A nation of critical thinkers

[Azrael]

*poof*

You suddenly find yourself among the founding fathers of America and you have magically obtained a majority of their support for whatever issue you choose. So you pick to make the teaching of logic, reasoning and critical thought a constitutional mandate from grade one. Fast forward 200+ years later to a majority of critical thinkers in the American populace.

What effect do you think this has on both religion and the nation?

Nothing. US and religion still develop as they have today.

Welcome to "Wongville". The majority is highly critical of religion. Televangelism is non-existent. Awareness of math and science are, on a national level raised to the forefront, and the scientific method is household knowledge. Fundamentalism operates on the fringe.

The Middle Road. Religion has not disappeared entirely, but it hasn't lost it's sway either. Christians are not the majority in the US, but they hold a good amount of political sway. "Atheist" and "liberal" are not curse words, but their are no arguments over the public display of religious documents, etc., etc.

Christocracy. "Welcome to the Holy Imperium of America, founded 200 years ago after the real nations founders slaughtered those traitorous imposters for their attack against Christianity. After sending that blasphemous constitution to it's rightful place in the ashes, we as a nation of God-fearing people built a holy theocracy over the sin of the False Founders, United under our current Lord-King, George w. Bush."

[CmdrWilkens]

I voted Middle of the Road but I'd still lean it a bit more towards Wongville. I say this because religion will still hold sway but moreso in the sense that it does for a great number of board members here: it is a comforting explanation of matters of "why" we are here and answers to the idea of human purpose but it would not hold sway in matters of the nation state. In other words religion does not inform our public policy except in as much as individuals hold moral viewpoints that encompass their religion and common sense.

What COULD undercut this would be a movement during the 1820s, when religious extremism really took root, to remove this provision from the constitution. The other big if lies with how good the teachers will be as such a constitutional requirement ignores the lack of anything resembling widespread public education in the 18th and 19th century.

[Vendetta]

If you could make it actually stick, and I have few hopes of that, because critical thought is a difficult process which requires a whole separate level of reasoning to ensure that your initial reasoning is actually logically sound, and magical thought is an easy shortcut, you would create a predominantly empiricist and utilitarian society.

Proper critical thought will tend to prefer those systems because they are rooted as far as is possible in objectivity, whereas the alternatives introduce increasing levels of subjectivity.

[King Kong]

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to think free . . ."

I think the average American would view a proper education and access to information as fundamental rights of the individual, regardless of the actual effectiveness of their schooling. We would take much greater pride in our educational system and intellectuals would be much more respected (unless people accused them of not respecting their distorted version of critical thinking).

Political debate might be elevated to a higher level than it is today. Appeals to people's emotions may be seen by the public as a dirty trick, just as insulting a candidate's mother would be today. Consultants for presidential candidates might give logical debating tips for deconstructing their opponents arguments. There might be some regional variations on which techniques are preferred: people from Texas are quick to look for analogous situations, while Californians emphasize purely logical arguments.

This might lead to some interesting foreign policy situations. New democracies might adopt similar mandates from Educational services would be given greater emphasis when assisting developing nations, just as democratic elections are a priority now. Countries could be diplomatically condemned because of their intellectual freedom laws: we might be occupying Iraq because Saddam denied Internet access to his own people *gasp and shudder*.

However, the above extrapolations are just idle speculation. The only nigh-inevitable consequence of such a mandate (that I can think of) would be the recognition of education and intellectual exercise as fundamental rights of human beings. People's ideas of what constitutes critical thinking and education may evolve to be radically different from ours, but whatever they'd develop to be, they'd be respected and cherished.

[King Kong]

Ghetto Edit: New democracies might adopt similar mandates for their own constitutions and educational services would be given greater emphasis when assisting developing nations, just as democratic elections are a priority now.

I apologize for the mistake.

[Zero]

I said other, because I think there would either be no difference, or too big of a difference to know what would have happened. The individual state legislatures were fearing such a big federal government taking so much power already, and the notion of taxation was something that America at the time was quite worried about. The question of funds as well as the notion that the common people were capable of understanding rules of logic and whatnot would make it so that state legislatures wouldn't be as likely to adopt the new constitution, so it would either shift our nation completely to the point that modern history wouldn't even be recognizable, or the clause would be removed and there would be no change at all. If the constitution hadn't been adopted, I really have no idea at all what the modern day would be like.

If we're assuming that this would stay in and the constitution would still be magically adopted by the states as well, then I take the middle path. Some people really do need religion to fulfill an emotional niche (not all people, mind you), so I don't think it would be eliminated, but I don't think fundamentalism would be strong at all, and would be a fringe movement, while atheists wouldn't have such a negative stigma associated with them.

[Zero]

Ghetto edit: I think I actually clicked on nothing, so... oops.

[Lagmonster]

Education *is* the answer to religion, but I don't think you can force people not to be superstitious, gullible, frightened of death, or suspicious of things outside their little tribal world.

It bears remembering that a lot of the worst qualities of religion - bigotry, ignorance, fear, and delusional thinking - are things that even historically well-educated people have been susceptible to, or which are part of our family tradition or personality rather than our education.

[Vendetta]

Education *is* the answer to religion, but I don't think you can force people not to be superstitious, gullible, frightened of death, or suspicious of things outside their little tribal world.

Education does not always include critical thinking, which only tends to take place at higher levels of scientific and mathematical education, rather than, as it should be, a cornerstone of education from early on.

Critical thought, the ability to question and reason, is what banishes superstition.

[Lagmonster]

Critical thought, the ability to question and reason, is what banishes superstition.

True, although I would suggest that critical thought, when *applied*, banishes superstition. People can have a rigorous duality when it comes to their faith and their religion - I've known enough religious scientists to know that.

I was just cautioning the bandwagon jumpers that some of the things that make us want to get rid of religion - bigotry being the obvious one - are not necessarily cured by eradicating religion. Improved, yes, to the point where it's worth doing, but not eliminated. Assuming your goal is to erase bigotry, for example, you have to do more than raise a secular nation.

[Larz]

I'm not sure that much of anything would change, because to teach logic, reasoning, and critical thought you would first have to start out with educators who grasped such concepts, accepted them, and could teach them (unbaised ontop of that.) This could be done with upper class children that could get into academies with proper scholars to teach them, but the vast majority of folks would end up being taught the good'ol way with a grammar book and the Bible.

On top of that, a system for standardizing and enforcing this mandate would be required. Most fundies I know tend to think that what they believe is logical, is reasonable, and that they have critically thought over everything about their faith. This in and of itself would be a bear to manage and get to work (hell, we can't even standardize the education kids recieve today in the US.)

So, in my opinion, I could see a slight shift towards a society more grounded in logical thought, but I wouldn't really get my hopes up for anything worthwhile.

[Azrael]

Ah yes. I think I knew when I created this thread that the Idea of critical thought at all levels of education was somewhat fantasical. Wongville would be awesome but that would require the majority of the population to, not only have a high level of intelligence, but also posses the will to use it. Neither of those are likely if the real american populace is any indication.

It bears remembering that a lot of the worst qualities of religion - bigotry, ignorance, fear, and delusional thinking - are things that even historically well-educated people have been susceptible to, or which are part of our family tradition or personality rather than our education.

True. People don't need God/Satan/Allah/Vishnu/Darth Vader's help to be suspicious bigoted morons. But wouln't an education system that valued reason and critical thought be less likey to produce said group of idiots, while making it more difficult for those very evils you mentioned to thrive?

True, although I would suggest that critical thought, when *applied*, banishes superstition. People can have a rigorous duality when it comes to their faith and their religion - I've known enough religious scientists to know that.

It's true. Double think is one of the cornerstones of religious fundamentalism and a big part of what allows YECs to think science helps prove their case. I however think that this addition to the constitution (assuming it survives) throws a bit of a monkey wrench into their works. Think about it; How many fundamentalists do you know are willing to admit that their brand of religion makes no sense? The early fundies may assume that this measure could only help, not hurt and double think their way out of their chance to remove the bill early on.

They'll catch on, see it for what it is, and probably try to smear it, but assuming their slow enough to allow the education systemto produce a generation of people who are at least aware of critical thinking, the fence sitters will be far less suseptible to their bullshit this time around and each successive generation would make it a gradually tougher sell.

But all that assumes this bill survives the birth of the nation. If not (likely not actually), its effects would of course be greatly minimized...

[Lagmonster]

True. People don't need God/Satan/Allah/Vishnu/Darth Vader's help to be suspicious bigoted morons. But wouln't an education system that valued reason and critical thought be less likey to produce said group of idiots, while making it more difficult for those very evils you mentioned to thrive?

I don't disagree that it would be an improvement. I disagree that it would be a solution. Anything more is basically arguing in terms of scale.

At that, you'd still end up with large sub-cultures in the country of people who barely grasped the concepts, stumbled through primary school on lip service, or who recieved subversive education from their parents. Not to mention what you'd have to do about immigration. You pretty much have to give people the right to believe whatever the flying hell they want to, but suppress at all costs their ability to use those beliefs to intervene in the rights of other people.

Think about it; How many fundamentalists do you know are willing to admit that their brand of religion makes no sense? The early fundies may assume that this measure could only help, not hurt and double think their way out of their chance to remove the bill early on.

Many religious people agree that their initial premise - that god exists - is irrational but true. Further to that, if you only teach rational thinking but don't come right out and *apply* that thinking to superstitious beliefs and religious texts *in the classroom*, you can't guarantee that they'll not become, say, an engineer theist, the two being entirely indepenant characteristics even in a secular society that demands testable precision in its engineering processes.

[Azrael]

I don't disagree that it would be an improvement. I disagree that it would be a solution. Anything more is basically arguing in terms of scale.

At that, you'd still end up with large sub-cultures in the country of people who barely grasped the concepts, stumbled through primary school on lip service, or who recieved subversive education from their parents. Not to mention what you'd have to do about immigration. You pretty much have to give people the right to believe whatever the flying hell they want to, but suppress at all costs their ability to use those beliefs to intervene in the rights of other people.

I agree. I'm gonna have to concede here because all that coupled with the better-than-average intelligence and handwavery needed to make it work simply wouldn't be there. I will however say that someone who cannot grasp the core concepts of reasoning, but has been exposed to it from someone/thing outside the home would be given the kind of chance most fundies today don’t really have.

Many religious people agree that their initial premise - that god exists - is irrational but true.

Honest religious people maybe, but while we're on the subject of honesty lets give ourselves some; do you honestly believe that people like Pat Robertson and Rev. Phelps think that their faith in god is irrational? My own mother, who used to be a Jehovah Witness would tell me at a young age when I challenged her faith in god that it was "common sense" for her to believe and that’s not a phrase you use when you want to indicate something fundamentally unreasonable.

You mileage with fundamentalists has obviously varied and I don't think it would be productive of us to argue our obviously different experiences with them. The "spectrum" of Christian influence in America is quite varied from the allegorical Christians to the ones who would have voted option 4 in my poll. I do contend, however, that the majority of the fundamentalists that I'm talking about believe that faith in god is as rational as faith in gravity and the fact that they think can construct an equally scientifically sound theory around their faith, and the overused and fallacious "everyone has faith in something" argument are proof enough of this.

Further to that, if you only teach rational thinking but don't come right out and *apply* that thinking to superstitious beliefs and religious texts *in the classroom*, you can't guarantee that they'll not become, say, an engineer theist.

Theists aren't the problem. Fundamentalists are. The bill doesn't seek to destroy religion (although at maximum effectiveness, that maybe a likely side effect) but it would at the least damage fundamentalism itself.

[rant] I think that Logic and reasoning are at least as potent as Science for good of HumanityTM. The way you describe, my bill would be as "famous" as science is today; most people couldn't tell you what the scientific method is. Fundies make of a very large portion of the American populace and they all think that evolution is an lie cook up by arrogant scientists who don't want to believe in/hate god.

But despite all that, evolution has displaced creationism in the classroom and the fundies have gone from dominating education as a whole, to have to practically beg for at least equal time in class and, even in today's climate they still can't get their way. Science has displaced fundamentalism with it's advances and I think that critical thought, even in the firm grasp of the few would do the same, but that’s just hope/opinion.[/rant]

[Alex Moon]

Other: Religion is likely to be a much more widespread affair, however there will be fewer branches/sectarian divisions.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Middle of the road. Though I don't feel that's too far removed from how it is now.

[The Guid]

I went for Christocracy. You have to realise who these people were - they were puritans, pilgrims and they were there to do God's work. Even if the Founding Fathers had been persuaded, I doubt they could have got critical thinking to those kinds of people.