Mormon Representation in the Sciences

[LifeOnaPlate]

BKP's suggestion that one behave as if one had a testimony, and to do so until the testimony arrived,

I'm confused as to why you want to oversimplify Pres. Packer's "Candle of the Lord" talk. I spent some time responding to earlier concerns about the talk in a discussion with you. I even made a blog post about it. But you seem to have forgotten that discussion. Or you found my remarks faulty or irrelevant, but failed to say so. Or you ignored them entirely. You seem to have become distracted arguing with zerinus instead.

If I treated whatever scientific focus you care about with the same sort of inattention I suspect you wouldn't take whatever criticism I had very seriously.

[thesometimesaint]

The fact of the matter is that in humans if we persist in doing some act long enough we will develop the rationale(beliefs) to substantiate that act.

[Jason]

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.

Quoted for truth.

I have seen nothing substantial to support Foxtrot's opinion on the unsuitability of Mormons for science.

[USU78]

I think you will see that it was overt and evident religiosity that drew the close attention.

So . . . overt, in-your-face religiosity will lose you a job.

How's about overt, in-your-face antireligiosity?

Or does this only matter in one direction: If overt, in-your-facedness happens to agree with the bigoted interviewer's own views, it's just fine; if it disagrees, it's fatal?

[Ceeboo]

If overt, in-your-facedness happens to agree with the bigoted interviewer's own views, it's just fine; if it disagrees, it's fatal?

This contribution (from my beloved brother USU) does indeed strike me as spot on.

When you remove all the intended distractions (like "science", "bottom lines", and "delusions") it becomes rather clear what we are really talking about.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[oats]

Foxtrot,

On thing I note is your use of teachings in LDS sources that are, in all practical purposes, irrelevant in the LDS belief and practice of religion to determine a person's ability to think scientifically.

Here is where reality and your logical mental extrapolations seem to differ. Your logic leads you conclude that a person who is LDS lacks scientific ability and will not function as well as an atheist in a scientific capacity (if this is wrong, please note). Whereas your experience, at least, seems to point that LDS people are as able to work in scientific capacities as anyone else. They may not enjoin themselves to the social circles of atheists, but they have no proven lack of ability.

If you were to say that LDS people don't fit into your teams because they don't tend to become drinking buddies, or because they are less likely to spend all their time at work, or because you have a hard time making them work Sundays, then that's legitimate (by law, I don't know). But seems to me like your current judgments of an LDS person's ability to act the role of a scientist is 'delusional'.

+++ On a side note, why is so much emphasis put on the idea of earth being 7000 years old, and Kolob? Nowhere in the LDS belief system is there any requirement or question asked about if a person believes either of those things. No covenants are made with even a mention of a worldwide flood, or the aforementioned ideas. The reality is that LDS people understand, accept, ignore, compartmentalize or believe those things in many different ways. It's like the wild speculations and extrapolations of theoretical physicists. Some people ignore them, some people state they are outright false, and some people explore them because they feel like there is a potential seed of truth worth uncovering.

Trying to understand religion looking through the glasses of a scientist is bound to fail. You have to look at science the way it is meant to be understood as you have to try and understand religion the way it is meant to be understood. My experience is that there are things worth exploring, and of value, outside the common scientific framework. They in no way affect my ability to act the role scientist, nor does it seem to affect my church peers who are doing doctorates and working in high science.

If anything it might affect how I relate socially within a scientific group. If that's detrimental to the company, then I can understand why you would avoid religious people with differing perspectives. It's definitely important to make sure everybody thinks and acts the same.....

[LifeOnaPlate]

So . . . overt, in-your-face religiosity will lose you a job.

How's about overt, in-your-face antireligiosity?

Or does this only matter in one direction: If overt, in-your-facedness happens to agree with the bigoted interviewer's own views, it's just fine; if it disagrees, it's fatal?

A good question, but Foxtrot restricts his own antireligiosity to anonymous Internet conversation it seems.

Quick question for Foxtrot: Have you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins?

[USU78]

A good question, but Foxtrot restricts his own antireligiosity to anonymous Internet conversation it seems.

[44Foxtrot]

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

Don,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You stated your case very well. I hope you can tell that, as the discussion has progressed and as more information on my background and situation comes to light, that my position is not as harsh or asunreasonable as it may have appeared in the earlier thread. I have a lot of empathy for the Church. I was a member for more than 20 years, and my entire family remains active. Your suggestion that my efforts might be better spent on trying to improve the situation was well taken. If you have any specific suggestions as to how i might do this, I stand ready to listen.

I have a small suggestion for you. When defending Mormonism, you might keep in mind that you are doing so from the inside. Sometimes things look a lot different from out here.

For an outsider, your denial that Mormonism is fundamentally anti-intellectual gains precious little support from the group of apologists that show up daily on MADB, or from FAIR or FARMS for that matter. It does not gain support from Church leaders who boldly state that the mantle is

[44Foxtrot]

So . . . overt, in-your-face religiosity will lose you a job.

How's about overt, in-your-face antireligiosity?

Or does this only matter in one direction: If overt, in-your-facedness happens to agree with the bigoted interviewer's own views, it's just fine; if it disagrees, it's fatal?

USU78,

Religious discussions have no place in a job interview. As has been made crystal clear, questions about religion are not appropriate in interviews.

So, if a candidate were to express overt anti-religious sentiments during an interview, one would have to question his (or her) judgment, assuming that he (or she) wanted the job.

[44Foxtrot]

A good question, but Foxtrot restricts his own antireligiosity to anonymous Internet conversation it seems.

Quick question for Foxtrot: Have you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins?

LOAP,

Indeed I have. RIchard Dawkins is a highly regarded and accomplished biologist, who has made important contributions to society in science, philosophy and popular culture. I would say that his work is required reading for anyone interested in science, and especially in biology.

More importantly, have you read The God Delusion?

[Jason]

I have a small suggestion for you. When defending Mormonism, you might keep in mind that you are doing so from the inside. Sometimes things look a lot different from out here.

Obviously arrogant. Assumes Chruch members are incapable of understanding an "outsider" point of view.

For an outsider, your denial that Mormonism is fundamentally anti-intellectual gains precious little support from the group of apologists that show up daily on MADB, or from FAIR or FARMS for that matter.

Judging a group by a sub-group is an unwarranted generalization.

It does not gain support from Church leaders who boldly state that the mantle is

[44Foxtrot]

Foxtrot,

On thing I note is your use of teachings in LDS sources that are, in all practical purposes, irrelevant in the LDS belief and practice of religion to determine a person's ability to think scientifically.

Here is where reality and your logical mental extrapolations seem to differ. Your logic leads you conclude that a person who is LDS lacks scientific ability and will not function as well as an atheist in a scientific capacity (if this is wrong, please note). Whereas your experience, at least, seems to point that LDS people are as able to work in scientific capacities as anyone else. They may not enjoin themselves to the social circles of atheists, but they have no proven lack of ability.

If you were to say that LDS people don't fit into your teams because they don't tend to become drinking buddies, or because they are less likely to spend all their time at work, or because you have a hard time making them work Sundays, then that's legitimate (by law, I don't know). But seems to me like your current judgments of an LDS person's ability to act the role of a scientist is 'delusional'.

This may surprise you, but with a home office management team comprised largely of ex-mormons, there is no drinking or alcohol use among our team members. None whatsoever. In fact, if you were to visit our offices, I think you would be very comfortable. There is no coffee machine in the break room, no inappropriate language. There are children's drawings hanging on some of the office doors. You might think that you were in an office in Utah.

For more discussion of the problem with Mormon culture and science, please see my response above to Don Bradley.

+++ On a side note, why is so much emphasis put on the idea of earth being 7000 years old, and Kolob? Nowhere in the LDS belief system is there any requirement or question asked about if a person believes either of those things. No covenants are made with even a mention of a worldwide flood, or the aforementioned ideas. The reality is that LDS people understand, accept, ignore, compartmentalize or believe those things in many different ways. It's like the wild speculations and extrapolations of theoretical physicists. Some people ignore them, some people state they are outright false, and some people explore them because they feel like there is a potential seed of truth worth uncovering.

Trying to understand religion looking through the glasses of a scientist is bound to fail. You have to look at science the way it is meant to be understood as you have to try and understand religion the way it is meant to be understood. My experience is that there are things worth exploring, and of value, outside the common scientific framework. They in no way affect my ability to act the role scientist, nor does it seem to affect my church peers who are doing doctorates and working in high science.

If anything it might affect how I relate socially within a scientific group. If that's detrimental to the company, then I can understand why you would avoid religious people with differing perspectives. It's definitely important to make sure everybody thinks and acts the same.....

I really like your side note explanation. Here is the problem.

If one chooses not to believe what is written in the canon scripture of the Church, especially after modern Church leaders claim the veracity of these scriptures, then one moves onto a slippery slope.

What are the bounds to such a process?

Is one allowed to drop belief in aspects of the gospel as soon as they are are proven false?

How can one claim in temple interviews that they support Church leaders, when they do not believe what the Church leaders say? It gets worse.

As the Church leaders make mistakes that result in harm to innocent people, how does the partial believing member, who may well know better than the Church leaders on a specific issue, justify his or her support of such an organization?

Are they willing to take partial responsibility of the harm the Church causes in people's lives, even when they themselves knew better?

Mormon leaders are fond of laying down the ultimatum: Either it is all true or it is all false. The Gospel is either the greatest work ever or it is the greatest fraud ever (I am paraphrasing here but would be glad to provide the exact quotes - by Presidents of the Church, if you wish.)

If the Prophet says it is all true, and he speaks for God, who are mere members to disagree, in belief or in action?

I am sure you see the problem.

[ERayR]

Are you really Dr. Shades? Your posts are as well reasoned and thought out as his are and you sound very like him.

[USU78]

Religious discussions have no place in a job interview. As has been made crystal clear, questions about religion are not appropriate in interviews.

So, if a candidate were to express overt anti-religious sentiments during an interview, one would have to question his (or her) judgment, assuming that he (or she) wanted the job.

That's all well and good and handsomely stated . . . yet the OP makes pretty plain that a believing Mormon would be unwelcome in any organization of which 44F were a part.

Suppose there's an otherwise unexplained 2-year absence from school . . . or an oblique reference to language skills and 2 years' eleemosynary work in country . . . and, perhaps, an advanced degree in astrophysics or engineering from USU . . . there are plenty of data there from which the determined antireligious (and specifically antiMormon) nut could glean a pretty accurate picture of an applicant's religious makeup. The believing applicant wouldn't even need to bring up a thing. The very things that make the applicant attractive (great school, interesting extracurricular activity, out-of-country experience, foreign language skills, experience putting experiments into orbit), also trumpet his Mormonness.

There's no end to the chicanery a determined bigot might undertake in support of his dastardly agenda.

[44Foxtrot]

That's all well and good and handsomely stated . . . yet the OP makes pretty plain that a believing Mormon would be unwelcome in any organization of which 44F were a part.

Suppose there's an otherwise unexplained 2-year absence from school . . . or an oblique reference to language skills and 2 years' eleemosynary work in country . . . and, perhaps, an advanced degree in astrophysics or engineering from USU . . . there are plenty of data there from which the determined antireligious (and specifically antiMormon) nut could glean a pretty accurate picture of an applicant's religious makeup. The believing applicant wouldn't even need to bring up a thing. The very things that make the applicant attractive (great school, interesting extracurricular activity, out-of-country experience, foreign language skills, experience putting experiments into orbit), also trumpet his Mormonness.

There's no end to the chicanery a determined bigot might undertake in support of his dastardly agenda.

USU78,

I'm beginning to like you. A determined bigot with a dastardly agenda - what an image.

If you read my posts on this and the earlier thread, you will find mentioned (in several of them) that we have two active Mormons in science and engineering management positions. I personally hired both of them. I did not hire the religionist who will probably cost us millions of dollars with his overt religious behavior before we finally get rid of him. If I had hired this guy, I would expect to be standing tall before the board about now.

It is my job to be sure that I take all available information into consideration when hiring so that I don't make the same mistake that was made in our sister company 5 years ago.

And that, my friend, is a dastardly agenda that I would cop to in a heartbeat.

[Tarski]

Are you really Dr. Shades? Your posts are as well reasoned and thought out as his are and you sound very like him.

Wow! Insulting two people in one concise sentence. Neat.

Both insults undeserved and...well...something about them coming from you.

[44Foxtrot]

Are you really Dr. Shades? Your posts are as well reasoned and thought out as his are and you sound very like him.

Please rest assured that I am not Dr. Shades.

Tarski seems to feel that your comment was meant as an insult.

But since I am not familiar with Dr. Shades, and I tend to assume the best about people I do not know, I will take your comment at face value.

Thank you.

[dougtheavenger]

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 :

If an individual has demonstrated a pattern of deficit in critical thinking skills by claiming belief in assertions for which there is no physical evidence and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that fact can be taken into consideration if the demonstrated lack of judgment critical thinking skills would decrease workplace efficiency.

Here is an example along with some questions.

Suppose that an individual presented himself at a job interview for a high visibility technical position at a technology company, and stated during the interview that he had spoken face to face with space aliens earlier in the day.

Should this individual be seriously considered for a sensitive job requiring good judgment and critical thinking skills?

Aside from the fact that he is claiming to have spoken with space aliens, does mentioning this during a job interview demonstrate good judgment?

What if the individual stated that he believed that a friend of his had been in direct contact with space aliens and that his friend had a message for Earth from these space aliens?

What if the individual claimed that the space aliens informed his friend that life on Earth had been created by Elohim?

What if the space aliens had claimed that Jesus was a prophet of the Elohim?

Remember, the individual was not asked about his religion in the interview. The information so far was provided by the job candidate while talking freely about his background and qualifications.

It now makes no difference that this individual belongs to a UFO Religion known as Raeelism. Given what the interviewer knows about the candidate's judgment and his ability to evaluate and consider evidence and fact in decision making, he is unlikely to get the job. And rightly so.

If challenged on the hiring decision later, the company files will show that this candidate did not interview well. He did not display the judgment and critical thinking skills required for the job.

To take the example a bit further, what if this individual claimed that the space aliens had left behind a book as an artifact to prove their existence?

What if you, as the interviewer, wanted to be absolutely fair in your evaluation of this individual and so you borrowed a copy of the book and thereafter determined that there was no physical evidence whatsoever to support the claimed provenance or veracity of the book and that a number of truth claims in the book could be proven false?

I trust that you can see the problem here.

In proving discrimination in hiring, it is usually (amost always) necessary to demonstrate that a pattern of discrimination against a particular group or class exists. The fact that Mormons are represented in much greater proportion on our management team (and in our company overall) than they are in the local or national general population, would make it very difficult to prevail in an action claiming discrimination against Mormons by our company. The large proportion of LDS on our management team was clearly described on the other thread.

I do not believe any company would employ you in any position of trust knowing that you publicly make statements of this kind in a forum such as this. In fact I doubt that you even have a real job.

[44Foxtrot]

I do not believe any company would employ you in any position of trust knowing that you publicly make statements of this kind in a forum such as this. In fact I doubt that you even have a real job.

You are almost right. Nobody hired me for this job. I founded this company with two partners. We recently merged with another firm and have now started spinnig off. I am the managing partner of the first company and President and CEO of one of the spin-offs.

The ex-Mormon CEO of our partner company and I had a talk about this thread over lunch today. I related to him, in general terms, some of the comments. All I can say after our little chat is that if you don't like what I have to say about the problems we have with overt religionists, you would really be upset with him.

[Avatar4321]

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?

Well, if he is going to pursue this reasoning, then yes, he has to.

[Avatar4321]

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?

You mean judge someone on their merits? What a crazy idea:)

[Avatar4321]

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?

You mean use critical thinking? Whatever for?

[Avatar4321]

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.

I find your 90% statistic hard to believe. However, the subjectivity involved in deducing the correct amount would make it completely irrelevant as a tool for discussion.

[Avatar4321]

Bill Hamblin:

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

I have to agree with you here. And yet we are delusional.