I see what Mike is getting at, and I think it is an issue about which we must be careful. We do not want to exclude people from certain government positions on the basis of their religious beliefs. However, the issue here is not actually what Goodyear's religious beliefs are (it was HIS mistake to characterize the matter that way). The issue is what his scientific understanding is. Whether his scientific understanding is faulty because of conflicting religious beliefs or because of other, more idiosyncratic factors is nether here nor there (for me). (Indeed, to prove my point, I find the faulty science-related beliefs born of Goodyear's chiropractic training no less a reason to doubt his fitness to be minister for science than those born of his religious beliefs.)
Now to the question of whether someone with faulty scientific beliefs (for whatever cause) can "still do his job admirably"? In principle, I suppose s/he could. But politics is rarely about "in principle" decisions. The question is whether one *trusts* a person with beliefs that contradict what is widely accepted to be scientific knowledge (not mere belief) *will* (not just can) operate successfully on the basis of the latter. Here's another parallel question, useful for considering the matter because of its non-religious character. The Conservative Prime Minister, under the threat of being thrown out of office, has suddenly reversed course and announced a large economic stimulus package that is much more in line with the longtime policies of the Liberal opposition. We all know that he doesn't believe that such policies are economically successful (his economic views have been on public display for years -- long before he was even leader of his party). Should those people who hold to a more liberal view of economics trust that he will make good on his announcements, or should they attempt to bounce him from office in favor of someone who personally believes in such policies? (Note: It has already been observed that much of the announced stimulus package can only flow under conditions that are highly unlikely to be met -- such as dollar-for-dollar matching funds from municipalities applying for infrastructure funds. This would seem to indicate that his announcement is an empty promise, and that, if one wants a real stimulus package, one should get someone else.) Ditto for Goodyear. His scientific beliefs are so out of the mainstream, that it seems improbable that he will represent scientific interests well. It is not a matter of "a priori excluding" him. It is matter of questioning whether there is a more suitable person for the job in the context of the current Conservative caucus. It is also a question of wondering whether the Prime Minister is sending a message about his government's position vis-a-vis science with the appointment of such a person to such a portfolio. In, say, Transport, no one would much care about Goodyear's scientific beliefs. In Science, there are important political tea leaves to be read. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== Michael Smith wrote: > > But do they? That was the point. > > "Would you hire a Christian Scientist to direct a public health > program?" Yes. > > Would a Christian Scientist not be able to direct a public health program? > > If you are apriori excluding Christian Scientists from directing > public programs then that is discrimination based on religion. > > Could said minister be a creationist and still do his job admirably? Yes. > > Could Richard Dawkins impartially and sensitively carry out his > obligations as Chair for the Public Understanding of Science? > Well, OK, some things aren't possible, but I think my main point still > stands. > > --Mike > > > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Paul Brandon <paul.bran...@mnsu.edu > <mailto:paul.bran...@mnsu.edu>> wrote: > > > When religious beliefs conflict with one's function as a science > minister they become relevant to job function. > Would you hire a Christian Scientist to direct a public health > program? > One has a right to one's beliefs; one does not have a right to > hold a job that one refuses (for whatever reason) to perform > properly (according to contract, job description, etc). > And in this case it doesn't sound like there was any problem > knowing what his beliefs were (at least to the extent that they > compromised his support for science). > > On Mar 22, 2009, at 10:38 PM, Michael Smith wrote: > >> Hmmm. Seems all the good stuff happens when I'm not around. >> (I wonder if that's a conspiracy...nah...can't be...I think) >> >> Why is it important to know his beliefs? >> >> Are we not supposed to hire people for positions without >> predjudice with regard to religion, color, sexual orientation etc? >> >> --Mike >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, William Scott >> <wsc...@wooster.edu <mailto:wsc...@wooster.edu>> wrote: >> >> Chris Green sez: >> ------ >> "I think the major reason that attention >> has suddenly become focused on the Science Minister is that his >> government just cut the budgets of the major research funding >> agencies >> as part of their "economic stimulus" package. Go figr." >> ---------- >> But he, himself, objected to those cuts!! >> >> I'm taken with the following comments by Lorna Dueck in the >> Toronto Globe & Mail: >> >> "He made a defensive stumble in an environment he assumed >> would not allow the breadth of questions needed to explore >> Christianity and science. He drew the line around his faith >> tightly, with what appears to be a "Don't ask, don't tell" >> policy. The fact that we cannot intelligently explore a >> science minister's personal beliefs in God because it's >> deemed political suicide in a sound-bite culture should alarm >> us all about the erosion of our freedoms." >> >> While I agree that it is important to know his beliefs, I do >> understand the defensiveness which led to his statements. >> >>> "Christopher D. Green" <chri...@yorku.ca >> <mailto:chri...@yorku.ca>> 03/18/09 7:53 PM >>> >> sbl...@ubishops.ca <mailto:sbl...@ubishops.ca> wrote: >> > Our Science Minister, (yes, our _science_ minister), with >> the proud >> > title of federal Minister of State for Science and >> Technology, was >> > asked whether he "believed in evolution". >> > >> > >> And then... >> > Shame on us. >> > >> >> Indeed. However, it has been long known that the current >> Minister of >> International Trade (and former Leader of the Opposition) >> Stockwell Day >> is a "young Earth creationist." I think the major reason that >> attention >> has suddenly become focused on the Science Minister is that his >> government just cut the budgets of the major research funding >> agencies >> as part of their "economic stimulus" package. Go figr. >> >> Chris >> > > Paul Brandon > Emeritus Professor of Psychology > Minnesota State University, Mankato > paul.bran...@mnsu.edu <mailto:paul.bran...@mnsu.edu> > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu > <mailto:bsouthe...@frostburg.edu>) > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
