Mormon Representation in the Sciences

[USU78]

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.)

There's always a legal method of avoiding an undesirable outcome. Innocent statements can be colored any way the interviewer wants to color them . . . he keeps the notes that would be used as evidence in a discrimination lawsuit, after all . . . and thus the unscrupulous bigoted radical materialist atheist interviewer can overcome even objectively superiority of a despised Mormon/Theist applicant by blaming the non-hire on a failed interview.

The point was quite clearly made.

Thank you.

[oats]

Alright, I went back and read your comments on the other thread.

I would like to know what your personal experience is working with LDS people employed by a company as scientists. I've noted that much of your indicated bias occurs from notes about outside scientific organizations. Have you ever worked as a scientist around LDS scientists in a company setting? What is your own experience? Is there anything that you have experienced firsthand that indicates inferior work by the LDS people that work as scientists?

If your direction to avoid hiring religiously inclined individuals comes from higher-ups, can you tell where their justification comes from? Is it personal experience working as a scientist?

A few notes about the ideas that strike me. LDS scientists may be better suited to work in a company scientist role compared to a general research scientist role. Companies tend to promote a more structured lifestyle, leaving time for family and outside commitments. Working as a self directed scientist can be much more consuming, with no dictated boundaries and expectations. Is this a correct sense?

[Bill Hamblin]

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.)

I said the theist had marginally superior qualifications.

At any rate, based on your OP essentially it seems that you believe that theism is essentially a form of mental illness, or marginally delusional at best. Right?

[44Foxtrot]

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?

I think you will find that my comments on both threads have mainly to do with religionists as opposed to secularists (theists as opposed to atheists/agnostics), with Mormons being a special class of religionists.

To answer your question, we have had generally good experience with the LDS on our management staff. Neither of them work in the home office. You have to realize that there are relatively few Mormons in South Florida.

At the same time, we have had some horrific experiences with more than one born again evangelical. For example, the board has decided to buy back the most of the stock of one of these individuals and relieve him of any significant management responsibilities. His behavior has proven a liability to the company both domestically and overseas. He has been warned repeatedly. We trust that other like minded folks in the organization will get the message.

Whether or not we looked at a resume from, say BYU, for an entry level professional position would depend on the job to be filled, and the availability of qualified applicants from other universities. As I stated earlier, it is unlikely that we would look seriously at someone from BYU, or any of the myriad of religious colleges in the South, for an upper level scientific position. The people we do have on staff from BYU are ex-Mormons have gone on to do graduate work at top level research universities, often leaving the Mormon Church in the process.

If you wish to understand how I view conflict between science and the holding of unfounded beliefs, please see the scenario and questions set forth in the OP.

[44Foxtrot]

I said the theist had marginally superior qualifications.

At any rate, based on your OP essentially it seems that you believe that theism is essentially a form of mental illness, or marginally delusional at best. Right?

Yes. And I am not the only one. Many beliefs associated with theism, and especially Mormonism, are clearly delusional (by definition). I know it. And my guess is that you know it as well.

That being said, most of us labor under some delusions. I found that when I finally left the Church my burden of delusion and cognitive dissonance was reduced by about 90%.

Thanks to you and the other posters this evening for your courtesy. It is late here. I will be checking the thread again in the morning.

[thesometimesaint]

You know of all the jobs I've had inside and outside of my field in science not once has my religion ever came up.

[Bill Hamblin]

You know of all the jobs I've had inside and outside of my field in science not once has my religion ever came up.

That's because it's only an issue for religious bigots. Likewise, most of the time race or gender or political persuasion is not an issue.

[Bruce Schaalje]

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.

Actually Foxtrot, you did say otherwise on the other thread:

It is in the best interest of science-driven enterprises to look very carefully at religionists as potential employees. If I can ascertain from a job interview (without direct questioning on the subject) that the candidate has a strong religious belief or affiliation, that individual would have to have demonstrated a truly exceptional skill or talent in an area of critical need to the Company to actually get a job offer.

But this is quibbling. The main question of this thread is (I think) whether Mormon scientists are disproportionately under-represented in the sciences or, in some sense, on worse scientists on average than atheists. These comments about your hiring practices are irrelevant to that discussion.

I have one question first, Foxtrot. What are the references for the articles alluded to below? I

[Jeff K.]

Discrimination is indeed an act of bigotry. To discriminate against someone who is LDS but whose qualifications are equal to or superior to others in both work history and background is itself bigotry. To believe that someone who is a theist is not sufficiently rational for science is indeed bigotry especially given the many great advancements in the sciences were often done by religious people.

To use the Nobel Prize committee as some sort of side door justification is also fallacious. Statistically it makes no sense and flies in the face or real science, and yet the presumed scientist foxtrot has attempted to use an unscientific method to prove discrimination against Mormons or those of any religous background. He would have been loads of fun during the eugenics age at the beginning of the last century. They too were illogical in their defense of the indefensible discrimination of peoples. Nor has our foxtrot brought forth one scientific study that shows scientists who have a theist belief system are less effective as scientists than those who do not.

Bigotry, poor scientific method, and discrimination at the workplace. Amazing how they always seem to go hand in hand.

[Bill Hamblin]

Yes. And I am not the only one. Many beliefs associated with theism, and especially Mormonism, are clearly delusional (by definition). I know it. And my guess is that you know it as well.

That being said, most of us labor under some delusions. I found that when I finally left the Church my burden of delusion and cognitive dissonance was reduced by about 90%.

Thanks to you and the other posters this evening for your courtesy. It is late here. I will be checking the thread again in the morning.

What I find most astonishing is that you have the slightest inclination to try to discuss these things with people whom you believe to be obviously delusional. I certainly don't.

And I have absolutely no inclination to discuss things with people who think I'm delusional either. I guess I'm just funny that way.

[thesometimesaint]

Bill Hamblin:

Sometimes their arrogance takes my breath away, and I don't shock easily.

[Bruce Schaalje]

I came late to this discussion. But for the record this statement is absurd.

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.

It took me about 1 minute to think of a very eminent scientist who converted to the LDS church as an adult. I am not at liberty to give his name here, but he is surely on the way to achieving great eminence in genetics.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What seems odd to me is Foxtrot's obviously unscientific approach to the correlation of LDS belief and scientific research. Of course, the alternative approaches he might make use of on this matter might not appeal to him anyway (I'm thinking of the social sciences specifically). Oh well. Either way, it is sort of funny to realize that he's electing to spend his time talking to people over the internet whom he's never met, and whom he believes are delusional. Makes it hard for me to understand why he'd spend time that way. Seems there are a lot more productive things he could be doing with his time.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill Hamblin:

Sometimes their arrogance takes my breath away, and I don't shock easily.

It is astonishing.

And the funny thing is, it is quite possible that those scientists who are theists and are able to reconcile science and theism are actually substantially smarter than those who can't. After all, it's really not that hard to do. It is one thing to be unable to figure out how to reconcile science and theism yourself, but quite another to think that those who can figure it out are delusional idiots, and somehow much more stupid than those who can't figure it out.

[Bill Hamblin]

Seems there are a lot more productive things he could be doing with his time.

And more productive things I could do with mine. So I'm done.

[Bruce Schaalje]

.. .

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.

. . .

For the record, I assume that by

[Bruce Schaalje]

. . .

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.

. . .

I earlier asked for references to your claimed papers 'by faithful Mormons concerning the problems Mormon scientists have in overcoming Mormon-centered education and culture in their professional lives'. I would also like to ask for references to your claim above regarding evidence from the literature that 'anti-science and anti-intellectualism is rampant in Mormon religion'. Professional literature would be best, but specific conference talks might be useful. We would have to establish that conference talks are understood the way that you might construe them, and that Mormon scientists alter their work accordingly. Anonymous comments on this or other blogs obviously are useless. If you can produce these references, we might then be able to talk about something concrete.

So far, you have slanted the discussion toward your hiring practices. Hiring practices provide no evidence (other than your own prejudices) for your claim that Mormonism makes scientists worse (it only serves to make people here think of you as bigoted and arrogant - perhaps that was your unconscious goal). Calling people delusional doesn't help the discussion. (Although, many innovative scientists in history, even recent, have been labelled delusional. So maybe it's a neutral thing.)

The Nobel data and the NAS data provide no evidence for your claim. You didn't dispute points raised in the other thread about irrelevance of the Nobel prize data to your claim. Similar arguments apply to the NAS data (There may be many reasons other than atheism/deism that scientists are/aren't elected as NAS members. I can also provide references for the fact that NAS membership cannot be applied for. Only members of NAS can nominate new members. One now-deceased nominee noted that most votes are simply 'token' votes since most members have expertise in only a narrow field of study. The election process - see here - doesn't appear to make any effort to ensure that all eminent and deserving scientists receive NAS membership.)

The question still is: given two people (one a beleiving Mormon and one an atheist) educated at the same or similar institutions, with equal economic backing, with the same level of marital/non-marital stability, with the same emotional maturity, with the same IQ, etc, will the beleiving Mormon on average do worse science than the atheist? If you have evidence directly related to that claim, let's discuss that.

Perhaps the references (and they better be good, not just someone's prejudiced opinion on some blog) will be of some help. Otherwise, I don't think you've got anything.

[44Foxtrot]

That's because it's only an issue for religious bigots. Likewise, most of the time race or gender or political persuasion is not an issue.

Bill,

Definitions of delusion include:

[Ceeboo]

What an eye opening, bizarre, arrogant and telling thread!

Wow!

Perhaps this entire thread should be posted in every Burger King bathroom on the planet.

I find myself finding little else to type.

BTW: Merry CHRISTmas to all (My delusional friends certainly included )

Peace,

Ceeboo

[LifeOnaPlate]

Bill,

Definitions of delusion include:

[44Foxtrot]

I earlier asked for references to your claimed papers 'by faithful Mormons concerning the problems Mormon scientists have in overcoming Mormon-centered education and culture in their professional lives'. I would also like to ask for references to your claim above regarding evidence from the literature that 'anti-science and anti-intellectualism is rampant in Mormon religion'. Professional literature would be best, but specific conference talks might be useful. We would have to establish that conference talks are understood the way that you might construe them, and that Mormon scientists alter their work accordingly. Anonymous comments on this or other blogs obviously are useless. If you can produce these references, we might then be able to talk about something concrete.

So far, you have slanted the discussion toward your hiring practices. Hiring practices provide no evidence (other than your own prejudices) for your claim that Mormonism makes scientists worse (it only serves to make people here think of you as bigoted and arrogant - perhaps that was your unconscious goal). Calling people delusional doesn't help the discussion. (Although, many innovative scientists in history, even recent, have been labelled delusional. So maybe it's a neutral thing.)

The Nobel data and the NAS data provide no evidence for your claim. You didn't dispute points raised in the other thread about irrelevance of the Nobel prize data to your claim. Similar arguments apply to the NAS data (There may be many reasons other than atheism/deism that scientists are/aren't elected as NAS members. I can also provide references for the fact that NAS membership cannot be applied for. Only members of NAS can nominate new members. One now-deceased nominee noted that most votes are simply 'token' votes since most members have expertise in only a narrow field of study. The election process - see here - doesn't appear to make any effort to ensure that all eminent and deserving scientists receive NAS membership.)

The question still is: given two people (one a beleiving Mormon and one an atheist) educated at the same or similar institutions, with equal economic backing, with the same level of marital/non-marital stability, with the same emotional maturity, with the same IQ, etc, will the beleiving Mormon on average do worse science than the atheist? If you have evidence directly related to that claim, let's discuss that.

Perhaps the references (and they better be good, not just someone's prejudiced opinion on some blog) will be of some help. Otherwise, I don't think you've got anything.

Here are a few references:

Concern regarding Mormon culture in the careers of scientists with specific reference to the Nobel Prize:

"What is the Challenge for LDS Scholars and Artists?" by J.M Rector and K.N. Rector in Dialog 6/1/2003 pg 34

Anti-intellectualism in the Mormon Church:

"The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect", Elder Boyd K. Packer A talk given at the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators' Symposium, 22 August, 1981, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Mormonism and Science:

The Mormon Retreat from Science in The Search for Harmony, Essays in Science and Mormonism.

and from the same collection of essays:

Science and Mormonism

And as an example of what Oberg and Sessions were talking about in this latest article: The Kolob Theorem: A Mormon's View of God's Starry Universe by Lynn M. Hilton available from Deseret Books. This latter piece of work, actively promoted by Deseret Book (the official bookstore of Mormon culture) is one of my favorite pieces of the kind of pseudoscience that arises from Mormon culture.

As to your position that the Nobel Prize and NAS data provide no indication of quality in science; this appears to be your newly acquired opinion. It would certainly not be supported by most scientific institutions or universities, who will pay a real premium to have members on staff. As an indication of the quality of their science, just check out what it would cost you to hire one to come and work for you.

________

I note that nobody on this thread yet has been able to show that the response of the employer in the example provided in the OP would be anything other than rational and prudent.

[44Foxtrot]

What seems odd to me is Foxtrot's obviously unscientific approach to the correlation of LDS belief and scientific research. Of course, the alternative approaches he might make use of on this matter might not appeal to him anyway (I'm thinking of the social sciences specifically). Oh well. Either way, it is sort of funny to realize that he's electing to spend his time talking to people over the internet whom he's never met, and whom he believes are delusional. Makes it hard for me to understand why he'd spend time that way. Seems there are a lot more productive things he could be doing with his time.

LOAP,

If you read the post. you will see that I would guess that everyone probably has some beliefs that are delusional. Some have a lot more than others. Once the evidence shows that our beliefs are delusional, we should be capable of changing them.

You are right about spending too much time. While correlation alone does not demonstrate causation, there are a lot of other factors in the mix here that make a pretty strong case for a cause and effect relationship. You are incorrect in your claim that hypothesis generation on the basis of multiple and consistent correlations along with a mechanism for the observed effect is unscientific. We are talking here about evidence - not proof - yet.

[USU78]

While correlation alone does not demonstrate causation, there are a lot of other factors in the mix here that make a pretty strong case for a cause and effect relationship. You are incorrect in your claim that hypothesis generation on the basis of multiple and consistent correlations along with a mechanism for the observed effect is unscientific.

Translation: I've now met 3 stingy Scotsmen. That's enough for my hypothesis that all Scotsmen are stingy and are, therefore, not to be trusted.

[44Foxtrot]

Translation: I've now met 3 stingy Scotsmen. That's enough for my hypothesis that all Scotsmen are stingy and are, therefore, not to be trusted.

Better translation: I was born and raised a Mormon and know full well the cultural and doctrinal pressures and influences in the Church that can stifle science. I am now in charge of a company that is engaged in science and engineering. This company has had some very negative experiences with religionists (not LDS), some of whom came on board in a merger (read: I did not hire them).

Given what I know firsthand about the pitfalls of friction created by unfounded belief in the practice of science, I look very closely at job history and educational background (legal and allowed) and interview outcomes (legal and allowed) to determine if the candidate is likely to have deficits in critical thinking or judgment skills that I find are often associated with unfounded belief.

If you don't feel that religious belief is associated with anti-intellectual and anti-science worldviews you need look no further than any thread having to do with evolution, global flood, genesis creation, tower of Babel, Book of Abraham or any number of other topics on the MADB. As a control, have a look at how such topics are treated on the ex-Mormon boards.

As to your Scotsmen example, my real objective might be to determine if the individual intended on wearing a kilt to work.

[Log]

If I recall correctly, there was a thread in which FT mentioned he had done something at work resulting in the firing or harassing of an LDS worker in his company, which, upon reading, struck me as something legally actionable. I wish I knew where that post was.

If FT is sincere in his desire to know if the hiring manager in the OP is behaving rationally and prudently, which is a legal question, here is the test: reveal your real world identity and let the chips fall where they may in court.