Wasn't Galileo was tried and convicted by those who wrongly rejected his
theories, as they conflicted with the scientific and religious beliefs
of the day?
Lisa
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
As to the aether theory, I don’t know what the view was at
the time; I suspect that it wasn’t viewed so firmly that anyone who
disagreed would be seen as a crank. But say that it was, and that
therefore people who rejected the theory were wrongly condemned and
discriminated against. That’s surely bad. Yet does our uncertainty
about what’s right, and our recognition that time has upset many
fighting faiths, mean that we just have to categorically ignore a
person’s seemingly unsound scientific views when he’s being considered
for a high government post? Remember, the question isn’t whether to
throw someone in prison for his views about elephants and turtles
(though in extreme cases, we do lock someone up as insane if we see his
views as “delusions,” for instance if the person really believes that
he’s Napoleon) – it’s whether we should consider the views in deciding
whether to trust the person with a great deal of discretionary authority.
Eugene
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Eric Rassbach
*Sent:* Thursday, August 06, 2009 3:51 PM
*To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* RE: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
Isn’t one of the lines to draw whether the idea is scientifically
testable or not? We can make scientific observations now about whether
the world rests upon turtles, but we cannot observe the birth of Christ.
Also query whether the “natural order” we’ve been discussing isn’t
overly Newtonian in its assumptions. Quantum mechanics allows us to
calculate the non-zero probabilities, however infinitesimal, of events
we might otherwise hold to be outside the standard rules of nature.
Finally, would it have been right for someone in the late 19^th century
to take pretty negative views of someone who didn’t buy into an aether
theory? For the government to impose legal detriments on that person?
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Volokh, Eugene
*Sent:* Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:54 PM
*To:* 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
*Subject:* RE: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
I do think this raises a troublesome question for those of
us who recognize the importance of religious toleration, and yet have to
evaluate people’s qualities for various purposes. Say someone sincerely
tells us that he thinks the world literally rests on the back of four
elephants, which rest on the back of a turtle. When told that this is
inconsistent with various facts about the world, elephants, and turtles,
he says that this is an artifact of some special treatment by divine
forces, which allows evasion of the normal rules of the universe. I
take it that our first reaction would be to take a pretty negative view
of the person.
And that the person believes this for religious reasons wouldn’t
displace our doubts, I think. Even if we have reason to think that he’s
been a perfectly good geneticist, we might wonder whether he’s the best
person to promote to a rather different job that involves a broad range
of choices about health science funding. Maybe we have some sort of
ethical or constitutional obligation to set aside our worries, and draw
a sharp line between beliefs that a person says are “outside the natural
order” and those that he says relate to the natural order. But it seems
to me that setting them aside at least runs against our first
common-sense reactions, and might in fact not be sound.
>From there we can shift the hypothetical. What if the
person believes the world is 6000 years old, and that people used to
live nearly 1000 years, and that all the contrary evidence is miracles
produced by God to test our faith? What if he doesn’t take such a view,
but believes that there have been several departures from the standard
rules of nature in the past several thousand years, such as a virgin
birth, a resurrection, and the like?
My sense is that we would indeed draw lines between these
examples. It is certainly significant to me that very many smart,
thoughtful, and suitably scientific skeptical people are believing
Christians, and that (I suspect) many fewer such smart, thoughtful, and
skeptical people are Young-Earthers or people who literally accept
certain Hindu creation myths. But it’s not easy for me to figure out
how to translate that sort of sensible distinction into a legal or
constitutional rule, or even a broadly acceptable principle of political
ethics.
Eugene
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Anthony Decinque
*Sent:* Thursday, August 06, 2009 2:26 PM
*To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
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
<mailto: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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.
--
Lisa A. Runquist
Runquist & Associates
Attorneys at Law
17554 Community Street
Northridge, CA 91325
(818)609-7761
(818)609-7794 (fax)
l...@runquist.com
http://www.runquist.com
********************************************
IRS Circular 230 Notice
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication is not intended
or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the
purpose of avoiding U.S. tax penalties.
********************************************
This message and any attachments may be protected by the attorney/client
privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not
read, copy or distribute it. Please reply to the sender that you have
received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you.
NOTE: Emails are not a secure method of communication. If you do not
wish to obtain future communications from me via email, please advise me
immediately.
_______________________________________________
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.
