Mormon Representation in the Sciences

[44Foxtrot]

Please give an example of a demonstrably false religious truth claim including the proof that it is false. Please avoid anything like "God said it isn't true" in your proof.

Yours under the unconvinced oaks,

Nathair /|\

Here are two examples of testable claims from LDS Scripture that have been proven false:

D&C 77:6 states that the Earth's total temporal existence is 7,000 years.

This is demonstrably false as shown by geology, astronomy, biology, and physics (and other disciplines as well). We know that the Earth was formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago. Each of the scientific disciplines above have provided physical evidence that helps establish this age for the Earth. None of this evidence can be interpreted in such a way as to support a 7,000 year old Earth.

In the Book of Abraham, Facsimile Number 2, Explanation for Figure 5, it is stated that the Sun "borrows it's light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars.. and receives light from the revolutions of Kolob."

This is not only false, it is silly on the face of it. Astronomers and astrophysicists have worked out a very thorough mass and energy balance for the sun and the processes that drive it. Energy from the sun is generated by conversion of the sun's mass under conditions of high temperature and pressure, and strong radiation and electromagnetic fields. There is no missing, or mystery, external source of energy involved in generating the photonic radiation and particles emitted by the sun.

Since these examples are not from the Bible, apologists cannot claim that they might be mistranslations. Since they are not from the prophets of the Church it cannot be claimed that the prophet was only " speaking as a man".

[Jason]

Here are two examples of testable claims from LDS Scripture that have been proven false:

D&C 77:6 states that the Earth's total temporal existence is 7,000 years.

What is meant by "temporal existence"? Is it meant to be the time the Earth has existed, or the time since Adam's Fall, or what?

In the Book of Abraham, Facsimile Number 2, Explanation for Figure 5, it is stated that the Sun "borrows it's light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars.. and receives light from the revolutions of Kolob."

What is meant by "borrows it's light"? Does it mean that the materials of the sun originally came from Kolob through Kae-e-vanrash, or is it meant in a spiritual sense, or what?

You would have to know exactly what is meant by these two scriptures before you could prove them "demonstratably false". You seem to be simply making unfounded assumptions as to what they do mean and then knocking down strawmen.

[Jason]

As a partial aside, it's not "demonstrably true" that the Earth is 4.5 billions years old either. No historical event is what I would call "demonstratably true" for the simple fact that historical events can't be repeated.

You can put together a hypothesis that fits the known facts and say "this is our best guess of how it happened", but your hypothesis doesn't prove that it is how the event happened.

Modern science's consensus and best guess is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but there is no way to prove it either way - it's simply what most scientists agree is the best explanation that fits what they think they know.

[Log]

And, until the concept of specified complexity is refuted - not simply controverted - the assertion of the facticity of evolution is a non-starter.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am not sure what you mean. I was speaking of the religious claim/belief shared by some 40% of this country, not a specific scripture.

I was referring to the Genesis depiction of Adam and Eve, Jaybear. But this is somewhat off-topic from the original intent of the thread, which is to argue that LDS folks are delusional and that they can't generally hang with scientists, etc. Rather than recognizing how the criticism applies to your own religious belief it seemed to me you were trying to pile on with a few under-the-table jabs at Mormonism. Revisiting your comment I am not sure now if that is what you were doing, so I'm happy just letting it go at this point.

[44Foxtrot]

And, until the concept of specified complexity is refuted - not simply controverted - the assertion of the facticity of evolution is a non-starter.

Log,

It pains me to write this. It really does. But your written statement above puts you squarely with the anti-science, anti-intellectual crowd when it comes to judgment, evaluation of physical evidence, and overall scientific understanding.

I am very disappointed. With a screen name like Log, and the avatar you have, I took you for someone who would know better.

[44Foxtrot]

As a partial aside, it's not "demonstrably true" that the Earth is 4.5 billions years old either. No historical event is what I would call "demonstratably true" for the simple fact that historical events can't be repeated.

You can put together a hypothesis that fits the known facts and say "this is our best guess of how it happened", but your hypothesis doesn't prove that it is how the event happened.

Modern science's consensus and best guess is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but there is no way to prove it either way - it's simply what most scientists agree is the best explanation that fits what they think they know.

First of all, my only claim was that the statement that the Earth was 7,000 years old was false. It does not matter if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or 4.8 billion years old. The point is that It is not 7,000 years old, or anything close to it.

[44Foxtrot]

What is meant by "temporal existence"? Is it meant to be the time the Earth has existed, or the time since Adam's Fall, or what?

What is meant by "borrows it's light"? Does it mean that the materials of the sun originally came from Kolob through Kae-e-vanrash, or is it meant in a spiritual sense, or what?

You would have to know exactly what is meant by these two scriptures before you could prove them "demonstratably false". You seem to be simply making unfounded assumptions as to what they do mean and then knocking down strawmen.

Jason,

Both scriptures quoted made simple declarative statements of fact that happen to be falsifiable statements. Either the age of the Earth is very close to 7,000 years, or it is not. Fact is: it is not.

Either the sun gets its light from Kolob, or it does not. Fact is; it does not.

I am especially surprised that you would defend for one second the Kolob nonsense, given that it arises from a proven false "translation" of an Egyptian funerary text, the facsimile of which is provided in the Book of Abraham for all to see.

[Jason]

Both scriptures quoted made simple declarative statements of fact that happen to be falsifiable statements.

Maybe. Maybe not. It seems to hinge on what exactly is meant by these scriptures, and I don't find them "simple" at all. You have assumed a meaning that best fits your agenda of disproving them, but that is not necessarily the meaning that was intended by the author.

I am especially surprised that you would defend for one second the Kolob nonsense, given that it arises from a proven false "translation" of an Egyptian funerary text, the facsimile of which is provided in the Book of Abraham for all to see.

The funny thing about translations is that they involve interpreting symbols, not observing objective (or demonstrable) facts.

How can one prove that an ancient hebrew copiest creating a new copy of the Book of Abraham didn't borrow originally Egyptian symbols and give them his own meanings in context with the record he was reproducing?

[Jason]

First of all, my only claim was that the statement that the Earth was 7,000 years old was false. It does not matter if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or 4.8 billion years old. The point is that It is not 7,000 years old, or anything close to it.

I don't see how it can be proven that the Earth is not 7,000 years old without inventing a time machine. You can say "given what we know about natural geological processes and have observed in examinations of its structure we believe that the Earth is much older than 7,000 years", but that isn't really proof. It certainly isn't "demonstrably true".

[Nathair/|\]

Here are two examples of testable claims from LDS Scripture that have been proven false:

D&C 77:6 states that the Earth's total temporal existence is 7,000 years.

This is demonstrably false as shown by geology, astronomy, biology, and physics (and other disciplines as well). We know that the Earth was formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago. Each of the scientific disciplines above have provided physical evidence that helps establish this age for the Earth. None of this evidence can be interpreted in such a way as to support a 7,000 year old Earth.

In the Book of Abraham, Facsimile Number 2, Explanation for Figure 5, it is stated that the Sun "borrows it's light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars.. and receives light from the revolutions of Kolob."

This is not only false, it is silly on the face of it. Astronomers and astrophysicists have worked out a very thorough mass and energy balance for the sun and the processes that drive it. Energy from the sun is generated by conversion of the sun's mass under conditions of high temperature and pressure, and strong radiation and electromagnetic fields. There is no missing, or mystery, external source of energy involved in generating the photonic radiation and particles emitted by the sun.

Since these examples are not from the Bible, apologists cannot claim that they might be mistranslations. Since they are not from the prophets of the Church it cannot be claimed that the prophet was only " speaking as a man".

Given your claimed abilities, it should be easy enough for you to come up with a reasonable resolution to the stated problem. Care to share it with us? Feel free to invoke the extra-normal.

You can read Hugh Nibley's explanation of the first problem here.

I resolve the second problem by invoking the principles of awen and nwyfre (revelation/inspiration and the life force--what the Japanese call ki) I propose that the Sun mediates those two principles for our solar system.

Yours under the unlimited oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Log]

Log,

It pains me to write this. It really does. But your written statement above puts you squarely with the anti-science, anti-intellectual crowd when it comes to judgment, evaluation of physical evidence, and overall scientific understanding.

I am very disappointed. With a screen name like Log, and the avatar you have, I took you for someone who would know better.

I note that you have responded with an ad hominem. That's alright. If there were a refutation of Dembski's work, it would have made the papers. Bluster and bluff is what you have, so play it for all it's worth.

Because of the conclusion of intelligent design when the criterion of specified complexity is applied to biological structures, my rational and empirically justified disbelief in the Darwinian hypothesis, combined with abiogenesis, is as utter and complete as my disbelief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and unicorns.

I also note the irony that we're all design theorists, fully able to discern between chance and necessity versus design, except when entering the biology lab or when reporting results in journals. Reminds me of that old saw about checking one's brain at the church door.

[Log]

By the by, don't bother taking this up with me, nor responding with "no respectable scientist..." or "everyone thinks..." or "everyone knows..." etc etc.

Take it up with Dembski. Here's a link to his "unscientific" work under consideration here: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf

[44Foxtrot]

I note that you have responded with an ad hominem. That's alright. If there were a refutation of Dembski's work, it would have made the papers. Bluster and bluff is what you have, so play it for all it's worth.

Because of the conclusion of intelligent design when the criterion of specified complexity is applied to biological structures, my rational and empirically justified disbelief in the Darwinian hypothesis, combined with abiogenesis, is as utter and complete as my disbelief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and unicorns.

Sorry if you feel that I attacked you personally. It was not my intention to do so, and I do not believe that I did. You appeared to be quite proud of your belief in ID. In labeling it as anti-science and anti-intellectual, I was labeling such beliefs no differently than would the vast majority of credible biologists and life scientists in the world.

If you feel that denouncing ID as anti-science and anti-intellectual was unfair, you must understand that science has overwhelmingly rejected ID, based on the evidence. That is a fact.

If you think that Demski's or Behe's work or that of any other IDer is of enough importance that the daily refutations of it would make the papers, then you really do not have a grip on the realities in science. Demski is an open and active creationist. He is not even a biologist. He is a philosopher.

You must know that specified complexity has been refuted. (The nicest one I have seen required a mousetrap, a necktie and about 45 seconds, but that's another story.) You must know that ID is not science (by definition).

If you do not know this, and you don't keep up with the mainstream literature in this area, then it might be worth your time to read the new book by Prof. Jerry A. Coyne, entitled "Why Evolution is True".

[Log]

... the vast majority of credible biologists and life scientists in the world....

... science has overwhelmingly rejected ID, based on the evidence. That is a fact.

I predicted, and tried to get you to refrain from, this type of response.

You must know that specified complexity has been refuted. (The nicest one I have seen required a mousetrap, a necktie and about 45 seconds, but that's another story.)

I respond that your response indicates you have no grasp of ID. I suggest you read the paper I linked to.

Here it is again: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf

You must know that ID is not science (by definition).

I believe this is an example of definitional legerdemain, as Dan Peterson calls it.

Again, you needn't bring this up with me. Take it up with Dembski.

[44Foxtrot]

By the by, don't bother taking this up with me, nor responding with "no respectable scientist..." or "everyone thinks..." or "everyone knows..." etc etc.

Take it up with Dembski. Here's a link to his "unscientific" work under consideration here: http://www.designinf...ecification.pdf

You apparently do not understand why ID is not science.

You might want to do something about your misunderstanding on this issue in the near future.

[Log]

You apparently do not understand why ID is not science.

You might want to do something about your misunderstanding on this issue in the near future.

I notice, again, and expect nothing different in the future, that you have not responded to the content of Dembski's work.

The irony is palpable. As I've seen nothing but bluster and bluff from the scientific naturalists on this subject for about a decade, I've lost the taste for watching it, much less participating in it. You know where Dembski can be found.

[Tarski]

I think I am going to have to partially disagree with my friend 44foxtrot.

While belief in everything from disappearing golden plates to the three Nephites is indeed far outside of the realm of what one would be led to by applying critical thinking, I do believe that it is sufficiently compartmentalized to allow many LDS to function as scientists.

I think that while some Mormon scientists might be a little woollier in their thinking thanks to being subject to such beliefs, it is more often the case that they are fully aware that such beliefs do not fit well with ordinary critical thinking or especially scientific thinking. They would never dream of applying relgious "faith cognitions" or what some might call "double think" to science or to work. They are just really all too aware of the skeptical view and also aware that this skeptical critical style of thinking is what makes science work. Indeed, if you watch how they work when doing science they are essentially applying methodological naturalism.

No Mormon scientist that I know of expects anything divine in the lab and they usually talk exactly as if God were a million miles from consideration.

In short, they succeed in making their faith oriented cognitions hold a special place isolated from ordinary canons of rationality while all other more worldly cognitions follow along the same more or less naturalistic lines as other scientists.

I have seen examples of these rational LDS types on this very bmessage board. Unfortunately I have seen hints of shocking and goofy exceptions here also.

Here is where I agree. If they bring religion up in the interview or in the context of a scientific project, well then maybe there is a worry.

[44Foxtrot]

I think I am going to have to partially disagree with my friend 44foxtrot.

While belief in everything from disappearing golden plates to the three Nephites is indeed far outside of the realm of what one would be led to by applying critical thinking, I do believe that it is sufficiently compartmentalized to allow many LDS to function as scientists.

I think that while some Mormon scientists might be a little woollier in their thinking thanks to being subject to such beliefs, it is more often the case that they are fully aware that such beliefs do not fit well with ordinary critical thinking or especially scientific thinking. They would never dream of applying relgious "faith cognitions" or what some might call "double think" to science or to work. They are just really all too aware of the skeptical view and also aware that this skeptical critical style of thinking is what makes science work. Indeed, if you watch how they work when doing science they are essentially applying methodological naturalism.

No Mormon scientist that I know of expects anything divine in the lab and they usually talk exactly as if God were a million miles from consideration.

In short, they succeed in making their faith oriented cognitions hold a special place isolated from ordinary canons of rationality while all other more worldly cognitions follow along the same more or less naturalistic lines as other scientists.

I have seen examples of these rational LDS types on this very bmessage board. Unfortunately I have seen hints of shocking and goofy exceptions here also.

Here is where I agree. If they bring religion up in the interview or in the context of a scientific project, well then maybe there is a worry.

Thanks for the comment. If you go back to my original post on the other thread, I think you will see that it was overt and evident religiosity that drew the close attention.

From our experience with our two active LDS scientists, I cannot disagree with your comments regarding their ability to successfully compartmentalize. I was pretty skilled at it myself for a few years. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for certain other religionists in our company.

Back to the compartmentalization issue. Compartmentalization would not be necessary unless there were stark differences in the two sets of beliefs (science-associated and religion-associated) that gave rise to cognitive dissonance. So my question would be, why carry the burden of always having to make excuses, even if only to one's self, for the unfounded and demonstrably false beliefs of religion in the first place?

Why put one's self in a position of having to defend the Book of Abraham, or polygamy, or the curse of Cain, or the Tower of Babel, or the Book of Mormon, or Kolob cosmology, or a global flood, or young earth creationism, just to name a few?

[Stargazer]

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.

You keep bringing up inappropriate remarks in the venue of a job interview, as if this meant someting with respect to what you're trying to support, but it does not hold water. It is simply apples and oranges.

I can well understand, and even agree with you in the matter of wanting to have well-qualified thinkers on staff. But if you're trying to find a well-qualified thinker and a prospective thinker brings up irrelevancies like the Doctrine and Covenants and space aliens, then the problem isn't with space aliens or the D&C, per se, it is with the candidate's revealing a deficit in critical thinking skills as evidenced by volunteering clearly irrelevant information. Heck, as a Latter-day Saint, if I were to interview someone for a position at my software development company, and this person starting quoting Doctrine and Covenants to me in support of his candidacy, then I can tell you now that I wouldn't hire him even if he or she were the only qualified applicant. Not because they believe in God and practice a religion, but because they clearly have a screw loose.

As far as the issue with the Nobel Prize and the National Academy of Scientists are concerned, you seem to be missing something. And that something is a form of "selection bias", or even "correlation is not causation." I tried in that earlier thread to make this point by way of my elephant repellent. It's efficacy was clearly evidenced by the lack of elephants in the neighborhood. The problem is, the lack of elephants may be due to other factors besides my elephant repellent, just as the lack of theists with Nobel Prizes might have more to do with the selection process and its biases than the lack of scientific ability to be found among theists.

Or take the NAS, for another example. Here's a description of it as found in Wikipedia:

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a corporation in the United States whose members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine." As a national academy, new members of the organization are elected annually by current members, based on their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research.

Note carefully how new members of the organization are selected. If there is a bias against anyone who happens to be a believer, does it seem quite natural that there would be so few believers in the NAS? You yourself set a belief in God as prima facie evidence of bad science. Are you so different than other militant atheists?

Membership in the NAS is not like promotions in the Boy Scouts, you know. If you can tie certain knots, recite the Scout Oath and Law, and meet certain other definite and published requirements, then you will be given the rank of Tenderfoot. Likewise with the other ranks in Scouting. If you are a member in good standing and have met the published requirements, you get the award. I know you'll be tempted to tell me that atheists can't be scouts at all, but regardless of whether you or I agree with this, the requirement of being at least a theist of some sort is quite publicly known. It's not as if someone were to do all the work, yet be inexplicably refused promotion, like with Nobel, and with NAS.

I spent several years in the US Army. When I went before the promotion board for advancement to Sergeant, one member of the board brought up my LDS religion as a possible impediment to my serving effectively as a Soldier, let alone a non-commissioned officer. I told him there was no impediment, that many other LDS had served well in the services, but he voted against me anyway -- the only one of the board to do so, because I got my promotion despite him. You see, they are everywhere. Hugh B. Brown was passed over for promotion in the Canadian Army because of his religion. It isn't because Mormons aren't fierce enough warriors. It is just simply bigotry. And your insistence that your particular bigotry has a rational and logical basis does not make it any less bigotry.

I'm not saying this to be mean and nasty and ad hominem. I'm telling you this because, in my humble opinion, you have an irrational bias, and you need to do something about it. For your own sake, if not that of others.

[thesometimesaint]

It is really simple to understand. Any idea can be patently false, and still not delusional thinking. Further you have not substantiated a single incident in Mormon Theology that is delusional. IOW Whether any idea is false or not is not in and of itself a qualification of delusional thinking.

Even taking an Agnostic frame of thought concepts of the god(s) are at worst unprovable. It simply is beyond science(the study of the natural world(universe)) to speak with any authority on the supernatural.

[Stargazer]

You will note from the first two posts on this thread that I have spoken to our attorney regarding some of the assertions made on this board. Our attorney is perfectly comfortable with our employment policies and practices.

Actually, what your attorney provided seemed to have more to do with "reasonable accommodation", than using a religious test for employment. These are horses of quite different colors.

For a start, if you were to interview a Jewish prospect, and then refused him employment because he would not work starting at sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday, and your business model required all staff be present every Saturday morning (in your particular case this might not be so, but bear with me), and this was made clear at the outset, then he could not claim discrimination and lack of reasonable accommodation. Similarly, if you owned a bar, and and were upfront about requiring all bartenders test drinks for palatability before serving to customers, then a Mormon could not come in for an interview and claim discrimination because you would not excuse him from testing drinks as a religious accommodation.

But as to religious tests in hiring practices, see this:

Recently, Orkin Pest Control was sued by the EEOC for age and religious discrimination in hiring. It's kind of the opposite what you might think, but it's still valid. I think you better have your attorney do a little studying on what constitutes actionable discrimination, because if a company can be sued by the government for preferring Mormons (and returned missionaries) over other people, then a company that discriminates against LDS (or other theists) in their hiring practices is clearly sailing on thin ice as well.

[DonBradley]

FoxTrot,

Very interesting thoughts. Criticism of LDS intellectual life is needed, and not something I think can or should be dismissed out of hand. That said, I find your criticism overstated and to suffer from both bias and a lack of relevant information.

First, you assert that Mormonism is "fundamentally" anti-intellectual and anti-science. You measure this by Nobel Prize winners and National Academies of Science members but neglect other important indicators and factors.

For instance, Utah has been shown to greatly over-produce scientists relative to its population. Even if Mormonism should prove to under-produce elite scientists, the fact that it appears to over-produce scientists is inconsistent with the conclusion that the faith is intrinsically anti-scientific.

In truth the Mormon worldview is much more consistent with the scientific worldview than is the worldview of traditional theism, something demonstrated by George T. Boyd in his "Mormonism and the Secular Spirit."

And Mormonism, "fundamentally," according to its founder Joseph Smith requires its adherents to "receive truth, let it come from whence it may," a point developed in my "'The Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism': Joseph Smith's Unfinished Reformation."To the extent that Mormons are anti-intellectual or anti-science, they are to that same extent anti-Mormon. Mormonism is intellectual in its essence and fundamentals, and only anti-intellectual in certain cultural manifestations.

Mormonism also encourages education. Mormons are statistically more likely to be well-educated than non-Mormons, another fact inconsistent

It is true that present-day LDS culture, and that of the last forty-plus years, displays some anti-intellectual tendencies. This is documented in the social-scientific study by LDS social scientist and former editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Armand Mauss. But Mauss also documents, as others--such as sociologist Harold T. Christensen and historian Thomas G. Alexander--have, that the Mormon community of the early and mid-20th century was much more open and science-friendly than that of the late 20th century. The anti-intellectualism that you remark is thus not "fundamental" to Mormonism at all but a reflection of a broader cultural shift to fundamentalism, one from which both the larger culture and Mormonism are now emerging, and your assertion to the contrary is anti-empirical and thus, to that extent, anti-scientific.

Second, you note the absence of BYU professors in the National Academies of Sciences as an indicator that Mormons don't make good scientists while ignoring the possibility, if not solid probability, that the 93% of non-theists in the NAS share your bias against a Mormon institution.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think all is intellectually well in the Mormon Zion. But I also don't, and can't, buy your monocausal explanations or your unempirical reduction of Mormonism to a "fundamentally" anti-intellectual system. Informed criticism of LDS intellectual culture needs to be made. But yours needs to be considered informed before it will fit that billing.

Another problem with your criticism, by the way, is that it isn't aimed at improving critical thinking among Mormons but at disproving Mormonism by supposedly demonstrating that Mormonism obliterates one's ability to think critically. The latter is not only demonstrably false; it's also ill-spirited and unhelpful. If you're really concerned with critical thinking, why not promote it among Mormons, et al., rather than attack Mormonism with insufficiently critical arguments? If you can find a way to access the George Boyd article above, read it, and I think you may see how Mormonism shares many of the assumptions of science that traditional theism doesn't share, and that Mormons might therefore potentially make better allies than enemies.

Don

[44Foxtrot]

You keep bringing up inappropriate remarks in the venue of a job interview, as if this meant someting with respect to what you're trying to support, but it does not hold water. It is simply apples and oranges.

I can well understand, and even agree with you in the matter of wanting to have well-qualified thinkers on staff. But if you're trying to find a well-qualified thinker and a prospective thinker brings up irrelevancies like the Doctrine and Covenants and space aliens, then the problem isn't with space aliens or the D&C, per se, it is with the candidate's revealing a deficit in critical thinking skills as evidenced by volunteering clearly irrelevant information. Heck, as a Latter-day Saint, if I were to interview someone for a position at my software development company, and this person starting quoting Doctrine and Covenants to me in support of his candidacy, then I can tell you now that I wouldn't hire him even if he or she were the only qualified applicant. Not because they believe in God and practice a religion, but because they clearly have a screw loose.

As far as the issue with the Nobel Prize and the National Academy of Scientists are concerned, you seem to be missing something. And that something is a form of "selection bias", or even "correlation is not causation." I tried in that earlier thread to make this point by way of my elephant repellent. It's efficacy was clearly evidenced by the lack of elephants in the neighborhood. The problem is, the lack of elephants may be due to other factors besides my elephant repellent, just as the lack of theists with Nobel Prizes might have more to do with the selection process and its biases than the lack of scientific ability to be found among theists.

Or take the NAS, for another example. Here's a description of it as found in Wikipedia:

Note carefully how new members of the organization are selected. If there is a bias against anyone who happens to be a believer, does it seem quite natural that there would be so few believers in the NAS? You yourself set a belief in God as prima facie evidence of bad science. Are you so different than other militant atheists?

Membership in the NAS is not like promotions in the Boy Scouts, you know. If you can tie certain knots, recite the Scout Oath and Law, and meet certain other definite and published requirements, then you will be given the rank of Tenderfoot. Likewise with the other ranks in Scouting. If you are a member in good standing and have met the published requirements, you get the award. I know you'll be tempted to tell me that atheists can't be scouts at all, but regardless of whether you or I agree with this, the requirement of being at least a theist of some sort is quite publicly known. It's not as if someone were to do all the work, yet be inexplicably refused promotion, like with Nobel, and with NAS.

I spent several years in the US Army. When I went before the promotion board for advancement to Sergeant, one member of the board brought up my LDS religion as a possible impediment to my serving effectively as a Soldier, let alone a non-commissioned officer. I told him there was no impediment, that many other LDS had served well in the services, but he voted against me anyway -- the only one of the board to do so, because I got my promotion despite him. You see, they are everywhere. Hugh B. Brown was passed over for promotion in the Canadian Army because of his religion. It isn't because Mormons aren't fierce enough warriors. It is just simply bigotry. And your insistence that your particular bigotry has a rational and logical basis does not make it any less bigotry.

I'm not saying this to be mean and nasty and ad hominem. I'm telling you this because, in my humble opinion, you have an irrational bias, and you need to do something about it. For your own sake, if not that of others.

Stargazer,

Thanks for your comment and your concern for my psyche (really). As a young Marine, I also took some ribbing because I would not curse or drink alcohol. By the time I made it to E5, the folks that I worked with figured out that I could do the job (and saw the stripes) and the ribbing stopped.

Please understand that promotion is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not a specific individual is best suited for the job. I have no doubt that our active LDS scientist will rise quickly through the ranks, for example. Our active LDS engineer is a bit older. He will probably be promoted next year as well. Unfortunately one of our overt religionists has demonstrated his inability to fit in, and has become a large liability to the company. He will eventually be forced out completely.

I stand by my comments regarding careful evaluation of overt religionists. I would also look very carefully at an individual who had experienced substance abuse problems (we have one, who is now doing very well) or one with a bankruptcy (we have two that I know of - one of them does not handle money), or other relevant life experiences that come to my attention during the (proper and legal) vetting process.

Some of these life experiences (such as those I just mentioned) raise issues as to judgment and critical thinking skills. If they are apparent, or come to my attention during interviews, then it is my job to convince myself and my board that these experiences or beliefs can be compensated for, or in the case of religion (as Tarksi puts it), successfully compartmentalized. If I fail to take these findings into consideration, and thing goes wrong later, then I am responsible to my board and eventually my shareholders. Too many such mistakes and we could lose the company, or the board could find somebody else to run it.

Human talent is the lifeblood of a technology company. It is by far the most important asset our company has. One of is my jobs is to find and employ the best available for the specific job that needs to be done. It is as simple as that.

Among the points of concern with regard to religionists as scientists, I did not mention integrity. And I only bring up the issue here by way of explanation.

For me, there was also the issue of personal integrity when it came to the choice between science and religion. As an individual who was taught as a Mormon that integrity was important, I decided to quit maintaining the external appearance that I believed in things that I knew were false. BKP's suggestion that one behave as if one had a testimony, and to do so until the testimony arrived, along with his claim that the mantle was far, far more important than the intellect, were (to me) but a few of the modern teachings in the Church which, at some point, I could no longer support, or even be a part of, as a scientist.

A believing Mormon such as yourself might label this viewpoint as irrational. If you do, then we will have to agree to disagree (on both counts).

Thank you for your service to your country.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Don, thank you for eloquently putting into words what I couldn't.