Comments on: Who Should Be Included in S&R Discussions? http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/06/04/who-should-be-included-in-sr-discussions/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:22:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: V. V. Raman http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/06/04/who-should-be-included-in-sr-discussions/comment-page-1/#comment-4357 V. V. Raman Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:56:06 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=16479#comment-4357 To make a public discussion like this meaningful from which the uncommitted can take something, it would have been good to have a couple of science-unfriendly scientists also. After all, the topic has many facets. One could also argue that it should be required, in this day and age, to have some Non-Christian religion-friendly scholars also in such public debates in non-theocratic countries. Or else, it perpetuates the widely held, but factually untenable impression that religion means Christianity, or Judeo-Christianity, or Abrahamic-Book-affiliation. It's about time religion-talk matures to a more sophisticated level. V. V. Raman To make a public discussion like this meaningful from which the uncommitted can take something, it would have been good to have a couple of science-unfriendly scientists also. After all, the topic has many facets.
One could also argue that it should be required, in this day and age, to have some Non-Christian religion-friendly scholars also in such public debates in non-theocratic countries. Or else, it perpetuates the widely held, but factually untenable impression that religion means Christianity, or Judeo-Christianity, or Abrahamic-Book-affiliation. It’s about time religion-talk matures to a more sophisticated level.

V. V. Raman

]]>