Are you a secularist

[Craig B]

God so loved the world that he killed all but eight humans, god's idea of cooperation is "my way or the fry way" sorry Mr Collins, I pass.

The idea that we can't have good things without a god thing is a common delusion among theists.

Does that disqualify them from seeking employment in science-connected professions?

 

[Myriad]

If there is such a thing as "scientific office," this isn't one. It's a political office, even if it's traditionally held by a scientist.

 

[tsig]

Does that disqualify them from seeking employment in science-connected professions?

No, as long as they acknowledge that those beliefs have nothing to do with the real world and will not influence their actions.

 

[godless dave]

Unless you are referencing Bible literalism where do you feel the conflict would come from in the first place?

Rational vs. irrational thinking. There's a scientific way to arrive at conclusions and an unscientific way.

I disagree with Harris on this, even though it was nice to see Collins publicly shamed for his silly beliefs. Plenty of scientists seem capable of being rational when it comes to their work and then turning it off on Sunday mornings.

 

[Correa Neto]

Unless you are referencing Bible literalism where do you feel the conflict would come from in the first place?

What exactly do you consider as being Bible literalism?

Just YEC?

 

[MG1962]

What exactly do you consider as being Bible literalism?

Just YEC?

With in the context of the Bible that would be the main one. Steven Jones is a good example, keep him focused on physics and he is pretty good, get him onto archeology or building collapses and his abilities fall away drastically

 

[GDon]

Well, if I walk a few steps outside my office I can chat with a number of scientists who are religious. Geologists, paleontologists, biologists. Teatchers, researchers, Ph.D. students and candidates. None of them let their beliefs interfer with their works. This compartmentalization is weird, I know, and I can't grasp exactly how it works. But it works with them.

What were they compartmentalizing, in your view? For example, if the biologists were Creationists, then I can see compartmentalizing required. But if the biologists were theists who believed that evolution best explains the diversity on earth, why would they need to compartmentalize? Can you give any actual examples based on your discussions with those religious scientists?

 

[Craig B]

What were they compartmentalizing, in your view? For example, if the biologists were Creationists, then I can see compartmentalizing required. But if the biologists were theists who believed that evolution best explains the diversity on earth, why would they need to compartmentalize? Can you give any actual examples based on your discussions with those religious scientists?

It's a question of "faith". Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Two observations. There is no place in science for the acceptance of factual propositions (substance of things) on the basis of hope or faith. Second, religion at a definitional level consists of factual (rather, factoidal) propositions; not moral or aesthetic judgements. I mean, in order to be a Christian, I must first believe that Jesus is God, as fact.

Thus the modes of thought appropriate to religion contradict those required for scientific practice. None the less, there are indeed people who can accommodate these irreconcilabilities within the one mind. That is what is meant by compartmentalisation, in this context. Religion, if it may be simply defined, consists of belief of matters of fact, without the evidence required to sustain such belief.

 

[angrysoba]

When it comes to not letting one belief cloud our objective judgment then we might want to consider exactly what others have said on this thread that the evidence shows religious scientists are perfectly capable of keeping their religion and science separate.

We might even be able to perform some double-blind tests on this. Find a bunch of papers by religious scientists and some by non-religious scientists and have some of their peers read the papers to determine whether or not they have religious views. If the religious preferences are undetectable in the professional work then we might question whether or not it is Sam Harris's prejudices which are instead more likely to be interfering with scientific enquiry.

My only issue with all this is that only with religion does this work, not with other irrational beliefs.

No, this is true of other irrational beliefs too, which H.L Mencken pointed out "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

Anyway, didn't Isaac Newton have some ******* ideas and yet get made the head of the Royal Society?

The ongoing argument seems to be that irrational beliefs that are part of accepted religions should be more acceptable then just any old random irrational belief. Electing a President that thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old should be more acceptable then electing one that thinks we never landing on the moon because of.... errr reasons.

Do you know of any geologists who think the Earth is 6000 years old or any astronomers who think that humans never landed on the Moon? There may be some but I would imagine that they are considered cranks and loonies in their own field and won't get far.

If Francis Collins was a Young Earth Creationist then that would be a problem, but as he isn't then you still have to demonstrate what is a problem...

Hasn't Collins played along with the Templeton Foundation? Biologos funded by Templeton I think.

Surely Biologos is theology and not science.

Oh my God!! So...?

 

[devnull]

Well, that's something of an assumption, isn't it? If you know that a person holds baseless and irrational beliefs, that throws into doubt everything else they do. Particularly when it comes to science, where strict evaluation of evidence is necessary.

Everybody holds baseless and irrational beliefs of some kind. If we didnt, we'd all be existential nihilists.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Everybody holds baseless and irrational beliefs of some kind. If we didnt, we'd all be existential nihilists.

Everyone's irrational about something, therefore it's wrong to hold anyone to any intellectul standard, therefore Woo.

 

[tsig]

Everybody holds baseless and irrational beliefs of some kind. If we didnt, we'd all be existential nihilists.

It's woo or the black, bleak scourge of hopelessness?

No.

 

[tsig]

Everyone's irrational about something, therefore it's wrong to hold anyone to any intellectul standard, therefore Woo.

It's woo or woe.

 

[GDon]

It's a question of "faith". Hebrews 11:1 Two observations. There is no place in science for the acceptance of factual propositions (substance of things) on the basis of hope or faith.

I agree, but if that is the case, then there isn't necessarily a need to compartmentalize, at least as discussed in this thread. There is no "intellectual dishonesty" if the beliefs have no place in science, because they contradict nothing.

Second, religion at a definitional level consists of factual (rather, factoidal) propositions; not moral or aesthetic judgements. I mean, in order to be a Christian, I must first believe that Jesus is God, as fact.

Thus the modes of thought appropriate to religion contradict those required for scientific practice. None the less, there are indeed people who can accommodate these irreconcilabilities within the one mind. That is what is meant by compartmentalisation, in this context. Religion, if it may be simply defined, consists of belief of matters of fact, without the evidence required to sustain such belief.

Yes, I think that's a good point. It's probably the key point. Certainly where religion makes statements of fact that conflict with mainstream science, there is a need for compartmentalization. But that doesn't necessarily need to be the case. Stephen Jay Gould's famous/infamous idea of "NOMA" (Non-overlapping Magisteria) is that religion and science make statements about different worlds. If religion makes statements of fact about the world, then it falls into the sphere of science.

 

[Correa Neto]

With in the context of the Bible that would be the main one. Steven Jones is a good example, keep him focused on physics and he is pretty good, get him onto archeology or building collapses and his abilities fall away drastically

I think Biblical literalism goes beyond YEC; it is not about just the Genesis being a literal account of the creation of the universe, Earth and life. We also have events like the universal flood, the “Sun stopping in the sky”, cities being buried by fire and brimstone plus several accounts of facts which are not supported by archeology (ex.: Exodus). Depending on your research/expertise field, this or that bit of the Bible will contradict science and somehow you will have to compensate, build a cognitive dissonance. This can happen - I would say it actually happens - at all levels, including basic education. Consider a physics teacher: Newtonian mechanics is not compatible with the Sun stopping in the middle of the sky.

What were they compartmentalizing, in your view? For example, if the biologists were Creationists, then I can see compartmentalizing required. But if the biologists were theists who believed that evolution best explains the diversity on earth, why would they need to compartmentalize? Can you give any actual examples based on your discussions with those religious scientists?

You and CraigB already provided some answers. Scientific methodology is incompatible with “because the [add religious text of your choice here] says so” or “because I experienced [add religious experience of your choice here]”. Since most if not all religions make testable predictions or state testable facts about the world, and since as far as I am aware these predictions and statements do not resist scientific testing (NOMA’s huge and soft underbelly), the scientist will have to somehow compensate, compartmentalize.

I provided above an example of compartmentalization related to virtually every single human aware of Newtonian mechanics and the Bible. Evolution is indeed one case closer to my experiences. Science has never provided an indication of something guiding evolution or of human beings - or any sentient being – being an inevitable outcome of evolution. These theists (and deists) I know discard large pieces of the Bible (or other religious texts) and think god somehow guided evolution in subtle and mysterious ways to the present outcome. God would then have to be adjusting lots of things in subtle ways, from mantle plumes and asteroid impacts to avoiding that specific creature over there not getting sick, being stomped or eaten by something else. The most common answers thus follow somehow the general lines of the anthropic principle. That’s how they handle the subject. It is incongruent with science and somehow they manage to compensate it. From my current perspective, I can’t understand exactly how they do it.

At the industry I found some people with more literalistic beliefs. These cases are stranger; they will use all the equations, all the methods built over concepts which deny, for example, YEC at some point. “Yeah, it works like that theory says but the truth is in the Bible because I feel it in my heart” is the best I ever managed to get from them. Sometimes it is almost like the workings of an alien brain for me. Yes, my position is alien for them too.

 

[Craig B]

... where religion makes statements of fact that conflict with mainstream science, there is a need for compartmentalization. But that doesn't necessarily need to be the case. Stephen Jay Gould's famous/infamous idea of "NOMA" (Non-overlapping Magisteria) is that religion and science make statements about different worlds. If religion makes statements of fact about the world, then it falls into the sphere of science.

But the catastrophic flaw in Gould's schema is precisely that. Gould seems to think that religious teachings consist entirely of moral precepts. But, as was pointed out to him by almost every commentator: this is simply not true.

When religions are required to define themselves, they announce factual propositions. Being a Christian essentially means believing that Jesus is God. Fact. Loving your neighbour (good moral act) is something a person may do without being religious at all. That is, it doesn't define a person as religious.

Where are the moral statements in the Nicene Creed? The Shahada? According to NOMA, these credos belong in the scientific domain, because they consist of factual propositions; but nobody has any use for them there, as they fail the evidential quality control criteria. Gould simply never thought this through, it seems.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The idea that "morality" can't operate under a scientific, rational and/or logical mindset is one of Woo's most cherished falsehoods.

 

[godless dave]

Everybody holds baseless and irrational beliefs of some kind.

Speak for yourself.

If we didnt, we'd all be existential nihilists.

Some of us are.

 

[godless dave]

I agree, but if that is the case, then there isn't necessarily a need to compartmentalize, at least as discussed in this thread. There is no "intellectual dishonesty" if the beliefs have no place in science, because they contradict nothing.

They contradict reality.

Yes, I think that's a good point. It's probably the key point. Certainly where religion makes statements of fact that conflict with mainstream science, there is a need for compartmentalization. But that doesn't necessarily need to be the case. Stephen Jay Gould's famous/infamous idea of "NOMA" (Non-overlapping Magisteria) is that religion and science make statements about different worlds.

But only one of those worlds exists.

 

[godless dave]

I think Biblical literalism goes beyond YEC; it is not about just the Genesis being a literal account of the creation of the universe, Earth and life. We also have events like the universal flood, the “Sun stopping in the sky”, cities being buried by fire and brimstone plus several accounts of facts which are not supported by archeology (ex.: Exodus).

Not to mention the belief that Jesus came back from the dead. Every Christian, other than atheist Christians, takes some part of the Bible literally.