Hello fellow educators, welcome to podcast number 46. Today I am going to try an finish our discussion on Informationalism. Last week we ended with some thoughts on “critical thinking” and I was pleased to receive some good feedback. I look forward to sharing this with you. We are still sending out free copies of my book “Discipling this Generation for a Digital World” to any one that asks; details to follow at the end of the podcast.

We have defined Informationalism as the present phenomenon we are encountering in our world today caused by the unending amount of information that has been opened up to us in the Digital World. Both the ease of access and the ability to find nearly any piece of information we want has given rise to a subtle shift in our thinking about knowledge and ultimately truth. This, obviously, is having a dramatic effect upon education as a whole. If our focus as educators has been the transmission of information and knowledge, the sage on the stage, so to speak, we are going to find ourselves somewhat challenged and perhaps obsolete. As digital technologies continue to re-format our entire culture we will need to rethink everything about our educational paradigms, our institutions, our methodologies, our roles, and our relationships. I apologize for being so dramatic but I find myself stepping back more and more and viewing this changing landscape and it prolific. We have embraced what the late Neil Postman called a Technopoly, this is a culture that is driven by and ultimately taken over by the tools of that culture.

“In a technocracy, tools play a central role in the thought-world of the culture. Everything must give way, in some degree, to their development. The social and symbolic world become increasingly subject to the requirements of that development. Tools are not integrated into the culture, they attack the culture; they bid to become the culture. As a consequence tradition, social mores, myth, politics, ritual and religion have to fight for their lives.”  

I want to make sure that we take this “fight” seriously as Christian Educators. I fear that in these last few weeks discussing the Google and Wikipedia phenomenon I may have made the topic somewhat light-hearted in an attempt to move us, as educators, to be more open-minded to these amazing tools. I personally believe it is important to use these tools effectively as well as be proficient in the tools, methods and ultimately the culture that is now the common language of the digital generation. I am not suggesting we should ban the use of these tools nor insist on a non-internet approach to leaning. On the other hand I believe that our mandate of discipleship-based Christian Education compels us to do all that we can to ensure that our own children and those that God sends us have the best possible example, skill set, mental capacity and spiritual experience to fulfill the will of God for their lives. Our culture is very often juxtaposition to our goals as Christian educators, yet we are working with kids that are very much a part of that culture. Let’s not forget that they are also called to go back into that culture and make disciples themselves.

As stated before the problem that Informationalism presents to us becomes epistemological. What is the authority of the knowledge or information I am receiving? On the surface the answer seems simple, we have to teach our students to think critically. It is suggested that if they can learn to easily discern a good source from a bad source then we will be able to help them differentiate what is true and what is false information.  No problem so far but let’s not forget that critical thinking at its basic level is simple stated a questioning of authority. Hmmmm, sound familiar, isn’t this what got us all in trouble back in the garden. Weren’t Adam and Even tempted to question the authority of God’s command? I will say more about this later.

Proponents of Critical Thinking adhere to the philosophy that we can completely rely upon our rational ability to think deeply enough about a given thing so that we can understand its inherent truth. Here is a definition given by the Foundation for Critical Thinking, (incidentally I found their website to be very informative and comprehensive. They have examples of how they would employ critical thinking all the way through school from Kindergarten to Graduate studies):

“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 analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism. ….

The tradition of research into critical thinking reflects the common perception that human thinking left to itself often gravitates toward prejudice, over-generalization, common fallacies, self-deception, rigidity, and narrowness.

The critical thinking tradition seeks ways of understanding the mind and then training the intellect so that such "errors", "blunders", and "distortions" of thought are minimized. It assumes that the capacity of humans for good reasoning can be nurtured and developed by an educational process aimed directly at that end.”

At the heart of their understanding about how to do this is the Socratic method of questioning everything. Proponents of Critical thinking eventually become purely Utilitarian in their educational philosophy and ultimately pragmatic in their approach towards life. If we rely soley on critical thinking to get us to the truth we must make a number of basic assumptions:

1. We assume that the ultimate authority for truth is a rational thought process. Reason and logic are the only trustworthy epistemology. It assumes that the human mind, if trained to question correctly can arrive at an objective understanding of any subject as long as we have sufficient information and knowledge on that topic. Thus we can see the supreme arrogance on the part of our trust in the human intellect. Isn’t this the supreme temptation? To put our minds above all other authority.
2. We assume that we can objectively observe and understand the information that is being presented to us without bias or personal perspective.
3. We assume that other forms of knowing something are inferior because they don’t stand up to the rigor of our questioning. If we must at some point embrace an authority of knowledge other than reason then we reduce it to something substandard and will one day proven or disproven by reason.

What is often left unsaid is that all thinking must start with basic assumptions. I discussed five basic assumptions that all worldviews must assume in order to have a foundation for thought and explanation about reality. Once we come to an assumption we have to move beyond the realm of critical thinking.

There are certain things we cannot rely upon or intellect or reason to discover because the answers themselves determine the direction of our conclusions. We can use critical thinking to get to these questions but we cannot penetrate beyond to find any rational answer – just an assumption.

Example: When questioning the laws of physics we must make an assumption that the only forces working upon the physical world are natural laws contained in this physical universe. If we assume there is a spiritual realm that can override the laws of physics then we have made room for a miracle and the laws of physics can be overridden. There are other theories as well such as the simulation theory postulated by Movie, The Matrix.

Critical Thinking can help us get our basic assumptions but we will have to use something more than strong mental attention to detail and good questioning skills to get to the heart of our presuppositions.

I appreciate that this may be the long way around this discussion but I cannot start off by giving a wholehearted endorsements to the Socratic method. There are some authorities that we must be very careful with when we start questioning.

I believe this is what is meant by the idea of “the fear of the Lord.” Scripture teaches: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” Proverbs 9:10. The concept of fearing the Lord is one that establishes the heart in a proper attitude towards authority. If we will accept God’s authority then we will have the correct theological assumption in place to understand our world correctly. To believe in a God to whom we must submit to, i.e. fear, will give a completely different position of thought and reasoning than those who assume there is no God. We will not come up with the same answers as our atheist or agnostic friend on a million questions about ethics, life, science, knowledge, mankind, etc. etc.

Now, I am not suggesting that we don’t ever questions our assumptions, especially those that are at the foundation of our worldview. Everyone, at some time in their life questions their basic beliefs. This happens when we are challenged with difficulty, or tragedy. Often we will go through some deep personal crisis. I will never forget when my oldest son started to question the existence of God. He was about 12 years old and a bit fearful to tread in this direction because he was the son of a Pastor. I am thankful that he had the courage to talk to me about it. I told him that I understood what he was going through but I couldn’t help him decide on the answer. I suggested that I could be sounding board for his questions but he was on his own here. I trusted the years of teaching he received through his mother and me, his church and his Christian school. I also went into my bedroom, prayed with all my heart and asked God to reveal himself to him. He came back to me after a couple of days and was glad to report that he had come to the conclusion that there had to be God. Everything here had to come from something. He also had something very important beyond his reason. He had people around him with a bona-fide Christian experience. He realized that he needed to “fear” God because he was convinced of His existence.

The Foundation for Critical Thinking has some excellent material to help us restructure our lessons towards a more Socratic method. I think this is very helpful as long as we are careful with how and when we begin the questioning process. The Foundation takes the position that the entire educational process must be geared toward critical thinking even in the primary level.

As children grow and develop it is important that they have consistent authorities around them both to protect them as well as guide them into the understanding of their world.  Let’s not forget that the simplest definition of critical thinking is to question the authority of information or knowledge. There are certain authorities that must be maintained in that child’s development for their security and upbringing. If the questioning mind is turned on those authorities to soon the child will face significant instability and personal insecurity. They are relying upon these authorities in their lives to create and decipher the world around them. I will never forget when I inadvertently and perhaps a bit prematurely open the critical thinking door to my youngest son. He had the famous and beloved Ray Proteous as his grade 4 teacher. Kenny was already a bit young as he started school a year early so he must have been seven or eight at the time. I can’t recall what it was he shared that he had learned that day, probably something about science. He was very enthusiastic about it and I thoughtlessly said, oh that interesting, I don’t see it that way. I then began to share my understanding and I could see in his face that he was hearing far more than my explanation. He stuttered, “If you are right the Mr. Porteous must be wrong how can this happen?” He went directly to his room and it was just a few short minutes before we could hear his heart wrenching sobs. My wife gave me a look that is etched into my consciousness to this day. She went downstairs and comforted the lad. I then apologized and told him that Mr. Porteous had to be right because he was smarter than me. What had opened up in his young mind was an authority clash. He had two infallible authorities that were in contradiction and created a significant crisis in his young world.

This is not to say that we don’t create some questioning in our younger children’s minds. I was talking with our grade 2 teacher at HCS, Jodi Rancho about the relevance of this and she related that she was using digital technology in her classroom. I suggested that it is important that our kids learn to believe the You Tube videos she was showing because they were given to the class by the teacher not because is was a real video. We have to continually teach a critical approach towards any and all technology media at the earliest years. We do the same thing when we teach our children not to take candy from a stranger. Just because someone is an adult they are not necessarily an authority in your life. Just because something is on TV or Youtube doesn’t make it real.

So we are back at the conclusion that any critical thinking cannot happen in a vacuum. There has to be authority structures around the thinking that will guide the thinking. Ultimately we will have to face the ultimate authority, the Lord. We do not always encounter Him the rational safe way my oldest son found him. I will never forget a student that came into our school whose father was a former pastor yet he was an avowed atheist/agnostic. He was also one of the best critical thinkers I have ever encountered in the classroom. He came into my Christian studies class loaded for bear. I loved it because it inspired amazing discussions as a class. It was often difficult staying on my lesson plan but the course was designed to work at the presuppositional level most of the time. I remember several students struggling to make their point to him. One girl in particular would take the discussion as far as she could and would stop and say, Brian I can’t convince you but I will pray for you. And she did. After months and months of these debates and questions, something I never shut down, keep in mind it was an 11 & 12 class. He began to get somewhat fortified in his positions. We would have to at least have a time where questions were limited. Brian began to have a serious of dreams and which culminated with him in hell, lost and separated from his family. One night in particular he came into his parent’s room terrified that he was already in hell. They prayed that night and he made Jesus Lord of his life.  He shared that next week in class that he had become a Christian. He said that all our discussions and arguments helped in that it allowed room for his reason to consider this option but it was the fear of the Lord that brought him home.

Reason and questioning aside – sometimes it takes an encounter with God, which most critical thinkers will write off as a subjective experience, to come to terms with our beliefs.

I want to thank those of you that sent me your ideas on this. Thank you Joris, Pat and Dawn for your willingness to participate. I hope to use your comments in next week’s podcast. Also if you would like us to mail you a free copy of my book, Discipling This Generation for a Digital World, simply send an email to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it and let us know what type of an educator you are, home schooler, classroom teacher, school administrator, or interested parent. Please let us know how you heard about the podcast and, of course, please include your mailing address. Thank you for listening and thank you for your commitment to discipleship-based Christian education.