The philosopher Stephen Law will probably ruffle a lot of feathers with his latest book. He's entered a debate about children's education one which, at least in the United States, seems to be dominated by the other side and is gaining ground in the UK too. It's a side that believes Liberal is a dirty word, that the Enlightenment did more harm than good and that children should be taught in a much more formal way.

In his book, The War for Children's Minds, he eloquently begs to differ. He suggests that children should be allowed to examine and discuss religious and moral issues in a liberal, philosophically informed and rational way. He also examines and debunks the liberal myths the other side promulgates. If occasionally he sounds annoyed, it's because he's had enough of uninformed liberal bashing.

"This whole anti-Enlightenment, anti-Liberal mythology has been allowed to build up, as no one has really effectively challenged these arguments," he said. "This book aims to do that in a very direct and forthright way."

But why the provocative title? "The war analogy isn't mine, it's actually my opponents. They talk about a culture war, particularly in the United States, but also increasingly in this country."

One of his goals is to reframe the debate so that it is no longer about whether we should or shouldn't be religious, but liberal or authoritarian. He also spends a few chapters attacking the idea that to be a liberal means to accept that one point of view is as good as another. "If all moral points are equally valid and equally true, then encouraging independent critical thought becomes a complete waste of time," he said.

d=3,3,1Does he really see it as 'us and them'? "I think it would be a mistake to polarise it too much, because there's a sliding scale between these two very extreme positions," he replied. "It seems to me that you can be a perfectly good liberal without signing up to all the politically-correct twaddle that liberals are constantly accused of spreading."

He thinks his book is unusual. "Not many people have decided to stand up and pin their colours to the mast. One reason for that is that academics tend to pooh-pooh these arguments because they know it's a ridiculous mythology and they often, I suspect, think it's rather beneath them to tackle it."

He stresses that the book is not an attack on religious education or religion. "I'm not suggesting that children don't need rules and discipline and firm boundaries. Of course they do, and I'm not against tradition or raising children within a tradition, including a religious tradition, although you can be sure that I'll be caricatured as being against all those things." It is also not an attack on authority. He is clear that there are different types of authority needed in society, but that no one should uncritically accept what they are told by some external authority, whether it be the Pope or Stalin.

d=3,3,1His older daughter is nearly seven and I asked if she challenged his beliefs. "She can use her reason to show that perhaps it's me that's got it wrong," he said. "She's getting quite good at knocking down my arguments as to why she shouldn't do so and so." How would he feel if she grew up and wanted to join the Army, for example? "I'm defending freedom of thought and expression, not freedom of action," he said. "In the Army, you're told to do certain things. It's not just in the Army the police will tell you to do certain things and you really should obey it is your duty to do so."

Stephen, an Oxford philosophy graduate who lives in East Oxford, lectures at Heythrop College in London and also edits a philosophical journal, Think!, aimed at the general public. He studied philosophy at Oxford. Why not Cambridge, where he'd lived? "Because Oxford has the best philosophy in the country and the BPhil is the most respected philosophy qualification from this country," he replied.

He has written two books for children, where he tries to encourage children to think critically about religion and morality. I ask if that's part of his strategy in the war to capture children's minds? He laughs. "I suppose the answer is yes, actually it's all part of my sinister campaign to capture the minds of the next generation."

More seriously, he explains how in The Philosophy Files 2, he put in a chapter on young earth creationism because of a school in Gateshead that was allegedly teaching its children that the entire universe is only 6,000 years old.

"I want young people to be immunised against that kind of bullshit," he said. "There are an enormous amount of people out there who will attempt to psychologically manipulate you and we all need to be trained to spot when people are manipulating us in that kind of way."

The War for Children's Minds is published by Routledge at £14.99.