Are you a secularist

[Robin]

A recent discussion elsewhere triggered this thought. Sam Harris opposed Francis Collins appointment as head of the NIH on the basis that Collins’ religious beliefs made him unfit for the office. A number of people have agreed with Harris on this. Harris also indicated in the same article that a Hindu belief would similarly disqualify someone for the post.

There is no doubt from any side about Collins’ scientific qualifications and experience.

Perhaps Harris has a point, but Collins’ beliefs would pretty much match those of any believing Christian and so Harris is effectively proposing a religious test for a senior government post.

That would suggest that Harris is technically opposed to the position of secularism, since secularism would preclude any religious test.

So I was wondering for those who might agree with Harris on this, would you consider yourself a secularist, or believe that the Government should be secular?

 

[surreptitious57]

A good scientist should be able to disregard religious belief - if they have one - and just concentrate on science when doing it. As long as they can do that then it is not a problem and secularists should have no objection in principle to this. It only becomes a problem if there is a conflict of interest but that nothwithstanding it is absolutely fine. Richard Dawkins could not under stand why Francis Collins could be both a scientist and a Christian but Collins explained to him that he does not conflate the two when he is actually engaging in science. And this is the right position to adopt and should be the default one for any scientist who has belief

 

[devnull]

Harris is an idiot.

A person can both be a believer, and a secularist. Many, many believers are able to compartmentalise and ignore their religion while doing science.

Until such time as they do a bad job because of their belief, there is no grounds to deny them the role based on their religion. At which time you would fire them for doing a bad job, not for their religion.

 

[PixyMisa]

A person can both be a believer, and a secularist. Many, many believers are able to compartmentalise and ignore their religion while doing science.

Sure, but that is intellectually dishonest. So the question is, does intellectual dishonesty make a candidate unsuitable for such a position?

 

[devnull]

Sure, but that is intellectually dishonest. So the question is, does intellectual dishonesty make a candidate unsuitable for such a position?

If one could do proper science, what would be the harm?

 

[PixyMisa]

If one could do proper science, what would be the harm?

Well, that's something of an assumption, isn't it? If you know that a person holds baseless and irrational beliefs, that throws into doubt everything else they do. Particularly when it comes to science, where strict evaluation of evidence is necessary.

Now, it's true that many accomplished scientists are religious. We know that religion is by no means an absolute block to doing good scientific research. But all else being equal, why should we not choose a candidate without irrational beliefs over one with them?

Which doesn't necessarily mean that Francis Collins shouldn't have been appointed. All else being equal another candidate might have been preferable - but all else is rarely equal.

Still, while we rightly reject a religious test for public office, should we also reject a test of rationality for scientific office? I don't think that's clear at all.

 

[SezMe]

Well, that's something of an assumption, isn't it? If you know that a person holds baseless and irrational beliefs, that throws into doubt everything else they do. Particularly when it comes to science, where strict evaluation of evidence is necessary.

Yes, it is an assumption but one, I would argue, that has considerable evidence to support it. As you have noted, we know there are good scientists who hold religious beliefs. Coming from the other end, I think is is manifestly obvious that most religionists have obvious compartmentalization capabilities. No (well, only a handful of) Christians actually put into practice all of the biblical rules.

Bottom line: Harris is wrong and Collins was a good choice.

Now, it's true that many accomplished scientists are religious. We know that religion is by no means an absolute block to doing good scientific research. But all else being equal, why should we not choose a candidate without irrational beliefs over one with them?

I was gonna write that "all else" is rarely true but then you wrote...

Which doesn't necessarily mean that Francis Collins shouldn't have been appointed. All else being equal another candidate might have been preferable - but all else is rarely equal.

so I didn't write it.

Still, while we rightly reject a religious test for public office, should we also reject a test of rationality for scientific office? I don't think that's clear at all.

I can accept that a person can (and, in Collins' case, actually does) draw a hard partition between their scientific life and their personal life. Maybe it's not the ideal solution but the world isn't ideal either.

 

[Jono]

I can't really find a point of agreement with Harris on this one. While I might hypothetically depending on the case, support such an argument due to the given person's expressed religious or ideological views I wouldn't, by default, discount someone's competence for holding a position (as the one formentioned). At least not simply for having a religious belief. Had I been inclined to do so, I'd have to discount most of the otherwise brilliant and competent people in politics, science and public education in history up until very recent times. And that would just be... stupid.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

A good scientist should be able to disregard religious belief - if they have one - and just concentrate on science when doing it. As long as they can do that then it is not a problem and secularists should have no objection in principle to this. It only becomes a problem if there is a conflict of interest but that nothwithstanding it is absolutely fine. Richard Dawkins could not under stand why Francis Collins could be both a scientist and a Christian but Collins explained to him that he does not conflate the two when he is actually engaging in science. And this is the right position to adopt and should be the default one for any scientist who has belief

Logically, a 'good' scientist shouldn't have a religious belief. However, while I may think that, I have to accept, however much it bemuses me, that there are plenty of people who seem to be very good scientists and yet still have religious belief. Via compartmentalisation they seem able to turn off logic and the scientific approach with respect to their beliefs but keep it on for their science.

Intellectually dishonest? I think so, and don't understand why they do it (other than brain-washing, social pressure, going with the flow, liking the comfort of their irrational beliefs, whatever) but in most cases it doesn't affect their work so I guess we should treat it the same way as a scientist who is good at their actual job but has other weird quirks - put up with it so long as it doesn't affect their work.

You have to look at it as being a bit odd though...

 

[JoeMorgue]

My only issue with all this is that only with religion does this work, not with other irrational beliefs.

The ongoing argument seems to be that irrational beliefs that are part of accepted religions should be more acceptable then just any old random irrational belief. Electing a President that thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old should be more acceptable then electing one that thinks we never landing on the moon because of.... errr reasons.

 

[GDon]

A recent discussion elsewhere triggered this thought. Sam Harris opposed Francis Collins appointment as head of the NIH on the basis that Collins’ religious beliefs made him unfit for the office. A number of people have agreed with Harris on this. Harris also indicated in the same article that a Hindu belief would similarly disqualify someone for the post.

There is no doubt from any side about Collins’ scientific qualifications and experience.

Perhaps Harris has a point, but Collins’ beliefs would pretty much match those of any believing Christian and so Harris is effectively proposing a religious test for a senior government post.

That would suggest that Harris is technically opposed to the position of secularism, since secularism would preclude any religious test.

So I was wondering for those who might agree with Harris on this, would you consider yourself a secularist, or believe that the Government should be secular?

As a Christian and a secularist, I'm not your target audience for your question, but I believe that the Government should be secular. I'm aware that any religious test would probably exclude me (heretic that I am!) and my fear that any precedent will eventually be misused down the track, by Muslims or whatever other new religion that comes along. So secularism is important.

Here is Sam Harris's latest comments on Francis Collins:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-strange-case-of-francis-collins

Many modern Christians believe that God created the universe based on natural laws. Science is based on methodological naturalism -- the idea that the universe runs on natural laws. So Christians like Collins will have no philosophical problems with modern science. There doesn't need to be any conflict there.

Perhaps if science starts to try to explain the supernatural world, there might be a conflict. But Harris is dead-wrong on Collins (or any religious person like Hindus, whom Harris uses in another example) being an unsuitable candidate simply because he has supernatural beliefs. It doesn't stop the person from believing that the universe runs on natural laws, so doesn't stop them being effective in science.

 

[GDon]

Googling the issue, I found this article reproduced on Jerry Coyne's website, by Steven Pinker, both of whom disagreed with the appointment of Collins. In Pinker's case, is wasn't so much because of Collins' Christianity, but because Collins is a Christian advocate. It is a more nuanced argument than Harris's. Quotes from here:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/steven-pinker-on-francis-collins/

I have serious misgivings about Francis Collins being appointed director of NIH. It’s not that I think that there should be a religious litmus test for public science administrators, or that being a devout Christian is a disqualification. But in Collins’s case, it is not a matter of private belief, but public advocacy. The director of NIH is not just a bureaucrat who tends the money pipleline between the treasury and molecular biologists (which is how many scientists see the position). He or she is also a public face of science, someone who commands one of the major bully pulpits for science in the country. The director testifies before Congress, sets priorities, selects speakers and panelists, and is in many regards a symbol for biomedical research in the US and the world. In that regard, many of Collins’s advocacy statements are deeply disturbing.​

Pinker then gives examples.

 

[GDon]

Final note after some more googling: After being in the position these last 5 years (he was appointed in 2009), there doesn't appear to have been any controversies due to his Christianity.

 

[Dubious Dick]

Hasn't Collins played along with the Templeton Foundation? Biologos funded by Templeton I think.

Surely Biologos is theology and not science.

 

[Jono]

Pinker then gives examples.

I found those arguments much more agreeable. Harris should take notes from the Pinker-playbook.

 

[Lowpro]

A recent discussion elsewhere triggered this thought. Sam Harris opposed Francis Collins appointment as head of the NIH on the basis that Collins’ religious beliefs made him unfit for the office. A number of people have agreed with Harris on this. Harris also indicated in the same article that a Hindu belief would similarly disqualify someone for the post.

There is no doubt from any side about Collins’ scientific qualifications and experience.

Perhaps Harris has a point, but Collins’ beliefs would pretty much match those of any believing Christian and so Harris is effectively proposing a religious test for a senior government post.

That would suggest that Harris is technically opposed to the position of secularism, since secularism would preclude any religious test.

So I was wondering for those who might agree with Harris on this, would you consider yourself a secularist, or believe that the Government should be secular?

I'd need to know Harris' objections from the horse's mouth but in general the NIH is a secular institution already and Francis Collins' beliefs shouldn't have any measure of influence in his capacity to be the head of it.

I know that Harris/Dawkins/ the other two Horsemen have often said a scientist couldn't be taken seriously in superstitious belief because their work cannot contain superstition. Not sure if I agree with the practice of that more than the sentiment.

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, if I walk a few steps outside my office I can chat with a number of scientists who are religious. Geologists, paleontologists, biologists. Teatchers, researchers, Ph.D. students and candidates. None of them let their beliefs interfer with their works. This compartmentalization is weird, I know, and I can't grasp exactly how it works. But it works with them.

So... I fail to see the problem. If the person is qualified and can separate subjects, despite how weird this cognitive dissonance can be, it should not be an issue.

 

[Bikewer]

Years ago, I subscribed to Asimov's Science Fiction magazine, and each month the good doctor would have an editorial on various subjects.
Someone asked him about how scientists could be religious. Asimov said, "They keep the two separate."

Now that says something about human psychology, in that we are able to keep two conflicting ideas in our odd little heads at the same time, but it appears to be true.
I've listened to Collins interviewed; and he's an odd sort of Evangelical.... He does not believe in biblical literacy, and believes that Evolution is "How God did it."

As well (and this was on a "Fresh Air" interview some years ago) he indicated that his primary reason for belief was that (paraphrasing) he couldn't conceive of a world without love and altruism and cooperation.....All things that he saw as coming only from God. Evidently a decent microbiologist, but not really up on current thinking about evolution....

 

[tsig]

Years ago, I subscribed to Asimov's Science Fiction magazine, and each month the good doctor would have an editorial on various subjects.
Someone asked him about how scientists could be religious. Asimov said, "They keep the two separate."

Now that says something about human psychology, in that we are able to keep two conflicting ideas in our odd little heads at the same time, but it appears to be true.
I've listened to Collins interviewed; and he's an odd sort of Evangelical.... He does not believe in biblical literacy, and believes that Evolution is "How God did it."

As well (and this was on a "Fresh Air" interview some years ago) he indicated that his primary reason for belief was that (paraphrasing) he couldn't conceive of a world without love and altruism and cooperation.....All things that he saw as coming only from God. Evidently a decent microbiologist, but not really up on current thinking about evolution....

God so loved the world that he killed all but eight humans, god's idea of cooperation is "my way or the fry way" sorry Mr Collins, I pass.

The idea that we can't have good things without a god thing is a common delusion among theists.

 

[MG1962]

Well, if I walk a few steps outside my office I can chat with a number of scientists who are religious. Geologists, paleontologists, biologists. Teatchers, researchers, Ph.D. students and candidates. None of them let their beliefs interfer with their works. This compartmentalization is weird, I know, and I can't grasp exactly how it works. But it works with them.

So... I fail to see the problem. If the person is qualified and can separate subjects, despite how weird this cognitive dissonance can be, it should not be an issue.

Unless you are referencing Bible literalism where do you feel the conflict would come from in the first place?