Religious Discrimination

[Creed of Heresy]

I stated that without knowing what their religions are, they seem equally likely to perform well (in this example). It is entirely up to the reader to decide what to think and do upon becoming aware of the religion (or lack thereof).

Of course, you and I probably differ in that respect. I think a person can not be religious without failing to critically think in the context of religion, and it therefore more likely to do it in another context. Obviously, this is not absolute and there are bright Christians. Also, it would nothing to do with a correlation between atheism and academic education; it has everything to do with critical thinking and logic.

Well, even if you think that every religious person has necessarily committed an error in reasoning, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're more prone to reasoning errors than irreligious people.

First, an error in one context doesn't necessarily translate to other contexts. A person might have a 'soft spot' for their parents' religion. A man who is unfaithful to his wife might be very loyal to his bank, or very trustworthy with his clients' money. So a theist who reasons poorly in religious matters might reason well in other contexts.

Second, a lack of error in one context doesn't necessarily translate to a lack of error in other contexts. A person who is meticulous in his reasoning with regard to investments might have terrible reasoning with regard to chess strategy. So an atheist who reasons well in religious contexts might reason poorly in other contexts.

Third, an error on one matter doesn't necessarily indicate a systemic flaw in reasoning. Suppose A and B reason just as well as each other. A and B both experience some event E; A correctly believes that he has experienced E, whereas B mistakenly believes he has experienced some other event F. A and B might come to different conclusions, but not due to a difference in reasoning.

So if you know they're going to be reasoning in some particular context--finance, law, whathaveyou--you'd probably want to crosscheck their backgrounds against that context.

Woo! Took way too much away from my little ol' post, there.

No but seriously, I expect everyone to fuck up when it comes to rationality and logical discourse. I'd be far more distrusting of the one who claims certainty than the one who admits his logical shortcomings.

Of course, I suspect you're just guilty of assuming that the people you disagree with are dumb, and the people you agree with are smart. It's the easiest way to look at the world. It's a lot harder to be humble about your own understanding. But then again, I might be completely wrong.

Pretty much, yeah. Well, not COMPLETELY wrong, I do have an occasional bias on certain subject matters, but for the most part I prefer to be proven wrong rather than right; you can't learn from being right but you can learn from being wrong.

[Jackalope]

It wouldn't factor into my decision at all.

If all else were equal, I wouldn't feel right about flipping a coin, so I'd have to hire a less qualified candidate with nice boobs.

[goddamnit]

Well, even if you think that every religious person has necessarily committed an error in reasoning, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're more prone to reasoning errors than irreligious people.

First, an error in one context doesn't necessarily translate to other contexts. A person might have a 'soft spot' for their parents' religion. A man who is unfaithful to his wife might be very loyal to his bank, or very trustworthy with his clients' money. So a theist who reasons poorly in religious matters might reason well in other contexts.

Second, a lack of error in one context doesn't necessarily translate to a lack of error in other contexts. A person who is meticulous in his reasoning with regard to investments might have terrible reasoning with regard to chess strategy. So an atheist who reasons well in religious contexts might reason poorly in other contexts.

I never denied that an atheist can be more irrational in separate contexts. I even explicitly affirmed that "of course" it is not an absolute, so whenever you say something does not "necessarily" follow it has a straw man feel.

Anyways, let's analyze this. If the hiring manager knew a candidate believed magical flying ponies lived in his or her basement, all of your analogies would still apply. You could bring up a story about loyalty to a bank vs loyalty to one's wife. You could easily and successfully argue that an atheist can be irrational in one context and not another; again, I do not deny that and I even patently rejected that all atheists are rational in other contexts. At the end of the day, if I know nothing else about the career candidates, I sure as hell (pun intended?) think an applicant who believes in magical flying ponies is more likely to fail at critical thinking in other contexts. You can contest the idea that a magical flying pony believer is more likely to be irrational in another context, but it seems (as an axiom) to be silly.

Third, an error on one matter doesn't necessarily indicate a systemic flaw in reasoning. Suppose A and B reason just as well as each other. A and B both experience some event E; A correctly believes that he has experienced E, whereas B mistakenly believes he has experienced some other event F. A and B might come to different conclusions, but not due to a difference in reasoning.

Once again, you say that it doesn't "necessarily" entail a conclusion, as if I made a deductive argument, but I never asserted that anything "necessarily" follows. I merely viewed this as a matter of probabilities. Yes, a person can infer a faulty conclusion using cogent reasoning, but cogent reasoning has a higher probability of leading the thinker to a true conclusion. More specifically, in the context of Christianity, the belief system is so bogus that entertaining the possibility of it being wrong for the right reasons, is just plain dishonest.

Of course, I suspect you're just guilty of assuming that the people you disagree with are dumb, and the people you agree with are smart.

I already stated that plenty of religious people are smart. My position is that in the context of religion, Christians are irrational. Yes, I am being condescending about the subject of religion. I will not lie out of fear I will be seen as pompous. You, and every other Christian, are less logical than me in the context of religion. Yes, Francis Collins, the DNA genius, is an inferior thinker in the context of religion. That does not mean I think you or Francis Collins are dumber than me or any particular atheist. (You are obviously a good writer.) If you earned a PhD from MIT and became a billionaire because of your financial genius, and I scrubbed floors while wishing I could multiply and divide, it would have no bearing on the fact that Christianity is insanely stupid. I do not think people I disagree with are dumb. I think Abrahamic religion adherents are irrational in the context of religion.

[CliveStaples]

Anyways, let's analyze this. If the hiring manager knew a candidate believed magical flying ponies lived in his or her basement, all of your analogies would still apply. You could bring up a story about loyalty to a bank vs loyalty to one's wife. You could easily and successfully argue that an atheist can be irrational in one context and not another; again, I do not deny that and I even patently rejected that all atheists are rational in other contexts. At the end of the day, if I know nothing else about the career candidates, I sure as hell (pun intended?) think an applicant who believes in magical flying ponies is more likely to fail at critical thinking in other contexts. You can contest the idea that a magical flying pony believer is more likely to be irrational in another context, but it seems (as an axiom) to be silly.

Yeah, because mathematical and scientific geniuses are never whacked out or anything. According to your metric, you'd refuse to hire Grigori Perlmen.

---

I already stated that plenty of religious people are smart. My position is that in the context of religion, Christians are irrational. Yes, I am being condescending about the subject of religion. I will not lie out of fear I will be seen as pompous. You, and every other Christian, are less logical than me in the context of religion. Yes, Francis Collins, the DNA genius, is an inferior thinker in the context of religion. That does not mean I think you or Francis Collins are dumber than me. (You are obviously a good writer.) If you earned a PhD from MIT and became a billionaire because of your financial genius, and I scrubbed floors while wishing I could multiply and divide, it would have no bearing on the insane stupidity of Christianity. I do not think people I disagree with are dumb. I think Abrahamic religion adherents are irrational in the context of religion.

Don't forget Immanuel Kant, Karl Barth, Alvin Plantinga, Gottfried Liebniz, not to mention the majority of modern philosophers of religion.

It's one thing to say they're mistaken. It's another thing to say that you're more rational. I don't know, maybe I'm quibbling.

At the end of the day, if I know nothing else about the career candidates, I sure as hell (pun intended?) think an applicant who believes in magical flying ponies is more likely to fail at critical thinking in other contexts. You can contest the idea that a magical flying pony believer is more likely to be irrational in another context, but it seems (as an axiom) to be silly.

But you do know something else. You have their CVs. You have their references. They, to your knowledge, are equally likely to provide the services you need. According to the hypothetical, anyway.

Sure, if a guy thought magic ponies lived in his basements, odds are he's crazy. If he's high functioning crazy, that might shift the odds closer to genius. If he's otherwise reliable with good references and a strong performance record, what do you care that he's got some weird belief? If you knew that one of them liked really really rough BDSM porn, would you reduce your probability of hiring him on the notion that he'd have a higher probability of committing rape on the premises?

[goddamnit]

But you do know something else. You have their CVs. You have their references. They, to your knowledge, are equally likely to provide the services you need. According to the hypothetical, anyway.

The OP is supposed to be ceteris paribus.

Sure, if a guy thought magic ponies lived in his basements, odds are he's crazy. If he's high functioning crazy, that might shift the odds closer to genius. If he's otherwise reliable with good references and a strong performance record, what do you care that he's got some weird belief?

This question presupposes that I care if he has some weird belief. The word "weird" is both ambiguous and absent from my posts in this thread. If you meant "weird" in the sense that the belief is strange (i.e. uncommon), then I would not care. If by "weird" you meant the popular, semantic definition (supernatural), and floating Jesus is that supernatural entity, then it raises questions about how logical the person is when the job they will be performing involves heavy logic.

If you knew that one of them liked really really rough BDSM porn, would you reduce your probability of hiring him on the notion that he'd have a higher probability of committing rape on the premises?

No. I suspect that porn preference (or orientation or whatever) is a false analogy, but honestly, you might have checkmated me here. I will think it over.

[CliveStaples]

But you do know something else. You have their CVs. You have their references. They, to your knowledge, are equally likely to provide the services you need. According to the hypothetical, anyway.

The OP is supposed to be ceteris paribus.

Right, but ceteris paribus with the CVs. You have to account for all the available information you have. If you're using religious beliefs as a proxy for rationality, but there's an even better proxy in their CV--say, college GPA, references, etc.--then the difference in religious beliefs might be superfluous.

[goddamnit]

The OP is supposed to be ceteris paribus.

Right, but ceteris paribus with the CVs. You have to account for all the available information you have. If you're using religious beliefs as a proxy for rationality, but there's an even better proxy in their CV--say, college GPA, references, etc.--then the difference in religious beliefs might be superfluous.

Assume all else is equal, not just the CVs. Assume you already contacted their employers, carefully considered the GPA, etc. and you are entirely indifferent. Then you look at the cameras and see the bumper stickers. I don't know, whatever works to contemplate how awareness of religion influences the otherwise indifferent hiring manager... Hiring might not have been a good example for a practical application, but I did not feel like spending long brainstorming most realistic examples. (I wanted to explore a broader question about religious discrimination.)

[The Grand Nudger]

So they're both equal in every way, including general hotness, but ones religious? Well, Imma have to go with the non-religious one. I don't want to have to re-hire in a few months.

[Shell B]

It depends on what I am hiring them to do.

[Autumnlicious]

If two candidates are of equal skill?

Interesting. In my experience in the industry, you never find that case. Ask enough questions, make enough probes and eventually the lack of skills in either or both candidates become apparent.

Still, I'd hire the one my team is most comfortable with, but would keep the other's contact information on hot standby. I would also, if they were of high caliber skill, refer them to one of my associates so that their skill set is unwasted.

That's what I'd do.