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

[Sushan Ekanayake]

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

Maybe that was his idea, not to influence the reader. Yet, being raised in a Catholic background, he should have some of his own ideas and what I think is he should have conveyed them more openly and then could have stated what he found for and against his beliefs

[Sushan Ekanayake]

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.

Yes, basically the author has not clarified or given conclusions to the questions and criticisms that he raises. Most of the times he had stated the facts and invited the reader to think. That is why I say that he doesn't have a solid stand regarding his own opinions

[Stephanie Elizabeth]

I think the fact that the author is ambiguous is actually a positive thing. It lets readers form their own opinions by asking critical questions and providing information without inserting their opinion. It's smart on the author's behalf because it will appeal to a wider audience.

[Caroline Anne Richmond]

I think that it is ok. A book like this should be unbiased and encourage readers to form their own opinions from the information presented. If the author had strongly gone in the direction of science or religion, it may not appeal to many readers.

[Huini Hellen]

I do not think the author is playing an evasive card here, but inviting us to share in her thoughts and maybe form our own basis for arguments. We cannot candidly state that she has avoided the very subjects that form her discussion. Instead, she's showed us loopholes that need our attention.

[Fozia RYK]

Author has explained many religions according to his views. For each text, he gave different logic. So Talking about an unbiased viewpoint appears particulary troublesome on the grounds that you need to venture out of your circumstance, and see all sides of the range. Therefore he has no solid stand.

[Pamela Bianca Mas]

I think it is perfectly fine for the author to not have a solid stand with the arguments in the book simply because she is letting her readers decide on their own. She presents points to be taken in consideration, but gives her audience the freedom to think for themselves.

[Iva Stoyanova]

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

Exactly. Maybe the whole point of the book is to be objective and to let readers have their own opinion and thoughts on the matter. It's important and quite nice to actually have our own thoughts on something we read, and not simply following and believing what books are saying.

[Sararob06]

I think in order to foster a healthy discussion the author should not take sides. Religion is deeply personal and trying to apply scientific rationale too aggressively could come across as attacking religion. I think cementing her stance would dissuade the opposing side from reading her book which furthers the divide.

[Adedayo+23]

I believe the author's intention is to reach a wider audience and create space for deep contemplations and thought-provoking discussions which is not a bad thing. Taking a solid stand may likely alienate certain categories of people who might not agree with the author's stand, or feel that her arguments are biased in favor of either science or religion depending on which side she picks. I believe there's nothing wrong with her decision not to have a solid stand.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I think that it is ok. A book like this should be unbiased and encourage readers to form their own opinions from the information presented. If the author had strongly gone in the direction of science or religion, it may not appeal to many readers.

This sort of a book has to be unbiased. But then the book itself will be only a collection of facts. If the author took a side, then the book itself will be a good argument. But then it will avert a portion of its audience

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I think the fact that the author is ambiguous is actually a positive thing. It lets readers form their own opinions by asking critical questions and providing information without inserting their opinion. It's smart on the author's behalf because it will appeal to a wider audience.

The author stays ambiguous. He has taken neither the side of religion, nor the side of science. But if he took one side, the book will be the stage for an argument, and the author could have prove his point and disprove the other opinions. That will make the book more interesting to some of the audience, and will avert some of the readers too

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I do not think the author is playing an evasive card here, but inviting us to share in her thoughts and maybe form our own basis for arguments. We cannot candidly state that she has avoided the very subjects that form her discussion. Instead, she's showed us loopholes that need our attention.

The author points out the loopholes in the religion. He conveys scientific facts and shows the unrealistic religious interpretations which are scientifically invalid. Yet he is not taking the side of the science either. So it just seems like an act of evasion and an approach to a wide audience

[Maddie Atkinson]

I think in order to foster a healthy discussion the author should not take sides. Religion is deeply personal and trying to apply scientific rationale too aggressively could come across as attacking religion. I think cementing her stance would dissuade the opposing side from reading her book which furthers the divide.

On the other hand, the author is trying to make sense of his own beliefs, so in a way it makes sense for them to be taking a a side in the argument. I don't think he mentions that he is going to make a balanced argument, and while it might some sense for him to have raised some points against his argument, I think it's fair that he hasn't as this is based on making sense of his own religious values and the struggle that he has faced with them.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

Author has explained many religions according to his views. For each text, he gave different logic. So Talking about an unbiased viewpoint appears particulary troublesome on the grounds that you need to venture out of your circumstance, and see all sides of the range. Therefore he has no solid stand.

The author has tried to cover many areas, many religions. But his base remains in Catholicism. And his motive to prove the presence of a God is still there. So he could have stand on one side and bring out an argument to prove his points