Dear Editor:

The December 2007 issue of Academic Matters, devoted to religion, did 
not include a single skeptical voice.

Instead, we got a lot of religion-friendly blather.  Tariq Ramadan 
laughs at the idea that Islamic authorities should denounce terrorism, 
which is particularly ironic since he himself has, on occasion, refused 
to do just that.   

C. T. McIntire claims we need to replace the "disintegrating, modernist 
scientific template", but offers no evidence that the "template" is 
disintegrating, and offers no coherent alternative.   He scoffs that 
those studying religion have tried to be impartial, "keep[ing] their 
religious, political, and moral identity ... out of the classroom and 
out of their scholarship".  It used to be that impartiality was valued, 
because it led to results that could be assented to by those of all 
faiths.  McIntire, it seems, would replace this hard-won academic value 
with religious cheerleading.

Tom Sherwood is not content with the already-extensive resources devoted 
to chaplaincies and religious constituencies.  He wants even more, 
because "Faith ... is part of the landscape of the university".

All of your writers seem to think that religious belief is something we 
should support and coddle.  Not a single writer took issue with he 
facile credence of believers, the nonsense of religious dogma, the 
readiness of religion to support attacks on science and rationalism. 

Society and the university's problems cannot be solved by resorting to 
prayer.  Society - and your editorial board - needs more rational and 
skeptical inquiry, not blind adherence to dogma.


Jeffrey Shallit