God On Trial

God on Trial is a 2008 BBC/WGBH Boston television play written by Frank Cottrell Boyce, starring Antony Sher, Rupert Graves and Jack Shepherd. The play takes place in Auschwitz during World War II. The Jewish prisoners put God on trial in absentia for abandoning the Jewish people. The question is if God has broken his covenant with the Jewish people by allowing the Nazis to commit genocide.

The play is based on an event described by Elie Wiesel in his book The Trial of God, though Boyce describes this tale as "apocryphal". According to Boyce, producer Mark Redhead "had been trying to turn the story into a film for almost 20 years by the time he called me in 2005 to write the screenplay."

• Category

  Film & Animation

[Sha Quader]

Stanis your fucking awesome. All hail the true king of westeros

[kazam12456]

Dam you two.

I just ended up reading that whole exchange. Very interesting.

[OfcJ9]

Oh, I wasn't referring to rapid-decay theory anymore, but science in general. It's not Dr. J L Wile's theory, but he talked about that theory in his lecture.

[Thezuule1]

He doesn't do his. He writes books. I've still not seen a paper relating to his theory... which as far as I can see doesn't exist. At least not as a theory. Perhaps he believes this nonsense but that doesn't make it a theory.

[OfcJ9]

It's not about which religion a scientist has, but how he does his science. Simply holding onto a theory because it is the only one that allows for a particular worldview is bad science, despite the fact that a majority agrees with that religion. It's not like creation scientists are using different evidence. We're looking at the same evidence, and making different observations from that evidence. What's important is that a scientist remains open minded to the critiques of his theory.

[Thezuule1]

Postulating that Bronze Age stories from the desert are a better explanation than modern science is no way to better our understanding of anything. If this hero of yours attempted to publish any of this drivel in a respectable science journal his work would quite simply be laughed at, as it should be. He is a businessman. He sells books to homeschoolers. That's how he makes his living. He has a bias, a huge one, and one that has made him a great deal of money. He is a quack put simply.

[OfcJ9]

Many scientists being in agreement on something does not verify it. If we simply accept what is commonly accepted and move on, we'll never better our scientific theories and practice. In fact, the best way for a theory to develop is by finding the critiques of that theory, and adapting it to fit all the known evidence. If a theory cannot adapt, we discard it and move on. Furthermore, whether or not you believe in his religion does not change the science that he puts forth which is sound.

[Thezuule1]

And I have already specified the guy is a quack. Listen I don't mean to appeal to authority but when there's thousands of scientists from all different fields all in agreement on something and there's one estranged PhD out there writing books on Creationism for homeschoolers I'm not going to side with the crackpot who is running a business based on the fabrications he sells to children and their families. He sells books, he doesn't publish papers, he's a joke.

[OfcJ9]

Perhaps I should have specified that it's a scientist giving a lecture. It's not a random guy on youtube.