Mormon Representation in the Sciences

[maupayman]

Your post makes absolutly no sense. So, lets say I go along with you that the church was indeed bigotted in the past. Why can't we as mormons point out some one else's bigotry? Keep in mind that I was not born until the late 70's, I cannot be held responsible for the so called bigotted past.

You can point it out, and it is duly noted. However, given the church's history, I doubt many will feel that bad for the mormons if they are exposed to bigotry.

[Jason]

Not all associations, or religions, have had bigotry as part of their doctrine and practices. There is a difference.

Oh really? Name one religion that has never been called bigoted by its critics.

[J Green]

Just wanted to thank Don for his cogent responses. Great stuff.

[44Foxtrot]

If I'm understanding correctly, you work with an abundance of people raised in the LDS church. Some are still active, some have excommunicated themselves. You did your PhD work as an active Mormon, were hired by MIT as an active Mormon, and later chose to leave the church, alleviating about 90% of your cognitive dissonance.

I read through you posts and I have not noted anything that would indicate being an active LDS is a hindrance. You built your scientific foundation (I presume, given your experience at MIT with a female working in science) as a Mormon. I understand you have an employee/colleague that proselytizes more than he works. That is too bad. Given the responses on this thread, and my personal experience, it seems like these actions are nearly universally undesirable in a workplace.

My question is how professing LDS beliefs and living an LDS lifestyle has anything to do with scientific capacity, based on your own experience?

I don't feel like discussing the points about the 'slippery slope' you mentioned before, in regards to being selective about what ideas to profess. It's all theoretical and not worth talking about. People do what they do and it seldom follows the paths projected by our feeble logic.

Thanks for taking the time to read this long thread before asking another question.

First let me say that, based on my own experience, growing up LDS in the mission field (Washington State) was a great experience. The point that many have made on this thread regarding the emphasis on eduction by the Church is one with which I would wholeheartedly agree. The LDS kids in my school were generally among the outstanding students. It was the same with the schools that my kids eventually attended. US or overseas, the LDS kids always did well.

But the encouragement to seek an education has boundaries (or at least it did have boundaries in my experience). Questioning of Church doctrine was severely frowned upon. So inquiry was fine, within bounds.

For me personally, once I crossed the lines of inquiry approved by the Church, I soon realized that, while there are good people in the CHurch and lots of them, the Church was definitely not what it claimed to be. More importantly, it was not what it had taught me it was from my youth. My trust in the Church had been betrayed.

As I have said several times, I left because of irreconcilable differences between what the Church asked me to believe what I knew to be true based on physical evidence. A decision had to be made because by remaining in the Church, I realized that I was a party to the harm it was doing.

In my own experience, I have seen good LDS men severely damage their careers, and even their families, with what I will call excessive or overt religiosity. They seemingly become obsessed with the Church and spent far too much time in Church activities effectively shortchanging their jobs and their families.

Then there are the unfounded beliefs. I have a very accomplished TBM son who is an MD. Some of the weird Mormon beliefs that he comes up with in private conversations just curl my hair. I know that he knows better. If he thought for a minute, I doubt if he would say some of this stuff, especially to me. But he lives in the Mormon bubble, and apparently picks this stuff up by osmosis.

Simply put, I found cognitive dissonance to be very uncomfortable and counter-productive. Someone who works in a scientific position should not be burdened with the constant need to rationalize their religous beliefs with scientific facts.

If an individual continue to do so, once having learned the verifiable, evidence based truth about their religion, then one is left to question their personal integrity, judgment, or both.

I hope this has answered your question. Again, as I stated in my initial post on this subject on a earlier thread, I look for signs of overt or excessive religiosity. If it is detected, then I am going to take a much closer look, because we know from first hand experience that such characteristics can result in great harm to the company.

[44Foxtrot]

dbl

[LifeOnaPlate]

Not all associations, or religions, have had bigotry as part of their doctrine and practices. There is a difference.

Are you not human? Are societies trans-human somehow? Humans have had religions generally as part of their own existence. I am simply taking the part and condemning the whole. The part (Bigoted Mormons/Bigoted Humans) for the whole (Mormonism/Humanity), just like you're doing. Only, you seem to resist it when you yourself are implicated because you think it doesn't necessarily apply to you. Funny that.

[thesometimesaint]

LifeOnaPlate:

Or as a good friend of mine once said: "I'm not a bit prejudice. I hate everyone equally."

[oats]

Simply put, I found cognitive dissonance to be very uncomfortable and counter-productive. Someone who works in a scientific position should not be burdened with the constant need to rationalize their religous beliefs with scientific facts.

Everyone handles this different. I find the people that have made their peace with what and how they believe handle it without problem. The uncomfortable part is when other people bring questions of belief into the mix. Obviously this isn't across the board but with generally mature people I've always found that people know their boundaries with this sort of thing.

I hope this has answered your question. Again, as I stated in my initial post on this subject on a earlier thread, I look for signs of overt or excessive religiosity. If it is detected, then I am going to take a much closer look, because we know from first hand experience that such characteristics can result in great harm to the company.

If your experience has only been that religious people can act like fools in the workplace, you are lucky. I would look for signs of extremism in any opinion or belief because personal experience dealing with extreme atheists, environmentalists and religionists has never been productive. I would probably feel the same way as you do in your situation, so I can't argue. But I do suggest that you might want to consider that other excesses in opinion produce the same sentiment as excessive religiosity.

The one thing I do hope is that you don't discredit the capacity of individuals, in this case LDS scientists, because of a few bad experiences with overly religious persons who obviously lacks some social sense in the workplace. There are some things that are true about LDS people in general, and some things that are not. I do not think it is true that LDS scientists are any less capable than their peers or that an LDS person's religion should be considered to evaluate their capacity in the scientific field.

[maupayman]

Oh really? Name one religion that has never been called bigoted by its critics.

Well, had I claimed that there was a religion that has never been called bigoted by it critics, I might take you up on that challenge.

[maupayman]

Are you not human? Are societies trans-human somehow? Humans have had religions generally as part of their own existence. I am simply taking the part and condemning the whole. The part (Bigoted Mormons/Bigoted Humans) for the whole (Mormonism/Humanity), just like you're doing. Only, you seem to resist it when you yourself are implicated because you think it doesn't necessarily apply to you. Funny that.

I fully accept that I am partial to bigotry, anyone who says otherwise is a liar. I just found it ironic that Bill would get so worked up about it when it is directed at mormons. I wonder if he was that outraged at the bigotrous teachings of church leaders toward black people...just sayin.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I fully accept that I am partial to bigotry, anyone who says otherwise is a liar. I just found it ironic that Bill would get so worked up about it when it is directed at mormons. I wonder if he was that outraged at the bigotrous teachings of church leaders toward black people...just sayin.

Who is Bill?

[LifeOnaPlate]

haha, I just kept clicking the little link to the previous quote repeatedly until I discovered this line of dialog started with Bill Hamblin. I get it now. Yes, I think he would agree that people who claim revelation etc. are not immune to bigotry, etc. Do you think he would disagree with that?

[Jason]

Well, had I claimed that there was a religion that has never been called bigoted by it critics, I might take you up on that challenge.

Right, you were claiming that the LDS Church really was (or is) bigoted. But of course, you are a critic.

[44Foxtrot]

Hi Foxtrot,

It has been my frequent observation that we have in the LDS culture of our time some decidedly anti-intellectual strains. And in the work I cited by Armand Mauss, Mauss documents a Mormon turn toward fundamentalism in the 1960s.

If you were merely asserting or arguing that Latter-day Saints frequently display anti-intellectualism, have built this into their present sub-culture, etc., then I might quibble with you over how much anti-intellectualism there is in LDS culture and what the current trends are in this regard, but I wouldn't disagree with you at root.

But in this case I really do disagree with you at root because your claim is that Mormonism is "fundamentally anti-intellectual. The fundaments of a thing are its foundations, the essentials. I can't make anything else of your claim than that anti-intellectualism is one of Mormonism's defining traits, part of its essence.

This claim is anti-empirical in that it flouts the considerable evidence to the contrary.

You've argued that anti-intellectualism is widespread and deep in present-day LDS culture and then concluded, based on this argument, that Mormonism is anti-intellectual in its essence. You can't argue merely from widespread present behavior among Mormons that their faith is itself fundamentally anti-intellectual. So far as I can see, you're not looking at or for disconfirmatory evidence for this claim and are falling prey to confirmation bias. A look, for instance, at the Mormon culture of the early-to-mid 1900s would disabuse you of the notion that Mormonism is inherently anti-intellectual. Go read the 1940s LDS Sunday School manual "The Synoptic Gospels" or the 1920s LDS teacher training manual is comprised of writings by eminent psychologists (including B. F. Skinner) on how people learn, to name two church publications of the period, and tell me Mormonism is fundamentally anti-intellectual. Or read Harold T. Christensen's survey on the beliefs of BYU students in the 1930s, or, for that matter, look at the numerous intellectuals within the present-day church, such as the author of Prometheus Books' recent work on evolution Relics of Eden and tell me that to be Mormon just is to be anti-intellectual.

It's true that if we enumerate only the evidence in favor of your assertion, then we would likely conclude that it's true. But this wouldn't be very intellectual of any of us. Better by far to look at the evidence for Mormon anti-intellectualism and for Mormon intellectualism, past and present, before we make broad assertions about Mormonism's essence.

You asked how I would suggest that you try to enhance critical thinking among Latter-day Saints. It's a good question, and one that bears considerable thought. My responses now would be only off-hand, but I'll venture a couple anyway.

First, I don't think one encourages critical thinking among Mormons by telling them that their faith is inescapably at odds with critical thinking. To oppose critical thinking and spiritual conviction hardly encourages critical thinking among the spiritually committed. In fact, it discourages it. Think about it--how likely are you to make traction in promoting anything by opposing it to what others most deeply cherish and value? If you were a salesman trying to "sell" critical thinking door to door in Utah, how much success do you think you'd have with these sales methods? Why not use an approach that, while it doesn't get in digs against Mormonism, is likely to have some success in promoting the virtue you want to promote?

Despite your view that Mormonism is fundamentally anti-intellectual, there are plenty of elements in LDS faith that could be used to promote a greater use of the intellect among the saints. Here is a tiny sample: Joseph Smith, the one who laid Mormonism's foundations, defining it as fundamentally open: "It is one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." LDS scripture speaking of loving God with all one's mind, defining the glory of God as intelligence, asserting that a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge, etc., etc., etc. President Hugh B. Brown telling BYU students, "We do not care so much whether your thoughts shall be orthodox or heterodox as that you shall have thoughts."

If your goal is truly to increase critical thinking and intellectual engagement among Mormons, rather than to undermine Mormonism, there are plenty of Mormon sources you could use to help Mormons be more true to their faith's intellect-affirming teachings.

Second, you could offer specific critiques of LDS apologetics and thought that 1) are fair--i.e., accurately represent what's being criticized and 2) aren't fundamentally anti-Mormon--i.e., don't aim or claim to undermine the system of spiritual convictions that define a Latter-day Saint. To represent Mormon thought in a way that Mormons would not recognize or to attempt to undermine LDS faith are both tickets to nowhere.

I'd suggest deciding what is you really want--to help raise the intellectual bar in Mormondom or to attack Mormonism itself. You can't effectively do both--though you can certainly fail at both in the attempt.

Don

Hello Don,

Again, I think that you have provided an on-point and tempered argument. Some of the things that I would offer in reply at this point are contained in some of my responses above, which were made to others since my last response to your comments.

So I will just offer the following:

- You seem to be an articulate, knowledgable and sincere advocate for your religion. On a post per post basis, you have been the most reasonable (and therefore most persuasive) of those who have commented.

- I do respect your viewpoint, although I cannot claim to fully understand it and certainly do not agree with some of what I do understand.

- While we are not in 100% agreement, I will say that you have brought up several positive aspects of Mormon culture (not religion) to which I have probably not given adequate consideration in the last few years. I plan to remedy that situation.

- Thank you for your patience. I need to make a couple more housekeeping responses to others and plan to leave this thread later this evening (no doubt to the great relief of most here).

[44Foxtrot]

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.

LOAP.

I apologize for taking so long to respond to your comments about Elder Packer's talk. I read your blog entry on the issue as well as the comments. I have read the talk itself before. I have also, as you might imagine, discussed it with a number of folks. Let me be entirely frank about Elder Packer and this talk, as well as other things he has said and written.

Elder Packer has made himself a controversial figure who, because of inappropriate statements in the past, has invited his critics (of which there are many) to cut him little slack in their interpretation of what he says.

My attitude toward BKP is that he should know better. So if you ask me to consider his controversial pronouncements in a kinder or more nuanced light, my response would be, "He said what he said."

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOAP.

I apologize for taking so long to respond to your comments about Elder Packer's talk. I read your blog entry on the issue as well as the comments. I have read the talk itself before. I have also, as you might imagine, discussed it with a number of folks. Let me be entirely frank about Elder Packer and this talk, as well as other things he has said and written.

Elder Packer has made himself a controversial figure who, because of inappropriate statements in the past, has invited his critics (of which there are many) to cut him little slack in their interpretation of what he says.

My attitude toward BKP is that he should know better. So if you ask me to consider his controversial pronouncements in a kinder or more nuanced light, my response would be, "He said what he said."

I'm not asking you to do anything, I am trying to make sense of his talk. I think the reading I suggest is plausible. It sounds as though you are allowing emotion (fueled by his controversial pronouncements) blur the text, which doesn't seem quite as detached as one might expect from a fellow who holds science above all.

[44Foxtrot]

I'm not asking you to do anything, I am trying to make sense of his talk. I think the reading I suggest is plausible. It sounds as though you are allowing emotion (fueled by his controversial pronouncements) blur the text, which doesn't seem quite as detached as one might expect from a fellow who holds science above all.

LOAP,

It seems to me that there are a lot of good insights into the talk among the comments to your blog post. The short passage quoted below (from the end of the first comment) puts what must be about the best light possible on the controversial comment by BKP. I can certainly do no better than this.

"In sum, I think President Packer means that if we state our feelings and conclusions (our

[Jeff K.]

Bottom line Foxtrot, your reasoning was unscientific and wrong (statistically), no scientist in his right mind would us subjective and illusory interpretation over sound statistic study. You presently are reduced to using subjective interpretation of talks in order to bolster what you claim or imply to be a scientific and verifiable observation. In essence you have now rejected science in order to show Mormons aren't scientific.

That doesn't quite work in my view.

[44Foxtrot]

Bottom line Foxtrot, your reasoning was unscientific and wrong (statistically), no scientist in his right mind would us subjective and illusory interpretation over sound statistic study. You presently are reduced to using subjective interpretation of talks in order to bolster what you claim or imply to be a scientific and verifiable observation. In essence you have now rejected science in order to show Mormons aren't scientific.

That doesn't quite work in my view.

Bottom line, Jeff;

I provided verifiable evidence that Mormons have not made it to the top echelons in science.

There must be a reason for this and I have provided references to the literature wherein faithful Mormon authors speculate as to why this is the case.

I have also stated that my company has had severe problems with the behaviors of overt religionists, and based on this record of poor performance, we carefully evaluate cases where such behavior is manifest, exactly as we carefully evaluate a history of bankruptcy, substance abuse, absenteeism, poor academic performance, or low productivity.

I have stated that we have hired Mormons to fill upper level technical management positions, and we have a higher percentage of Mormons in our company, (by at least an order of magnitude) than is found in the general population.

I have not stated that Mormons were "unscientific".

Your summary of my position and what I have said is far from accurate. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the thread.

[Jeff K.]

I provided verifiable evidence that Mormons have not made it to the top echelons in science.

No, you provided anecdotal evidence that can be verified and having occurred anecdotally. You have NOT however provided any meaningful statistic that would produce a verified trend. We have already dismissed your first attempt at providing anecdotal numbers from a single group which does not even represent the scientific community above a de minimis level.

There must be a reason for this and I have provided references to the literature wherein faithful Mormon authors speculate as to why this is the case.

Your second statement is based on the idea that there is a reason for anecdotal evidence that automatically makes it a trend. Lottery winners must drive you nuts.

I have also stated that my company has had severe problems with the behaviors of overt religionists, and based on this record of poor performance, we carefully evaluate cases where such behavior is manifest, exactly as we carefully evaluate a history of bankruptcy, substance abuse, absenteeism, poor academic performance, or low productivity.

I don't want to sound cynical but I will. Given the number of religious people in the world in all the different fields and your rather vague "my company has had severe problems", I find your "rabbit out of a hat" statement to be less than credible. Religoius people statistically suffer less from most of what you have mentioned than the general populace. Unlike you I will cite the The Role of Religiosity in the Lives of the Low-Income Population: a scientifically produced document that shows a reduction, even in poor families. I don't do "rabbits out of a hat" to bolster my position, it would reduce my credibility when making a claim.

[Jeff K.]

I have stated that we have hired Mormons to fill upper level technical management positions, and we have a higher percentage of Mormons in our company, (by at least an order of magnitude) than is found in the general population.

Again, you have given no statistical data, no scientific information beyond some vague statements without anyway of verifying them.

You have also reduced yourself to subjective interpretation, which has nothing to do with science, just your own personal prejudice.

I have not stated that Mormons were "unscientific".

Your summary of my position and what I have said is far from accurate. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the thread.

Oh, I am sorry did you say you wouldn't hire Mormons because they were scientific? Let me know where you stated that, it would be interesting to read.

[44Foxtrot]

I have stated that we have hired Mormons to fill upper level technical management positions, and we have a higher percentage of Mormons in our company, (by at least an order of magnitude) than is found in the general population.

Again, you have given no statistical data, no scientific information beyond some vague statements without anyway of verifying them.

You have also reduced yourself to subjective interpretation, which has nothing to do with science, just your own personal prejudice.

Jeff,

I know how many folks we have on our senior management team.

I know how many of them are Mormons.

I have a good idea of how many Mormons there are in the US.

I have a very good idea of the US population.

I can do long division.

I know what is meant by an order of magnitude.

Contrary to what you might believe, no scientific information or statistics are required to do the calculation.

[Jeff K.]

And you consider that a scientifically proveable trend? Or do you consider it de minimis anecdotal interpretation?

[volgadon]

LifeOnaPlate:

Or as a good friend of mine once said: "I'm not a bit prejudice. I hate everyone equally."

"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that."

[volgadon]

I have a feeling that this guy would never have gotten so much as a foot in the door in foxrot's company.