It is unfortunate that Mr. Fish uses Mumbo Jumbo commonly demonstrated by the zealots who somehow want to equate religion with science. In order to refute the “pronouncements” like “religions dogma brooks no debate”, he recommends some reading. “Job” is a part of the Hebrew Bible. “Confessions” was written in the 4th Century. ‘Pilgrim’s Progress” was written more than 300 years ago. I wish Mr. Fish could give more contemporary examples to prove that the tradition of open religions debate, if there is any such thing, is alive today. Anyway, do these books prove the point that there is a rigorous debate within religion? In “Jobs”, the story of Job, God finally tells Job that he does not know many things and he should consider as God being greater than many things. The story ends with Job restoring his faith in God and therefore getting back his health and new family. So much for a debate that can be compared to any scientific debate!! “Confessions” is story of someone who converts to Christianity. How can we compare this with scientific debate? Can we imagine “Confessions of a Physicist” who flirts with the modern ideas and reaffirms his / her faith in Newtonian mechanics? Currently scientific community is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on experiments that may prove Einstein wrong. The real question is how many religions people will be willing to debate or experiment something that may prove any aspect of their preferred religions book wrong?
Anyway, do these books prove the point that there is a rigorous debate within religion? In “Jobs”, the story of Job, God finally tells Job that he does not know many things and he should consider as God being greater than many things. The story ends with Job restoring his faith in God and therefore getting back his health and new family. So much for a debate that can be compared to any scientific debate!!
“Confessions” is story of someone who converts to Christianity. How can we compare this with scientific debate? Can we imagine “Confessions of a Physicist” who flirts with the modern ideas and reaffirms his / her faith in Newtonian mechanics?
Currently scientific community is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on experiments that may prove Einstein wrong. The real question is how many religions people will be willing to debate or experiment something that may prove any aspect of their preferred religions book wrong?