Skip to main content

Really Really Big Questions

My skeptical kid's book Really Really Big Questions was one of the top fifty winter reads in yesterday's Independent (it was number five, in fact):

Go here.

'This is one book I wish I'd written,' admits Joe Craig of Dr Stephen Law's philosophical compendium, which any child over the age of eight should find some treasure in. 'It is definitely worth spending time on every page of this life-enhancing book. Every home should have a copy,' he adds.

The book aims to develop independent, critical thinking about weird and wacky stuff, from fairies to spoon-bending to God. A sort of skeptical primer that aims to be a lot of fun at the same time...

Publisher Kingfisher

How much? Normally £12.99. But currently just £6.49 from amazon uk:

and also from amazon US.


Martin said…
I was introduced to philosophy at age sixteen. I wish it had been earlier, and firmly believe that children can get a lot out of the subject. I shall seek out a child of the right age that needs a Christmas present so I can add it to their list, and get a sneaky read of the book myself before it gets wrapped.
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Martin - that's one sold at least.
Flea said…
I'm ordering my own copy today. But, is it going to be translated into spanish? When?

"¿Tú, en qué piensas?" ("The ph. files") was a great book that amazed my nieces and nephews (and me) and I only hope to repeat the deed!
Stephen, this stuff is veritable gold. I just finished read a superb book called Curious Minds (edited by John Brockman) which is fascinating collection of essays by some of the world's leading scientists about their childhood experiences. If there was one overriding theme that ran through many of the stories it was that their parents provided an atmosphere conducive to learning. Leaving books like this "lying around" is one way to foster such an atmosphere (electric guitars also seem to be a hit at my place).

Really Really Big Questions will be under our secular Christmas tree this year.

Congratulations for your recognition and keep up the great work.
Stephen Law said…
Thanks AM - I appreciate that.
Sonja said…
Will be purchasing two books, one for each of my granddaughters. Really appreciate books like this for young people - there is not much to choose from for their age. Thank you so much for recognizing that parents need help introducing philosphy to their children - and it is pretty much non-existent in public school curriculums in the USA.
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Sonja - that's good to hear. Hope they like it.
Why is the hardcover version almost $100?
Why is the hardcover version almost $100?
Stephen Law said…
h/b out of print I guess, hence 'rare' and thus expensive

Popular posts from this blog


(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

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o

Why do atheists think Christians believe unreasonably, if they don't?

How reasonable is it for the religious to believe the central tenets of their respective religions? According to many atheists: not very. Many atheists suppose it is in each case unreasonable for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bahá’ís, Quakers, Mormons, Scientologists, and so on to believe what they do. The religious person usually takes a different view of at least their own religious belief. They suppose science and reason do not significantly undermine, and may indeed support, the core tenets of their own faith. The same is true of non-religious theists. They consider their brand of theism is reasonably, or at least not unreasonably, held even if no particular religion is. Indeed, many theists consider atheism unreasonable. Even when participants in discussions between atheists on the one hand and defenders of some variety of religious or theistic belief on the other include intelligent, philosophically sophisticated and well-informed people striving to think carefully and objec