Stephen Law

Ibrahim Lawson's reply to my letter: A word about the anger some of us may feel inclined to vent: I entered into this discussion in the spirit of dialogue rather than debate (check google or see http://www.nald.ca/clr/study/scdvd.htm) so I am not trying to win this argument or catch anyone out. Rather, I am seeking areas where some new thinking might emerge. In order to do so I am prepared to ‘hold my beliefs lightly’ as some have put it. My religion: entails some fairly strong assumptions about epistemology. These appear to run contrary to those which have evolved within the western metaphysical tradition since its Socratic origins. As a short hand, perhaps we could call the latter ‘Greek’ and the former ‘Semitic’. In order to see how there might be a conversation between the two, we have to go very deep, to the roots of each, where the sources of later, derived conflicts lie. Alasdair MacIntyre exposes this kind of problem at the beginning of ‘After Virtue’ in a discussion of att...

While some of us might feel anger at the views expressed by others, can I please ask that we avoid venting it – this is a rare opportunity to discuss things openly, and perhaps even change someone’s mind. You are unlikely to succeed if you sound angry and dismissive. My response to Mr Lawson's letter I should begin by explaining to Mr Lawson that I quoted him, not because he is a Muslim, but because he expressed a view about education that I think wrong-headed and, actually, dangerous. It's not just Muslims that hold that view (though many do). To be clear: I am objecting to his educational views, not his religion. Mr Lawson. You say that your school is a happy one. It may well be that the values you inculcate are values of which I approve. That’s not the problem. The problem is with the way in which those values and associated religious beliefs are communicated – as something that must be accepted entirely without question. That is what I disapprove of, and I would disapprove ...

Here is an email from Ibrahim Lawson, head of an Islamic school, whom I quoted below in Is Religion Dangerous? I am v. grateful to Mr Lawson for permission to post the letter here for discussion. Seems to me Ibrahim Lawson is right - this is exactly the sort of discussion we should now all be having with each other: Muslims, those of other faiths, atheists, etc. Sadly, such discussions don't happen very often, so this is a real opportunity. Contributors will, I'm sure, respond temperately and graciously. I hope we get a range of views. Mr Lawson writes... Dear Stephen, I came across this today: If you're not worried about what's going on in some religious schools, you should be. Here's a brief excerpt from a Radio 4 interview with Ibrahim Lawson, head of an Islamic school: IL: [t]he essential purpose of the Islamia school as with all Islamic schools is to inculcate profound religious belief in the children. ER: You use the word "inculcate": dies that mea...

In previous post below [ Is religious dangerous? (II) ] William Hawthorne defends the view that religion has no power to get people to hold wacky beliefs; rather it's "people who have the power to assent" to wacky beliefs. This tendency to teflon-coat religion so that no responsibility for any bad stuff sticks (religion is not bad/stupid/dangerous, people are) is reminiscent of the U.S. gun lobby's insistence that guns don't kill people, people do. I just want to note, however, that there's a form of dodgy teflon-coating that atheists also apply. Christopher Hitchens, in God is not Great , refuses to give religion any credit for anything good, period. When a religious person does good, it's the person that gets the credit, not the religion. This is just as silly, of course. Religious people have got v. upset about it. Rightly so. But then I think we're equally justified in getting upset when the teflon-coating is applied, not so the credit for good st...

William Hawthorne takes me to task on "Is religion dangerous?" My responses below. William's stuff is in italics. [Y]our argument runs as follows: (1) Religion has the power to get so many people to believe something so ridiculous so quickly. (2) Religion is also unpredictable. (3) If something x is unpredictable and has the power to get so many people to believe something so ridiculous so quickly, we should have safeguards in place against x. (4) So we should have safeguards in place against religion. I think this is a fair construal, given your comment above. Now, where are your supporting arguments for (1) and (2)? All you did in your original entry is bring up examples of particular religious people who hold ridiculous beliefs. But, as I said earlier, it doesn't follow from that that religion has the "power" to do thus and such. At the most, you could claim that some religious people have the power to assent to ridiculous beliefs. And certainly that'...

Re. Jesus' sacrifice . Have has some very interesting exchanges with William Hawthorne (who is an excellent contributor) that are worth posting, I think. I'll give my response to William shortly. For an additional comment by William, see comments on Jesus sacrifice . William writes: The issue is vastly more complicated than you make it look. At least one important factor you left out is that Jesus experienced God's wrath (or so the Christians would tell you). From within the Christian framework, then, this would be nobler than any earthly death you care to pick. Tweaking your simplistic cases to include this detail, we get something like: 1*. Bert is convinced he can save all mankind from eternal damnation if he is prepared not only to die horribly, but to have the wrath of a perfectly just God poured out upon him, after which he will be resurrected. He makes the sacrifice. 2. Tim is convinced he can save the lives of several individuals (perhaps his own family) if he is pr...

If you have ever had a conversation with a creationist of the "young earth" variety (who believe the entire universe is less than 10K years old, with all species created by God as described in Genesis), you'll know it is a frustrating experience. Point to the fossil record, say, or light from distant stars, or carbon dating, or tectonic plate movement, etc. as evidence of a much older universe, and you will find they have prepared answers, supplied, for example, by the multi-million dollar funded Institute for Creation Research . There are also innumerable creationist resources on the web, such as at www.christiananswers.net . I'd like to discuss how best to respond to young earth creationists when you come across them (I've come across quite a few in British Schools, recently - including one teaching science in a leading public school).