6 ms·

Mocking or looking down on people is generally a poor practice. However, it should not surprise someone in the sciences if they are passed over for job opportu

by druddha 11y ago

Mocking or looking down on people is generally a poor practice. However, it should not surprise someone in the sciences if they are passed over for job opportunities based on their religious beliefs. Those beliefs may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job.

peterhadlaw 11y ago
Then I wonder what your reaction is to learning that there is a significant portion [citation needed] of doctors / surgeons that either keep or expand their religious fate as they go through incredibly difficult times in their careers. Some of which would otherwise fail to continue.
- druddha 11y ago
  No reaction. That something provides you with comfort does not make it true.
  - peterhadlaw 11y ago
    If you look at the parent of my comment, you'll see that I wasn't referring to if [what the doctors have faith in] is true or not but rather their faith enables (some of) them to do what they would otherwise not be able to do. Which is contrary to the parent's comment stating that having faith would deem you less capable of fulfilling your job.
    - druddha 11y ago
      That was my comment, and I was speaking strictly about sciences (as the previous commenter said he works in a CS department at a university). Even so, your counterpoint still holds no water. Just because many of them turn to faith during difficult times does not mean they necessarily perform their job function at a higher level as a result.
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
> Those beliefs may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job. Sounds like an unsubstantiated belief to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_...
- druddha 11y ago
  It's not a belief. I said "...may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job." Providing a list of Christian scientists does not disprove my statement. Obviously being religious doesn't necessarily mean you will perform at a lower level relative to your peers. But to borrow from Sam Harris, if you met a scientist who openly admitted to believing Elvis is still alive, would you hold the same opinion of them professionally?
  - statictype 11y ago
    if you met a scientist who openly admitted to believing Elvis is still alive, would you hold the same opinion of them professionally? Basing your professional opinion of someone on anything other than their professional work strikes me as very 'unsciency'
    - druddha 11y ago
      Of course. But with all else being equal, would a manager be more likely to promote a scientist who believes in a higher power or a religiously agnostic scientist? The former implies anti-scientific thought.
      - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
        > anti-scientific thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
        fabulist 11y ago
dragonwriter 11y ago
> However, it should not surprise someone in the sciences if they are passed over for job opportunities based on their religious beliefs. In the US, its generally should, since its pretty blatantly illegal in virtually every case. > Those beliefs may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job. There may be some specific religious beliefs where that is true for some jobs (in the sciences or otherwise), but, in general, that's not even remotely true.
- druddha 11y ago
  >In the US, its generally should, since its pretty blatantly illegal in virtually every case A law that cannot be enforced isn't really a law. Making a case for religious discrimination is difficult. And the subject of this thread revolves around whether discriminating based on beliefs should be allowed. If you worked at Bain Capital and openly supported Bernie Sanders, would you be surprised to not get promotes? > There may be some specific religious beliefs where that is true for some jobs (in the sciences or otherwise), but, in general, that's not even remotely true. See my comment below regarding skepticism and science.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > A law that cannot be enforced isn't really a law. Making a case for religious discrimination is difficult. To the extent that it is difficult to enforce, it is because it is difficult to know when it has occurred. But, that doesn't reduce the surprise one should have when one discovers that it has occurred, because that means that it is one of the cases where the problems that usually exist with discovering that it has occurred (and which pose a difficulty for enforcing the law) are not present, at least at their normal level. > See my comment below regarding skepticism and science Religious beliefs in general are not incompatible with skepticism on questions within the domain of science; some specific religious beliefs may be incompatible with skepticism in some areas of scientific inquiry, but, again, that's different than the generality posed.
    - druddha 11y ago
      Surprise is subjective and I think my analogy is apt. > Religious beliefs in general are not incompatible with skepticism on questions within the domain of science; I disagree. The Bible explicitly attempts to provide explanations for the order of the natural world. > some specific religious beliefs may be incompatible with skepticism in some areas of scientific inquiry, but, again, that's different than the generality posed. How so? This sounds like a restatement of my original point: "Those beliefs may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job."

by druddha 11y ago

peterhadlaw 11y ago

Then I wonder what your reaction is to learning that there is a significant portion [citation needed] of doctors / surgeons that either keep or expand their religious fate as they go through incredibly difficult times in their careers. Some of which would otherwise fail to continue.

druddha 11y ago
No reaction. That something provides you with comfort does not make it true.
- peterhadlaw 11y ago
  If you look at the parent of my comment, you'll see that I wasn't referring to if [what the doctors have faith in] is true or not but rather their faith enables (some of) them to do what they would otherwise not be able to do. Which is contrary to the parent's comment stating that having faith would deem you less capable of fulfilling your job.
  - druddha 11y ago
    That was my comment, and I was speaking strictly about sciences (as the previous commenter said he works in a CS department at a university). Even so, your counterpoint still holds no water. Just because many of them turn to faith during difficult times does not mean they necessarily perform their job function at a higher level as a result.

stefantalpalaru 11y ago

> Those beliefs may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job. Sounds like an unsubstantiated belief to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_...

druddha 11y ago
It's not a belief. I said "...may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job." Providing a list of Christian scientists does not disprove my statement. Obviously being religious doesn't necessarily mean you will perform at a lower level relative to your peers. But to borrow from Sam Harris, if you met a scientist who openly admitted to believing Elvis is still alive, would you hold the same opinion of them professionally?
- statictype 11y ago
  if you met a scientist who openly admitted to believing Elvis is still alive, would you hold the same opinion of them professionally? Basing your professional opinion of someone on anything other than their professional work strikes me as very 'unsciency'
  - druddha 11y ago
    Of course. But with all else being equal, would a manager be more likely to promote a scientist who believes in a higher power or a religiously agnostic scientist? The former implies anti-scientific thought.
    - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
      > anti-scientific thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
      - fabulist 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> However, it should not surprise someone in the sciences if they are passed over for job opportunities based on their religious beliefs. In the US, its generally should, since its pretty blatantly illegal in virtually every case. > Those beliefs may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job. There may be some specific religious beliefs where that is true for some jobs (in the sciences or otherwise), but, in general, that's not even remotely true.

druddha 11y ago
>In the US, its generally should, since its pretty blatantly illegal in virtually every case A law that cannot be enforced isn't really a law. Making a case for religious discrimination is difficult. And the subject of this thread revolves around whether discriminating based on beliefs should be allowed. If you worked at Bain Capital and openly supported Bernie Sanders, would you be surprised to not get promotes? > There may be some specific religious beliefs where that is true for some jobs (in the sciences or otherwise), but, in general, that's not even remotely true. See my comment below regarding skepticism and science.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > A law that cannot be enforced isn't really a law. Making a case for religious discrimination is difficult. To the extent that it is difficult to enforce, it is because it is difficult to know when it has occurred. But, that doesn't reduce the surprise one should have when one discovers that it has occurred, because that means that it is one of the cases where the problems that usually exist with discovering that it has occurred (and which pose a difficulty for enforcing the law) are not present, at least at their normal level. > See my comment below regarding skepticism and science Religious beliefs in general are not incompatible with skepticism on questions within the domain of science; some specific religious beliefs may be incompatible with skepticism in some areas of scientific inquiry, but, again, that's different than the generality posed.
  - druddha 11y ago
    Surprise is subjective and I think my analogy is apt. > Religious beliefs in general are not incompatible with skepticism on questions within the domain of science; I disagree. The Bible explicitly attempts to provide explanations for the order of the natural world. > some specific religious beliefs may be incompatible with skepticism in some areas of scientific inquiry, but, again, that's different than the generality posed. How so? This sounds like a restatement of my original point: "Those beliefs may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job."