Great questions. I agree with you re: Crunchy Cons. I almost wrote in my review, “This is education for Front-Porch-Republic folks!”

As to your first question, scientific empiricism is the epistemology that is the handmaiden to the naturalist metaphysics. They aren’t necessarily dependent upon each other, but they tend to go hand in hand, especially with those secularists who want to keep the public square–and education–dominated by the claims of science.

As for your second question, I’m going to table that and ask the authors directly. : )

Best,

Matt

It actually has nothing to do with fundamentalist anxieties, at least not the author’s. One of their central targets is the dominant secularism of the university and public school system. In some ways, the book is a critique of that.

As for proposing ways to liberalize, they are pretty focused on localized control and localized pedagogy that takes into account the unique individuality of students. But like Smith’s book, their specific proposals are more prolegomena than anything else.

Matt

Two questions – First, when you say, “Their central critique is that in their current form, schools exist to create useful and efficient members of (economic) society, a goal which is fundamentally grounded in scientific empiricism,” by scientific empiricism do you mean a type of naturalism or materialism? I’ve always heard the terms linked, but I’ve never seen them substituted for each other, so I want to make sure I’m understanding.

Second, I’m trying to think more about the centrality of eschatology to the Christian faith (a difficulty for me given the unhelpful baggage I have from my church background). So what are some of the consequences when we neglect eschatology in shaping an educational philosophy?

Sorry if these are simplistic questions, I’m trying to think through some of these issues but it feels like I’m barely treading water most the time, so whatever thoughts you have are much appreciated .