Well. If Gods Not Dead goes to one extreme to make its point (and I cant tell you why I say that without spoiling the ending, big time), then this fellow seems to be the perhaps inevitable counterpart. Make sure to read to the end before commenting, and also click his personal link (in the word professor) and then click on More about the book and read his own summary of the volume in question. If you reach the words shorn of all the hocus-pocus and abracadabra youre on the right page. Basically, he argues, Christianity is silly & ignorant, but Buddhism isnt, as long as I get to define whats Buddhism according to my own preferences. Be rationalist, professor, thats perfectly fair, but when you start arguing that religion is wrong unless its the specific flavor of religion I approve of, I dont see how hes a whit different from Pat Robertson. Why not say or Christianity, as I choose to redefine it? But that doesnt have the same pseudo-sophisticated cachet. Meh. By the way, the cutline (written by a copy editor, not the author) is at odds with the essay. Dr. Barash does, in fact, think science and religion can be reconciled. It just has to be on his terms, but he does have a book to sell you explaining how.
Posted on: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:17:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015