What disappointed you about Religion and Science?
Largely presumptuous, scantily researched, preferential logic. This "old" reference is based on a jaded perspective that intends to use science as a means to discredit religion yet it does not apply the same logic it uses to justify science in matters of discussion on religion. This very jaded discussion on many topics generalizes and fails to approach fully the sciences it addresses and 'guesses" presumptuously without applying the same inferences used to edify science therefore the logic is neither entertaining nor enlightening and because it lacks logical consistency serves no educational purposes other than to describe the authors personal preferences. i.e. Where it discusses determinism as a faulty yet acceptable means to approach science it does not apply the same in sociological discussion as to why religion has become a majorative state of understanding in most cultures. IF in fact it were a truly scientific reference, it would treat the question equally and divest into the sociology and psychology of religion whereas it prefers to create a psychological wasteland based on personal doctrine rather than invested interest in the sociological interests that prefer religion in moderate and moral social structures.
Would you be willing to try another one of David Case’s performances?
Any additional comments?
The narrator is hard to understand and seems largely disinterested in the material, often sighing, failing to yawn, but nearly at times, it makes the read very tedious and uninteresting. The performance did not appreciate the value of the context of the author.
0 of 3 people found this review helpful