above as a template I would change almost nothing. In fact the only thing I would change is the assumption that it is "unknowable".

Whether it is knowable or not is something I would rank under one of the things we do not yet know. To assert it to be unknowable is to presume to know something we do not yet know.

So I would simply re-write it to describe science as:

Science is an interesting one here as it starts out on the premise that the universe is not currently completely known to us. While you can and should improve your understanding of it, that understanding may never be complete.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Science is an interesting one here as it starts out on the premise that the universe is not currently completely known to us. While you can and should improve your understanding of it, that understanding may never be complete.

For the universe to be unknowable simply demands at least one small thing we don't know at any given point in time, where that unknown can be the outcome of a future event. Conversely, for the universe to be knowable, we need to be able predict the outcome of every single event, past and future, which seems highly improbable. Even if you were to subscribe to the notion of a deterministic universe, it seems unlikely that complete determinism could be applied from within the universe (e.g. observer effect).

To my mind, the likelihood of the universe being knowable is about the same as that of one or more gods existing. We don't know it is not true, but we have no reason to suppose it might be.

nozzferrahhtoo

Any yet whether it is improbable or not, I am left without any ability to declare it to be unknowable. All I can say is we do not NOW and we may never. But that we may never know something does not mean it is not knowable. It just currently is, and may always be, beyond our ability to do so.

If there is a rock no human can lift, that does not mean it is unliftable. It just means no human can do so.

I just try to strip away assumptions in my life I can not validate or substantiate. I would not subscribe to a belief system that requires I declare something unknowable... if in fact I can not show it to be unknowable. In fact one of the reasons I avoid the term "agnostic" is that the original meaning of the term when Huxley coined it (as opposed to how most people use it today) required just such an assumption.

When theists ask me what my position on god(s) are I simply say "I find we exist in a universe, I have no idea how this came to be, but there is precisely no reason(s)(ing) at this moment to suggest the explanation lies in the machinations of an intelligent intentional non human agent". I tend not to use the word atheist or agnostic to describe my position for a few reasons.

On another note, the thread opened with a comment that this forum has been exceptionally quiet of late. Any ideas on why that might be? Is it just the forum, or is atheism in general quite quiet at the moment? I am in Germany so do not have my finger on the Irish pulse much at the moment, but it seems so to me. With the Catholic Church suffering all kinds of issues, the battles on things like marriage equality and abortion essentially won, is there much left for the banner of atheism to even do these days? Aside from, of course, moving to remove Religious Instruction ever more from our education systems?

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Any yet whether it is improbable or not, I am left without any ability to declare it to be unknowable. All I can say is we do not NOW and we may never. But that we may never know something does not mean it is not knowable. It just currently is, and may always be, beyond our ability to do so.

The issue isn't about whether any one thing is unknowable though, it is whether the totality of all things past, present and future, are knowable to a single mind. This corresponds very closely to the Christian notion of omniscience, and hence is why I would consider it in the order of probability as the existence of a god.

Re quiet forum, I've moved conversation to the feedback forum here

magicbastarder

not sure if this is the right place, but does some of the fantastical conspiracy theorising in the news in the last days and months (e.g. babies are being harvested to keep RTE presenters looking young) count as 'a belief system'?
or to phrase it another way - would these people have ended up as religious zealots in different times?

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

not sure if this is the right place, but does some of the fantastical conspiracy theorising in the news in the last days and months (e.g. babies are being harvested to keep RTE presenters looking young) count as 'a belief system'?
or to phrase it another way - would these people have ended up as religious zealots in different times?

Not sure if I'd call it a belief system so much as a random collection of gibbering idiots. Nothing really systematic about them in terms of collective philosophy, hierarchy, etc... The tinfoil hat brigade seem to come from a variety of backgrounds including some religious types, far right, far left and various other extreme fringe groups. Harsh perhaps, but looking at a bunch of anti-maskers involved in a violent protest at a time where we particularly don't want to be sending anyone else to hospital deserves nothing but scorn and derision in my book.

Peregrinus

Yeah. I think "belief system" is a term that gets bandied around a lot, often without too much thought about what it actually means. If you criticise a belief I hold I'll accuse you of attacking my "belief system", because "belief system" sounds grander than just "belief".

A belief system is a mutually supportive set of beliefs - could be religious, philosphical, ideological, political, or a combination of two or more of these.

I don't think the belief that babies are being harvested to keep RTE presenters looking young is a belief system. But you can certainly imagine a belief system that fosters the embrace of conspiracy theories - a set of beliefs that on the undermines critical or sceptical instinct, discounts evidence-based reasoning and fosters credulity with regard to claims that events are attributable to unseen but intentional hands.

magicbastarder

yeah, i phrased that badly. i think what i was getting at was people pivoting to a worldview that there's more to the world than the (mainly) mundanity that we see; that the world is not as it is because of the actions of known and understood processes and entities, that there's a guiding hand, and if explaining it in terms of human control, that guiding hand is evil.

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, i phrased that badly. i think what i was getting at was people pivoting to a worldview that there's more to the world than the (mainly) mundanity that we see; that the world is not as it is because of the actions of known and understood processes and entities, that there's a guiding hand, and if explaining it in terms of human control, that guiding hand is evil.

I've long held that the one subject we're missing from the school curriculum from primary school upwards is critical thinking, specifically how to distinguish probable fact from fantasy and understanding why you should believe one thing and not the other. Can't see this happening in religious ethos schools any time soon for all the obvious reasons, ET are a bit closer.

I think what we're seeing at present are large groups of disaffected individuals who are easily swayed to join a common cause which is sold to them as promoting their best interests over others. Many of those people have never been provided with the tools to understand the underlying fraud this is often accompanies such cases, nor their own confirmation bias, nor even the risks posed by an increasingly polarised society.

magicbastarder

i have been kinda shocked (albeit not surprised) over the last year, at how many journalists make basic logic errors when reporting the pandemic; obviously some concepts can be difficult and somewhat counterintuitive at first, but the number of causation/correlation mistakes, or absence of evidence/evidence of absence mistakes, i've seen and heard being made, is depressing. and they'd form any part of a critical thinking curriculum, as you mention.
though i think that has started to creep into the curriculum, i will see if i can find a post i saw on it, in another forum here.

i had a bit of fun over lockdown explaining (via zoom) galileo's gedanken about the speed of falling bodies to niblings and kids of friends. was really enjoyable to see the 'aha!' moment - and these were primary school age kids, they're well able for that sort of thing.

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i had a bit of fun over lockdown explaining (via zoom) galileo's gedanken about the speed of falling bodies to niblings and kids of friends. was really enjoyable to see the 'aha!' moment - and these were primary school age kids, they're well able for that sort of thing.

Fair play to them, eldest is third year physics at the moment and I was tasked with proof reading her lab paper on Compton scattering last night. Needed a beer after, despite her patient attempts to explain special relativity, i struggled with it. A subsequent game of pool helped sort it out

There's a rather fun piece on relative motion from Beckett's Molloy featuring someone lying on their back in a dark room watching the moon passing the window. I was going to recommend a CD reading of it, but the price on Amazon seems rather 'unusual'. Seems to have gone of Spotify as well, guess I'll hang onto my copy.

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have been kinda shocked (albeit not surprised) over the last year, at how many journalists make basic logic errors when reporting the pandemic; obviously some concepts can be difficult and somewhat counterintuitive at first, but the number of causation/correlation mistakes, or absence of evidence/evidence of absence mistakes, i've seen and heard being made, is depressing. and they'd form any part of a critical thinking curriculum, as you mention.
though i think that has started to creep into the curriculum, i will see if i can find a post i saw on it, in another forum here.

Critical thinking is a pretty basic academic tool in the humanities as well as in the sciences. You need to be equipped with critical thinking skills in order to make a fist of studying anything, and I think the approach is to see it not as a separate subject that gets taught in distinct sessions, but that as a skill which is imparted and learned as part of the discipline of studying other subjects. In much they way, if you think about it, that we don't teach logic as a subject; but you have to master logic in order to make progress in maths and science.

If that is the thinking, it may not be working.

For what it's worth, in her (Catholic) school in Australia my daughter had a compulsory unit in critical thinking in Year 8 - it was seen as a kind of foundational skill. But it was just one unit, and pretty basic stuff; the real engagement with critical thinking came when you were expected to apply it in other courses.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Critical thinking is a pretty basic academic tool in the humanities as well as in the sciences.

Should probably read "most of humanities and sciences".

Cultural studies is one area where critical thinking seems occasionally to have vacated. There are other academic areas too, in which first-hand experience indicates that one is expected to endorse opinions which flatter certain fringe political positions but which would be considered irrational and unevidenced - not to say dumb - in more sober departments. And that endorsement would be seen as all the more plausible when delivered in tortured prose, in defiance of consistency, evidence, reasonableness and from an apolitical perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Peregrinus

Mmm. I'd say that cultural studies pursued without an application of critical thinking is going to produce some fairly shíte scholarship, precisely because critical thinking is as fundamental a skill for cultural studies as it is for any other field of scholarship.

A separate question is whether there are particular fields where, at particular times, poor scholarship (including, but not limited to, a lack of critical thinking) abounds and/or is tolerated. The answer to that question is "yes".

But pointing to such a phenomenon affecting Those People Over There is always a bit hubristic. The truth is that there are few fields of scholarship in which you don't read papers and find yourself thinking "This looks like nonsense. Either I'm a bit dim or the author is." For every Peter Sokal getting nonsense published in Social Text you've got an Elaine Murphy getting it into the British Medical Journal, and open-access and non-peer-reviewed journals in all fields are routinely spoofed in this way. Wikipedia has a long and entertaining list covering nonsense papers that are accepted for publication in journals or accepted for presentation at academic conferences.

While all these cases do betray a lack of critical thinking, we can reasonably ask why critical thinking is so often wanting, given that it's necessity/desirability is widely recognised. I suggest that the answer is the neoliberal commodification of the academic world. Metrics are invented for use in determining how academic workers will be paid or promoted, and since critical thinking is difficult to measure in a quantifiable way, it's not measured. The result is that academic workers are incentivised not to pay attention to critical thinking. The market responds to the incentives by creating ways for academic workers to improve their metrics — specifically, by getting more papers published or accepted for presentation at conferences. The quality of the papers goes unmeasured and, since it's easier to produce a rubbish paper than a solid one, the market makes it easy to get rubbish published/accepted.

If this analysis is correct, you'd expect the problem to affect all disciplines to a greater or lesser degree. And, lo, it does.

Tl;dr: the underlying problem here is not that cultural studies doesn't value critical thinking; it's that the people who control funding for cultural studies - and medical studies, and computer science, and chemistry, etc — don't value critical thinking.

And since those are largely the same people who control funding for secondary education, the prospects of having critical thinking given a more central role in the curriculum are perhaps not so hot.

Mr. CooL ICE

I always had an interest in science. Watching Star Trek and other space-based sci/fi growing up, astronomy really appealed to me and despite not understanding it, was really curious about the big bang.

I can't remember what age I was, but at some point in secondary school, the local priest came and gave a talk. He went on a big spiel about God creating the world and everything we see. I sat there thinking "ah, but that didn't really happen - are we supposed to actually believe this???". From there, my belief in christianity sort of dwindled. This evolved into wondering why there are so many christians in the world, as well as muslims, jews, hindus etc etc who believe their religion is the one true religion, then why would mine be the one true one? It started to make less and less sense.

That kind of though process led me to being unable to have any sort of a belief system at all.

magicbastarder

Peregrinus wrote: »

Tl;dr: the underlying problem here is not that cultural studies doesn't value critical thinking; it's that the people who control funding for cultural studies - and medical studies, and computer science, and chemistry, etc — don't value critical thinking.

may be of interest; malcolm gladwell did a couple of podcasts about the entrance exams to the american law education system (and chess), which explore how the exams are incredibly carefully crafted yet select/ reward skills which are not really required for law.

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

may be of interest; malcolm gladwell did a couple of podcasts about the entrance exams to the american law education system (and chess), which explore how the exams are incredibly carefully crafted yet select/ reward skills which are not really required for law.

(This may not be a feature of legal education alone; it may be a feature of the exam system. Just sayin'.)

magicbastarder

he focuses entirely on the entrance exam, not the ensuing education; that it rewards people who can think extremely quickly, which might be an advantage if law was practiced the way it is in the movies.