I've always felt the most beneficial part of higher education isn't the knowledge gained but the way you are taught to get it - Through research and critical thinking.

That isn't to say that people who don't have a higher education aren't capable of these things, but as a proportion of the population I think you'll find a greater competence in those with a higher education.

This isn't necessarily the case with college grads of the past few years, who are more self-centered, self-absorbed and coddled. In fact, most of the 'noise' coming out of colleges today are the b*tching and moaning that someone said something that offended them. Not exactly 'research' oriented or based on 'critical thinking'. Its more aligned with the environment they've decided to surround themselves in, while those who are 'less-formally-educated' get their 'education' through elbow grease and busted knuckles (also known as 'life experience'.

  > A degree just gives you knowledge in a specific area, and
  > does not make anyone more intelligent just by having it.

Regarding the degree thing, you may or may not acquire them. The degree just requires you to demonstrate a certain knowledge and skills, but not necessarily problem solving and answer finding. If you apply yourself and have good teachers, you can certainly learn it, but it's not that much different of a situation than when you're working in some job or doing things by yourself. It's not necessary nor sufficient, and definitely not even in most cases.

You clearly do not live where I live.

Within Christianity (much less religion more generally), the idea that the answers are all "in the book" (the doctrine of sola scriptura) is a doctrine of a distinct subset of the larger body of believers.

Yeah, immediately after I posted that, I wondered if I should clarify that sola scriptura actually doesn't mean that itself, and the "all answers are in the book" approach is actually at best a not-infrequent corruption of a minority approach to what is, itself, within Christianity a minority doctrine, rather than the doctrine itself.

But I figured that the clarification was probably not necessary, and that it was tangential to the point that "the answers are all in the book" isn't some kind of universal, or even general, trait of religious belief.

Still, its well taken.

> It means that when it comes to issues of faith and morals, the Bible is authoritative above all else.

While this is getting a bit far afield, the mere authoritative above all else on matters of faith and morals approach is the doctrine of prima scriptura, which is an alternative to sola scriptura held in some branches of Protestantism.

That's hardly representative of most fundamentalist Christians, let alone religious people generally.

Why? Most of what the parent wrote is factual and descriptive, not prescriptive or disparaging. The post doesn't condemn anyone. I find your response just as unpleasant, because you seem to be suggesting that this line of discourse should be shunned, which frankly isn't going to help anyone.