5 ms·

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

by chegra 16y ago

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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  > The way we're headed, religious belief is becoming more and more fringe Any references?
  - JabavuAdams 16y ago
    In any of the places I've worked, someone who enthusiastically affirmed that they believe in God would seem a bit weird. Contrast this to 100 years ago.
  - JabavuAdams 16y ago
    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/c-g/4097586-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/c-g/4097586-en...
- spindritf 16y ago
  > The way we're headed, religious belief is becoming more and more fringe. Not really https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographics_... but even if it was so, at which point is it OK to discriminate against people holding fringe views?
  - JabavuAdams 16y ago
    I don't see any stats on change over time in the link you provided. Are you seriously suggesting that religion is as well-respected today as it was 100 years ago? > but even if it was so, at which point is it OK to discriminate against people holding fringe views When they are a danger to others. Insanity is culturally-defined. We currently discriminate against people we consider insane.
    - spindritf 16y ago
      > Are you seriously suggesting that religion is as well-respected today as it was 100 years ago? There is a huge leap from "more and more fringe" to "as well-respected today as it was 100 years ago". Religious views are common, not "more and more fringe", not even just "fringe". Also, extrapolating observations about popularity of religious views doesn't seem to me like a very reliable way of making predictions. >> at which point is it OK to discriminate against people holding fringe views > When they are a danger to others. Which is clearly not the case. > We currently discriminate against people we consider insane. Sure, but the trend is to make the effort not to. People like John Nash https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.#Schizophrenia https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Forbes_N... receive recognition despite their problems, or for overcoming them.
      - JabavuAdams 16y ago
        > There is a huge leap from "more and more fringe" to "as well-respected today as it was 100 years ago". Okay, I suppose it depends which circles you travel in. > Which is clearly not the case. Debatable. The religious influence on politics in the US has harmed many. The influence of fundamentalists around the world has harmed many. > We currently discriminate against people we consider insane. Sure, but the trend is to make the effort not to. People like John Nash https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Forbes_N.. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Forbes_N.... receive recognition despite their problems, or for overcoming them. Yeah, but he wouldn't be allowed to say join the military, or to become a judge. In any case, I'm not for blacklisting scientists. Many great historical scientists had bizarre ideas that are less well remembered than their main discoveries.
- bugsy 16y ago
  > "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." OK, millions of people have known that there is more than one religion for thousands of years. But you are asserting that most people are not aware there is more than religion. This is completely contrary to reality. You also have a suggestion that after becoming aware there is more than one religion, people will then become aware that some of the adherents to the other religion "aren't evil". This is also completely contrary to reality. If there is someone who believes that everyone not in their religion is "evil", it must be an incredibly small fringe group along with flat earthers and apollo mission deniers. I've certainly never met one in real life. Yet you assert this is a majority belief. This means you are irrational and believe in things that are demonstrably false, does it not? Therefore, under the thesis being promoted by Mr. Dawkins, you should not be allowed to hold any positions of responsibility in society or university or government. Anyone holding any irrational beliefs that are known to be wrong should not be allowed this and not allowed that, that's the argument. Ah but it won't apply will it. Only certain specific types of unsubstantiated or irrational beliefs are to receive the blacklisting.
  - JabavuAdams 16y ago
    > But you are asserting that most people are not aware there is more than religion. I'm not sure why you believe that. I did not write that anywhere in my post. > You also have a suggestion that after becoming aware there is more than one religion, people will then become aware that some of the adherents to the other religion "aren't evil". No. These are independent phenomena. I did not write that the one leads to the other. > This is also completely contrary to reality. If there is someone who believes that everyone not in their religion is "evil", it must be an incredibly small fringe group along with flat earthers and apollo mission deniers. I've certainly never met one in real life. Here, we're looking at different time-scales. I'm talking about the past 200 years, or so. "Evil" is an exaggeration, but let's say "immoral" or at the very least "misguided". The point I was trying to make is this: 1) The primary vector for religious belief is parenting. Yes, people sometimes adopt a faith later in life, but this dwarfed by those who practice the faith of their parents. 2) This vector depends on the child having other adults and mentors (a community) around them who are also religious, or at the very least a community that doesn't mock religion as ridiculous and/or insane. 3) As more and more respectable people who are not obviously "other" are un- or anti-religious, it's harder to get kids to believe their religious teachings 3b) Or at least, it erodes their authority from Religion (capital R) to mere tradition. > Yet you assert this is a majority belief. Where? Where are you reading this stuff? > This means you are irrational and believe in things that are demonstrably false, does it not? Try again. Your argument is based on false premises. I can only assume that because this is a sensitive topic, I've hit your auto-rant button, and you failed to actually read my post. > Ah but it won't apply will it. Only certain specific types of unsubstantiated or irrational beliefs are to receive the blacklisting. Well, since you bring this up -- why should certain irrational beliefs receive deference. For instance, if someone tells me that they believe the biblical creation story, admittedly contrary to all evidence, why should they receive any more protection than if they tell me they believe the creation story from the Silmarillion to be true.
lutorm 16y ago
Science comes into stark conflict with religion only in a few places. Your examples are about math, which makes no claims about the world at all. There is no conflict there.
- gloob 16y ago
  I am not convinced that Dawkins would agree with you.

by chegra 16y ago

JabavuAdams 16y ago

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 16y ago
> The way we're headed, religious belief is becoming more and more fringe Any references?
- JabavuAdams 16y ago
  In any of the places I've worked, someone who enthusiastically affirmed that they believe in God would seem a bit weird. Contrast this to 100 years ago.
- JabavuAdams 16y ago
  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/c-g/4097586-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/c-g/4097586-en...
spindritf 16y ago
> The way we're headed, religious belief is becoming more and more fringe. Not really https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographics_... but even if it was so, at which point is it OK to discriminate against people holding fringe views?
- JabavuAdams 16y ago
  I don't see any stats on change over time in the link you provided. Are you seriously suggesting that religion is as well-respected today as it was 100 years ago? > but even if it was so, at which point is it OK to discriminate against people holding fringe views When they are a danger to others. Insanity is culturally-defined. We currently discriminate against people we consider insane.
  - spindritf 16y ago
    > Are you seriously suggesting that religion is as well-respected today as it was 100 years ago? There is a huge leap from "more and more fringe" to "as well-respected today as it was 100 years ago". Religious views are common, not "more and more fringe", not even just "fringe". Also, extrapolating observations about popularity of religious views doesn't seem to me like a very reliable way of making predictions. >> at which point is it OK to discriminate against people holding fringe views > When they are a danger to others. Which is clearly not the case. > We currently discriminate against people we consider insane. Sure, but the trend is to make the effort not to. People like John Nash https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.#Schizophrenia https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Forbes_N... receive recognition despite their problems, or for overcoming them.
    - JabavuAdams 16y ago
      > There is a huge leap from "more and more fringe" to "as well-respected today as it was 100 years ago". Okay, I suppose it depends which circles you travel in. > Which is clearly not the case. Debatable. The religious influence on politics in the US has harmed many. The influence of fundamentalists around the world has harmed many. > We currently discriminate against people we consider insane. Sure, but the trend is to make the effort not to. People like John Nash https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Forbes_N.. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Forbes_N.... receive recognition despite their problems, or for overcoming them. Yeah, but he wouldn't be allowed to say join the military, or to become a judge. In any case, I'm not for blacklisting scientists. Many great historical scientists had bizarre ideas that are less well remembered than their main discoveries.
bugsy 16y ago
> "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." OK, millions of people have known that there is more than one religion for thousands of years. But you are asserting that most people are not aware there is more than religion. This is completely contrary to reality. You also have a suggestion that after becoming aware there is more than one religion, people will then become aware that some of the adherents to the other religion "aren't evil". This is also completely contrary to reality. If there is someone who believes that everyone not in their religion is "evil", it must be an incredibly small fringe group along with flat earthers and apollo mission deniers. I've certainly never met one in real life. Yet you assert this is a majority belief. This means you are irrational and believe in things that are demonstrably false, does it not? Therefore, under the thesis being promoted by Mr. Dawkins, you should not be allowed to hold any positions of responsibility in society or university or government. Anyone holding any irrational beliefs that are known to be wrong should not be allowed this and not allowed that, that's the argument. Ah but it won't apply will it. Only certain specific types of unsubstantiated or irrational beliefs are to receive the blacklisting.
- JabavuAdams 16y ago
  > But you are asserting that most people are not aware there is more than religion. I'm not sure why you believe that. I did not write that anywhere in my post. > You also have a suggestion that after becoming aware there is more than one religion, people will then become aware that some of the adherents to the other religion "aren't evil". No. These are independent phenomena. I did not write that the one leads to the other. > This is also completely contrary to reality. If there is someone who believes that everyone not in their religion is "evil", it must be an incredibly small fringe group along with flat earthers and apollo mission deniers. I've certainly never met one in real life. Here, we're looking at different time-scales. I'm talking about the past 200 years, or so. "Evil" is an exaggeration, but let's say "immoral" or at the very least "misguided". The point I was trying to make is this: 1) The primary vector for religious belief is parenting. Yes, people sometimes adopt a faith later in life, but this dwarfed by those who practice the faith of their parents. 2) This vector depends on the child having other adults and mentors (a community) around them who are also religious, or at the very least a community that doesn't mock religion as ridiculous and/or insane. 3) As more and more respectable people who are not obviously "other" are un- or anti-religious, it's harder to get kids to believe their religious teachings 3b) Or at least, it erodes their authority from Religion (capital R) to mere tradition. > Yet you assert this is a majority belief. Where? Where are you reading this stuff? > This means you are irrational and believe in things that are demonstrably false, does it not? Try again. Your argument is based on false premises. I can only assume that because this is a sensitive topic, I've hit your auto-rant button, and you failed to actually read my post. > Ah but it won't apply will it. Only certain specific types of unsubstantiated or irrational beliefs are to receive the blacklisting. Well, since you bring this up -- why should certain irrational beliefs receive deference. For instance, if someone tells me that they believe the biblical creation story, admittedly contrary to all evidence, why should they receive any more protection than if they tell me they believe the creation story from the Silmarillion to be true.

lutorm 16y ago

Science comes into stark conflict with religion only in a few places. Your examples are about math, which makes no claims about the world at all. There is no conflict there.

gloob 16y ago
I am not convinced that Dawkins would agree with you.