Mormon Representation in the Sciences

[44Foxtrot]

In an earlier thread, I commented that I would consider a demonstrated deficit in critical thinking skills in making hiring decisions for certain critical science-based positions in my company.

While there were a few thoughtful and well reasoned responses to this comment, it lead mainly in a hail of criticism, objections, ad hominem attacks and abusive language from the supposedly LDS faithful on the board. Facing a few deadlines at work before Christmas, I left the thread and promised to continue the discussion when I had more time.

There were several points at issue in the thread. I will address the ones I felt to be important individually, starting with those of Jeff K., who opined that I could be breaking the law during my interviews of employment candidates.

After a brief chat with one of our attorneys (who is not a specialist in employment law), it was pretty clear that there is no problem with our hiring practices. Jeff K. stated, for example, that it was illegal to ask questions about one's religion during job interviews. If he would have read my first post on the thread, which was prior to his first post on the thread, he would have seen my express statement that we do not ask questions about religion in employment interviews.

As our attorney pointed out, the law specifically states :

An employer does not have to accommodate an employee

[44Foxtrot]

Now to the issue of Mormons in science. In one of my posts on the earlier thread, I stated that the fundamental problems (or disadvantages) that religionists (and especially Mormons) experience in the practice of science is reflected by the absence of Mormons among Nobel Prize laureates. Even though MADB members dismissed this fact as evidence of a problem with science in Mormonism, this fact has been mentioned in articles by faithful Mormons concerning the problems Mormon scientists have in overcoming Mormon-centered education and culture in their professional lives.

In addition to the Nobel Prize data, I asked the board if anyone knew how many Mormons were members of the National Academy of Sciences. No definitive answer was given.

A recent survey shows that only 7% of the members of the National Academy believe in a personal God. Since well over 70% of the US population claims religious belief, it is pretty clear that religious belief is not correlated with good science. Considering these numbers, it is not very likely that there are any Mormons among the 2000 NAS members. Nonetheless, I looked a little further into the situation.

While the National Academy does not list the religious affiliations of its members (for obvious reasons) it does list their academic institutions or industrial affiliations. Among the some 2000 individuals listed as the NAS members, not a single one has a listed academic affiliation with BYU.

The University of Utah had at least one. A little further up the road in Idaho, there were several from state schools. By the time one reached Eastern Washington, WSU had at least 4. Further west still at the University of Washington (where I graduated) there were more than 30.

So we have a relatively small state university in the agricultural region of Eastern Washington with a student body of some 20,000 with at least 4 members of the National Academy, as compared to the much larger flagship Mormon institution of higher learning with a student body of some 34,000 with no members - not one.

To the south Colorado Nevada and Arizona also had a total of about a dozen members in their colleges and universities. Among the foreign countries that have members in the American National Academy, Israel was a standout with more than a dozen. Even the University of London, where I did my graduate work, has a few National Academy members. Mexico, Russia, Poland and Germany were among the other foreign countries with NAS members.

There is a great deal of evidence from the literature that anti-science and anti-intellectualism is rampant in Mormon religion, thought and culture. This message rings out loud and clear from the talks at General Conference to the articles in Church magazines and literature, to comments on MADB.

On other MADB threads, for example, one actually sees Mormons who are willing to ignore the overwhelming physical against a global flood, or the genesis creation, or evolution, and choose instead to base their worldview on demonstrably false myths for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever.

Surveys show that in terms of acceptance of evolution as a scientific fact, the only religious group scoring lower than Mormons were the Jehovah's Witnesses.

The claim that Mormon culture and belief do not constitute a handicap when it comes to the practice of science does not seem to be supported by the data. The counter-claim, that Mormonism is fundamentally anti-intellectual and anti-science, is supported daily by faithful Mormons from the highest Chrch leaders down to individuals on this board who state their belief in a global flood, genesis creation, and the preeminence of the statements by Mormon leaders over physical evidence in making decisions regarding what to believe about the world.

[PaulBoyerFan]

Wait, people on this board found it odd that you wouldn't want to hire people with an obvious lack of critical thinking skills?

Why am I not surprised ...

[44Foxtrot]

Wait, people on this board found it odd that you wouldn't want to hire people with an obvious lack of critical thinking skills?

Why am I not surprised ...

The thread in question is here. You can see for yourself.

[Bill Hamblin]

Now to the issue of Mormons in science. In one of my posts on the earlier thread, I stated that the fundamental problems (or disadvantages) that religionists (and especially Mormons) experience in the practice of science is reflected by the absence of Mormons among Nobel Prize laureates. Even though MADB members dismissed this fact as evidence of a problem with science in Mormonism, this fact has been mentioned in articles by faithful Mormons concerning the problems Mormon scientists have in overcoming Mormon-centered education and culture in their professional lives.

In addition to the Nobel Prize data, I asked the board if anyone knew how many Mormons were members of the National Academy of Sciences. No definitive answer was given.

A recent survey shows that only 7% of the members of the National Academy believe in a personal God. Since well over 70% of the US population claims religious belief, it is pretty clear that religious belief is not correlated with good science. Considering these numbers, it is not very likely that there are any Mormons among the 2000 NAS members. Nonetheless, I looked a little further into the situation.

While the National Academy does not list the religious affiliations of its members (for obvious reasons) it does list their academic institutions or industrial affiliations. Among the some 2000 individuals listed as the NAS members, not a single one has a listed academic affiliation with BYU.

The University of Utah had at least one. A little further up the road in Idaho, there were several from state schools. By the time one reached Eastern Washington, WSU had at least 4. Further west still at the University of Washington (where I graduated) there were more than 30.

So we have a relatively small state university in the agricultural region of Eastern Washington with a student body of some 20,000 with at least 4 members of the National Academy, as compared to the much larger flagship Mormon institution of higher learning with a student body of some 34,000 with no members - not one.

To the south Colorado Nevada and Arizona also had a total of about a dozen number of members in their colleges and universities. Among the foreign countries that have members in the American National Academy, Israel was a standout with more than a dozen. Even the University of London, where I did my graduate work, has a few National Academy members. Mexico, Russia, Poland and Germany were among the other foreign countries with NAS members.

There is a great deal of evidence from the literature that anti-science and anti-intellectualism is rampant in Mormon religion, thought and culture. This message rings out loud and clear from the talks at General Conference to the articles in Church magazines and literature, to comments on MADB.

On other MADB threads, for example, one actually sees Mormons who are willing to ignore the overwhelming physical against a global flood, or the genesis creation, or evolution, and choose instead to base their worldview on demonstrably false myths for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever.

Surveys show that in terms of acceptance of evolution as a scientific fact, the only religious group scoring lower than Mormons were the Jehovah's Witnesses.

The claim that Mormon culture and belief do not constitute a handicap when it comes to the practice of science does not seem to be supported by the data. The counter-claim, that Mormonism is fundamentally anti-intellectual and anti-science, is supported daily by faithful Mormons from the highest Chrch leaders down to individuals on this board who state their belief in a global flood, genesis creation, and the preeminence of the statements by Mormon leaders over physical evidence in making decisions regarding what to believe about the world.

Right. So, my Dad wrote what was at the time the bestselling geology textbook in history (over 1 million copies), and published a GSA memoir on the Grand Canyon (only one or two memoirs published by the GSA a year; "volumes are chosen for publication by GSA science editors for their comprehensive coverage of a topic and their lasting value to researchers worldwide."). How did his Mormon faith undermine his science?

[Bill Hamblin]

Only 2 Nobel prizes in physics have been awarded to women. What does that demonstrate? Are you going to undertake preferential rejection of women candidates in the sciences because they are women?

[PaulBoyerFan]

"In addition to the Nobel Prize data, I asked the board if anyone knew how many Mormons were members of the National Academy of Sciences. No definitive answer was given."

***

Well, in addition to Paul Boyer (I don't know if he's formally resigned membership), there's also obviously Kip Thorne. Oh wait, he mentioned in a footnote in one of his books that he had formally resigned his membership upon request of his mother, who was disgusted by the sexism of the LDS church.

[44Foxtrot]

Only 2 Nobel prizes in physics have been awarded to women. What does that demonstrate? Are you going to undertake preferential rejection of women candidates in the sciences because they are women?

If a female showed up at an interview and claimed to have spoken with space aliens that morning, she would be evaluated no differently than a male who did so.

Right. So, my Dad wrote what was at the time the bestselling geology textbook in history (over 1 million copies), and published a GSA memoir on the Grand Canyon (only one or two memoirs published by the GSA a year; "volumes are chosen for publication by GSA science editors for their comprehensive coverage of a topic and their lasting value to researchers worldwide."). How did his Mormon faith undermine his science?

Congratulation are in order to your father on his geology textbook and Grand Canyon memoir. Your father sounds like an exceptional individual.

[CA Steve]

Only 2 Nobel prizes in physics have been awarded to women. What does that demonstrate? Are you going to undertake preferential rejection of women candidates in the sciences because they are women?

It demonstrates a patriarchal society which considers their role of incubator and nurturer as the pinnacle of their existence.

[Bill Hamblin]

It demonstrates a patriarchal society which considers their role of incubator and nurturer as the pinnacle of their existence.

In other words, when there is a group against which your particular bigotry is not fixated, then you discover other social, cultural and historical factors which might contribute to a particular situation, but when dealing with Mormons, you prefer to revert to your stereotypical bigotry. Got it.

[Bill Hamblin]

If a female showed up at an interview and claimed to have spoken with space aliens that morning, she would be evaluated no differently than a male who did so.

So perhaps we should evaluate each individual on their measurable achievement and preparation for a job--education, experience, achievements--rather than reverting to bigoted stereotypes against a particular social group which you happen to dislike and denigrate?

[Bill Hamblin]

A quick survey of Nobel prize winners in Physics indicates that not a single Black is represented.

My link

Remembering that there are many, many more Blacks in the world than there are Mormons, I encourage all you anti-Mormons to consider this and act appropriately when considering Black candidates for physics-related jobs.

[CA Steve]

In other words, when the group against which your particular bigotry is not fixated, then you discover other social, cultural and historical factors which might contribute to the situation, but when dealing with Mormons, you prefer to maintain you stereotypical bigotry. Got it.

Nice response Bill,

If it make your feel beter to accuse me of bigotry more power to you. Would you mind pointing out where I referenced Mormons or religion in my response?

[rpn]

I just had to laugh at the OP. The fact that an astute first level associate will likely be able to turn up a number of witnesses (not to mention in response to a subpoena your admissions against interest on this thread) who will testify that you decided that someone's faith categorically excluded them from consideration for employment at your place of business should make it pretty easy to prove that you discriminated against people based on their religion. And the exemptions aren't as easy to prove as you think, for instance, employers have to actually TRY to accommodate people rather than stereotyping them automatically. And the persons sitting on the jury are pretty likely to be people of faith as well, easily offended at the arrogance you are expressing as fact. What the OP seems to be saying is that faith, specifically the LDS faith, is by definition some kind of mental defect.

It is a really good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

[Bill Hamblin]

If a female showed up at an interview and claimed to have spoken with space aliens that morning, she would be evaluated no differently than a male who did so.

Congratulation are in order to your father on his geology textbook and Grand Canyon memoir. Your father sounds like an exceptional individual.

An exceptional Mormon individual.

By the way, my father once told me of a near death experience that he had in the throes of cancer. I gather that this would disqualify him from consideration for a position in science in your estimate?

This "atheists are so much smarter than theists because theists believe things I think are stupid" schtick gets rather boring in its thousandth rendition.

[Bill Hamblin]

Nice response Bill,

If it make your feel beter to accuse me of bigotry more power to you. Would you mind pointing out where I referenced Mormons or religion in my response?

Well, the OP does. If you don't believe that LDS scientists are congenitally inferior to non-LDS scientists precisely because they are LDS, then please excuse me.

[44Foxtrot]

So perhaps we should evaluate each individual on their measurable achievement and preparation for a job--education, experience, achievements--rather than reverting to bigoted stereotypes against a particular social group which you happen to dislike and denigrate?

If you read my posts on both threads, I believe you will see that I (we) do just as you suggest. We evaluate each individual. If an individual shows a deficit in critical thinking skills or judgment, that individual would be ranked below those with similar qualifications that demonstrate no such deficit.

[Bill Hamblin]

If you read my posts on both threads, I believe you will see that I (we) do just as you suggest. We evaluate each individual. If an individual shows a deficit in critical thinking skills or judgment, that individual would be ranked below those with similar qualifications that demonstrate no such deficit.

And your tacit point is that anyone stupid enough to believe in God, and especially Mormonism, obviously lacks critical thinking skills and judgment when compared to an atheist, right? Bigotry, pure and simple.

By the way, it is worth noting that most bigots think they have good reasons for their bigotry. They don't see themselves as bigots, but as simply right-thinking.

[44Foxtrot]

Well, the OP does. If you don't believe that LDS scientists are congenitally inferior to non-LDS scientists precisely because they are LDS, then please excuse me.

Come on, Bill.

Nobody said anything about congenital defects. (Well, not me anyway.)

We are talking about demonstrated deficits in judgment and critical thinking skills. These deficits are clearly self-imposed. They are a product of nurture, not nature.

Why don't you review the OP and let me know where you would suggest that changes be made in the employer response to the scenario described there?

[44Foxtrot]

And your tacit point is that anyone stupid enough to believe in God, and especially Mormonism, obviously lacks critical thinking skills and judgment when compared to an atheist, right? Bigotry, pure and simple.

By the way, it is worth noting that most bigots think they have good reasons for their bigotry. They don't see themselves as bigots, but as simply right-thinking.

Again, Why don't you review the OP and let me know where you would suggest that changes be made in the employer response to the scenario described there?

[Bill Hamblin]

Come on, Bill.

Nobody said anything about congenital defects. (Well, not me anyway.)

We are talking about demonstrated deficits in judgment and critical thinking skills. These deficits are clearly self-imposed. They are a product of nurture, not nature.

Why don't you review the OP and let me know where you would suggest that changes by made in the employer response to the scenario described there?

And by congenital I don't mean genetic, but intrinsic. You believe that one cannot be believing Mormon without a "deficit in judgment and critical thinking skills," right.

[PaulBoyerFan]

I don't think that there is anything that would prevent a believer in the LDS church from becoming or being an eminent scientist per se, but in general the probability of an eminent scientist believing in LDS doctrine, such as it is, is extremely low. First, I find it highly improbable that a brilliant scientist would convert to the LDS church as an adult. I really cannot imagine this occurring. I can, on the other hand, see someone who is born and raised in the church becoming an eminent scientist. The problem in this case is that anyone who is intelligent and inquisitive enough to become a great scientist will usually figure out by the time that he or she is ten years of age that many LDS truth claims are absurd. So at the very least the developing scientist will make a distinction growing up between the objective claims of the LDS church and perhaps some social or familial tie. There are also obviously aspects of the LDS experience (e.g. seminary, missions) that the developing scientist will often find intellectually vapid and/or counterproductive in terms of devoting time to efforts that could be spent on academic pursuits.

As for hiring a believer in LDS doctrine for advanced scientist positions, in general one would be inclined to avoid hiring people who either engages in or have much tolerance for magical thinking, sloppy reasoning, ahistorical beliefs, etc. Of course, if a person is brilliant in scientific or technical matters and generally keeps their scientific views distinct from their supernatural beliefs and doesn't mind being in an environment that is generally hostile to irrational belief and opinion, then there shouldn't be a problem.

[44Foxtrot]

And by congenital I don't mean genetic, but intrinsic. You believe that one cannot be believing Mormon without a "deficit in judgment and critical thinking skills," right.

No, that is not what I am saying. Such an argument could be easily refuted by a simple example such as the one above, wherein a believing Mormon produced a bestselling geology textbook in spite of the Mormon belief in a genesis creation, a global flood and the Book of Abraham as an accurate translation of an common Egyptian funerary text.

What I am saying is that the kinds of doctrinal teachings that are drilled into Mormons from a young age put them in the unenviable position of being forced to choose between their religion and science when choosing what to believe about the world.

And simply saying to one's self that "they will learn which is true in the hereafter" shows a lack of willingness or ability to consider the relevant evidence in a dispassionate way. Such consideration is the backbone of science.

[CA Steve]

Well, the OP does. If you don't believe that LDS scientists are congenitally inferior to non-LDS scientists precisely because they are LDS, then please excuse me.

If all other qualifications are equal and I know one candidate is LDS, I would choose the LDS person. Does that make me a bigot toward non LDS people?

[Bill Hamblin]

I don't think that there is anything that would prevent a believer in the LDS church from becoming or being an eminent scientist per se, but in general the probability of an eminent scientist believing in LDS doctrine, such as it is, is extremely low. First, I find it highly improbable that a brilliant scientist would convert to the LDS church as an adult. I really cannot imagine this occurring. I can, on the other hand, see someone who is born and raised in the church becoming an eminent scientist. The problem in this case is that anyone who is intelligent and inquisitive enough to become a great scientist will usually figure out by the time that he or she is ten years of age that many LDS truth claims are absurd. So at the very least the developing scientist will make a distinction growing up between the objective claims of the LDS church and perhaps some social or familial tie. There are also obviously aspects of the LDS experience (e.g. seminary, missions) that the developing scientist will often find intellectually vapid and/or counterproductive in terms of devoting time to efforts that could be spent on academic pursuits.

As for hiring a believer in LDS doctrine for advanced scientist positions, in general one would be inclined to avoid hiring people who either engages in or have much tolerance for magical thinking, sloppy reasoning, ahistorical beliefs, etc. Of course, if a person is brilliant in scientific or technical matters and generally keeps their scientific views distinct from their supernatural beliefs and doesn't mind being in an environment that is generally hostile to irrational belief and opinion, then there shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks for proving my point. The position is that Mormonism (or theism in general) is simply too stupid for a rational, intelligent person to believe it, therefore Mormons can't be good scientists. (The fact that many intelligent, rational people actually believe in it is a bit of data that you conveniently ignore.)

Like I said, this is boring old atheist arrogance.

This "atheists are so much smarter than theists because theists believe things I think are stupid" schtick gets rather boring in its thousandth rendition.

Repeating it over and over does not render it true.

The fact of the matter is there are plenty of rational, intelligent LDS scientists who do good science. The empirical data is overwhelmingly against you. If you are an authentic critical thinker you'll simply jettison this nonsensical sloppy reasoning.