Mormon Representation in the Sciences

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

Do you have any actual evidence for this, or is it a faith-based assertion?

Of course there are many Mormons who are not critical thinkers, as there are in all social groups, including atheists. (Indeed, there are atheists on this board who are unable to engage in critical thinking on certain issues.)

Lack of critical thinking is the norm among humans. Indeed, to accuse humans of being rational at all is dubious. Humans are not rational. Humans can, on the other hand, be trained to think rationally. For the most part, however, we continue to behave irrationally in all sorts of ways. This is as true for scientists as it is for non-scientists. Scientists and people with PhDs screw-up their lives through irrational behavior just as much as any other social group, if not more due to their frequent intellectual hubris.

On the other hand, there are plenty of Mormons who exhibit critical thinking skills. The evidence also shows Mormons can do science just as well as anyone else.

There are far more people who have left the church because they are indifferent, bored, or don't want to live the LDS life-style than because they are suddenly faced with overwhelming scientific evidence that God can't exist.

Now I'm not a scientist, but I can't think of anything modern science has demonstrated that I don't believe. Yet somehow I manage to believe in God. And, note, I'm in the vast majority in the world, not atheists.

Now there is a problem between fundamentalist Mormonism and fundamentalist atheistic scientism, but that is a different question.

[Bill Hamblin]

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?

Well, that's nice, but it doesn't answer my question.

[Bill Hamblin]

I have still to hear a cogent response to the issue that if failure of Mormons to be represented in the Nobel science awards is evidence that Mormons can't do good science, then why is the dearth of women or blacks in the Nobel science awards not evidence that women and blacks can't do good science. If there are extenuating social, cultural and historical factors that help explain the lack of women and blacks, why not consider that there might be extenuating social, cultural and historical factors that might influence the lack of Mormons among Nobel science laureates?

[Jeff K.]

I have never considered the Nobel Prize to be anything beyond a limited group funded by company that responds to its own stimuli for judgement. And more than a few Nobel Committee members in the past have been sexists, bigots, and narrow minded or driven by politics. The Chairman for instance was a member of the socialist international and has been politically dirven left winger most of his life. So if the choices driven by the chairman are politicial and only one a year is given out, does that really have any meaning beyond water cooler gossip?

No, the Nobel Committee is irrelevant to science. Science is to big for it. Being irrelevant means the Nobel Committee should not be used to measure objectively the representation of science in other groups, or the efficacy of those scientists from different political groups. If you think one scientist a year is a proper sampling, you need to take a statistics class.

[Bill Hamblin]

The Nobel prizes have been awarded 829 times. Of these, 28 were Swedes. In other words, Swedes have won 3.4% of the Nobel prizes, despite the fact that Sweden today has only 9 million people, or about 1/10th of 1% of the world's 6.9 billion people. This demonstrates, I suppose, that Swedes are much, much smarter than anyone else in the world? Or could there possibly be other social, cultural and historical factors at work?

[Gohan]

The Nobel Prize is not without plenty of problems itself.

It's the opinion of some that Henry Eyring was denied the Nobel prize for his work in chemistry because of religious bias, which is one of the controversies cited in link.

[CA Steve]

Well, that's nice, but it doesn't answer my question.

You did not ask me a question and dodged mine.

[Garden Girl]

Funny, I was just reading "Reflections of a Scientist" by Henry Eyring... so I got it out and turned to the Foreword where it states that:

Henry Eyring was a member of the National Academy of Sciences...

He won some eighteen prizes, including the National Medal of Science, The Priestly Medal, the Berzelius Medal in Gold awarded by the Swedish Academy, and Israel's Wolf Prize in 1980...

He was president of the two top scientific assocations in his field: the American Chemical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science...

He published more than six hundred papers and half a dozen books...

He was Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at the Univ of Utah...

He served as a professor of Chemistry at Princeton University...

I like this passage from his book: "Some have asked me, Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men. Through the eternities, we are going to get closer and closer to understanding the mind of God; then the conflicts will disappear.

I'm happy to represent a people who, throughout their history, have encouraged learning and scholarship in all fields of honorable endeavor, a people who have among their scriptural teachings such lofty concepts as these: The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth (D&C 93:36)... It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance (D&C 131:6)... Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection (D&C 130)"

This book is a gem of insights into his personal faith and how comfortable he was with the doctrines of the Church in relationship to the sciences...

from the beach... GG

[44Foxtrot]

I have still to hear a cogent response to the issue that if failure of Mormons to be represented in the Nobel science awards is evidence that Mormons can't do good science, then why is the dearth of women or blacks in the Nobel science awards not evidence that women and blacks can't do good science. If there are extenuating social, cultural and historical factors that help explain the lack of women and blacks, why not consider that there might be extenuating social, cultural and historical factors that might influence the lack of Mormons among Nobel science laureates?

There certainly could be extenuating circumstances. In fact there probably are. And many, if not most, of these are doubtless self-imposed in the case of Mormons. They arise from, and are the results of, life choices. Unlike sex or race, these disadvantages you postulate are not the result of genetics. Perhaps the same could be said regarding the dearth of religionists among members of the National Academy of Sciences, as well. What is your point?

Let me ask you this question. If you were a a hiring manager representing a science based technology company and you had to make a choice between the following candidates.

Candidate A had graduated with honors from a university that had a long tradition as a research university with more than 30 members of the National Academy on staff

Candidate B was an honors graduate from a religious university that had no NAS members on staff. Which candidate would you choose?

Please assume that the information about the university each had attended and grades each had received had been submitted with their respective resumes.

[44Foxtrot]

Funny, I was just reading "Reflections of a Scientist" by Henry Eyring... so I got it out and turned to the Foreword where it states that:

Henry Eyring was a member of the National Academy of Sciences...

He won some eighteen prizes, including the National Medal of Science, The Priestly Medal, the Berzelius Medal in Gold awarded by the Swedish Academy, and Israel's Wolf Prize in 1980...

He was president of the two top scientific assocations in his field: the American Chemical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science...

He published more than six hundred papers and half a dozen books...

He was Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at the Univ of Utah...

He served as a professor of Chemistry at Princeton University...

I like this passage from his book: "Some have asked me, Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men. Through the eternities, we are going to get closer and closer to understanding the mind of God; then the conflicts will disappear.

I'm happy to represent a people who, throughout their history, have encouraged learning and scholarship in all fields of honorable endeavor, a people who have among their scriptural teachings such lofty concepts as these: The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth (D&C 93:36)... It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance (D&C 131:6)... Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection (D&C 130)"

This book is a gem of insights into his personal faith and how comfortable he was with the doctrines of the Church in relationship to the sciences...

from the beach... GG

As I stated in the previous thread, I have a copy of the Eyring biography as well, and I do not wish to take anything away from the notable accomplishments of Henry Eyring.

However, quoting the D&C to support a pro-religion position in a discussion about science and religion just serves to underscore my point.

[Gohan]

As I stated in the previous thread, I have a copy of the Eyring biography as well, and I do not wish to take anything away from the notable accomplishments of Henry Eyring.

However, quoting the D&C to support a pro-religion position in a discussion about science and religion just serves to underscore my point.

Whenever you see someone say a phrase like 'however' or 'I don't mean to tell you what to think but', you know they're about to contradict themselves.

So those scriptures that encourage the pursuit of an education and striving to increase your intelligence prove your point about how we don't think logically enough for you?

I don't know what your point was, but I think your statement just invalidated it.

[Jeff K.]

And what authority was quoted by the atheist?

[44Foxtrot]

Whenever you see someone say a phrase like 'however' or 'I don't mean to tell you what to think but', you know they're about to contradict themselves.

So those scriptures that encourage the pursuit of an education and striving to increase your intelligence prove your point about how we don't think logically enough for you?

I don't know what your point was, but I think your statement just invalidated it.

Imagine for a moment that you are a candidate in an interview for a position as a scientist. Would you think it was a good idea to cite passages from the D&C as a part of your narrative regarding your education and background?

If you decided to quote scripture, do you think that doing so would help your chances of getting the job?

I trust that you now can see my point.

[bu11fr0g]

There certainly could be extenuating circumstances. In fact there probably are. And many, if not most of these are doubtless self-imposed in the case of Mormons. They arise from, and are the results of, life choices. Unlike sex or race, these disadvantages you postulate are not the result of genetics. Perhaps the same could be said regarding the dearth of religionists among members of the National Academy of Sciences, as well. What is your point?

Let me ask you this question. If you were a a hiring manager representing a science based technology company and you had to make a choice between the following candidates.

Candidate A had graduated with honors from a university that had a long tradition as a research university with more than 30 members of the National Academy on staff

Candidate B was an honors graduate from a religious university that had no NAS members on staff. Which candidate would you choose?

Please assume that the information about the university each had attended and grades each had received had been submitted with their respective resumes.

I personally hire scientists, and the answer would entirely depend on what is wanted.

Of people that truly meet the requirements for the position, the one with the best personality mesh with the organization would usually win out.

For your company, it seems like someone from a religious college would likely not have the best personality mesh -- but that is more a reflection of your company than anything else.

My own personal experience has been that Muslims have more trouble, devout Mormons and Catholics and Methodists have done fine whether they graduated from Notre Dame/BYU/SMU or not. I would say the problems that Muslims have had are more likely related to coming from a foreign country than anything with the religion itself. I have had more consistently good work habits from the religious than irreligious -- I think that religion helps one tolerate the up's and down's that always come with any research endeavor. I have had to call one person out on religious problems in the lab (but that was a Hindu and again cultural than true religion but there was a weird expectation of being better than another worker who was in a lower caste).

My own personal take and experience with religious people (Francis Collins was a personal mentor) is that there is no conflict and that it adds an extra dimension.

Mormonism I think does have a small conflict with winning a Nobel prize. Most (but importantly not all) of the winning scientists have very unbalanced lives. Mormonism does not lend itself well to total devotion to the laboratory or to anything else for that matter.

[44Foxtrot]

I personally hire scientists, and the answer would entirely depend on what is wanted.

Of people that truly meet the requirements for the position, the one with the best personality mesh with the organization would usually win out.

For your company, it seems like someone from a religious college would likely not have the best personality mesh -- but that is more a reflection of your company than anything else.

I guess we agree on most of this. As I stated on the other thread, we do have religionists in the company. One of our recently hired and quite productive scientists is LDS. This individual interviewed very well, had graduated from a major research university, and had the exact skill set we needed at the time. Had his Ph.D. been from BYU, it is unlikely that his resume would have even made it to my desk.

My own personal experience has been that Muslims have more trouble, devout Mormons and Catholics and Methodists have done fine whether they graduated from Notre Dame/BYU/SMU or not. I would say the problems that Muslims have had are more likely related to coming from a foreign country than anything with the religion itself. I have had more consistently good work habits from the religious than irreligious -- I think that religion helps one tolerate the up's and down's that always come with any research endeavor. I have had to call one person out on religious problems in the lab (but that was a Hindu and again cultural than true religion but there was a weird expectation of being better than another worker who was in a lower caste).

As one who has done a lot of hiring in both Saudi Arabia (all the technical staff for a major research laboratory) and the UAE, I can tell you that in these countries, secular scientists definitely get preference over religious scientists. Out of a staff of some 20 senior professionals, we ended up with only one overtly observant Muslim.

And this is just how the Saudi management wanted it.

My own personal take and experience with religious people (Francis Collins was a personal mentor) is that there is no conflict and that it adds an extra dimension.

Mormonism I think does have a small conflict with winning a Nobel prize. Most (but importantly not all) of the winning scientists have very unbalanced lives. Mormonism does not lend itself well to total devotion to the laboratory or to anything else for that matter.

I agree that this is part of the reason for the paucity of Mormons in the upper echelons of science.

[Bill Hamblin]

Let me ask you this question. If you were a a hiring manager representing a science based technology company and you had to make a choice between the following candidates.

Candidate A had graduated with honors from a university that had a long tradition as a research university with more than 30 members of the National Academy on staff

Candidate B was an honors graduate from a religious university that had no NAS members on staff. Which candidate would you choose?

Please assume that the information about the university each had attended and grades each had received had been submitted with their respective resumes.

Speaking of weak critical thinking skills, this is a preposterous and meaningless way to frame the question.

If your point is that there are universities with better science programs than at BYU, I simply reply, so? BYU is an undergraduate institute, not a research institute. It cannot possibly compete with science programs with PhD graduate programs, full-time research staff, professors who rarely teach, and a cadre of graduate students to do their experiments, teaching etc. So, the answer is, you hire the best candidate you can find. How could this possibly help us determine if atheists make better scientists than theists, or if Mormons are incapable of critical thinking or doing science?

The way to meaningfully frame the question is as follows:

Two candidates both attend a science research university with 30 NAS professors, etc. A is a theist, B is an atheist. Both have essentially the same qualifications, but the theist is a percentage point or two above the atheist in GPA, and has published one paper more. Would you still pick the atheist over the theist. I'd pick the theist because he is slightly superior in objective criteria. Would you do the same?

[Gohan]

Imagine for a moment that you are a candidate in an interview for a position as a scientist. Would you think it was a good idea to cite passages from the D&C as a part of your narrative regarding your education and background?

If you decided to quote scripture, do you think that doing so would help your chances of getting the job?

I trust that you now can see my point.

I can see where you're going, but I can't see where you came from. We're talking about something that Brother Eyring said in a book, about how his religion caused him to become involved in the field of science. Its irrelevant to your scenario.

But unless I was specifically asked about my religion, no, I probably wouldn't be pulling out the scriptures in a job interview. I think that's common sense for me, and would've been for Brother Eyring as well.

[44Foxtrot]

Speaking of weak critical thinking skills, this is a preposterous and meaningless way to frame the question.

If your point is that there are universities with better science programs than at BYU, I simply reply, so? BYU is an undergraduate institute, not a research institute. It cannot possibly compete with science programs with PhD graduate programs, full-time research staff, professors who rarely teach, and a cadre of graduate students to do their experiments, teaching etc. So, the answer is, you hire the best candidate you can find. How could this possibly help us determine if atheists make better scientists than theists, or if Mormons are incapable of critical thinking or doing science?

The way to meaningfully frame the question is as follows:

Two candidates both attend a science research university with 30 NAS professors, etc. A is a theist, B is an atheist. Both have essentially the same qualifications, but the theist is a percentage point or two above the atheist in GPA, and has published one paper more. Would you still pick the atheist over the theist. I'd pick the theist because he is slightly superior in objective criteria. Would you do the same?

Yes. Assuming that there was no significant difference in the way in which these candidates presented themselves in interviews, of course I would select the candidate that had a verifiable advantage according to objective criteria. And I have not said otherwise on either thread.

[USU78]

Assuming that there was no significant difference in the way in which these candidates presented themselves in interviews

Which, of course, gives the bigotted, radical materialist atheist interviewer the opportunity to deep-six the theist applicant: he'd no doubt "out" himself during the interview process as an uncritical-thinking-superstitious-theist, which "outing" would, no doubt, outweigh whatever other objective advantages he enjoyed.

[44Foxtrot]

Which, of course, gives the bigotted, radical materialist atheist interviewer the opportunity to deep-six the theist applicant: he'd no doubt "out" himself during the interview process as an uncritical-thinking-superstitious-theist, which "outing" would, no doubt, outweigh whatever other objective advantages he enjoyed.

USU78, Please.

I answered Bro. Hamblin's question frankly and honestly. Your assumption that the theist would "out himself" during the interview is not even an issue in this scenario. The problem as presented by Bill includes the condition that one of candidates is a atheist and one is an theist. If the interviewer were not aware of this, Bro. Hamblin's question would make no sense, would it?

But thanks a lot for starting up again with the ad hominem attacks, and knee jerk responses to statements that nobody made.

[Bill Hamblin]

Yes. Assuming that there was no significant difference in the way in which these candidates presented themselves in interviews, of course I would select the candidate that had a verifiable advantage according to objective criteria. And I have not said otherwise on either thread.

From what I can tell you have repeatedly claimed that you think that to be a Mormon (and a theist in general) requires a fundamental rejection of rationality, and that all things being equal, they would not make as good a scientist as an atheist. Have I misunderstood? Or are you retracting this nonsensical claim.

[44Foxtrot]

From what I can tell you have repeatedly claimed that you think that to be a Mormon (and a theist in general) requires a fundamental rejection of rationality, and that all things being equal, they would not make as good a scientist as an atheist. Have I misunderstood? Or are you retracting this nonsensical claim.

You have not misunderstood. However, in your latest scenario, "all things" were not equal. In your scenario, the theist had objectively superior qualifications, assuming, as you stated, that both attended the same school, at which the theist earned higher grades and published one more paper than did the atheist.

If you don't mind, please read the OP for this thread again. It would help if you were willing to answer the questions posed in that scenario as I have answered the questions posed in your scenarios.

Thanks.

[oats]

So you work with a group where LDS people are over-represented, you have said nothing but good about the work quality from your LDS colleagues, and yet your talk about theists in this thread gives the complete impression that you would disadvantage someone because of their affiliation to the LDS church.

Have you ever outed these opinions to individuals in your workplace?

I'm guessing that if you throw away resumes of those who attended religiously affiliated universities then you likely won't get people with no sense who will quote scriptures and the creation story during an interview. Do you, despite your screening, continue to interview individuals who are so aloof that they quote debatable scriptures of questionable theological value?

[USU78]

I answered Bro. Hamblin's question frankly and honestly. Your assumption that the theist would "out himself" during the interview is not even an issue in this scenario. The problem as presented by Bill includes the condition that one of candidates is a atheist and one is an theist. If the interviewer were not aware of this, Bro. Hamblin's question would make no sense, would it?

But thanks a lot for starting up again with the ad hominem attacks, and knee jerk responses to statements that nobody made.

Except for this one:

Assuming that there was no significant difference in the way in which these candidates presented themselves in interviews

USU "Has worked more than one political campaign and is not unfamiliar with how such things work" 78

[44Foxtrot]

Except for this one:

USU "Has worked more than one political campaign and is not unfamiliar with how such things work" 78

As I understood Bill's question, he was asking if I would select a theist over an atheist if the theist had objectively superior qualifications. I responded that I would, so long as the interview outcomes were considered. In Bill's scenario, the interviewer was already aware of which candidate was a theist and which was not.

Would you hire a candidate without considering the outcome of the job interview?

Of course not. (I hope.)