In his column entitled "Against the Religion Department," [Jan. 23] Matthew Lubin argued for the obsolescence of the Department of Religion at the College. I intend to argue for the obsolescence of the thinking of Matthew Lubin.
Mr. Lubin introduces a plethora of capitalized weighty terms in his column such as Reason and Truth, which scholars have trouble defining, let alone Mr. Lubin. These terms speak to something beyond regular human comprehension, as most people would readily admit. For does not truth as we know it change? The truth was once that the earth was flat, but then Columbus came along and turned some heads, and Magellan followed by circumnavigating the world, and alas: the truth was changed. Is science so impeccable, that it warrants acceptance as the ultimate truth? Could there not be something which supersedes, or at least circumvents science and history as a source of truth?
Mr. Lubin states surprise at the fact that "an institution which aims to shed the cold light of Reason into every nook and cranny of human experience" would continue to house a Department of Religion. Is that to say that we should be pleased by such an advent? I would be appalled at the notion that everything exists purely in the realm of Mr. Lubin's sense of reality. How can one call religious truth false, if he does not even know what he is denying?
I heard an argument a while ago in the following form: If I were to say that I am not a woman, would I not have to know what a woman is? It would follow that if I were to say that there is no Absolute Truth, would I not have to know what Absolute Truth is? So how could one deny that which defies or supersedes science, if he does not know what "that" is?
I agree with Mr. Lubin, in that the temporal impacts of the study of religion are important, yet there are other aspects to religious study as well. Courses in theology, such as those which investigate the thought of Aquinas or Augustine, are greatly loved by those students who take them. The material taught in these courses falls outside of that taught in the history, anthropology, sociology, and philosophy departments, as Mr. Lubin would like to deny, and yet is still of great significance. Perhaps Mr. Lubin should consider taking one of these classes before next spring, and then his views might be a bit less skewed.
What Mr. Lubin saw as his central point was what I saw as most troubling. He argued that the greatest problem with keeping the department of religion "lies in the religion doctrines themselves," due to their "irrationalism" and "implicit contradiction." He went on to say that professors would need to waste a good deal of time "half-apologizing" for the "poppycock" of the religious doctrines being studied. It seems obvious that Mr. Lubin has not recently conversed with a professor in the Department of Religion.
Through my experiences as a student, I have had the opportunity to speak with at least a few professors of religion at the College, and I think that every one would laugh at Mr. Lubin's claim. While many of the professors do not ascribe to the doctrines or practices they teach, I have heard more than one say that they admire or even love their course material. And believe it or not, some professors actually whole-heartedly believe what they teach. Isn't that a strange phenomenon, Mr. Lubin?
