Wow, this video is exactly the sort of thing that's been on my mind these past few months. I'm currently a junior in high school, and I can attest to the fact that the school system is, to be frank, shit. Critical thinking? Bah! You have a test next week, you'd better get to memorizing! You don't have time to think! That's the mindset that's pushed on us. And if a tendency towards logical analysis isn't an inherent quality in a young person, well, the education system sure as hell isn't going to do anything about it.

But I don't think this is a problem that can be fixed as easily as you think. There have to be teachers that are able and willing to teach critical thinking, and well, at least where I'm from, I don't see that happening. The other day, for example, my Humanities teacher eloquently pointed out to me that global warming was not a problem, because "God makes the earth warm up and cool down, just like he makes it rain". After explaining the water cycle to her and noting that it does not, in fact, require that we invoke the supernatural, she gave me the deer-in-the-headlights look. "But who makes the water cycle work?" We may need to start with the teachers before we can reach the students...

It's really good, good job.

Well I'm not saying that we should aim to give every kid a perfect understanding of logical fallacies. Obviously that would be hard to accomplish. A point I made in the video is that the average person - at least, in my experience - looks at you like you're speaking another language (and crazy on top of it) when you start mentioning logical fallacies in the midst of a debate. Most people seem to think, "Look at that cocky guy, sayin' big words, thinking he's all right and great for it!"

That's what I'm saying needs to change - simply the awareness level of logical principles. Doesn't matter if the teaching of them is perverted or what-not. As long as there's some sort of awareness.

In the big leagues of the debate, this isn't as much of a problem. I'm talking about the average populace. Go around a college campus, ask every kid you see if they know what "ad hominem" means, and you'll leave incredibly disheartened.

You're right. I'm just too dissatisfied with the education system as a whole, I think, but that's another discussion altogether. I'm completely in favor of your proposal.

I'm reluctant to say that the implementation of a class on logical thinking would have a big impact on the religious, though. In my experience (and I may be wrong), people tend to place religion above logic, asserting that God is "beyond human understanding" or some such nonsense. Still, it's worth a shot, especially considering the other areas of society it'll affect.

A couple of points from a former educator.

The education pendulum has been swinging back and forth on on this stuff for a long time. Back in the 50's and 60's it was all rote learning. Then the "Humanist" movement in education emphsized "discovery" in the classroom which made classes fun but the kids were not really learning as much. So the pendulum swung back in the 80's as "open schools" became closed again. Then the 90's it swung the other way again with "teaching thinking skills" "cooperative education" and in Math there was IMPS. Now we have "No Child Left Behind" which is just teaching to the test learning again.

The problem with teaching thinking skills turns out to be that if you do not also teach context for those thinking skills to be applied, the thinking skills soon fade.

I was very very lucky to get a junior high science teacher that also taught us logic in the context of science. He started the class with the famous "Brains in vats" argument, and said he would give an A to anyone who could prove him wrong. Inevitably someone would ask him to prove he was right and he of course would introduce the problems with proving a negative. He basically taught us logic and logical fallacies and the importance of empirical observation.

Instead of requiring a logic 101 class for all students, logic and critical thinking should be primary skills emphasized in all science classes, and more science should be required.

 

 It's true, when I try to argue with someone, I often feel like it has to devolve into a lesson on basic logic for me to get something through to them.  I shouldn't have to do that.  I've always assumed that logical thinking, knowledge of the basic principles of logic, should be somewhat innate, that some people are simply ignoring theirs, but I'm figuring out that that isn't the alway the case.

I like the video a lot.  You make some very valid points, and you have a good voice for narration.   

Given the state of education in the U.S., I think getting logic instituted as a core subject into school curricula is a long-shot. Not only would schools have to pay a teacher to teach the class, but there's no guarantee that, even if a teacher was hired or reassigned to teach the class, the teacher wouldn't be a theist.

However, your core idea is correct: the future of atheism does not lie with endlessly debating grown-up theists. It has to do with taking advantage of the natural curiosity of young people before they become indoctrinated.

You mentioned religion being a closed system. That's mostly true, but it's becoming less so since the advent of the internet. It used to be that families could limit anti-god messages heard by their children by turning off the television or radio, but even theist families have internet connections, not to mention public libraries, etc.

So by this logic, it would seem to me that the most effective course of action would be to reach young people via the internet. What about some sort of online atheism toolkit geared towards college and high-school-aged people? Concisely present the case for atheism and provide additional information sources for them to look at.

I think we have a tendency to be long-winded as a result of our frustration (for example, this post!). And that just won't fly with the up and coming generation.

I agree with the message but I would also assert that the responsibility doesn't just lay with teachers in the school system.  Aside from the miles of red tape you'll have to go through to get it there, by the time you did, you'd have lost out on plenty of opportunity to actually get the job done yourself. This doesn't mean to not try, just saying that we also share this responsibility.

I think Dawkins has a great idea in writing childrens books that promote critical thinking in the youngest of the population.  Teachers are powerful, there's no doubt but so is peer pressure.  If you have a big enough group of kids that share the same skills in thinking, they're bound to be influential.  The real problem is that kids are, by nature, believers in anything.

I love it.  I think it would be a good idea to somehow reach out and give others the tools to arrive at their own conclusions instead of challenging them right out.  I think going straight up to a theist and going "There is No God" is allot like a Therapist going up to the Patient and shaking them widly screaming "Fix yourself you broken twit!" (while both are valid, they are not very constructive)

static_, I left a comment on your vid (as 'wonderist' ) basically completely agreeing with you, at least in the overall approach.
Kids can learn simple math skills at 7, 8, 9 years of age. They could easily learn basic logic at that age as well. It's really not that hard to learn. If you can learn multiplication tables, you can learn truth tables. When I was 8 or 9, I was even dabbling with computer programming, which is very similar. Maybe we could try to get logic included in math courses, and call it systematics. Use the computer to test out your homework. Along with teaching science, this would go a long way to immunizing society against religion and other dogmas.

I am not as pessimistic about the "atheist" label being in the forfont.

I do agree that we need to play the marketing game as well as theists, but I do not think we need to loose the atheist label and I damned sure think that taking our eyes of religion would be suicide to freedom, for both theist and atheist.

Critical thinking skills should be a priority as young as possible. Skepticism was a cornerstone of the foundation of this country. The ability to question even religion and political leaders has maintained the ability to keep theocracy and facism at bay.

I think things like "Freethinking teens" and Rap artist Graydon Square are a great start. As bleek as things may seem in some regions of the world I also see progress.

America has it's first open atheist and Muslim Senator. We have seen the explosion of atheist voices in print and broadcast media. I think this is not evidence of more rejection of atheism as much as it is a growing awarness of better alturnitives to theism.

The people causing the worlds problems are irrational, be they facists or theocrats, I think fortunatly they are the minority. The problem is these minorities politicians and theocrats have money and power and use it to sell laymen a reason to be sheep.

I think most humans when left to their concious would be willing to "live and let live". I think however, between AS YOU SAID CORRECTLY, lack of education and critical thinking skills, allow themselves to be sold irrational claims because they are not taught to question.

"Question with boldness even the existance of God, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson.

In this push to the New Enlightenment, even with this "fly under the radar" suggestion, we must not become that which we are claiming to avoid. We ourselves must as well as any theist, understand that utopias dont exist. While improving humanity we must not assume that we have the right, any more than any theist, to be the alpha male via government force anymore than we like it when theocrats or facists want to silence us.

I try to make it perfectly clear to my theist critics that the war of ideas need not be faught with guns EVER, unless we are talking about defending from people like Hitler or Bin Ladin.

We must remember as much as we remind theists, that there ARE 6 billion people on this planet. If our goal is to be met, it must remain an intelectuall battle and not one of "my way or the highway". That is what theocrats and facists do.

I agree that we need to compete with marketing. But the best tool in using our marketing skills is that we need to make it clear that WE DONT NEED, nor will we ever need goverment to fight our battles for us, we have the free market and free speech and we know that our arguments and evidence stand on their own.

EDIT,

Let me add that this rush to "the end times" is a kneejerk reaction, but that is a small minority compaired to the totality of the worlds population. It is getting these nutty facists and theocrats out of power.

There still are pleanty of Christians, Muslims, Jews and of course atheists who are in agreement that this "end times" accelleration crap, IS DANGEROUS, but completely avoidable. I think any theist reading this who agrees should post here to show solidarity that one good goal that we can agree on is to scrap the alpha male mentality of "devine intitlement" to the globe.

The species has one planet to live on and both the theist and atheist should want the ride to continue as long as possible. We must fight the fearmongers and not fear each other.

It would be nice if "poof" one could magically get what they want. I am sure theists say, "wouldnt it be nice if" as well. I think the biggest clusterfuck to humanity is trying to build utopias and I see it just as delusional and dangerous for atheists to fall into that trap as well.

I think our goal is to fight the fearmongers, challenge the facists and theocrats, and combine our demand for peace with our theist counterparts without expectation of silence of the other or assumption that one wants to opress the other. I think neither they or us need to assume the other is out to get each other.

Whatever our goal is long term, it must lead and show, not dictate or opress, and that includes not dictating to the atheist label as well.

If we claim we dont want to be dictated to and we should not be forced to live under religious law, then we must appeal to them with that logic. If Christians wouldnt want to live in Iran under Islamic law, then why would they be hypocrites and claim that our laws came out of the bible?

Our Constitution is quite clear, "Freedom of religion" IS garunteed. Atheists are simply tired of the assumption that only Christians make good Presidents or Congressmen. It isnt about saying, "Never vote for a Christian". It is about, "Hey if you are tired of both the left and right, then maybe you should focus on real issues such as health care and the war, insted of what sect of Christianity a politician on the left or right claims. Maybe if you'd expand your choices insted of limiting them by proxy of mere label and seek overlap insted of common dogma.

I think this is a good aproach and it lets the theist know, that although we dont mince words and are unafraid to speak out, that we are not facists and do value their freedom even if our goals are different.

This is an intelectuall war, and should not be faught on any battlefield. I hope both the theist and atheist can agree that the age of war should end so that whatever happens there can be great grandchildren still surviving on OUR planet. 

I have been an "audience" member on this issue for the past day.  One of those waiting to see who can convince me which idea is best.

After thinking about both sides and my own experiences, I have to go with the frontal assault idea.

Simply teaching logic will not make religion go away.  I read an article a few days ago talking about radical fundamentalist Muslim schools.  They have 6 main areas of study.  Three are religious like the Koran, and Sharia law.  One of the other six is "logic".  It's not hurting them.  So I don't see it hurting christianity either.

My mother was visiting a couple weeks ago.  She started spouting endlessly about the bible and I confronted her on Noah's flood.  When I pointed out that it was impossible, all the things that would make it impossible, her logic kicked in and she fell back saying that it was most likely a local flood.  At that point I fully agreed with her and we stopped talking.

The next day, with this wistful look on her face she said, "The bible tells us that before the flood it never rained.  I guess that the soil somehow held more water back then.  Enough for there to be no need for rain."

I was confused as crap.  If she could be so logical when confronted about the idea of the world-wide flood, how could she be so illogical about it never raining before the flood?

The shields were back up.

Logic not allowed in here, not this place, not in the religion area.

My mother is very intelligent.  A director of a university library with a Master's degree.

You have to force people to question religion.  Force them to defend.  Force them to use logic on religion.

Or they will throw up those shields around their belief and never use logic on it.

I want to take a stance that is a hybrid of Sapient's and Static's.  I have said for years that it's a complete travesty that critical thinking is not a mandate for all schools in the country.  I think it ought to be more than a single class, in fact.  I think as early as kindergarten or first grade, we ought to be incorporating critical thinking into the curriculum, so that as children get to high school, they've already had eight years of progressive problem solving instruction.

As Pineapple has pointed out, it seems that the trend in education has been a series of opposite reactions that have missed the mark.  "Open" education doesn't work.  Facts must be taught, and there are many things that do require rote and memorization.  There are also problems that are best approached by critical thinking and do not require 'book learnin'.  

Now, as for the OP, I suggest that it is correct on one point and wrong on the other.

Education and critical thinking will help with decreasing irrational mob mentality, and getting behind a revamp of the education program will go a long way towards this.  However, as you point out in your video, theists have a perfect loophole for anything logical -- the bible "predicts" that the wisdom of man will seek to overthrow religion.  In other words, even if you educate everybody in critical thinking, religion will still be a force, and parents will still tell their children not to question religion.

I suggest that a multi-pronged attack is better.  Here's how it works:

1) Atheists/freethinkers continue to expand their network, and continue to publicly attack religion.  The movement is growing.  (By the way, RRS has moved up from over #200,000 on the web to #171,000 in one week!)

2) A large conglomerate of interest groups, including freethinkers and atheists, get behind a national push to reform education, including cumulative critical thinking classes from K-8.  This should not be spearheaded by the atheist community because of the stigma attached to us.  Rather, this is something that should be encouraged by educators and local school boards.

3) If such education is ever implemented, there will have been a generation of people who have already been exposed to the critical thinking of atheists.  The atheist community will be much more visible, and children who have learned to think will be able to see that we are a large and prominent force, and they will not be so afraid to listen to us.

4) As a side benefit, if kids are taught to think, and by the time they get to high school, they already know all about critical thinking, they will be primed and ready to rebel against their religious parents by flirting with those dangerous atheist kids.  We'll tap into the natural rebelliousness of teens and channel it into something that will actually help the country.

So, in summary, I agree fully with your support of a reformed education system.  I disagree completely with abandoning the push towards atheism.

Clarification:

I, and all the freethinkers/atheists I know personally, are completely and utterly opposed to enforcing any belief system, whether political, religious, or moral.  My goal is to make America a place where there truly is complete freedom of religion and from religion.  

I believe that I am right, and that there is no god.  I encourage everyone to examine my evidence and make their own conclusions.  I would stand beside theists in opposition to any program enforcing atheism.

I read that Sapient was in the process of typing his thesis directly to static_, but I also got the impression it would be open to all to view once he was done. If the later is true, I want to stay up to date on this; from what little he has typed so far, it seems really interesting.

I'm with Hamby.
I don't see an 'either'/'or' thing.
The 'improving education' is certainly more to my style and my ideal of doing things that the 'attack' of 'militant atheism', but the way I see it, every approach has it's place. Both approaches will achieve results that the other can't.

I've also had the opinion that education needs working on.
Someone earlier in the thread already said this, but the best way to teach things is it in a way that the kids feel that they are learning something that they can use.
There are already initiatives in motion that are working on education to encourage more creativity and more critical thinking - the two main elements of free thought.

My mum is currently working in a primary school and has been on training courses geared towards improving these things. I've been meaning to take a look at some of the materials that she's been given.