Skip to main content

The War For Children's Minds

I was billed as the author of The War For Children's Minds on BBC1 Big Questions - this coming Sunday (see previous post). Hope a few more people will now read it...

'...this volume has a hugely significant contribution to make. It is also highly readable, and provides a useful pocket guide to current philosophical thinking - a sort of religious Bill Bryson.' - Church Times

'The War for Children's Minds is a brilliantly clear and convincingly argued defence of liberalism in moral education. Stephen Law examines and demolishes all the arguments in favour of authoritarian ways of teaching, and shows that in spite of the insistence of popular commentators from the religious right, a liberal and rational examination and discussion of moral questions does not lead to relativism and the decay of ethical behaviour, but can in fact be the best defence against them. This book won't be read by popular journalists: they will attack it without reading it. But it should be read by every teacher, every parent, and every politician. What's more, it should form the subject for discussion in every church, synagogue, mosque, and religious youth group. It's one of the most engaging as well as one of the most necessary books that I've ever read in the field of moral education.'  - Philip Pullman 

'Progressives schools, they say, promote the wishy-washy, anything goes mentality that is the source of our social malaise. In The War for Children’s Minds, Stephen Law does a splendid and philosophically thrilling job of cutting that argument to shreds.' - The Guardian

'...a succinct and eloquent defence of liberalism.' - The Economist

'A stirring defence of liberal values.' - Times Educational Supplement

'A passionate philosophical defence of a liberal approach to parenting and education.' - The Guardian

'This defence of reason should be obligatory reading, not just in schools, but in parliament and the press. ' - Sunday Herald

'[The] debate about children’s education…seems to be dominated by the other side. It’s a side that believes Liberal is a dirty word, that the Enlightenment did more harm than good and that children should be taught in a much more formal way. In his book [Law] begs to differ. He suggests that children should be allowed to examine and discuss religious and moral issues in a liberal, philosophically informed and rational way.' - The Oxford Times

 

Comments

Anonymous said…
The War For Children’s Minds
surely needs a corollary. An Armistice For Our Species. If it is paramount that offspring select the correct understanding, how is that to be achieved? Only by subjecting what is available to test. Truth has nothing to fear from such enquiry. As it will only be further fortified by each successive triumph. Untruth however, must be shielded from such exposure at all and any cost. Because its fatal flaws will invariably be revealed.
Even though we find nothing that is perfect, is that a problem? For the peace we conduct this procedure in, may keep our kind alive long enough to discover something truly astonishing.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...