
Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins) - mike_esspe
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/24/should-employers-be.html
======
yummyfajitas
I find one of Dawkin's implicit assumptions very interesting.

 _My colleague takes the view that this YEC is entitled to a job...because he
keeps his private beliefs to himself while at work...I would object to
employing him, on the grounds that his research papers, and his lectures to
students, are filled with what he personally believes to be falsehoods. He is
a fake, a fraud, a charlatan, drawing a salary for a job that could have gone
to an honest astronomer. Moreover, I would regard his equanimity in holding
two diametrically opposing views simultaneously in his head as a revealing
indicator that there is something wrong with his head._

Dawkins seems to believe that to be hired as a scientist, one must believe in
the truth of the model one uses. I can't quite understand why he holds this
view - at least in my experience, scientists study hypothesis they don't
believe in all the time. I've done this (I don't believe in Copenhagen QM at
all, and I'm skeptical of Bohmian mechanics). Does this make me a fraud?
According to Dawkins, I guess it does.

By his logic, Einstein (not to mention Podolsky and Rosen) was also a fraud.
He used a theory he didn't believe was correct (quantum mechanics) to derive
conclusions he didn't believe were true. (Sadly, he didn't live long enough to
see experimental verification of what he believed was a reducto ad absurdum.)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox>

I wonder if Dawkins truly believes all scientists who use theories they don't
believe are frauds, or if he only thinks this about theistic (quasi-)theories
[1]? If he holds the former belief, I think he really needs to devote a little
bit of time to learning about metaphysics and the philosophy of science.

[1] Many beliefs held by theists are "not even wrong", and are therefore not
theories. Take, for example, the following flavor of young earth creationism:
" _God created the universe 6000 years ago, with the state psi(0) = U(-6000
years) psi(world today). psi is the wavefuntion, U is the propagator. It is
true that U(-20 billion years ) psi(world today) yields the big bang, but
that's just a mathematical curiosity rather than history._ " This belief is
unfalsifiable, and completely consistent with all scientific theories that are
governed by an initial value problem (pretty much all of them).

~~~
Luc
I'm just an amateur physicist... but since you're a pro, I'm sure you don't
really mean it when you say Einstein 'used a theory he didn't believe was
correct (quantum mechanics) to derive conclusions he didn't believe were
true'. I mean, that could be misunderstood quite easily as the pop-physics
version of history, in which the aging old Einstein just can't hack it,
staying stuck in the old ways of thinking.

In reality, of course, Einstein was one of the world's top experts in QM, made
some large contributions to it, and understood and agreed with the formalism
like everybody else - since the experimental verifications were clearly
impressive. His opposition was mainly to Bohr's positivism, and to the
completeness of QM, but he didn't oppose it's consistency or correctness. At
least after about 1930 or so.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_I mean, that could be misunderstood quite easily as the pop-physics version
of history, in which the aging old Einstein just can't hack it, staying stuck
in the old ways of thinking._

This is totally the opposite of what I meant to convey.

Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen were doing great work. They helped us understand an
important implication of quantum mechanics - that if our configuration-space
based theories are correct, we must have some non-local hidden variables. They
proposed an experiment to validate this, and for philosophical reasons they
believed the experiment would invalidate QM.

Their guess was wrong, but so what? My point is not that Einstein couldn't
hack it - it's the exact opposite. My point is that EPR was a fantastic
result, discovered by a group who believed the underlying theory was wrong and
their predictions would not come true. Their beliefs were wrong, but their
science was sound.

~~~
Luc
Okay, cool! Though (and again I'm sorry for continuing to blab about this, but
I don't often get the opportunity) I think it's actually a bit more tricky.
When it was published, EPR showed that action by contact (the separation
principle) and the _completeness_ of QM can't both be valid. At least, this
was Einstein's intention with EPR - in letters to Schrodinger he expresses his
chagrin with the way Podolsky, who wrote the paper, buried Einstein's main
point in technicalities.

Now, when you say he derived conclusions he didn't believe were true, that's
kind of wrong, since all he derived was a dilemma (completeness or separation,
not both (but possibly neither)). He took this to show that if we maintain the
separation principle, then QM needs to be viewed as a statistical account of
objects with properties it can't describe (but he never took that to mean
hidden variable theories like Bohm's were the answer).

So, my point is, he believed in the correctness of QM (just not in the
completeness). He believed in QM being true - just not that is was the whole
truth. He believed in the correctness of the EPR derivation and in the
correctness of the dilemma at the end. When you say he used a theory he didn't
believe was correct, I think that's wrong - he just didn't believe it was the
finished article. And when you say he derived conclusions he didn't believe
were true, I think that's wrong too, since he derived a dilemma that he very
much believed in. In the end he chose the wrong side, but that's not relevant
here.

You say Einstein believed this was a reductio ad absurdum - but that's flat
out wrong I think. EPR relates to the completeness of the formalism (if the
separation principle is taken to be true), not the correctness.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_When it was published, EPR showed that action by contact (the separation
principle) and the _completeness_ of QM can't both be valid._

Yes, that's the _scientific_ conclusion. Actually, the history is a bit more
muddled - EPR alone doesn't show this, strictly speaking. The EPR paper (1935)
concludes with a statement that the authors believe a local and complete
theory of QM is possible. We were not 100% certain it was impossible until the
discovery of Bell's Inequality (1964, 9 years after Einstein's death).
Einstein actually spent a lot of time searching for such a theory.

In addition to the scientific conclusions in the EPR paper, EPR also expressed
some non-scientific _beliefs_. They believed that reality would eventually
prove itself to be local and therefore that QM would be shown to be
incomplete. From the original paper:

 _We are thus forced to conclude that the quantum mechanical description of
physical reality given by wavefunctions is not complete [...] No reasonable
definition of reality could be expected to permit this._

<http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PR/v47/i10/p777_1>

------
jimbokun
This obsession with unearthing people's private beliefs and actively using
them as grounds to discriminate against them, seems quite Orwellian to me. Why
not just evaluate how well an employee does the job she is paid to do, and not
worry about the ideas she expresses outside of work, or the activities she
engages in?

Dawkins simply seems to be looking for ways of making life more difficult for
religious people. If the job involves some kind of proselytizing for Atheism,
rejecting people based on religious views might make sense. Otherwise, I don't
see how it's relevant.

~~~
rewind
There's too much grey to make this black and white. What would you say to a
closeted gay politician pushing anti-gay legislation? Would you not consider
that person a fraud, just like someone saying their research is based on the
universe being 13 billion years old when they don't really believe that?

~~~
kldavis4
If that politician is truly representing his constituency, then he is not a
fraud and is doing what he is paid to do.

~~~
JabavuAdams
So, because he does what he's told, that makes it alright? He has a choice not
to represent that constituency.

Let's take a different example. Suppose an American is being paid to do
something that is actively bad for other Americans. Does "doing what you're
paid to do" make it all right? There are no other considerations?

~~~
mseebach
Presumably he's not doing "what he's told", he's doing what he thinks is the
right thing.

Anyone pushing a policy they actually oppose is a fraud, gay or not.

------
powrtoch
I simply don't understand how Dawkins can give a _real life example_ of a
person _very successfully_ keeping his beliefs totally separate from his
_related work_ and still say that we should care what that person believes. If
being an "honest astronomer" doesn't make you a _better astronomer_ , then why
concern ourselves with it, at all?

What I find alarming is that nothing in this argument really conflicts with
Dawkins. He accepts that these beliefs can make no measurable difference, and
maintains that they're important anyway. He seems to think that it doesn't
matter if an astronomer can advance our understanding of astronomy by leaps
and bounds, if the astronomer doesn't update his own beliefs too, and that
society should therefore refuse to let itself benefit from what he can offer.
Why? Who wins in this scenario?

FWIW, I do agree that religious beliefs should not be considered distinct from
"non religious" beliefs (with obvious exceptions for e.g. clergymen).

------
DanielBMarkham
I personally don't care, but if I had to pick, I would want a scientist that
was technically proficient, flexible in their thinking, and was able to
explain the current way of thinking to a level acceptable to his peers. That'd
be it.

As far as personal beliefs, if I had to pick, I'd want a guy who had the
craziest damn personal beliefs I could find. Perhaps involving the Great
Pumpkin, or tiny elves that live in the forest and come out at night.

Why? _Because science is not orthodoxy_. That is, science is always
provisional and always open to change. Some jerk who "just knows" that string
theory is right is the last guy I want looking at string theory. Give it to
the guy who reads palms and is waiting for the Xanians to arrive in their
spaceships after the eclipse.

There is an assumption here, that having some sort of faith would preclude
being able to do your job. It's not true -- or rather, it's being inflexible
that prevents you from doing your job as a scientist. People are marvelous
creatures. They can be hard-headed and inflexible in an infinite number of
ways, most of which do not involve some formal belief system. As a for-
instance, I imagine many people would think that believing in Intelligent
Design would be a disqualifier for studying cosmology. And they would
stubbornly resist changing their mind to the contrary. This is exactly the
kind of inflexibility you need to watch out for. If you already know where
you're going to end up, there's not much point in taking the journey.

Very interesting that thinking of this problem in terms of flexibility and
creative thinking (the key elements to move science forward) turns up a
completely different answer than thinking about it in terms of "what's most
likely correct?" which is an interesting question but not germane. All you're
checking with that "does this guy believe what most of us do?" is whether or
not most other scientists think this guy is a good guesser, ie, he agrees with
them. That's a bit too much popularity contest and groupthink for me.

~~~
dasil003
You know I might be able to get behind the idea that religious beliefs
shouldn't be privileged against other "crazy" beliefs, but I can't help but
feel that Dawkins has an unjustifiable axe to grind against religion.

The idea that people are divided into rational and irrational is just plain
wrong. We _all_ take things on faith, because we do not (and likely _can_ not)
have perfect information. Science is great at deducing rules from observation,
but life is more than a series of facts.

I am agnostic, not because I believe any religious texts literally, but in
general the very nature of my own consciousness leads me to believe that we
are here for a purpose, and I believe that purpose could be communicated to us
from "a higher power", and if that were the case, of course the tool of choice
would be through parable digestible by the masses within a given culture. If
God exists, he is certainly not comprehensible by our limited brains, and so
of course a metaphor like a bearded man in the sky is the closest we're going
to get anyway.

There is a significant number of science purists who seem offended by the fact
that I might choose to believe something vague and untestable. They set up
strawmen about the irrationality of believing in a flying spaghetti monster
without evidence, all the while ignoring all the subtle beliefs that they take
on faith. The fact is that almost any idea can be broken down, and attacked on
various levels—just try the three-year-old test and ask "Why?" a half dozen
times, and pretty soon you're on some heady philosophical ground.

At the meta-level I feel like the intolerance of religion today is no
different than the intolerance of atheists from generations past.
Fundamentally it's about people who are uncomfortable with people who hold
different beliefs, which is inevitable if we are to be free thinkers. The fact
that science is about factual observation and the pursuit of true mathematical
models doesn't make it axiomatically right. Science is orthogonal to morality,
and morality is a key part of human relations.

~~~
pjscott
> The idea that people are divided into rational and irrational is just plain
> wrong.

Who even made this claim? Obviously there's a spectrum. Perfect rationality is
uncomputable; the best we can do is approximations. As Isaac Asimov cleverly
put it:

"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought
the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the
earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your
view is wronger than both of them put together."

> I am agnostic, not because I believe any religious texts literally, but in
> general the very nature of my own consciousness leads me to believe that we
> are here for a purpose, and I believe that purpose could be communicated to
> us from "a higher power", and if that were the case, of course the tool of
> choice would be through parable digestible by the masses within a given
> culture. If God exists, he is certainly not comprehensible by our limited
> brains, and so of course a metaphor like a bearded man in the sky is the
> closest we're going to get anyway.

Those are some pretty non-obvious claims. Are you sure that parables of a
highly anthropomorphic god would work better than, say, a straightforward
(albeit complicated and confusing) explanation? How do you know that thinking
of a "bearded man in the sky" is the best we can do?

> At the meta-level I feel like the intolerance of religion today is no
> different than the intolerance of atheists from generations past.

At a meta-meta-level I feel that statements like this are usually an attempt
at social signaling rather than a properly thought-out factual claim.

------
jmillikin

      Even if a doctor's belief in the stork theory of
      reproduction is technically irrelevant to his competence
      as an eye surgeon, it tells you something about him. It
      is revealing. It is relevant in a general way to whether
      we would wish him to treat us or teach us. A patient
      could reasonably shrink from entrusting her eyes to a
      doctor whose beliefs (admittedly in the apparently
      unrelated field of obstetrics) are so cataclysmically
      disconnected from reality.
    

This statement seems to work when applied to something like "babies come from
storks", but it generalizes poorly. There are simply too many incorrect
beliefs floating around; it's difficult to find someone who has resisted all
of them. Would you refuse treatment from an ophthalmologist who believed:

1\. The seasons are caused by Earth approaching and receding from the Sun?

2\. Fixed-wing aircraft fly because air moves over and under the wing at the
same rate?

3\. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb?

All of these are just as wrong as stork-babies or creationism, and all are
just as relevant (ie, not at all) to ophthalmology. I don't demand that my
doctor rigorously examine every belief they hold, merely the ones related to
surgery. Frankly, a creationist surgeon is much less worrying than a surgeon
who believes wi-fi causes cancer.

    
    
      My colleague takes the view that this YEC is entitled to a job
      as a professor of astronomy, because he keeps his private
      beliefs to himself while at work. I take the opposite view. I
      would object to employing him, on the grounds that his
      research papers, and his lectures to students, are filled with
      what he personally believes to be falsehoods. He is a fake, a
      fraud, a charlatan, drawing a salary for a job that could have
      gone to an honest astronomer. Moreover, I would regard his
      equanimity in holding two diametrically opposing views
      simultaneously in his head as a revealing indicator that there
      is something wrong with his head. 
    

There's an idiom that goes something like "reality is what keeps happening
even if you don't believe in it". If a creationist is able to perform correct
science, I see no reason to dismiss it out of hand. Especially considering the
wide variety of creationist beliefs now extant in the US -- even if he
believes Earth was created six thousand years ago, he may be willing to
concede that the Universe is roughly fourteen billion years old.

~~~
lutorm
It's not so much the beliefs that people hold, it's whether or not they stick
to those beliefs in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. If they do,
then their reasoning is not based in reality, which makes _any other reasoning
they do that is also purportedly based in reality suspect_.

A Creationist can not perform _what he thinks is correct science_ without
performing what the rest of the world is incorrect science. I agree with
Dawkins that this makes him suspect as a scientist, because we should base our
beliefs upon facts.

~~~
knieveltech
"A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without
performing what the rest of the world is incorrect science."

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. The whole Science VS Faith thing is a false
dichotomy, the two are not inherently incompatible except in the minds of
unfortunate extremists on both sides of the argument. Implying that they are
ignores the fact that the vast overwhelming majority of science has been
performed by so-called "creationists". Society simply didn't tolerate atheism
prior to say 1960.

~~~
jmillikin

      I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. The whole Science VS Faith
      thing is a false dichotomy, the two are not inherently
      incompatible except in the minds of unfortunate extremists
      on both sides of the argument.
    

Faith is, fundamentally, the process of maintaining beliefs in the face of 1)
absent evidence and 2) conflicting evidence.

Science is the process of discovering evidence.

While theoretically compatible, in practice, people performing science often
discover evidence that conflicts with widely-held beliefs. When those beliefs
are part of an ongoing faith, the faith-holders usually react violently
against the scientists.

    
    
      Implying that they are ignores the fact that the vast overwhelming
      majority of science has been performed by so-called "creationists".
      Society simply didn't tolerate atheism prior to say 1960.
    

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, since it seems to go against your main
point.

~~~
Helianthus16
>Faith is, fundamentally, the process of maintaining beliefs in the face of 1)
absent evidence and 2) conflicting evidence.

This is the tired beaten horse of atheistic criticism, taking the general
principle that one must make a leap out of indecision and doubt in order to
achieve any sort of meaningful viewpoint and twisting it, torturing it into
the statement "Faith is explicitly about not making sense."

Faith _is also_ the means by which we escape such boring philosophical
questions as "Is the sun going to rise the next day?" or "How do you
_know_???" Whether or not you believe that the word "faith" applies to your
acceptance of the precepts of science ("I believe the world is consistent.")
does not change the fact that the mechanism by which you escape a possibly
infinite amount of doubt is by taking the leap outside of it. "Doubt does me
nothing; faith gives me something to work with."

~~~
ugh
I’m not really sure why I need faith to be fairly certain that the sun will
rise tomorrow. I don’t need to be certain in any absolute terms, being
extremely certain based on past evidence is good enough for me. I’m not
plagued by doubt and suggesting that living without faith would leave one in
doubt seems dubious to me.

I can work with not being absolutely certain.

~~~
Helianthus16
Prolly too late for you to see this, but that "[working] with not being
absolutely certain" is precisely faith in its truest, most broad form. God in
this faith is not the sky wizard of atheistic clap-trap, but a question: if
some entity is responsible for all of this bullshit existence, is that person
on our side? Faith is the answer 'yes.' Atheism doesn't have an answer via
attacking the question, which is fine until we are forced to face it.

which will happen.

------
chegra
In the past, a scientist religious belief didn't affect his contribution. I
don't see how targeting them now will benefit the scientific community. Carl
Gauss was a devote Christian; what are we suppose to do if he existed now, not
recognize him?

"I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is
rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife." - Godel

Maybe Godel wasn't logical for his beliefs?

"An equation for me has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God."
-Srinivasa Ramanujan

Maybe they shouldn't have invite Ramanujan to work at Cambridge?

I find these thoughts disturbing, to judge someone's potential to contribute
based on his religion.

~~~
JabavuAdams
Times change. In the past you could be killed (in the West) for not being
religious, or for adhering to the wrong sect.

The way we're headed, religious belief is becoming more and more fringe.
Basically, religion only "makes sense" if most people are raised in that
tradition.

From the outside (i.e. to people not raised in a religious tradition) it just
sounds kind of silly at best, or crazy at worst.

So, at a certain point, saying I believe in X religion becomes just as crazy
as saying I believe that the earth was created by pink hummingbirds. It just
has more pedigree.

The game's up for organized religion as soon as people see that there's more
than one, and that those other believers aren't evil. It'll just take some
time for this to play out.

~~~
shadowfox
> The way we're headed, religious belief is becoming more and more fringe

Any references?

~~~
JabavuAdams
[http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/c-g/4097586-en...](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/c-g/4097586-eng.htm)

------
Semiapies
Preface: I'm an atheist, myself.

The funny thing about this argument is that it's made within the same
protection against religious discrimination that Dawkins would like to
discard.

Some of us might like to fantasize that laws against religious discrimination
could be carefully disassembled so that atheists remain fully protected while
all the theists get comeuppance for their objectionable views, but that isn't
going to happen. If you get rid of laws against religious discrimination, it's
not going to be open season on Christian creationists, it's going to be open
season on atheists and Muslims (who poll almost as badly as atheists in the
US).

------
lefstathiou
Going back to the topic at hand, I am a little uncomfortable NOT being able to
take into account someone's beliefs (and therefore values) when making a
decision to employ them. Difficult to make the point without going to
extremes, but the bottom line is that I believe organizations have (and should
continue to have ) the right to direct their culture. If someone isnt a
"cultural" fit because they believe in things that would aleniate them from
their peers and clients, and therefore contribute to an unproductive work
environment, why is it a bad to disqualify them on those grounds?

I get the slippery slope of discrimination but that's not what this is about.
I'm talking about the slippery slope of not allowing someone to making a
hiring decision on the grounds that the way people live their lives and their
values affect their ability to be productive members of your organization.

Interested to hear what you guys think.

~~~
mseebach
It's indeed very slippery, and it's the exact same arguments that have been
used to keep blacks, gays and women out back in the day, and once they were
in, keeping them from advancing on the career ladder.

Unless someone has personal beliefs that are entirely orthogonal to their
work, those beliefs are none of your business.

~~~
noblethrasher
I get what you're saying, but I have a nitpick:

Wouldn't you want someone's personal beliefs to be orthogonal to their work
since it would imply that those beliefs don't affect the work?

------
waterlesscloud
What if they believe non-mainstream cosmological theories? Where does
orthodoxy enforcement stop?

~~~
rewind
They are most likely still going to use a scientific approach to trying to
prove the non-mainstream theory, so it's not really a valid comparison.

------
Homunculiheaded
One of my favorite video games as a child ended with the realization that the
entire game took place inside the dream of sleeping whale (the game ends when
you wake up the whale). I always think it’s important to consider (although
not too seriously) that perhaps we are just acting in the dream of a giant,
sleep whale.

The point is that reason and logic always only exist within a specific
framework of axioms and assumptions. There is no universal set of axioms and
assumptions that apply to all situations, if there where we would have a set
of truths that could describe the age of the earth accurately both in the case
that the world is as it immediately appears to be and the case where we exist
in the dream of a whale. We can only reason within contexts, and in all the
examples given in Dawkin’s post, individuals are reasoning excellently within
the specific context.

The problem, whether it involves religion or not, is when people start to
believe that they do have access to a universal set of axioms and assumptions,
that they have presented themselves with an absolute truth. Which is why I
always think it’s important to consider, at least for a moment, what if we are
inside the dream of a giant, sleeping whale.

------
tjr
The title of this HN submission doesn't match the title on the article.
Dawkins doesn't seem to be arguing in favor of firing all creationist
astronomers; rather, only those whose religious beliefs conflict with their
astronomy work. Not all creationist views are identical.

[Edit: HN submission title has been revised. Thanks!]

~~~
mquander
You must have read a completely different article than I did, because as far
as I can tell you are entirely mistaken about the content.

 _"A senior colleague at Oxford told me of an astronomer who, on religious
grounds, believes the universe is less than ten thousand years old...He
publishes mathematical papers in learned journals, taking it for granted that
the universe is nearly fourteen billion years old and using this assumption in
his calculations. He bottles up his personal beliefs so successfully that he
is capable of performing calculations that assume an old universe and make a
genuine contribution to science. My colleague takes the view that this YEC is
entitled to a job as a professor of astronomy, because he keeps his private
beliefs to himself while at work.

I take the opposite view. I would object to employing him, on the grounds that
his research papers, and his lectures to students, are filled with what he
personally believes to be falsehoods. He is a fake, a fraud, a charlatan,
drawing a salary for a job that could have gone to an honest astronomer.
Moreover, I would regard his equanimity in holding two diametrically opposing
views simultaneously in his head as a revealing indicator that there is
something wrong with his head."_

That looks like a pretty straightforward argument in favor of firing
creationist astronomers to me!

~~~
tjr
No, I read that. Not all creationists believe that the universe is less than
ten thousand years old.

Another quote:

 _My own position would be that if a young earth creationist (YEC, the barking
mad kind who believe the entire universe began after the domestication of the
dog) is "breathtakingly above the other candidates", then the other candidates
must be so bad that we should re-advertise and start afresh._

He seems to be specifically addressing "young earth creationists", and
possibly even a subset of those (the "barking mad" ones).

Section 4 of the essay suggests that his guidance would not even be limited to
religious beliefs: any beliefs, religious or otherwise, that pose a conflict
to one's work position should be considered as grounds for non-employment.
That's my reading of it, anyway.

~~~
mquander
Well, knowing Richard Dawkins, he thinks more or less any religious person is
"barking mad." It sounds to me like he is just advocating for discrimination
against people with stupid beliefs (where "stupid" is up to the employer to
decide, I suppose), on the grounds that just being stupid is enough to put the
quality and honesty of someone's work in doubt.

Personally, I think his position is barking mad itself. I mean, this statement

 _"Moreover, I would regard his equanimity in holding two diametrically
opposing views simultaneously in his head as a revealing indicator that there
is something wrong with his head."_

is completely absurd. I'd love Mr. Dawkins to point at the human who has a
full set of rational beliefs which are completely consistent with each other
and consistent with his or her day-to-day life. If I were hiring a manager, I
would discriminate against Mr. Dawkins in favor of someone who doesn't reject
good workers on a whim.

~~~
shadowfox
Curiously enough:

 _The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed
ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function_

\- F. Scott Fitzgerald

------
earnubs
Darwin would not have got very far with Dawkins in charge.

~~~
wisty
Are you implying that Darwin wanted to be a creationist, but couldn't help but
publish what he stumbled upon; or refering to his position in the Church?

------
jessriedel
Putting aside the question of the _legal_ requirements (which can necessarily
only approximate the ethical requirements), isn't it reasonable to just say
that he should be hired if and only if the hiring committee thinks his beliefs
will not unacceptably interfere with his job (including, for instance, the
possibility that he is a "fraud")? Dawkins trots out all these extreme cases
where we would be very worried in order about job performance to argue that
religious beliefs should be fair game, but doesn't convince me at all that "if
a young earth creationist is 'breathtakingly above the other candidates', then
the other candidates must be so bad that we should re-advertise and start
afresh." Rather, it just advertises a naivete about how flawed we humans are.
If we rejected every candidate who has some self-contradictory beliefs because
we take it "as a revealing indicator that there is something wrong with his
head", we wouldn't be able to fill any jobs. Anyone who thinks they have
reached some sort of platonic ideal of rationality---and that those who
haven't should be ignored---is deluding themself, whether or not they may be
_more_ consistent.

------
bugsy
Definitely a lot of eye surgeons out there that believe in the stork theory of
reproduction, it's much more common than people are lead to believe. Good
example.

Last month we turned down a developer candidate because his weblog said he was
a Discordian who believed in a flying spaghetti monster. He was the best
candidate by far, but flying spaghetti is an irrational belief which indicates
profound mental illness.

------
boneheadmed
I have been following astrophysicist Hugh Ross for some time. For a very
intelligent exploration of creationist ideas (that very decidedly do not
accept that the earth is only 10,000 years old) check out Reasons To Believe:

<http://www.reasons.org/>

~~~
endtime
I'm reluctant to agree that a website with drivel like "does this synthetic
life form point to intelligent agency at every step of the way?" proudly
featured on its front page is intelligent.

~~~
pjscott
What that web site does is start by assuming that the Bible is completely
true, and then try to retrofit as much of science as they can onto their
central Belief That Must Not Change.

They may well be intelligent, but that doesn't make them sane.

------
pjscott
Since there's some overlap in membership, here's a link to the Less Wrong
discussion of this same article:

[http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/3ze/richard_dawkins_sho...](http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/3ze/richard_dawkins_should_employers_be_blind_to/)

------
bigtech
I'm surprised to see Dawkins get this so wrong. I suspect holding opposing
beliefs about a thing is quite common.

------
detokaal
Dawkins and most others here are missing the primary issue: evidence. What
qualifies as [evidence](<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence>) for
scientific purposes is limited. It excludes (or minimizes) evidence the human
beings accept in most other areas. You would no more cite your neighbor's
belief in the shape of the earth for a scientific paper than cite the number
of flowers you bought your wife as proof that you love her. There are many
reasons people believe Bible accounts for rational reasons outside of
scientific evidence.

Also implicit in most of the posts here and Dawkin's piece is to assume there
is zero scientific evidence for a young earth or any other Biblical story. As
Feynman was fond of saying, it isn't up to science to determine truth all the
time, but rather what is more or less likely based on what we currently know.
It is most likely our universe is X years old based on what we know now, but
even those ages have changed by wide margins in the last century. We don't
know how much more it will change in the next century. But we are as sure
about the current age as astronomers were 100 years ago.

For the record, based on our present scientific knowledge, it is more likely
our earth is 4.5 billions years old than 5000. But we don't know for sure, do
we?

------
alexophile
I think my real problem with all this really comes out when he mentions the
Kurt Wise case:

 _"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a
young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I
shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence
in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it,
but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems
to indicate. Here I must stand."_

The problem with this line of thinking is not with the conclusion - his
conclusion is soundly derived from his body of evidence. But I take issue with
what he chooses to admit into the corpus of evidence to be considered.

If you read the Scripture as the word of God, I have no problem with that. If
you take that as a guide for what determines a good life, that's totally
groovy. But the Bible cannot and should not be used as a piece of evidence in
determining scientific fact.

A text that considers calling something a "miracle" adequate explanation is,
by definition, non-scientific. If you _believe_ in such miracles, that doesn't
bother me one bit, but if you accept a miracle as evidence without
explanation, you are not practicing science.

------
nickolai
As long as the beleifs do not obviously express a lack of common sense, yes
beleifs should not be important.

Sure we can get in a fight about how obvious should the obviousness be, and
what exactly is common sense. However disregard for evidence or strong
unfounded beleifs should be a warning sign. The candidate's views on the
technology involved in his job should be more deeply screened. What I mean is
that a candidate firmly beleiving that the earth was created 10k years ago
because the scriptures say so, is (imho) more likely to lack the open-
mindedness needed by most jobs in science/technology fields. OTOH, if you
"just need a programmer", i'm sure you'll be fine even with a guy thinking
bananas are in reality dropped by storks.

------
CWuestefeld
Don't we all do such things all the time?

I'll frequently to a friend and say "that movie would have been more
interesting if they'd followed the subplot and showed how character X finally
did Y".

Here I'm starting with a model of the universe, projecting the givens that we
were shown, and extrapolating a theory about something else that might happen
in that model. And all of it is false. I'm just playing with a model of the
world as it _might_ be. And that's all the scientist in the OP was doing, in
his mind.

The only difference is that I'm saying that the model is fictional, whereas he
believes it. But that doesn't make the projections he might make from his
model any better or worse than mine.

------
Luc
I remember reading a story about an executive working for Warren Buffett, who
cheated on his wife with a girlfriend in a different city. When Buffett found
out, he fired the man, since he felt he couldn't trust this person in his
business dealings, even if the error was made in a personal matter.

This feels the same way. Does the university really want to check up on this
astronomer all the time, in case his irrationality carries over to his
professional life?

------
roel_v
As a side note and referring to the quoted email in the second paragraph, any
idiot (in this case the idiot was apparently the chairman of the search
committee) who puts such strong evidence that can later be used against the
company/institution in writing, in email no less, should be fired on the spot.

------
hasenj
I don't believe in Darwinism, and you know what, if some one refused to employ
me because of that, then to hell with them. I personally would prefer not to
work with someone who would judge me for my beliefs.

But that's just me. I'm the kind of person who wants his job to be more than
"just a job".

There are people who consider jobs to be just jobs and they do their jobs for
a living, not to fulfill their life purpose. This is actually the majority of
people, and when you start discriminating against them, well, you're kinda
evil. Or how should I put it? You'd be no different from a religious zealot
who thinks he knows the truth and must force everyone to adhere to the same
truth that he adheres to.

The root of most evil (often attributed to "religion") is when you believe you
have the truth and that you must force others to see it. Discriminating
against these people in their work and livelihood is just one tactic of
oppressing people. The Soviet Union was such an evil government; they
oppressed religious people in the name of liberating them from religion.

Having said that, I can flip the argument around. Would I trust a doctor who
believes that humans are nothing but a lump of material, and that morals are
just lies that we fabricated? It depends, and you can argue for a long time
why you should (or should not) trust such a doctor. But the point is, it's a
double edged sword, if you're gonna use it to discriminate against others,
then certain others can also use it to discriminate against you.

When someone is an outspoken advocate for atheism, but is also a scientist,
should I take his "science" seriously as if he's objective in his science? He
obviously has a strong desire to fulfill his agenda, and is likely to bend
backwards to support what he's advocating.

------
lukeschlather
A good scientist should be agnostic. In some ways, believing something
accepted to be false in the scientific community is preferable to actually
believing what is accepted to be true in the scientific community. If everyone
starts with the same assumptions then the same assumptions are propagated
through the literature without critical analysis.

And sometimes, it may even be worthwhile to look at Mars with the eye of
someone who believes it to be a giant purple mongoose. So long as in your work
you recognize and promote the most likely possibilities, what you believe to
be true regardless of evidence is, at worst, a tool that can aid one in
thinking outside the box.

Personally I believe the universe and the Earth are many times over older than
10000 years. The evidence is so overwhelming it's hard to understand anyone
who thinks otherwise. But I feel like the person who believes the Earth is
10000 years old is a better scientist than the person who knows it to be an
incontrovertible fact that the Earth is much older than 10000 years.

~~~
lutorm
So you think assuming a less likely position makes people better scientists?
I'd like to see a calculation that a system of optimization that proceeds with
that assumption actually does converge...

Of course one should be open to other possibilities. However, ones openness to
a possibility should be related to the likelihood of that possibility. If
that's not the case, you are disconnected from reality.

~~~
lukeschlather
>So you think assuming a less likely position makes people better scientists?

You're twisting my words. I think believing that certain assumptions which are
required to support your work are false makes you a better scientist. The
specific person Dawkins maligns hasn't taken any positions in their work that
align with his personal beliefs. But I believe that his work is better for it.

Really though, this is more a question of diversity of opinion than of one
belief system being intrinsically superior to another for the doing of
science. We are all disconnected from reality in one way or another. If all of
our scientists are disconnected from reality in a similar manner, it's going
to drastically stunt their thinking. And this is equally true if all
scientists have the same sort of atheist-agnostic belief that science is
mostly right in its models or if all scientists are young-Earth creationists.
(At least in a hypothetical world where all scientists are YEC and
simultaneously produce rigorous work that makes YEC appear almost certainly
false.)

So long as their work is rigorous and aligns with data, their personal beliefs
merely serve to give them novel ideas Dawkins could never think of.

------
dy
Yes.

~~~
iwwr
As long as those beliefs don't interfere with the requirements of the job.

------
borism
Here's favorite story of mine on this topic. My favorite philosopher Slavoj
Zizek quotes this often as well in his _Reality of the Virtual_ themed
lectures (it is disputed whether the story itself is true or not):

 _An American scientist once visited the offices of the great Nobel prize
winning physicist, Niels Bohr, in Copenhagen. He was amazed to find that over
Bohr’s desk was a horseshoe, securely nailed to the wall, with the open end up
in the approved manner (so it would catch the good luck and not let it spill
out).

The American said with a nervous laugh, “Surely you don’t believe the
horseshoe will bring you good luck, do you, Professor Bohr? After all, as a
scientist –” Bohr chuckled. “I believe no such thing, my good friend. Not at
all. I am scarcely likely to believe in such foolish nonsense. However, I am
told that a horseshoe will bring you good luck whether you believe in it or
not.”_

I guess Dawkins would fire Bohr. Truly an atheist on a crusade!

~~~
pjscott
Do you actually believe that Dawkins would do anything other than chuckle
amicably in that situation?

~~~
Natsu
Dawkins wouldn't just chuckle, he'd write a book about it.

------
nice1
Dawkins isn't what one might call a deep thinker ...

~~~
pjscott
He's pretty consistent about arguing when he disagrees, rather than just
throwing around insults. Hint, hint.

------
3am
Why does this discussion always go one way? Do people care if a church
discriminates against priests or reverends that do not believe in God, the
virgin birth, transubstantiation, or the resurrection (where it applies)?

I have never seen evidence of protests against that kind of discrimination.
And considering the are a pseudo-public entity (tax exempt), it seems very
similar.

/me is disappointed with self for commenting on stupid flamebait link.

------
mathogre
If they support current Big Bang theory, they're all creationist.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître>

~~~
rbanffy
Do you have any idea how deeply flawed your reasoning is?

By the same reasoning, if a schizophrenic claims the sky is blue and we all
agree with him, that makes us schizophrenic too.

~~~
JWLong
Which is exactly why one shouldn't be barred from employment based on personal
beliefs... It is Dawkins who makes the comparison between religion and disease
or disorders, no?

~~~
rbanffy
You are aware, of course, you are questioning a completely different thing,
right?

The deeply flawed reasoning is implying that, because we agree with the
observations of a creationist astronomer on the big bang, we are also
creationists.

