Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 145 posts

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#51

Post by JabavuAdams »

rewind wrote: post #16
jimbokun wrote: post #10

This obsession with unearthing people's private beliefs and actively using them as grounds to discriminate against them, seems quite Orwellian to me. Why not just evaluate how well an employee does the job she is paid to do, and not worry about the ideas she expresses outside of work, or the activities she engages in? Dawkins simply seems to be looking for ways of making life more difficult for religious people. If t…

There's too much grey to make this black and white. What would you say to a closeted gay politician pushing anti-gay legislation? Would you not consider that person a fraud, just like someone saying their research is based on the universe being 13 billion years old when they don't really believe that?

Yes, of course.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#52

Post by iloveponies »

kd0amg wrote: post #25
jmillikin wrote: post #20

Even if a doctor's belief in the stork theory of reproduction is technically irrelevant to his competence as an eye surgeon, it tells you something about him. It is revealing. It is relevant in a general way to whether we would wish him to treat us or teach us. A patient could reasonably shrink from entrusting her eyes to a doctor whose beliefs (admittedly in the apparently unrelated field of obstetrics) are so catac…

Would you refuse treatment from an ophthalmologist who believed: 1. The seasons are caused by Earth approaching and receding from the Sun? 2. Fixed-wing aircraft fly because air moves over and under the wing at the same rate? 3. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb? People generally expect a physician of any specialty to have a solid grounding in biology. The first two are cases of ignorance of physics; the third is…

Unrelated, of anyone in medicine, I think the only requirement I have of them is to believe in and uphold Hippocratic Oath and not let their personal beliefs interfere with performing their job or the oath. This example used, that of a person you would as a patient demand trust from more than a scientist (like an astronomer) is questionable fear mongering.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#53

Post by Semiapies »

Preface: I'm an atheist, myself.

The funny thing about this argument is that it's made within the same protection against religious discrimination that Dawkins would like to discard.

Some of us might like to fantasize that laws against religious discrimination could be carefully disassembled so that atheists remain fully protected while all the theists get comeuppance for their objectionable views, but that isn't going to happen. If you get rid of laws against religious discrimination, it's not going to be open season on Christian creationists, it's going to be open season on atheists and Muslims (who poll almost as badly as atheists in the US).

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#55

Post by nika »

rewind wrote: post #16
jimbokun wrote: post #10

This obsession with unearthing people's private beliefs and actively using them as grounds to discriminate against them, seems quite Orwellian to me. Why not just evaluate how well an employee does the job she is paid to do, and not worry about the ideas she expresses outside of work, or the activities she engages in? Dawkins simply seems to be looking for ways of making life more difficult for religious people. If t…

There's too much grey to make this black and white. What would you say to a closeted gay politician pushing anti-gay legislation? Would you not consider that person a fraud, just like someone saying their research is based on the universe being 13 billion years old when they don't really believe that?

I'm gay. If I were a politician, I would oppose laws (actually like Dawkins does here) that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation (as well as religion.)

Would my thinking be suspect? Does that mean that I think that gay people shouldn't be hired or be able to get housing?

From the common / popular "pro-gay" view my positions would be characterized as "anti-gay" and I would risk being demonized by GLAAD, etc.

The problem here is that these terms "pro-gay" and "anti-gay" etc, are completely political and ignore all possibility of nuance.

Let me put it another way. I think a gay person should be allowed to choose not to rent out a room in their house to a mormon who, when he came to see the room, went on and on about how evil gay people are.

Clearly, this gay person is choosing to discriminate based on religion. Clearly, also, being forced to rent a room to someone you are not going to get along with is a recipe for trouble.

But, specifically, it is a violation of your property rights in the room you're renting out, just as forcing you to rent it out, or preventing you from renting it to anybody, or dictating the price at which you can rent it is a violation of your right to use this property as you see fit.

Further, freedom of association is the freedom to associate with whom you like and also not associate with people you don't get along with.

Discriminating against people (based on sexuality or beliefs) is a bad idea when you're hiring because you'll exclude people who would be productive in preference to people who might be less productive.

But discrimination is intrinsic in both property rights and freedom of association. (And freedom of association is simply another way of saying property rights in your own body.)

So, while GLAAD and other political groups would call me an anti-gay politician in this hypothetical, would you really call me a fraud?

I think in the end I'm agreeing with you that it is not black and white, you just hit on the political angle that I can speak directly to.

I've been called "anti-gay" because I don't support "pro-gay" legislation, even though my position is based in a (stronger than my opponents, I believe) belief in human rights.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#56

Post by JabavuAdams »

kldavis4 wrote: post #35
rewind wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's too much grey to make this black and white. What would you say to a closeted gay politician pushing anti-gay legislation? Would you not consider that person a fraud, just like someone saying their research is based on the universe being 13 billion years old when they don't really believe that?

If that politician is truly representing his constituency, then he is not a fraud and is doing what he is paid to do.

So, because he does what he's told, that makes it alright? He has a choice not to represent that constituency.

Let's take a different example. Suppose an American is being paid to do something that is actively bad for other Americans. Does "doing what you're paid to do" make it all right? There are no other considerations?

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#57

Post by JabavuAdams »

endtime wrote: post #29
rewind wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's too much grey to make this black and white. What would you say to a closeted gay politician pushing anti-gay legislation? Would you not consider that person a fraud, just like someone saying their research is based on the universe being 13 billion years old when they don't really believe that?

Honestly, I don't think the politician's sexuality, open or not, really matters there. Either the legislation is good or (in this case) it isn't.

It is relevant because it speaks to their honesty and tolerance for hypocrisy.

If I'm a person who habitually does certain things, but I publicly advocate denying those activities to others, that's very significant information.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#58

Post by knieveltech »

lutorm wrote: post #31
jmillikin wrote: post #20

Even if a doctor's belief in the stork theory of reproduction is technically irrelevant to his competence as an eye surgeon, it tells you something about him. It is revealing. It is relevant in a general way to whether we would wish him to treat us or teach us. A patient could reasonably shrink from entrusting her eyes to a doctor whose beliefs (admittedly in the apparently unrelated field of obstetrics) are so catac…

It's not so much the beliefs that people hold, it's whether or not they stick to those beliefs in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. If they do, then their reasoning is not based in reality, which makes any other reasoning they do that is also purportedly based in reality suspect . A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect sc…

"A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect science."

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. The whole Science VS Faith thing is a false dichotomy, the two are not inherently incompatible except in the minds of unfortunate extremists on both sides of the argument. Implying that they are ignores the fact that the vast overwhelming majority of science has been performed by so-called "creationists". Society simply didn't tolerate atheism prior to say 1960.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#59

Post by rbanffy »

JWLong wrote: post #24
rbanffy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any idea how deeply flawed your reasoning is? By the same reasoning, if a schizophrenic claims the sky is blue and we all agree with him, that makes us schizophrenic too.

Which is exactly why one shouldn't be barred from employment based on personal beliefs... It is Dawkins who makes the comparison between religion and disease or disorders, no?

You are aware, of course, you are questioning a completely different thing, right?

The deeply flawed reasoning is implying that, because we agree with the observations of a creationist astronomer on the big bang, we are also creationists.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#60

Post by borism »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #37

I find one of Dawkin's implicit assumptions very interesting. My colleague takes the view that this YEC is entitled to a job...because he keeps his private beliefs to himself while at work...I would object to employing him, on the grounds that his research papers, and his lectures to students, are filled with what he personally believes to be falsehoods. He is a fake, a fraud, a charlatan, drawing a salary for a job…

well, I recall few months ago you criticized climate scientists for using incomplete models for their simulations...
Post reply on HN