The problem with freedom of belief is that scientists now think they have the answer. Theories are now given the status of truth. So subjugation by the church has been replaced by subjugation by science and ideology.  

One superstition is replaced by another. As a result, the battle to promote beliefs in education is intense.

But the flag I want to wave is emblazoned with freedom. So let's see where that takes us in regard to education.

My starting point is that the emerging 21st Century enlightenment must help us all move away from superstitious dependence on ideologies and theories. (Of course, they must not be rejected because of their misuse by many, anymore than the Church should be rejected because of its misuse by many.)

I look to an era of freedom of thought and, at a personal level, I suspect that this cannot be separated from freedom of belief. We think and think and think, and then we come to believe. Strangely, More...

Science has beliefs and people believe in science. Should they? Is this what was meant by freedom of belief? 

Wasn’t that one of the basic freedoms we learned at school?  Or was that freedom of speech? Or thought? Or worship?  But then speech and thought and worship are all close companions to beliefs.

I am a champion of freedom of belief and freedom of thought. So I am sensitive when these freedoms are under threat. And they are. Freedom of belief is not being threatened from the pulpit or by church-backed governments these days.  We have moved on.  Instead, it is under threat from science and politics.

Let’s leave political ideology for the moment, where people demand that politicians proclaim beliefs and they hypocritically comply.  This is so obvious and silly. 

Let’s focus on science instead. Whiter than white and disdainful of political shenanigans, science has become the new political correctness. More...

Elinor Ostrom asked the question: How do you get social problems fixed?  Through the power of government?  Wrong.  Through the power of the individual?  Right.

But don't we want government to fix things?  We may: but that is often abdicating our responsibility—especially when our eyes show us that political intrusion only makes things worse, wastes money, and disrupts our freedom.  And it saps our own power.  The power that we each have as individuals.

Don't social solutions need the coercive imposition of organization?  No.  They can be based on intelligent and cooperative effort byMore...

Good action counts for a lot.  But once a person has the ideology of power fixed in their head, they can never feel safe enough. Goodness flies out the window. There is never enough power, never enough wealth.  It is not the imperative of greed, it is the imperative of survival.  Technology now allows us to survive without willful cruelty and domination, but that does not make sense to power-driven individuals.  They want the power and the glory.

So what do we do about the callous power-centred leaders of most countries whose desire for control and personal wealth is unrestrained?

That’s a trick question.

“We” never do anything. 

If “we” have any influence at all, it is to sustain and support the existing social system. “We” are responsible for those leaders … for the way they think, how they got into such positions, and why they stay there.  So the British “we” is responsible for UK atrocities not the PM and cabinet; the German “we” was responsible for Nazism in Germany not Hitler; More...

Must we battle against evil?  Evil certainly poses an issue: What to do about it.   "Doing" is a practical question, so it can be handled by THEE.

And then there is the «problem of evil»: why a God that is absolute goodness can allow suffering and cruelty to exist.  This is a philosophical question.  Most of us don’t live inside a philosophical world, although judging by blogs and websites the number of amateur philosophers seems to be exploding.  More...