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

[raj_nandani_poet]

I think the author is trying to present both sides without any bias so that the readers may see both sides of the story. Implying what they think might force the readers towards a particular mindset and influence their own thoughts. This practice might help in inducing the internal changes in the thought process of the readers without forcing or cornering them for having one kind of belief.

[Mariana Figueira]

Maybe the author does have a point of view (more than likely so) but isn´t trying to convince anyone with the book, just offering the reader information, so that he/she can decide on their own. I kind of love that idea.

[Sithmi]

I think this book is suitable to anybody with any religious belief because, the author has used science and philosophy and not biased. I agree to that, the author has not kept any solid stand anywhere and freely discusses the subjects, letting the readers to form their own ideas.

[tafta]

Science is evolving but knowing it is a privilege for a few but religion is vast and almost everyone if not everyone has their viewpoint. It was in the author's choice to allow the reader to partake in the discussion rather than voice his ideas which can very easily offend readers because religious issues and discussions can sometimes involve emotions. An involved reader is an interested reader.

[Goral]

I think it's an appropriate approach. It's good to consider all the points while presenting an argument. It's fine that the author does not have a solid stand as more people can relate to her points that way.

[Heidadela]

Sometimes it is okay to present ideas and let people make their own conclusion. The author is just giving his ideas a broad field so that everyone finds the information he provides to be relevant. Taking a side solidly would narrow down the audience for the book.

[Abacus]

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?

I think the author hopes to provide each side of an argument. When there is no proof (scientific) you can only put the evidence and allow readers to do more research or come to their own conclusion.

[zulfiyya]

It is okay to not take a solid stance when writing philosophical arguments. Some of the greatest philosophers have messy philosophical accounts that read more like a free-flowing passage without a set of core ideas or concepts. The most important thing is to remain consistent in the arguments for concepts that are made and to develop one idea to the next in a comprehensible fashion.

[Chelsey Coles]

I think it depends on what the author believes the true purpose is, and who is going to read the book.

It is not always necessary to take a side, even if you are the speaker (author). The very fact that it forces readers to really use critical thought and form their own conclusions and observations can be a positive and not a negative in this regard. However, more ambiguity, depending on personal preference, can be frustrating and pointless. So I see the dilemma on both ends of the spectrum.

Perhaps picking no side at all is picking a side in itself... creating its own side.

[Bigwig1973]

It's funny because I didn't notice that the author wasn't taking a stand. Initially, it appears that the author is taking a side. The title points to science, presumably over theology. A lot of the examples used to present a case against religion are archaic. These things happened a long time ago, and arguing against practices of the church doesn't necessarily prove that science is the opposing force to church practice. I think the author was inspired and perhaps a bit unclear on things - that's the feel I get from the book. If that is/was the case, then because arguments against religion, or arguments that can be perceived as being against religion, are more likely to cause offense, then it seems less offensive that the author is genuinely attempting to get it right. Like a child (not to imply that the author is childish!) who swears, but doesn't really know what is wrong with it. Verses a child who knows it's wrong, who knows it's upsetting, and who just does it out of spite, or something like that. Also, I think some people are better theoretical thinkers than are others, and some people think very quickly and assume that everyone can just fill in any gaps. I'm not sure if that last part makes a lot of sense. Like, if an experienced mechanic were working on a car and says, "Hand me a socket" assuming that the other will know exactly what a socket is and what size. Or, a physical example: if you're walking and you ALMOST trip and fall down, can you actually explain why you didn't fall down. Plus, in a case like that adrenaline also kicks in, which might lead to less memory retention. I feel like the writer either missed things or thought he missed things.

[Kennedy NC]

Sometimes when treating such delicate issues to which many people may hold differing opinions, an author may decide not to be subjective or portray her own bias or emotions and sometimes this turns out fine with the readers.

[Njatha77]

Yes, I think that's okay. His main concern is that, we have been told what to believe, as well as emulate those that came before us. I think by not taking a stand, the author is allowing us to form our own and unbiased opinions, as well as leave the topic open for further discussion.
I once read a book of this nature from someone who never wrote a preface for his books. He wrote under a pseudonym, and I have looked him up everywhere but no one knows who it truly was (don't even know if he was male as he used the pronoun "We"). This is effective as it ensures that the reader forms their own conclusions without being biased by the author's side.

[Medhansh Bhardwaj]

It is absolutely fine for the author to not have a solid stand. Because, the author is just another human being trying to figure out what is happening in this universe and why is it happening? The author is not God, so definitely she will have her weak points and confusions. The only important thing here is to give unbiased opinions, and the author did a pretty good job at that, if you ask me.

[Phooko Tebogo PC]

I don't think that the author did that with mere target of gaining a wide audience, I actually respected how he balanced the two aspects. Sometimes we take a stand for two sides, and I find it okay to do so.

[Fajarr]

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.