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

61–70 of 145 posts

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

#61

Post by jmillikin »

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…

  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.
Most human reasoning is not based in reality. It is very difficult for a well-educated and intelligent person to even approximate rational thought; see sites like http://lesswrong.com/ > to see how much effort is required. All claims to reality-based reasoning should be regarded as suspect, unless accompanied by sufficient evidence.

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

#62

Post by hasenj »

I don't believe in Darwinism, and you know what, if some one refused to employ me because of that, then to hell with them. I personally would prefer not to work with someone who would judge me for my beliefs.

But that's just me. I'm the kind of person who wants his job to be more than "just a job".

There are people who consider jobs to be just jobs and they do their jobs for a living, not to fulfill their life purpose. This is actually the majority of people, and when you start discriminating against them, well, you're kinda evil. Or how should I put it? You'd be no different from a religious zealot who thinks he knows the truth and must force everyone to adhere to the same truth that he adheres to.

The root of most evil (often attributed to "religion") is when you believe you have the truth and that you must force others to see it. Discriminating against these people in their work and livelihood is just one tactic of oppressing people. The Soviet Union was such an evil government; they oppressed religious people in the name of liberating them from religion.

Having said that, I can flip the argument around. Would I trust a doctor who believes that humans are nothing but a lump of material, and that morals are just lies that we fabricated? It depends, and you can argue for a long time why you should (or should not) trust such a doctor. But the point is, it's a double edged sword, if you're gonna use it to discriminate against others, then certain others can also use it to discriminate against you.

When someone is an outspoken advocate for atheism, but is also a scientist, should I take his "science" seriously as if he's objective in his science? He obviously has a strong desire to fulfill his agenda, and is likely to bend backwards to support what he's advocating.

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

#63

Post by lutorm »

wisty wrote: post #42
lutorm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The last part is a very Western value set - that we should "base our beliefs on facts". Other cultures are a lot less pragmatic, and are willing to ignore an absence of facts as long as they can get results. Being dogmatic seems to date back to the Greeks, at least. Still both sides (the young earthers and the hard athiests) are both pretty dogmatic. I'd say that both sides should chill out. If a guy wants a job that…

It's not a "Western" value set, it's a value held by the scientific community he is desiring to enter.

In any case, scientists are a lot less dogmatic than you seem to think. We willingly use theories as long as we get results, i.e. as long as the theories work. The point is that it's exactly there that Creationism fails. In that way, it's not "ignoring an absence of facts as long as you get results" and more akin to "ignoring an absence of results as long as they believe what they're doing". I don't think you can spin that any way that's positive -- sooner or later reality will bite back if that's how you go through life.

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

#64

Post by boneheadmed »

endtime wrote: post #32
boneheadmed wrote: post #5

I have been following astrophysicist Hugh Ross for some time. For a very intelligent exploration of creationist ideas (that very decidedly do not accept that the earth is only 10,000 years old) check out Reasons To Believe: http://www.reasons.org/

I'm reluctant to agree that a website with drivel like "does this synthetic life form point to intelligent agency at every step of the way?" proudly featured on its front page is intelligent.

It is perhaps difficult to judge the material from a quick glance at the website. He has written many excellent books such as "The Creator and The Cosomos" which I would refer you to for a more in depth discussion.

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

#66

Post by lutorm »

jmillikin wrote: post #61
lutorm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. Most human reasoning is not based in reality. It is very difficult for a well-educated and intelligent person to even approxim…

I'm in complete agreement that it's difficult. But to give up trying virtually ensures failure.

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

#67

Post by nickolai »

As long as the beleifs do not obviously express a lack of common sense, yes beleifs should not be important.

Sure we can get in a fight about how obvious should the obviousness be, and what exactly is common sense. However disregard for evidence or strong unfounded beleifs should be a warning sign. The candidate's views on the technology involved in his job should be more deeply screened. What I mean is that a candidate firmly beleiving that the earth was created 10k years ago because the scriptures say so, is (imho) more likely to lack the open-mindedness needed by most jobs in science/technology fields. OTOH, if you "just need a programmer", i'm sure you'll be fine even with a guy thinking bananas are in reality dropped by storks.

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

#68

Post by mseebach »

lefstathiou wrote: post #11

Going back to the topic at hand, I am a little uncomfortable NOT being able to take into account someone's beliefs (and therefore values) when making a decision to employ them. Difficult to make the point without going to extremes, but the bottom line is that I believe organizations have (and should continue to have ) the right to direct their culture. If someone isnt a "cultural" fit because they believe in things t…

It's indeed very slippery, and it's the exact same arguments that have been used to keep blacks, gays and women out back in the day, and once they were in, keeping them from advancing on the career ladder.

Unless someone has personal beliefs that are entirely orthogonal to their work, those beliefs are none of your business.

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

#69

Post by JabavuAdams »

chegra wrote: post #49

In the past, a scientist religious belief didn't affect his contribution. I don't see how targeting them now will benefit the scientific community. Carl Gauss was a devote Christian; what are we suppose to do if he existed now, not recognize him? "I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife." - Godel Maybe Godel wasn't logical for his be…

Times change. In the past you could be killed (in the West) for not being religious, or for adhering to the wrong sect.

The way we're headed, religious belief is becoming more and more fringe. Basically, religion only "makes sense" if most people are raised in that tradition.

From the outside (i.e. to people not raised in a religious tradition) it just sounds kind of silly at best, or crazy at worst.

So, at a certain point, saying I believe in X religion becomes just as crazy as saying I believe that the earth was created by pink hummingbirds. It just has more pedigree.

The game's up for organized religion as soon as people see that there's more than one, and that those other believers aren't evil. It'll just take some time for this to play out.

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

#70

Post by jmillikin »

knieveltech wrote: post #58
lutorm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sci…

  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.
Faith is, fundamentally, the process of maintaining beliefs in the face of 1) absent evidence and 2) conflicting evidence.

Science is the process of discovering evidence.

While theoretically compatible, in practice, people performing science often discover evidence that conflicts with widely-held beliefs. When those beliefs are part of an ongoing faith, the faith-holders usually react violently against the scientists.

  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.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here, since it seems to go against your main point.
Post reply on HN