The author is not having a solid stand. Is that okay?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

There are several books to be found when it comes to comparisons between religions and science and also questioning religious teachings from a practical view point. But the authors of many of such books have their own solid stands and discusses the points as for and against.

But when it comes to this particular book, the author has not kept any solid stand anywhere and freely discusses the subjects, letting the readers to form their own ideas. She does not take the side of either the religion or the science.

Is that approach is appropriate for such a discussion? Or is it the author's mere target of gaining a wide audience? Or has the author simply avoided receiving any blame for taking a side?

[Moocow1213]

I think that the author is trying to come from a non biased perspective, to make the reader have provoking thoughts about either side. I believe that she is doing the right thing here, and is creating a unique situation, where the author doesn't have a specific opinion, there just stating. I think that the author is trying to gain a wide audience, but there is also the possibility that she simply believes in many things or doesn't know what she believes in. I don't think that the author is avoiding taking blame for either side.
I think overall it's better to come from a non biased perspective than a biased one, though this doesn't make it any easier. Coming from a non biased perspective seems particulary difficult because you have to step out of your situation, and look at all sides of the spectrum. Hope that all makes sense.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I think that the author is trying to come from a non biased perspective, to make the reader have provoking thoughts about either side. I believe that she is doing the right thing here, and is creating a unique situation, where the author doesn't have a specific opinion, there just stating. I think that the author is trying to gain a wide audience, but there is also the possibility that she simply believes in many things or doesn't know what she believes in. I don't think that the author is avoiding taking blame for either side.
I think overall it's better to come from a non biased perspective than a biased one, though this doesn't make it any easier. Coming from a non biased perspective seems particulary difficult because you have to step out of your situation, and look at all sides of the spectrum. Hope that all makes sense.

That is quite an insightful reply. Yes it is ideal to be unbiased for this sort of a conversation, but it is very difficult since you have to come up with points for either side

[Maddie Atkinson]

I think it's okay. Religion itself doesn't really have any solid answers, it's all about your own interpretation and how you perceive it. By not giving a solid answer, the author is allowing the reader to come to their own decision.

[Bertha Jackson]

I think the author was giving his point of view while allowing the reader to form their own opinion. He was trying to make sure that the reader had what he considered important information in making their decision. Although I felt he was biased in his opinions I did not think he was pushy with his ideas.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I think it's okay. Religion itself doesn't really have any solid answers, it's all about your own interpretation and how you perceive it. By not giving a solid answer, the author is allowing the reader to come to their own decision.

Science doesn't have solid answers since it is an evolving subject. But is this similar on behalf of religions as well? Is that still evolving too?

And it is fair for the author to let the reader to make his/her own decisions, but does the author have actually done that, as she is still having her faith in God?

[Sou Hi]

I think it's okay. Religion itself doesn't really have any solid answers, it's all about your own interpretation and how you perceive it. By not giving a solid answer, the author is allowing the reader to come to their own decision.

I think so, too. Religion's nature is abstract. One is free to perceive a fact this way, and the other can think of it another way. Like the author said, even the Old Testament and the New Testament portray God differently. So, why must we have the same thoughts about one stand?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I think the author was giving his point of view while allowing the reader to form their own opinion. He was trying to make sure that the reader had what he considered important information in making their decision. Although I felt he was biased in his opinions I did not think he was pushy with his ideas.

Exactly. The author has conveyed her point of view and the relevant other data that will bias the reader a bit towards her opinion, yet she has not solidly placed her foot on either side, so the reader can assume that she has given enough space for the reader's free will

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I think it's okay. Religion itself doesn't really have any solid answers, it's all about your own interpretation and how you perceive it. By not giving a solid answer, the author is allowing the reader to come to their own decision.

I think so, too. Religion's nature is abstract. One is free to perceive a fact this way, and the other can think of it another way. Like the author said, even the Old Testament and the New Testament portray God differently. So, why must we have the same thoughts about one stand?

Being arbitrary works sometimes but not always. Yes, we don't have to have a solid stand, we can be flexible and open to opposing opinions. Still, I think you should have your own stand and opinion so you can either prove or defend your side. It is good for this sort of a book to not take any side, yet I believe the author has done so to merely contact a wider audience and avoid any blames for being biased

[Ari Martinez]

I think it's okay. Religion itself doesn't really have any solid answers, it's all about your own interpretation and how you perceive it. By not giving a solid answer, the author is allowing the reader to come to their own decision.

I think so, too. Religion's nature is abstract. One is free to perceive a fact this way, and the other can think of it another way. Like the author said, even the Old Testament and the New Testament portray God differently. So, why must we have the same thoughts about one stand?

Being arbitrary works sometimes but not always. Yes, we don't have to have a solid stand, we can be flexible and open to opposing opinions. Still, I think you should have your own stand and opinion so you can either prove or defend your side. It is good for this sort of a book to not take any side, yet I believe the author has done so to merely contact a wider audience and avoid any blames for being biased

I agree that the author is trying to reach a wide audience, but I don't think the author is necessarily doing it to avoid blames. I mean, how do we know that there isn't a part of the author that's still struggling about which side to take? I mean that's a huge deal some people struggle with - not knowing what to believe in anymore. I'm saying this because I also struggled a long time with my beliefs as I grew up and learned about science.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I think so, too. Religion's nature is abstract. One is free to perceive a fact this way, and the other can think of it another way. Like the author said, even the Old Testament and the New Testament portray God differently. So, why must we have the same thoughts about one stand?

Being arbitrary works sometimes but not always. Yes, we don't have to have a solid stand, we can be flexible and open to opposing opinions. Still, I think you should have your own stand and opinion so you can either prove or defend your side. It is good for this sort of a book to not take any side, yet I believe the author has done so to merely contact a wider audience and avoid any blames for being biased

I agree that the author is trying to reach a wide audience, but I don't think the author is necessarily doing it to avoid blames. I mean, how do we know that there isn't a part of the author that's still struggling about which side to take? I mean that's a huge deal some people struggle with - not knowing what to believe in anymore. I'm saying this because I also struggled a long time with my beliefs as I grew up and learned about science.

That is quite acceptable. When your knowledge increases you tend to see things differently and the things that you believed through your whole life may seem wrong. And you are remained in indecision, trying to choose a side. Maybe the author is going through the same and we may never know that

[Laura Britos]

I think that the author is trying to come from a non biased perspective, to make the reader have provoking thoughts about either side. I believe that she is doing the right thing here, and is creating a unique situation, where the author doesn't have a specific opinion, there just stating. I think that the author is trying to gain a wide audience, but there is also the possibility that she simply believes in many things or doesn't know what she believes in. I don't think that the author is avoiding taking blame for either side.
I think overall it's better to come from a non biased perspective than a biased one, though this doesn't make it any easier. Coming from a non biased perspective seems particulary difficult because you have to step out of your situation, and look at all sides of the spectrum. Hope that all makes sense.

I like your idea of the author trying to reach out to a wider audience or a great variety of readers. This is useful even though it might make you seem as unbiased. But that is valid as well, there is no need to write to make yourself take part of a discussion or something. You can express your opinions, morals and ideas through writing but there is no need to do so in order to create a great book.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I think that the author is trying to come from a non biased perspective, to make the reader have provoking thoughts about either side. I believe that she is doing the right thing here, and is creating a unique situation, where the author doesn't have a specific opinion, there just stating. I think that the author is trying to gain a wide audience, but there is also the possibility that she simply believes in many things or doesn't know what she believes in. I don't think that the author is avoiding taking blame for either side.
I think overall it's better to come from a non biased perspective than a biased one, though this doesn't make it any easier. Coming from a non biased perspective seems particulary difficult because you have to step out of your situation, and look at all sides of the spectrum. Hope that all makes sense.

I like your idea of the author trying to reach out to a wider audience or a great variety of readers. This is useful even though it might make you seem as unbiased. But that is valid as well, there is no need to write to make yourself take part of a discussion or something. You can express your opinions, morals and ideas through writing but there is no need to do so in order to create a great book.

Accepted. Its the author's choice. Either he can take a side of the decision and try to prove his opinion while trying to oppose other opinions, or as this particular author has done, one can point out the facts for either side and let the reader to continue the discussion in his/her mind

[readsbyarun]

I agree to this topic. Indeed author didn't fully clarify most of the facts mentioned in the book. But I don't find anything harm in the opinions.

[PeterRabitt20]

I think it might actually make her more objective and credible. It could be that she doesn't want to influence the readers' opinion.