The essence of organized religion is lack of faith!

[Boojatta]

One could be an expert on crystal spheres that control planetary motion even if no such spheres actually exist. More generally, one can be an expert in a particular theory even if the theory describes entities that don't actually exist.

Suppose Galileo had been an extremely competent expert on Ptolemy's system of astronomy. Had he applied for a position as Official Church Astronomer, he would probably not have been hired.

Most Christian churches have progressed. Now they do not demand that people accept church doctrine on astronomical questions.

However, what happens when a church wants to hire a teacher of religious doctrine or researcher of religious questions? We might think that it is only natural for a church to require that someone who wants to be hired in that kind of role would actually have faith. If the law prohibits discrimination in hiring on the grounds of the religious beliefs of a job applicant, then an exemption is made for religious institutions.

Yet, if we imagine a university hiring a professor of astronomy to do research and teach classes, it would be ridiculous to raise a question of faith. Suppose someone is a genuine expert in the astronomical theories that are to be taught. Suppose that person is very good at both teaching and research. Would it matter if we hear allegations that the person "doesn't really believe" in those theories? Would it matter if the person refused to express either belief or disbelief?

If there is a contrast here, then why is there this contrast? Perhaps this is the explanation: those who hire astronomers actually accept mainstream theories of astronomy. It is enough for a professor of astronomy to provide expertise. Only if the people who hire professors of astronomy didn't actually believe in mainstream theories of astronomy would it be necessary to impose a "true believer" test on people who want to be hired as professors of astronomy.

If the people who run a church refuse to hire nonbelievers for some positions, then the people who run that church themselves lack faith!

[Mnemosyne]

1. kick to reply later! n/t

[Flabbergasted]

2. There is no valid reason for a person to hire such a person. It's like

saying that principles hiring a school teacher, must acknowledge the idea of hiring teachers that are skeptical of the idea that reason is a valid idea. The idea is hardly worth testing because its premise in itself is illogical.

It's semantics at its best.

[Flabbergasted]

3. Dupe

[elocs]

4. You may have a point.

So when does the DNC intend to start hiring neocons? Or might they have a problem with their beliefs? I mean, if the neocon is good at their job, why should the DNC be prejudiced against them? Would that be good prejudice or bad prejudice? (I have no dog in the fight, just playing devil's advocate off the top of my head.)

[Boojatta]

7. "So when does the DNC intend to start hiring neocons?"

When they can trust that the neocons would not engage in sabotage, but would do exactly what they are paid to do. You aren't asking about abstract beliefs. You are asking about attitudes and intentions that are likely to have an impact.

Suppose I start with a blank canvas, close my eyes, and make what to me are random paint strokes on a canvas. If thousands of people insist that it is excellent art and offer me lots of money for it, then what's the problem?

From my point of view it would be a good deal to get real money for something that has no genuine value.

From the point of view of people who buy the paintings, what would be the problem? They wouldn't be paying for me to tell them that they have excellent taste in art. They would be paying for specific paintings and they would get those paintings.

[elocs]

11. I suppose they might when churches have no problem in

hiring qualified nonbelievers. DNC hiring neocons=churches hiring nonbelievers. Both are not very realistic.

[Boojatta]

13. Suppose that someone wins the James Randi million dollar prize

and then travels around the world displaying paranormal abilities.

For example, given silver, the person can produce gold. Chemical testing confirms that it is actually gold. The miracle-worker is able to process large quantities of silver in a short amount of time and is willing to do it for a relatively low hourly rate. Gold mining companies can't compete. They all close down. The price of gold drops and, for twenty years, stays only a bit above the price of silver.

Suppose a few people write authorized biographies of the miracle-worker. Suppose that you personally know the miracle-worker and you are certain that the paranormal abilities are genuine. If for some reason you wanted to hire someone who has expert knowledge of the biographies, would you consider it necessary to find out whether or not the expert really believes that the paranormal abilities are genuine?

[Boojatta]

15. Why would you not want to hire your prosecutor's spouse

to help with your legal defense?

My answer: there is a potential conflict of interest.

I agree that, for many employment roles, it's not realistic to expect churches to hire nonbelievers. My conclusion is that churches are run by people who lack faith. Do you think that there's a conflict of interest in this case? I see a problem if we are talking about people who are disbelievers and who have a habit of discussing religion and trying to make people abandon their religions. However, I don't see that mere nonbelief itself creates an actual conflict of interest.

One could argue that a church might have reason to prefer to hire nonbelievers. After all, if it is generally accepted that lack of belief means that a teacher or researcher of systems of religious ideas needs to come under close scrutiny, then a nonbeliever will be likely to accept close scrutiny as part of the job. So it is possible to closely monitor the work of a nonbeliever without making a nonbeliever feel that something exceptional or unusual is happening.

[Finder]

21. Some churches do hire non-believers. n/t

[elocs]

24. True, but no conservative evangelical church would. n/t

[Finder]

19. There were/are some neocons in the Democratic Party...

ala "Scoop" Jackson.

[Flabbergasted]

5. In addition your theory demands you define certain words notable

expert, church leader, christianity, church.

All four of these will change your original postulate dramatically depending of your definition.

[Flabbergasted]

6. Your original theory at best is unprovable. On the other

hand it is very easy to see and experience God. So much of life is placebo and eye of the Beholder.

[Boojatta]

8. Do the words "doth protest too much" mean anything to you?

Here's a citation:

"...ardent denial of a proposition is meant to cover up its embarrassing truth."

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=646636

[Flabbergasted]

9. I love philosophical debates especially of the religious sort.

I waited for a reply. Tomorrow I'll click the link. Take Care.

[Flabbergasted]

17. You wouldn't know it from my replys but I admit there is room for a great

deal of debate on the subject. I think overall the argument has merit. Perhaps I'm playing devil's advocate as well.

I am not ardently denying the proposition and I don't think the "truth" itself is necessarely "embarrassing" though it might seem like it.

I think your argument rides between the lines of Deism and Theism and you end up with sematical problems without clear definitions.

Faith is important to religion not because the "truth" is present in the beliefs itself but on a practical level many important pshychological issues are actualized.

I view religion as similar to a computer's os. It doesn't matter what os you use only that it accomplishes what you want it to accomplish. Calling an os the "truth" or the "best" would be silly because it is up to what works for the individual.

This is also why we have hundreds of thousands of different christian churches.

Take Care....

[Boojatta]

18. A fictional dialogue might help

Suppose a company has hundreds or even thousands of salespeople. One of the top ten salespeople arranges a meeting with the company President.

Salesperson: I no longer believe that our products are the very best.

President: Why is that?

Salesperson: Well, I've done some investigating. I've found that some of the products of our competitors are just as good or even better in some ways. It all depends on exactly what one is looking for and how much money one is willing to spend.

President: Have you decided to quit?

Salesperson: Quit? I thought you would fire me!

President: Fire you? Why would I do that?

Now switch from sales to any other occupation.

To perform in any occupation is to do something. To believe is not to do. So how are beliefs relevant?

Of course, it's possible to make an issue of beliefs. The company President could say, "You're fired! Get out of here!" However, that would seem to be rather counter-productive. If company XYZ considers heretical beliefs to be a deal-breaker, then perhaps the best salespeople, the best skilled tradespeople, the best training staff, the best designers and engineers, etc. would have to work at some other company. Then it wouldn't be surprising to learn that the best products are sold by some company other than XYZ.

[mcg]

10. I read about an atheistic professor who said that creationists...

I read about an atheistic professor who said that creationists should not be able to graduate with a biology degree, that he would prevent them from graduating, regardless of the situation.

An atheistic biology professor (maybe the same one) said to his students that by the time they finished his class they would be atheists.

I've read about the same attitude existing in geology departments.

So yes, it does matter. There is tremendous pressure in the field of biology to really believe in ALL aspects of Darwinism.

For positions where belief is involved it makes sense for churches to refuse to hire nonbelievers. Why would they want a nonbeliever teaching religious doctrine? It could easily go against the interests of the church, a nonbeliever might seek to undermine the teaching of religious doctrine (I think that has already happened). At the very least, they would not have enthusiasm for it. I wouldn't want to attend such a religious studies class.

If I were a political candidate I wouldn't want a right-wing extremist on my staff.

I'd rather listen to singers who feel some devotion while they are singing devotional choral music.

[Boojatta]

12. If you were hiring people to maintain cigarette production machinery,

would you try to hire people who believe that smoking causes no health problems?

An atheistic biology professor (maybe the same one) said to his students that by the time they finished his class they would be atheists.

(...)

So yes, it does matter. There is tremendous pressure in the field of biology to really believe in ALL aspects of Darwinism.

That seems to be anecdotal evidence. Yet, even if you were to provide solid evidence, you would only be showing that there are people who demand belief/faith, not that belief/faith is actually necessary.

For positions where belief is involved it makes sense for churches to refuse to hire nonbelievers. Why would they want a nonbeliever teaching religious doctrine?

Among the job applicants, the most competent people might be nonbelievers.

Suppose you were hiring a proofreader. Would you want someone who can spot potential errors or would you want someone who has absolute faith that there are no errors?

The decision to acquire deep knowledge of some system of ideas carries with it the risk of discovering imperfections in it. Of course, the word "risk" is appropriate only if we consider the revelation of the actual truth to be a beastly kind of event.

I'd rather listen to singers who feel some devotion while they are singing devotional choral music.

Would you rather watch actors in a murder mystery who actually believe that they are killing people? In other words, do you spend your entertainment dollars on productions involving actors who are insane?

[mcg]

14. Try presenting a valid argument, ok?

Simply claiming that something is like some other thing is not a valid argument.
Instead of presently valid arguments, you present cheap insults.

"That seems to be anecdotal evidence. Yet, even if you were to provide solid evidence, you would only be showing that there are people who demand belief/faith, not that belief/faith is actually necessary."

What do you want, A scientific study? It is well known that dissent from Darwinism has been suppressed, even from atheists.

Sure, they can fake it, not express any doubts about any of the tenants of Darwinism, but then, someone else could fake it and become a priest or minister, and I'd say some have.

I think this should wait until AFTER the election.

[Boojatta]

16. To create or understand a valid argument, a thought process is needed.

Questions can provoke a thought process. I asked several questions.

Here are some more questions:

How much theological material are typical churchgoers supposed to learn and how advanced is the material?

Is there enough material to justify a division of labor between people who would explain the material and people who would persuade churchgoers to believe it?

[elocs]

25. Is there a typical churchgoer?

That's like asking about the typical American. There is no typical churchgoer just as there is no typical American. Why not get into a deep philosophical and theological discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I am guessing that you would know as much about that as you do about churchgoers and Christianity. My other guess is that you are having us all on.

How about this alteration to the last line of your OP: If the people who run the DNC refuse to hire neocons for some positions, the the people who run the DNC themselves lack faith. This is a no-brainer. The DNC would no more want to hire a neocon than some churches would want to hire an unbeliever.
There is nothing deep or mysterious about that no matter how it is twisted or tortured.

[Boojatta]

27. Okay, there's no typical churchgoer.

How about this alteration to the last line of your OP: If the people who run the DNC refuse to hire neocons for some positions, the the people who run the DNC themselves lack faith.

You would have to also change the rest of the OP. Otherwise there would be very little connection between the last line and what comes before the last line.

This is a no-brainer. The DNC would no more want to hire a neocon than some churches would want to hire an unbeliever. There is nothing deep or mysterious about that no matter how it is twisted or tortured.

If we are translating "church" to "DNC", then why are we translating "unbeliever" to "neocon"? Aren't there a variety of possible translations of "unbeliever"? For example, couldn't we translate "unbeliever" to "non-voter who doesn't give financial support to any political party, but who is willing to do paid work for any political party"?

[Zhade]

28. There is no such religion as 'Darwinism'.

Are you a creationist? You sound like one.

[Random_Australian]

29. Darwinism dissent repressed? Indeed?

"Sure, they can fake it, not express any doubts about any of the tenants of Darwinism"

That's odd, very odd, because last time I looked, anyone was allowed to question anything about 'darwinism' just fine, and in fact we spend time talking these things over. However, it is not like there are any competing theories.

Still, no-one expects and quite frankly, no-one wants dogma in science.

[Finder]

20. Your example is different...

since having a doctor in practice without understanding the fundamentals of biology can lead to all sorts of problems...(video diagnosis ala Frist?)

How about the Biblical Scholar that is complaining about faith-based study?

http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=490

Bible Scholarship and Faith-Based Study: My View

Michael V. Fox

...
Faith-based study of the Bible certainly has its place — in synagogues, churches, and religious schools, where the Bible (and whatever other religious material one gives allegiance to) serves as a normative basis of moral inspiration or spiritual guidance. This kind of study is certainly important, but it is not scholarship — by which I mean Wissenschaft, a term lacking in English that can apply to the humanities as well as the hard sciences, even if the modes and possibilities of verification in each are very different. (It would be strange, I think, to speak of a "faith-based Wissenschaft.") ...

Any discipline that deliberately imports extraneous, inviolable axioms into its work belongs to the realm of homiletics or spiritual enlightenment or moral guidance or whatnot, but not scholarship, whatever academic degrees its practitioners may hold. Scholarship rests on evidence. Faith, by definition, is belief when evidence is absent. "There can ... be no faith concerning matters which are objects of rational knowledge, for knowledge excludes faith" (thus Aquinas, as paraphrased by the Enc. of Philosophy 3.165)...

[mcg]

22. Your example is different than my example. nt

[Finder]

23. Yes, mine was backed up with a source. n/t

[Random_Australian]

26. "There is tremendous pressure in the field of biology to really believe

in ALL aspects of Darwinism"

1) Back that statement up.

2) Darwinism - before I continue on this, might I ask if you come from the UK?