I first confronted Grabowski on his religion during a class. I told him that I was paid to find out what religion he was (which was untrue, if I found out, I would have been paid). He mentioned that he cannot tell us it would obscure our learning process and he needed to remain impartial to it during the class. After the class, he just said something about he needs to not let the class know his opinions or belief structures because it doesn't provide a conductive learning environment. In a nut shell, "what kind of teacher would I be if I told you".
Since then, I have found that statement to be a lie. I have written in my notes every single time he has given us his own biased opinion on subject material. I have listed a few examples below.
1.) "I find it hard to believe in self-causation". This was in reference to my suggestion that the planet created itself
2.) "I consider myself a virtue theorist" When discussing the sophists.
3.) August 18th: "Technology is changing. I find myself pretty disgusted with certain things in the world"
Knowing he is lieing about not wanting to show bias in his class, we can assume he has another reason for obscuring his religion. Using deductive reasoning, I have outlined a few possible scenarios on why this might be....
1.) Out of tradition, to keep it a secret.
2.) He may have a religion that is mocked and doesn't feel like it's an effective use of class time to discuss his own beliefs.
3.) He may feel like this is truly a situation of church and state and prefer plead the fifth.
4.) He doesn't have a religion
Then from this we can move to religion specific reasons. For instance if he is a certain religion, maybe classmates might respond to him differently based on his religion (viewpoint discrimination of the mind so to speak).
After I found out the first lie, I took a different method of investigating my answer. I started bringing up religion more in class. I started assimilating certain concepts he was discussing in the class to the concept of religion. Below are a few examples.
Chris: So if you won't disclose your religion, do you believe that socrates existed?
Grabowski: Yes, wholeheartedly
September 1st, 2011
In a discussion of "Platos Forms"
Grabowski read this off a powerpoint slide.
Forms are uncreated and indestructible; immovable; unchangeable; eternal (timeless); intelligible, not perceptible; incorporeal (non-physical); and unqualifiedly what their instances are only with qualification: the Form of Beauty is beautiful, the Form of Justice is just, and so on
I asked the question, "So can the forms equate to religion?"
To which he replied, well, I'm sure they can in some aspects but not for this discussion in paticular. But i'm sure if you replace the word forms in that quotation, and replace it with God, it might fit."
Then he proceeded to point the similarities to the class in a non-biased manner.
Grabowski does not have an official Religion. A religion is a mental commitment to a set of values that stem from the belief of a diety. Grabowski cannot commit himself to a truth. He can only question it to death (a hard core hair splitter). He does not inform the class of his religion because if he told them he was an agnostic (which he is not because you would have to believe in agnosticism first), then students would start questioning their own religion. If he was responsible for the students in the classes he has taught the past 6 years in reconsidering their religion, and religion was true and possible, he might cause those students who chose to reconsider and became athiests an eternity of hell, fire and damnation. Sure, it's a small amount, but I'm sure even one would matter to him. Grabowski is an ass. But I admire his concern for his students. Bravo Grabowski, Bravo.