To be clear, I did not make that characterization. I was repeating Mr. Harris's argument. (My view would be different.)
Again, I don't want to get into a religious argument (I don't think it's the point of this list) but Mr. Harris's argument was different: Even if the virgin birth is outside the natural order, the question Mr. Harris pushes on is "how does Mr. Collins know that X event happened?" In other words, since Mr. Collins is claiming that the natural order was suspended on a certain date at a certain place, he is the one who should have to provide evidence for that assertion. I think that this the "failure of skepticism" Mr. Harris is referring to.... I refer you to his piece for his arguments instead of my clumsy paraphrasing. All that aside, I wanted to assume that "his views [are] antithetical to the values underlying science," not just characterize them that way. Assuming that they are, what result? Is it discrimination to say that someone's religious views undercut values that are needed in a job? I think the faith-healer hypothetical was more on target, but doesn't have the full flavor of the argument. A faith-healer, I suppose, never accepts conventional medicine. (Mr. Harris is arguing that) Mr. Collins is like a part-time faith healer. The doctor-who-prays response is helpful. What about a doctor who was excellent on the job, but sometimes denounced accepted fields of medicine off the job? A On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Douglas Laycock <layco...@umich.edu> wrote: > It is you who are begging the question. The question is whether religious > faith and scientific commitment are inherently inconsistent. You assumed > the answer to that question when you characterized his views as antithetical > to the values underlying science. > > The virgin birth, if it happened, was outside the natural order. Has any > said or done anything unscientific in or about the course of his scientific > work, when he is talking about things within the natural order? Has he said > or done anything allegedly anithetical to science other than state and > promote his religious beliefs? > > A faith healer who refuses medical treatment could not be Surgeon General. > An excellent physician who does everything medically indicated, and also > prays for cures and believes that God sometimes answers those prayers, could > be Surgeon General. > > Quoting Anthony Decinque <anthony.decin...@gmail.com>: > > > I think that begs the question, in a sense. You say, "If he has said > > anything about science that is antithetical to sound science, that would > be > > a fair ground of criticism." Mr. Collins states that he believes in the > > virgin birth. Is that antithetical to sound science? > > > > I don't really want to get into a religious debate or comment on the > > validity of Mr. Collins's specific beleifs. I want to know when > someone's > > advocacy of ideas that are antithetical to a profession can be used to > > disqualify that person (legally). You can change the hypothetical if you > > want. A faith-healer that is applying to be Surgeon General? > > > > A > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Douglas Laycock <layco...@umich.edu> > wrote: > > > >> The alleged "ideas that are antithetical to the values underlying the > job" > >> are simply his religion. Some consider his religion antithetical; he > does > >> not. It is not antithetical unless you accept certain other assumptions > >> about the relation between religion and science -- assumptions that his > >> critics adopt but that he rejects. > >> > >> If he has said anything about science that is antithetical to sound > >> science, that would be a fair ground of criticism. But if he is sound > when > >> he talks about science, and the only evidence against him is the > inferences > >> people draw when he talks about religion, that is simply a religious > >> disqualification. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Quoting Anthony Decinque <anthony.decin...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> > Francis Collins has been selected to be the head of NIH, where he will > >> have > >> > substantial authority to allocate the nation?s scientific research > >> funding. > >> > There are a few criticisms of Mr. Collins being made regarding his > >> religion.. > >> > > >> > > >> > For this list, I wanted to set aside a specific criticism. > Specifically, > >> > let?s ignore criticisms based on Mr. Collins using his government > >> position > >> > to promote religion. (For example, if Mr. Collins were to give a > speech, > >> as > >> > head of the Human Genome Project, claiming that DNA is evidence for > God.) > >> > > >> > Instead, I wanted to get the list?s opinion on a different criticism. > >> This > >> > criticism goes like this: (1) science is a product of another, deeper, > >> more > >> > important feature ? skeptical thinking; (2) Mr. Collins does not > practice > >> > skeptical thinking; (3) in fact, Mr. Collins has made many statements > >> > undermining and contradicting skeptical thinking. Therefore, the > >> criticism > >> > goes, Mr. Collins should not be the head of NIH because he undermines > >> what > >> > science is all about. > >> > > >> > To get a flavor of the criticism, you can read this > >> > piece< > >> > http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/>by<http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/%3Eby> > < > http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/%3Eby> > > > >> > Sam Harris. > >> > It is an elaboration of a NY Times editorial Mr. Harris recently > >> > authored. In > >> > response, biologist Kenneth Miller wrote in the NY Times that Mr. > Harris > >> has > >> > ?deeply held prejudices against religion? and opposes Mr. Collins > merely > >> > because ?he is a Christian.? > >> > > >> > What does the list think? Should it be acceptable for an employer to > >> > discriminate against a job candidate on the grounds that the candidate > >> > believes, practices, and advocates for ideas that are antithetical to > the > >> > values underlying the job? (Again, assuming that the candidate would > not > >> > otherwise abuse the post and would generally do a fine administrative > >> job.) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > Anthony DeCinque > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> Douglas Laycock > >> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law > >> University of Michigan Law School > >> 625 S. State St. > >> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 > >> 734-647-9713 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > >> > >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > >> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > >> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly > or > >> wrongly) forward the messages to others. > >> > > > > > > Douglas Laycock > Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law > University of Michigan Law School > 625 S. State St. > Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 > 734-647-9713 > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
