Rob Knop on Gnu Athiests

[Ghel]

The specific cases are in her book, several examples of which can be reached by using Google to search for specific references. One particular scientist is in so much fear of discrimination herself that she won't even discuss her religion in a scientific setting and was so gun-shy about it that it took an effort of will to discuss it with Ecklund.

Several examples? Out of 275 interviews. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and say you found 10 examples. That's 3.6% of the scientists interviewed. Even looking at it as a percentage of the religious scientists identified in the study, that makes 10% of the scientists interviewed, who identified as religious, who feel they've been discriminated against because of their religion. Obviously, it's the exception and not the rule.

The label is only relevant in that it describes a certain set of attitudes. Both Knop and I have outlined the attitudes in question...

What attitudes? That science should focus on what can be demonstrated to be true? That unproven or untestable assertions shouldn't be accepted? That allowing religious bias to affect scientific research skews the results? That the only way to have a work environment free of religious discrimination is to not talk about religion at work? That religion shouldn't be taught in science classes? How are any of these sentiments "not conducive to the acceptance and advancement of science"?

[Andara Bledin]

I just read through all the articles we've linked regarding Eklund's work again, and I don't see any mention of discrimination.

The specific cases are in her book, several examples of which can be reached by using Google to search for specific references. One particular scientist is in so much fear of discrimination herself that she won't even discuss her religion in a scientific setting and was so gun-shy about it that it took an effort of will to discuss it with Ecklund.

From page 48:

To be sure, some nonbelieving colleagues do discriminate against religious people, making it difficult for religious individuals to talk about faith participation openly in their departments...

Where did you get that? Certainly not from Eklund's work.

Actually, directly from Ecklund's work. I haven't quoted from any of the reviews because I noted that the reviews were sometimes contradictory and that they wouldn't necessarily represent the truth of what was said in the book. Having read excerpts from the book through both Google and the Amazon preview, I find that I was correct. Unfortunately, some of what I wanted to quote is on page 1, which isn't currently available at either site, so I had to settle for something slightly less definite further on in the same section.

From Page 7:

Science and religion can transition from warring factions to twin states with a contested border. And under certain conditions, there might even be "free trade" between them. Other sociologists of religion, upon whose work I build, have described both the secularization of the academy as well as how the institutional infrastructure of the academy has changed to allow more of a place for religion. Now that religion is again a vital force in the academy - as a result, some say, of a countermoement complete with resources, infrastructures, and active student involvement - the most secular of scientists are finding it hard to handle the resurgence in traditional forms of religion.

From this I gather that the secularization of the university was an artificial movement and now the pendulum is swinging the other way, moving back towards religion being more prevalent and less vilified.

And I still don't see what any of this has to do with the supposed "New Atheist" movement, which is what this thread started out discussing.

You're getting hung up on the label. The label is only relevant in that it describes a certain set of attitudes. Both Knop and I have outlined the attitudes in question, so any further discussion based purely on the name without consideration of the specific meaning given for the name is not germane to the discussion at large.

Both Knop and Ecklund discuss how anti-religious sentiment is not conducive to the acceptance and advancement of science. Ecklund's research is quite compelling.

Once I receive the book, I can quote more of her findings that support this and other statements I've made in this thread without the limitations placed by just trying to search previews.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

I honestly don't understand what it is you're trying to say here.

I was saying that there is no logical progression from "by the 1920s, movements to secularize the academy had relegated religious perspectives to the sidelines, or shut them out altogether" to "acting against those who are religious solely for the fact that they are religious". You gave the former as evidence for the latter, and it's not.

However, if you are asking for citations regarding religious scientists being discriminated against solely on the basis that they are religious, there are a number of specific cases in Ecklund's works.

I just read through all the articles we've linked regarding Eklund's work again, and I don't see any mention of discrimination. What Eklund mostly seems to be advocating is that scientists discuss religious issues. She does mention that religion is marginalized in university science classrooms, but that's as it should be. University professors shouldn't be teaching creationism. Or chakras. Or astral projection.

...the majority of scientists continue to be religious and that percentage is climbing.

Where did you get that? Certainly not from Eklund's work. According to this review of Eklund's book, only 27% of the scientists she surveyed professed a belief in a god. Actually, I'll be a little more lenient with the cited numbers. With 34% atheist and another 30% agnostic, that leaves 36% reporting as religious, including the 27% theist. That's still not a majority, and I haven't seen anything indicating that the proportion of scientists who are religious is climbing.

And I still don't see what any of this has to do with the supposed "New Atheist" movement, which is what this thread started out discussing.

[Andara Bledin]

That does not follow.

I honestly don't understand what it is you're trying to say here. However, if you are asking for citations regarding religious scientists being discriminated against solely on the basis that they are religious, there are a number of specific cases in Ecklund's works.

I'm ordering her book so that I can get a more in-depth look at the results of her research.

Have you never considered that the main reason that scientists and atheists have the views they have on religion is because of the fact that nearly all religious claims fail to stand up to scrutiny?

Whether I've considered it or not doesn't matter (and is also irrelevant), but the evidence appears not to support that conclusion as the majority of scientists continue to be religious and that percentage is climbing.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

From the very first lines of the last article I linked:

That does not follow. You cannot get from the secularization of universities to individuals in the scientific fields are being discriminated against solely for being religious. You can only demonstrate that individuals are being discriminated against in this way by giving examples of such behavior or citing a study that accumulated data related to this behavior.

This is irrelevant to this thread. This one is about attitudes regarding religion and how people act as a result of them and the impact those attitudes have on the advancement and acceptance of science.

Have you never considered that the main reason that scientists and atheists have the views they have on religion is because of the fact that nearly all religious claims fail to stand up to scrutiny?

[Andara Bledin]

Please demonstrate that this happens.

From the very first lines of the last article I linked:

In his book "The Soul of the American University", historian George Marsden chronicles how and when higher education became hostile to religion. While most universities sprung from religious roots, by the 1920s, movements to secularize the academy had relegated religious perspectives to the sidelines, or shut them out altogether.

The conflict between science and religion arises when religious claims fail to stand up to scrutiny.

This is irrelevant to this thread. This one is about attitudes regarding religion and how people act as a result of them and the impact those attitudes have on the advancement and acceptance of science.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

Are you comfortable with those who teach and perform science just keeping their beliefs to themselves

Yes, if they will: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ms?sc=fb&cc=fp

Heck I have to set my personal beliefs aside all the time. I believe that Neil LaBute is a terrible playwright, director, and human being. But I still have to teach one of his plays and talk about it in an objective manner. That's part of the job description.

Religion does exist and effects people, and there are people who study that, in fields like cultural anthropology, sociology, political science, history, and, of course, theology...i.e. the "soft" or social sciences and humanities. However, they also study the phenomena that is religion from an objective viewpoint without allowing their own personal beliefs to bias their research.*

Of course, these aren't the people you think of when you say "scientist." Religion should not be the concern of chemists, biologists, physicists, or anyone else working in the "hard" sciences, those that we think of as "scientists."

*Obviously there will always be some bias. But it is the duty of the researcher to aware and work to be as objective as humanly possible.

[Ghel]

From a purely scientific standpoint, acting against those who are religious solely for the fact that they are religious (beliefs as opposed to actions) would be just as wrong as someone who was religious taking action based on those beliefs, wouldn't it?

Please demonstrate that this happens. Otherwise it's just a hypothetical. Nothing in any of the articles or blog posts that have been linked on this thread have suggested that the scientific community (or any scientists in particular) are "acting against those who are religious solely for the fact that they are religious".

The conflict between science and religion arises when religious claims fail to stand up to scrutiny. Religion makes the claims. Science exposes them as false. It has nothing to do with what the scientists would like to be true, and everything to do with what is verifiably true.

[Andara Bledin]

But where do you draw the line?

Are you comfortable with those who teach and perform science just keeping their beliefs to themselves, or do you think that those people shouldn't have beliefs at all or those with beliefs should be allowed to go into science?

You can't be scientific and not accept that religion exists and effects how people react and respond. After all, you wouldn't just discard any other data because you didn't care that it existed, would you?

From a purely scientific standpoint, acting against those who are religious solely for the fact that they are religious (beliefs as opposed to actions) would be just as wrong as someone who was religious taking action based on those beliefs, wouldn't it?

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

While I don't want religion purged from society, I do want it purged from science. The supernatural doesn't have a place in the scientific. Scientists, hell, all academics, need to base their research on facts not faith. I'm not a scientist, but I can't publish an article that says that Queen Elizabeth wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare without supporting my claims with historical facts. I can't just say that it is so because I think it's so, or that it came to me in a dream, or that her ghost sat down to have tea with me and told me it was so.

[Andara Bledin]

Not just religion, but any claim that is insufficiently supported by evidence. I don't see a problem with this.

She does. As do a number of the subjects she polled and interviewed.

If one steps away from the label and actually starts looking at what Knop states that the label represents, you end up with - among other things - those who have and would purge religion from science in the 20's and through to today.

It wasn't a healthy attitude then, and it remains an unhealthy attitude today.

According to these natural and social scientists, their students ought to understand religiously-based forms of science ethics alongside ethical-moral-value systems derived from naturalism, those views independent of supernatural claims. One social scientist I spoke with, who described herself as a cultural Jew, believes university students have to learn to “take responsibility for the ways in which their beliefs and values affect other people,” and they must understand how other people’s beliefs and values affect them and their research.

Science is not a closed system; it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

The more I read of her work and her articles, it becomes obvious that science became uncompromising as regards the concept of religion...

Not just religion, but any claim that is insufficiently supported by evidence. I don't see a problem with this.

...it's fairly obvious that religion and spirituality pose no barrier to learning or the advancement of science.

...This shows that the advancement of science is not a barrier to belief, either.

Then what's your beef? Again, these quotes talk about science vs. relgion, not atheism vs. religion. These articles give no support to Knop's claim that "New Atheism" is pushing religious people away from an acceptance of science.

[Andara Bledin]

Yes, I can see how "religious ideas were subjected to the same kind of rigorous scientific scrutiny as other ideas were" would make religious people shy away from science.

Except that religious people didn't "shy away from science" based on their being religious. The more I read of her work and her articles, it becomes obvious that science became uncompromising as regards the concept of religion, seeking to divorce itself entirely from any possible religious trappings, including belief in practitioners.

With a third of current scientists actively religious and another third passively religious and a number of the non-religious identifying themselves as still spiritual, it's fairly obvious that religion and spirituality pose no barrier to learning or the advancement of science.

Also, her research shows that the number of religious individuals in the sciences is still recovering from the purge of the 20's. This shows that the advancement of science is not a barrier to belief, either.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

I'll admit that I don't have facts, a survey, or an academic study to back this up, only my own observations. The *vast* majority of the academics I know* at my current school are atheists, agnostics, or 'mildly spiritual' without belonging to an organized religion. I have one friend who is a lapsed Catholic and would like to convert to Judaism, another that is a lapsed Southern Baptist like myself, and a few Jewish professors. And one of those professors said to me, "Of course it's based on mythology, you think we all came directly from Abraham? Nahhh." There are also a handful of Buddhists, but again, that's a philosophy, not a religion.

I don't know why that is, or why the vast majority of academics are also liberals. I guess that's just the type of person who dedicates themselves to the pursuit of knowledge and/or the desire to share that knowledge with others. It was slightly different at my undergrad in the Bible Belt, but even then the majority of the professors were areligious. A friend at Texas Tech (Lubbock, TX) has said the same thing. Even when most of the students are conservative and religious, even when the community is openly hostile to liberals and atheists, the majority of the professors are liberals and areligious.

*All in the humanities/arts. Don't know any scientists. Well, one, but he was an asshole.

[Ghel]

Having been equated with the inquisition and a word usually relating to terrorists, but lacking thumbscrews, c4 and pitch, I must withdraw.

I don't blame you. I had passed over that post because it was so far out of line. But you're right, let's not ignore the crazy.

I really see little difference between the "New Atheists" and religious extremists.

When was the last time an atheist flew a plane into a building? Blew him- or herself up to kill a handful of ideological opponents? Shot an abortion doctor? Where's even one example of an atheist participating in extremism or terrorism in order to support his or her philosophy?

Here is an article she wrote late last year at Big Questions Online. In it she explains that it wasn't religion that quit science, but that science became hostile to religion, to it's detriment, and of society at large.

The article talks about how religion has declined in universities. It says nothing about the "New Atheist" movement. Here is the most telling quote: "While most universities sprung from religious roots, by the 1920s, movements to secularize the academy had relegated religious perspectives to the sidelines, or shut them out altogether." The 1920s. The decline of religion in universities has nothing whatsoever to do with the "New Atheist" movement.

This supports Knop's statement that hostility towards religion is counter-productive to the advancement of science...

Yes, I can see how "religious ideas were subjected to the same kind of rigorous scientific scrutiny as other ideas were" would make religious people shy away from science. The vast majority of religious claims do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. That is a problem for religion, not for science.

In my rush to get out the door to work, I forgot to mention something that occurred to me while I was reading Eklund's article. Eklund says that scientists should consider the religious implications of their research. I disagree. Scientists should consider the moral and ethical implications, certainly. But moral systems tend to be independent of one's religious affiliation. The only time scientists need to consider the religious implications of their research is when they're testing religious claims.