An old 19th century textbook I have on mineralogy opens with this sentence:

[MineralMan]

"We are to study minerals."

We are to think. We are to learn. We are to wonder. We are to imagine. We are to dream. We are to examine.

Descartes got it backwards. It is not so much "I think, therefore I am." It is more like, "I am, therefore I think."

A fine difference, but a real one.

One wag has co-opted Descartes and says, "I believe, therefore I am." That person has it backwards, too. That should also read, "I am, therefore I believe."

Existence comes before thought or belief.

Belief is a type of thought. It needn't be based on anything factual, though. Knowing is another type of thought. It must be based on evidence. I cannot know what I have not experienced. I can understand what someone else says about what he or she knows, but I cannot actually know that it is true. If someone tells me about the crystal structure of calcite, for example, I can trust that they have studied crystallography and give credence to that statement. Or, I can study the crystallography of calcite for myself and confirm that it is correct.

Either way, the information is based on evidence. I needn't "believe" it to be true, since I can study the reality myself, if I choose to do so.

That is not true of religion, which must be believed without evidence. If I believe something that has no evidence, I cannot verify it in any way. If I trust someone who tells me about something that has no evidence and accept the truth of what has been said, I am a fool. If I cannot verify, I cannot know.

There is an enormous gulf between belief and knowledge. I cannot see evidence that does not exist, so if I believe without knowledge, I make a mistake that has been made over and over again.

We are to study reality.

[elleng]

1. Director of my daughters' pre-K school wrote (just now)

'How do you instill desire to learn?' I wrote 'it's natural, and Lowell (the school) encourages it.'

[MineralMan]

3. Very good!

It's true. We are born with brains that are receptive to learning. Most people are eager to learn, beginning at a very, very early age. What we learn depends on how we begin learning, I think. If we are taught to learn through exploration of the world around us, we form the habit of learning truth from experience. If, however, we are taught to accept information without question, we might never learn to learn directly. Learning and how we learn are habits.

Religious education is not based on learning directly through observation and examination. It is the second type of learning by being told what to believe. That path does not lead to knowledge, but to belief without evidence. It is a much less useful way to learn, and apt to teach false lessons we carry with us through our lives. I'm not in favor of it.

I would much rather know than believe.

[elleng]

5. The best part is that my daughters, both mothers of little ones now,

have incorporated their essential understanding of learning into the way they treat and teach THEIR kids, now 5, 3 years and 3 weeks old. It's WONDERFUL to watch.

[MineralMan]

6. Excellent! Good job!

[Beartracks]

2. +1 Even Ronald Reagan said: "Trust, but verify." n/t

[MineralMan]

4. Yes, he did. That is the scientific method, more or less.

[trev]

8. Not more or less. Precisely.

Descartes was the father of the scientific method, expounded in his treatise A Discourse on Method.

[trev]

7. "I think, therefore I am"

The actual proposition put forth by Descartes was: "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am."

Unwavering faith hinders rational thought.

[MineralMan]

9. It does, indeed, I think.

[trev]

10. I see what you did.... :)

[NeoGreen]

11. Please post the textual inverse of this corollary for the...

...edification of all.

[trev]

12. ? Please elucidate

[NeoGreen]

13. I was imagining something on the order of...

..."I do not Doubt, therefore I have no need to Think, and thus I am Nothing"

[trev]

14. Oh, wow. Interesting postulate.

I think I like it. (Because I do doubt. LOL)