Skip to main content

Talk on moral and religious education

There's a talk I gave as an avatar on moral and religious education available here. It is based on my book The War For Children's Minds. About 50 mins long. Obviously the book goes into more detail. This is merely a short taster...


Comments

Love the shot around 33:00 - "he actually looks like this"
Bernard Hurley said…
I don't think your ghost was holy but he did manage to talk without opening his mouth so he was fairly magical. But I do think he ought to have done something about the guy who was smoking!
Anonymous said…
So many observations, so little space.

An authoritarian believes that some external agent should dictate the operating parameters of an individual. Does that believer also accept, that it is I who should define those parametric delimiters? I once heard a mother, who had cracked it, talking to her offspring. She issued directives. But had taught her infant to respond with the simply beautiful query: “Because?”
Why not a simple set of universal “laws” that all religions, science, and even Asimov himself might subscribe to. The “Species Law” perhaps.
p.s. Richard is in the wrong station of your cross. Because he blanks questions that he has never asked of himself.
p.p.s. Next Big Question time. Please ask Nicky to back off the volume on the lady with hers cranked up to 11. (Shout, and they will better understand?)
Didem Naz said…
Trend Film izle Yeni çıkan yerli ve yabancı filmleri indirmeden online ve full izleyebileceğiniz sinema platformudur...

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

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist

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