There's an article in the NYTimes right now about earth scientists (paleontologists, geologists, etc.) who have religious beliefs contrary to their scientific research. There's an example in Los Alamos which everyone knows, about this guy who is an expert on earth mantle dynamics and is a young earth believer, i.e. that the earth/universe was created no more than 10,000 years ago. It seems that scientists don't like creationists like this, who have religious views directly opposite the views espoused by their research, to come to their institutions, but when the creationists have adequate credentials, the institution feels it would be discrimination to refuse. This is especially troubling if the person may be getting credentials in order to later say that they believe creationism, and look, they have a Ph.D. in earth science. I have to say, I agree with the fact that if someone has adequate background, you can't refuse them study or a job based on religious beliefs. (A slightly different question arises if they have published views which aren't supportable from evidence, in scientific sources of any kind.) But you know, the fact that creationists do this just... it just disgusts me. It's so dishonest, and so antithetical to the foundation of science being the pursuit of truth. There may be nothing at all wrong with the science that a person like that does, but they are seriously fucked up in the head if they can follow scientific method and still believe based on faith that what they spend their time working on is wrong. Why would you even do it in the first place?

I don't have a problem with religious people, I have a little bit of a problem with religious people who insist on believing something that science has proven wrong, and I have a big problem with someone who would abuse the honesty and tolerance of the scientific community like that.

Anyways, if you want to read the whole article, I guess I will reproduce it ( here. )

My thinking on this has, like most people's, evolved a lot over the last few years. It's fluttered through all sorts of feelings and emotions, through examinations of freedom of religion and whether profiling is helpful or not, through examinations of freedom of speech, through the questions of when, if ever, the ends justify the means. I feel clear on two points.

The first is an echo of things I've said before, that terrorism is a hateful thing, based on a system of values that deserves nothing but contempt. It's true, in some cases, that people turned to terrorism such as the Palestinians are often coming from extremely desperate circumstances, and have had everything taken from them. Or alternately, the Israelis (who I feel are equally guilty of mass civilian slaughter), who are trying to defend what they feel is their home in a sea of hostility and danger. We must have empathy for that, and lapses born of desperation should be expected. But they are not justified. But when we see hurtful systems of values being adopted elsewhere and being used to hurt us, I think it's essential to first examine our own behavior to look for our own ethical lapses. Where have we committed the same mistakes? Where have we invented our own? We must be sure we are acting faithfully on our own principles beforing accusing anyone else. And I think it's critical in fighting terrorists that we stand by our moral code. Abandoning free speech, abandoning right to trial, abandoning any of our own rights or the rights of others, which we assert are universal, kills the thing we seek to defend. I still believe something I said a time ago that when a person acts towards destruction of life, that person's life is forfeit. But that does not mean we should take it, and break our own code.

The second point concerns the loss, the hurt, the tremendous waste. There's a feature in the New York Times right now that talks about families who lost someone; apparently they did a profile 1 year after and have now done a second for many families. You can read a few, and they're interesting, but what's amazing and terrible is to see how many profiles they've done, and realize how small a fraction that is of all the people who were hurt by what happened. Have you seen Munich"? It's well-executed and very disturbing, and I highly recommend it. And after you see it, most probably you'll be moved to feel the way I do, that all this fighting is mostly a terrible waste. I think one always has to realize that whenever a person takes an action, they have from their point of view all the reason in the world to take that action, and from their perspective they are being reasonable, just, and caring. And it's terrible to think, isn't it, about some of the worldviews necessary for the actions we've seen in recent years, both from the Muslim extremists and from our own government. It's foolish to say we shouldn't defend ourselves, but equally foolish to do so in a way that wastes life and hurts our own cause.

It's to the point where I can barely listen to world news any more. I'm not sure what's to be done, other than vote and keep pushing the world with my own small strength in the direction I want it to go.

I sort of try to keep my political and religious views out of here, mainly because you all have such disparate views, and since I wouldn't address a varied crowd with my leanings, why would I risk alienating people on here? I go to a good deal of trouble to maintain good relationships with people I respect.

That said, ( let me clear my throat )

I try to be diplomatic about most differences of opinion, especially because you can learn a lot by understanding what leads someone else to believe a certain thing. But some things, I have a hard time respecting.

Most of my personal problems with organized religion don't stem from its basic tenets, or from the people in it (for the most part), but from the little ridiculous details, the manipulative way in which religion is presented and executed, and things like that. And with the current government, it's so easy to criticize religion, because it's doing so many things wrong. So I really liked this article, which my dad sent me, because it's sort of more what I used to think religion was, and what it ought to be if it's really going to help people.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2005/003/4.62.html

It's also nicely written, and I encourage you to read it (it doesn't take long) even if your initial reaction was 'yuck, a religion post'. :P