Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins) • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Jan 27, 2011, 4:37 PM UTC

iloveponies wrote: post #52

kd0amg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>I think the only requirement I have of them is to believe in and uphold Hippocratic Oath

Have you read it?

[In translation] "I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement: "

Also no injected drugs to cause death or abortion might be a bar to some doctors.

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

#142

Post by JabavuAdams » Thu, Jan 27, 2011, 8:33 PM UTC

bugsy wrote: post #132

JabavuAdams wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you are asserting that most people are not aware there is more than religion. I'm not sure why you believe that. I did not write that anywhere in my post. > You also have a suggestion that after becoming aware there is more than one religion, people will then become aware that some of the adherents to the other religion "aren't evil". No. These are independent phenomena. I did not write that the one leads to th…

Your claim that I was analyzing is quoted at the beginning of my response. It is your statement: "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." By referring to "as soon as people see that there's more than one" clearly indicates you are asserting that people are unaware there is more than one. To claim otherwise is disingenuous as i…

> To claim otherwise is disingenuous

Don't assume malice where a misplaced comma will suffice.

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

#143

Post by noblethrasher » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 5:11 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #68

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.

I get what you're saying, but I have a nitpick:

Wouldn't you want someone's personal beliefs to be orthogonal to their work since it would imply that those beliefs don't affect the work?

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

#144

Post by iloveponies » Sat, Jan 29, 2011, 5:23 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #141

iloveponies wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>I think the only requirement I have of them is to believe in and uphold Hippocratic Oath Have you read it? [In translation] "I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement: " Also no injected drugs to cause death or abortion might be a bar to some doctors.

I know of nobody who has not be sworn under any version except for the modern version, which makes no references to Greek mythology.

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

#145

Post by Helianthus16 » Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 3:59 AM UTC

ugh wrote: post #136

Helianthus16 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Faith is, fundamentally, the process of maintaining beliefs in the face of 1) absent evidence and 2) conflicting evidence. This is the tired beaten horse of atheistic criticism, taking the general principle that one must make a leap out of indecision and doubt in order to achieve any sort of meaningful viewpoint and twisting it, torturing it into the statement "Faith is explicitly about not making sense." Faith _is…

I’m not really sure why I need faith to be fairly certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. I don’t need to be certain in any absolute terms, being extremely certain based on past evidence is good enough for me. I’m not plagued by doubt and suggesting that living without faith would leave one in doubt seems dubious to me. I can work with not being absolutely certain.

Prolly too late for you to see this, but that "[working] with not being absolutely certain" is precisely faith in its truest, most broad form. God in this faith is not the sky wizard of atheistic clap-trap, but a question: if some entity is responsible for all of this bullshit existence, is that person on our side? Faith is the answer 'yes.' Atheism doesn't have an answer via attacking the question, which is fine until we are forced to face it.

which will happen.