To the Editor:
In her Monday Herald opinions column (“Are religion and academics incompatible?” Nov. 3), Divya Bhatia ’15 argued that the lack of religious dialogue in academic settings goes against our “liberal” values. While I agree with the point that there should be more open and prevalent religious and belief-oriented dialogue on campus, I strongly dissent with Bhatia on her understanding of what actual liberal dialogue is.
Liberal dialogue is one in which beliefs and perspectives are discussed in an area of valid criticism. Bhatia cites the discomfort one student felt when creationism was presented in a mocking manner in a biology course. While I sympathize, her feelings and unscientific beliefs have no bearing on the teaching of core scientific theory. Putting creationism alongside evolution as possible perspectives validates it as an equal, which is absolutely false.
Liberal dialogue is not about letting everyone speak, or at least speak equally. If it is, I am hurt every time a religious studies class ignores my belief that Franz Kafka is the one true God and we do not read more Kafka texts. The strength of an opinion’s voice in dialogue must depend on its validity and rebuttal to its criticisms; otherwise the voicing is simply a monologue. Faith is wonderful, but personal belief cannot trump scientific fact in a liberal dialogue. Religion and academics can coexist at Brown, but that does not imply all religion and all science must be compatible.
William Shinevar ’15
ADVERTISEMENT
