Bailey 1

Allister Bailey

Nile Hartline

ENG 106 20197

January 21, 2025

Chapter 1: Topics for Critical Thinking

1. People don’t always act according to their beliefs. I would say that many people do, but there

are some situations in which they act against their beliefs. Some people may fall under peer

pressure and act against their beliefs. Whether that peer pressure may be direct or indirect, they

may be influenced in some way. For example, one person may be told to drink something they

don’t want to drink but end up drinking it anyway. Another example of peer pressure is agreeing

to something because everyone else agrees to it.

2. I was originally agnostic a few years ago. I was debating whether there was a god only

because I was afraid of death. I had to assume that if I didn’t believe in God, I was going to be an

infinite void of darkness when I had passed away. The idea of death still doesn’t sit right with

me, but I have come to understand that there is still a lot we don’t know. I had to think about why

I was worried about death, but also if I should believe in a god. I had concluded, through days of

research, that there wasn’t enough- or sufficient- evidence that a god existed. My next struggle

was a much longer struggle. Death is a hard thing to tackle, because no one knows what really

happens after. So, I had talked to my therapist to fully grasp this idea and try to overcome this

phobia of death; so that’s what I did.

3. My public figure I will be choosing is Neil deGrasse Tyson. I believe he thinks more like a

scientist. He prioritizes using logical data and proven ideas more than unproven theories or data.

He consistently questions his beliefs to gain further understanding to what he may be

researching. A politician thinks differently than a scientist due to the logic they use. Politicians

are easily swayed by the public, rather than believing in accuracy. Along with this, politicians

very rarely rethink their ideologies. Almost their entire job is to stick with their belief and argue

for it.

1. I think the paper succeeded in making me curious about what the essay was going to be about.

I think the title being catchy, easy to remember, helps the title a lot. It caught my attention

immediately by using these strategies, but maybe removing the thesis may be good. I’m not sure

I can suggest a better title, as I believe that title perfectly suits the essay.

2. Any person can create or practice a religion within the United States. The first amendment

protects everyone’s right to do so. However, even in prison, prison doesn’t necessarily guarantee

diets, even for religions that have been solidified for thousands of years. I do think it wouldn’t be

unfair to deny them, as Pastafarianism is completely satirical. Some prisons even require official

proof that you are in the religion you believe in. With this religion, I’m not sure you can get that

official documentation. If people do believe in this monster, then I’d say it’s completely okay.

3. I feel like a “real” religion can be defined by a group of people deeply believing in an

otherworldly being that has absolute power and truth. Along with this, religion shouldn’t be

outwardly trying to take from them in some way. I haven’t done the research, but most religion I

know don’t try to harm others. So, if a religion has the criteria, I think it can be classified as a

religion.
 Bailey 3

1. In algebra in high school, I had felt that I had learned everything I could. I worked hard, I

learned the required materials, I thought out problems and I showed my work. I thought on the

test I would perform great, maybe better than I had previously thought. However, my grade did

not reflect this. With my grade, I went to my teacher for answers, as my test sheet was lacking

response and feedback. I asked my teacher what happened, and she thoroughly explained it from

there. Without a doubt I was disappointed with myself, as I always found myself enjoying math

until this very moment. If I could’ve gotten the feedback on my paper, I feel like it would’ve

been easier than to go out of my way to go talk to them. However, with this feedback I decided

to retake the test. With this retake, I did perform much better; the way I expected to perform the

first time.

2. Asao’s position on grades is that they are a drawback instead of a benefit. They clearly state

how they feel this way, they bring a professional in to get their opinions, and they effectively

convey their message. However, I do feel there are a multitude of factors missing. It depends on

how the teacher is teaching; is the teacher actively trying to teach and communicate with

students? How is the school engagement, what are the policies and procedures in the schools? All

of this is affects how a student may perform. If the grading process was more lenient, I do feel

like more students would be willing to take the risk, but some may be more hesitant due to their

personal beliefs or home life.

3. I think a lot of people could benefit from the idea of getting money instead of grades. At the

same time, it feels unfair to those who may be less fortunate. Possibly, it may be a factor in

getting those who are less fortunate to show up to school more often. It all really depends, but I

do feel like that would be a good idea. Especially considering how expensive college is, it may

be a good idea to put all that money to the side to prepare for college expenses. I feel like Inoue
 Bailey 4

would agree with this idea, as money as a very good motivator, it’s positive reinforcement. A part

of me does still feel like people will take advantage of this, do the minimum work to get the

money, so there will need to be things to work on if this were introduced.

1. The character view of critical thinking means that you are open minded, willing to change

your views if you are found wrong, willing to listen to others, and civil when it comes to

discussing your side of things. The “critical spirit” is just that, the way of thinking and acting on

your thinking. Much like the example they list, if a king presents his idea, he will take no

consideration for the other side. If a scholar presents his idea, he will take all considerations and

understand where they are coming from.

2. The Milinda-Panha shows the distinct difference between how a scholar and a king would

discuss things. The king would immediately punish a man or woman for going against their

views, hearing only himself. The scholar doesn’t get mad or irritated from altering views, and

they take them into consideration, instead of pushing them away.

3. Philosophy is the idea of asking fundamental questions about reality and knowledge. Critical

thinking is a necessity to dive into the topic of such vast possibilities. What I believe he means is

that a large concept of philosophy is critical thinking, and to understand philosophy we must

think critically. I believe he is selling philosophy to people who don’t believe it benefits society,

when it does quite a bit. Like I stated in the first sentence, philosophy is the idea of asking

questions about large and hard to understand topics. Philosophy might be promoted by using just

that. There are a multitude of questions unanswered by humans, and those who take interest in

those questions will go toward the philosophical route.

4. For centuries upon centuries, the world has been renowned for leaving people out of things

when they deserve full credit. Specifically in the USA, we’ve named things after the people who

have “discovered” such things, yet the native people had already had a name for said thing they

had discovered years ago. The prime example that comes to mind is immediately Colombus. He

came to America, said “Look what I discovered!” Yet there were millions of Native Americans

already there. History, science and art have always tended to be racist. Whether they intended to

be racist is another question. Along with this, religion is also a big factor in these things. If one

person follows a different religion, but asks the same question, they will be more than likely to

incorporate their own religion but leave out the previous person’s religion. This is how things

start to become altered, is when people who have a bigger name, or more power than the other,

the people will start to take their words and not the others.