Rob Knop on Gnu Athiests

[Ghel]

From a purely scientific standpoint, acting against those who are religious solely for the fact that they are religious (beliefs as opposed to actions) would be just as wrong as someone who was religious taking action based on those beliefs, wouldn't it?

Please demonstrate that this happens. Otherwise it's just a hypothetical. Nothing in any of the articles or blog posts that have been linked on this thread have suggested that the scientific community (or any scientists in particular) are "acting against those who are religious solely for the fact that they are religious".

The conflict between science and religion arises when religious claims fail to stand up to scrutiny. Religion makes the claims. Science exposes them as false. It has nothing to do with what the scientists would like to be true, and everything to do with what is verifiably true.

[AdminAssistant]

Are you comfortable with those who teach and perform science just keeping their beliefs to themselves

Yes, if they will: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ms?sc=fb&cc=fp

Heck I have to set my personal beliefs aside all the time. I believe that Neil LaBute is a terrible playwright, director, and human being. But I still have to teach one of his plays and talk about it in an objective manner. That's part of the job description.

Religion does exist and effects people, and there are people who study that, in fields like cultural anthropology, sociology, political science, history, and, of course, theology...i.e. the "soft" or social sciences and humanities. However, they also study the phenomena that is religion from an objective viewpoint without allowing their own personal beliefs to bias their research.*

Of course, these aren't the people you think of when you say "scientist." Religion should not be the concern of chemists, biologists, physicists, or anyone else working in the "hard" sciences, those that we think of as "scientists."

*Obviously there will always be some bias. But it is the duty of the researcher to aware and work to be as objective as humanly possible.

[Andara Bledin]

Please demonstrate that this happens.

From the very first lines of the last article I linked:

In his book "The Soul of the American University", historian George Marsden chronicles how and when higher education became hostile to religion. While most universities sprung from religious roots, by the 1920s, movements to secularize the academy had relegated religious perspectives to the sidelines, or shut them out altogether.

The conflict between science and religion arises when religious claims fail to stand up to scrutiny.

This is irrelevant to this thread. This one is about attitudes regarding religion and how people act as a result of them and the impact those attitudes have on the advancement and acceptance of science.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

From the very first lines of the last article I linked:

That does not follow. You cannot get from the secularization of universities to individuals in the scientific fields are being discriminated against solely for being religious. You can only demonstrate that individuals are being discriminated against in this way by giving examples of such behavior or citing a study that accumulated data related to this behavior.

This is irrelevant to this thread. This one is about attitudes regarding religion and how people act as a result of them and the impact those attitudes have on the advancement and acceptance of science.

Have you never considered that the main reason that scientists and atheists have the views they have on religion is because of the fact that nearly all religious claims fail to stand up to scrutiny?

[Andara Bledin]

That does not follow.

I honestly don't understand what it is you're trying to say here. However, if you are asking for citations regarding religious scientists being discriminated against solely on the basis that they are religious, there are a number of specific cases in Ecklund's works.

I'm ordering her book so that I can get a more in-depth look at the results of her research.

Have you never considered that the main reason that scientists and atheists have the views they have on religion is because of the fact that nearly all religious claims fail to stand up to scrutiny?

Whether I've considered it or not doesn't matter (and is also irrelevant), but the evidence appears not to support that conclusion as the majority of scientists continue to be religious and that percentage is climbing.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

I honestly don't understand what it is you're trying to say here.

I was saying that there is no logical progression from "by the 1920s, movements to secularize the academy had relegated religious perspectives to the sidelines, or shut them out altogether" to "acting against those who are religious solely for the fact that they are religious". You gave the former as evidence for the latter, and it's not.

However, if you are asking for citations regarding religious scientists being discriminated against solely on the basis that they are religious, there are a number of specific cases in Ecklund's works.

I just read through all the articles we've linked regarding Eklund's work again, and I don't see any mention of discrimination. What Eklund mostly seems to be advocating is that scientists discuss religious issues. She does mention that religion is marginalized in university science classrooms, but that's as it should be. University professors shouldn't be teaching creationism. Or chakras. Or astral projection.

...the majority of scientists continue to be religious and that percentage is climbing.

Where did you get that? Certainly not from Eklund's work. According to this review of Eklund's book, only 27% of the scientists she surveyed professed a belief in a god. Actually, I'll be a little more lenient with the cited numbers. With 34% atheist and another 30% agnostic, that leaves 36% reporting as religious, including the 27% theist. That's still not a majority, and I haven't seen anything indicating that the proportion of scientists who are religious is climbing.

And I still don't see what any of this has to do with the supposed "New Atheist" movement, which is what this thread started out discussing.

[Andara Bledin]

I just read through all the articles we've linked regarding Eklund's work again, and I don't see any mention of discrimination.

The specific cases are in her book, several examples of which can be reached by using Google to search for specific references. One particular scientist is in so much fear of discrimination herself that she won't even discuss her religion in a scientific setting and was so gun-shy about it that it took an effort of will to discuss it with Ecklund.

From page 48:

To be sure, some nonbelieving colleagues do discriminate against religious people, making it difficult for religious individuals to talk about faith participation openly in their departments...

Where did you get that? Certainly not from Eklund's work.

Actually, directly from Ecklund's work. I haven't quoted from any of the reviews because I noted that the reviews were sometimes contradictory and that they wouldn't necessarily represent the truth of what was said in the book. Having read excerpts from the book through both Google and the Amazon preview, I find that I was correct. Unfortunately, some of what I wanted to quote is on page 1, which isn't currently available at either site, so I had to settle for something slightly less definite further on in the same section.

From Page 7:

Science and religion can transition from warring factions to twin states with a contested border. And under certain conditions, there might even be "free trade" between them. Other sociologists of religion, upon whose work I build, have described both the secularization of the academy as well as how the institutional infrastructure of the academy has changed to allow more of a place for religion. Now that religion is again a vital force in the academy - as a result, some say, of a countermoement complete with resources, infrastructures, and active student involvement - the most secular of scientists are finding it hard to handle the resurgence in traditional forms of religion.

From this I gather that the secularization of the university was an artificial movement and now the pendulum is swinging the other way, moving back towards religion being more prevalent and less vilified.

And I still don't see what any of this has to do with the supposed "New Atheist" movement, which is what this thread started out discussing.

You're getting hung up on the label. The label is only relevant in that it describes a certain set of attitudes. Both Knop and I have outlined the attitudes in question, so any further discussion based purely on the name without consideration of the specific meaning given for the name is not germane to the discussion at large.

Both Knop and Ecklund discuss how anti-religious sentiment is not conducive to the acceptance and advancement of science. Ecklund's research is quite compelling.

Once I receive the book, I can quote more of her findings that support this and other statements I've made in this thread without the limitations placed by just trying to search previews.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

The specific cases are in her book, several examples of which can be reached by using Google to search for specific references. One particular scientist is in so much fear of discrimination herself that she won't even discuss her religion in a scientific setting and was so gun-shy about it that it took an effort of will to discuss it with Ecklund.

Several examples? Out of 275 interviews. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and say you found 10 examples. That's 3.6% of the scientists interviewed. Even looking at it as a percentage of the religious scientists identified in the study, that makes 10% of the scientists interviewed, who identified as religious, who feel they've been discriminated against because of their religion. Obviously, it's the exception and not the rule.

The label is only relevant in that it describes a certain set of attitudes. Both Knop and I have outlined the attitudes in question...

What attitudes? That science should focus on what can be demonstrated to be true? That unproven or untestable assertions shouldn't be accepted? That allowing religious bias to affect scientific research skews the results? That the only way to have a work environment free of religious discrimination is to not talk about religion at work? That religion shouldn't be taught in science classes? How are any of these sentiments "not conducive to the acceptance and advancement of science"?

[Andara Bledin]

You said you didn't see "any mention of discrimination." I gave you a mention of discrimination. Please stop moving the goalposts.

Since I've already quoted Knop in answer to your second question after linking the article where he spent the first three paragraphs defining precisely who he is referring to, and then paraphrased it myself in this very thread, I don't see any point in doing so again. Either a person can understand the issue or they can't; continued repetition is no more useful than banging one's head against a wall.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

You said you didn't see "any mention of discrimination."

And I still haven't. You haven't linked your references.

Please stop moving the goalposts.

I apologize. I was not very specific when I asked for references to discrimination. I should have explained better. A single case (or even "several cases") does not demonstrate that the scientific community is systematically discriminating against religious individuals who would otherwise have successful carreers in scientific fields. I said I hadn't seen any mention of discrimination because, if there was some discrimination going on, I would have expected to see it mentioned in at least one of the articles that had been linked so far.

Either a person can understand the issue or they can't; continued repetition is no more useful than banging one's head against a wall.

That was my thought exactly. If you can't demonstrate that the behaviors in question are actually counter-productive, then we have nothing further to discuss.

It would also help the discussion if you would stop ignoring the statements that you either can't or won't support with evidence.

[Andara Bledin]

And I still haven't. You haven't linked your references.

I can't link to a book. The previews available through Google and Amazon are not only not linkable but change fairly quickly, so beyond giving page numbers from the work in question, there is nothing to link.

That was my thought exactly. If you can't demonstrate that the behaviors in question are actually counter-productive, then we have nothing further to discuss.

Ecklund wrote a whole book about the topic based on years of research.

It would also help the discussion if you would stop ignoring the statements that you either can't or won't support with evidence.

This discussion is supposed to be about specific attitudes and how they affect the general acceptance of science by the populace at large.

From Science & Religion Today: "As with the first celebration in 2006, hundreds of congregations around the globe are planning to take steps to elevate the quality of the dialogue about the compatibility of religion and science."

It's not even necessary for those attitudes to actually exist (although it's undeniable that they do, if even for only a small fraction of the population), as much as merely the perception of their existence.

There is an interesting essay at the Progressive Living website titled Religion, Science, and Philosophy: Putting an End to the Culture War.

Any attitude that is prejudicially disposed to dismiss the value of any mode of thought out of hand is doing a disservice to anything they then attempt to endorse. With that in mind, anti-religious sentiment is not conducive to the acceptance of scientific advancement in the community at large, the majority of which are and will continue to be religious in some fashion.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

We’re discussing several different points here, and it looks like we’re getting confused as to which discussion item goes with which point. So I’ve decided to make a numbered list to hopefully clear up any confusion. Feel free to add numbered points to this list.

1. I hope we can all agree that religion should not be taught in science classrooms. The only place it belongs is in social science classes (as AA already pointed out), perhaps in a comparative religion class.

I also hope we can all agree that proselytization should not be allowed in public schools.

2. Some individuals express anti-religious sentiments. This point I will concede. It is obvious that this happens, but what hasn’t been demonstrated is that it’s part of some concerted movement (such as Knop’s claims about “New Atheism”). Also, it does not follow that

3. Individuals expressing anti-religious sentiments prevent religious individuals from accepting science. Not only has this not been demonstrated, it seems extremely unlikely. The more likely culprit seems to be religious indoctrination and the magical thinking that goes along with it.

4. Scientists expressing anti-religious sentiments actively discriminate against religious scientists solely on the basis that they’re religious. This has not been demonstrated. The one detailed example given says only that she "is in so much fear of discrimination herself that she won't even discuss her religion in a scientific setting”. Unless her research has something to do with religion, there’s no reason for her to discuss religion in the workplace. Additionally, this doesn't say that she was discriminated against, only that she feared discrimination.

It is possible, even likely, that scientists who frequently express support for false or untestable religious claims are seen as lacking critical thinking skills, and thus could be passed up for promotion or tenure indirectly because of their religious beliefs. I could see colleagues expressing concerns about bias in overtly religious scientists’ research. But if there were discrimination solely based on the individual’s religious affiliation, we should expect to see lawsuits, since that is one of the protected categories for which discrimination is prohibited.

[Andara Bledin]

1) The only place religion should be taught is in courses that are specifically structured to be about education on the subject of religion. Of course, it would be nice if the reverse were true: That science not be brought into classrooms (et al) where the topic is religion.

2) Seems that the people behind NewAtheist.org disagree.

3) You've mis-interpreted the position. Religious individuals are less likely to accept the statements regarding science from individuals who also express anti-religious sentiments. Regardless of why this is the case, it is still the case.

4) I suppose I'll have to buy the book, scan it, and highlight every instance for you, since you have no interest in spending money to learn more about positions which you do not already support.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

2) Seems that the people behind NewAtheist.org disagree.

People? All I see is a website created by one person that has no original content, only links to a bunch of atheism-related videos and websites. That's not a movement, it's someone's personal set of bookmarks.

3) You've mis-interpreted the position. Religious individuals are less likely to accept the statements regarding science from individuals who also express anti-religious sentiments. Regardless of why this is the case, it is still the case.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Are you saying that you think science teachers should avoid making anti-religious statements in the classroom in order to avoid closing the minds of religious students to scientific principals? If that's the case, I agree. Neither pro-religious nor anti-religious statements should be made in a science classroom.

4) I suppose I'll have to buy the book, scan it, and highlight every instance for you, since you have no interest in spending money to learn more about positions which you do not already support.

Don't go out of your way for me. If cases of this sort of discrimination were more prevalent in scientific fields than in other fields, I would think we'd hear about it. If Eklund's book collected this sort of data, I would think that it would be mentioned in one of the book reviews or articles she's written. Where are the statistic showing how many discrimination lawsuits have been brought by scientists against their employers compared to workers in other fields?

[Andara Bledin]

2) Well, we could go with the wiki article on New Atheism, instead. It may not be accurate all the time, but it is a good representation of how the populace at large thinks.

3) I said individuals and I meant individuals in both instances. If I had meant teachers or students, I would have used those words.

^-.-^