Indeed, which is good reason not to try and convict those who wrongly
reject the theories we view as sound. But that doesn't tell us much, I think,
about whether we should appoint them to head NIH. In fact, it seems to me
obviously true that we *should* consider people's scientific theories in
deciding whether to appoint them heads of NIH (the closest analogy to Galileo).
The question is whether we should also consider their factual assertions that
they say are merely matters of religious faith.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Lisa A. Runquist
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:54 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
>
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
