[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 50 KB, 847x567, islandscience.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3450136 No.3450136 [Reply] [Original]

I'm involved in a private trip to a south pacific island to participate in research, a trip organized by a professor of mine and a few noteworthy people in the field.

However I had to join a Facebook group as part of the organization effort prior to the trip. This gave other members access to my wall content. I'm an atheist, and the professor is a conservative Christian who surrounds himself with the likeminded. He tolerates me because I make a point of being respectful, but other members threw a fit simply upon seeing that I wasn't a Christian and demanded my removal from the trip roster.

The thing is, a large part of the funding for this expedition is coming from a notable celebrity, who is himself an atheist and a militant one. I don't think they know that, as it's not commonly known, you have to dig around for his quotes to find that out.

If I am in fact removed from the trip roster, I could notify him of why, and he would most likely withdraw funding. At that point the trip would become financially impossible.

I hesitate to do this because I don't want to hold back science in any way, even if it means that I lose the opportunity to participate. But at the same time, it's a pretty huge injustice that I find hard to ignore. What's the best course of action?

>> No.3450174

You should probably notify the celebrity if you are removed, if they were allowed to remove any one who wasn't a Christian, their research would be hindered anyway.

>> No.3450185

Notify celebrity, and also refuse to take part in the trip.

If you notify the celebrity just to stay on the trip roster, it's petty. But if you don't, and just struggle to appease them, it's also petty.

The ethical highroad here demands you notify the celebrity and also refuse to take part.

>> No.3450218

>>3450136
I think you should notify the celebrity right away now. Tell him about your credentials and why you were chosen for this assignment, and then tell him about the ruckus about you not being christian.

He probably is not going to cancel the research anyway, but might put some weight on them not to behave silly and treat you with respect.

>> No.3450221

Holy shit, that's some bullshit. They're in a position of power over you and abusing it, there's nothing wrong with finding help from someone in a position of power over them.

>> No.3450229

Ethically, you should at least let this man know that he's funding people who oppose his views. It's not entirely relevant to the research, to be certain, but I would like to know that I'm supporting people who would have this opinion of me.

Personally, I wouldn't even be able to take a trip with these kind of people. You'll be the odd man out.

>> No.3450230

>>3450218
This.

>> No.3450231

I sometime make up threads like these as well, and pretend there are some noteworthy "christian" scientists.

I always appeal to authority when I propagate for religion. Being the anti-scientist I am.

>> No.3450277

>>3450231

1. This isn't made up.
2. It's professors and undergrads, not scientists.
3. An appeal to authority, what? How so?

>> No.3450288

Definitely alert the celebrity. He should know what his money's being used for and should have the right to withdraw it if you're not allowed to go go go go go go galo sengen

>> No.3450304

Appeal to the professor firstly.

>> No.3450314

>>3450304

Done. Waiting on a response.

>> No.3450355

You could talk to the other members and ask them to knock it off. When they, err, disagree with you (which they will) you can casually mention the celebrity being an atheist. Trouble is that christians aren't known for being consistent to begin with...

>> No.3450422

>>3450136
Ask the burmese, the indians, the native americans, the aborigines, the indonesian, or the few surviving south american native peoples what happens when you make a deal with the christians. Turns out that they are notoriously bad at keeping their deals and have been throughout history (at least to those who do not share their faith).

>> No.3450449

Seek funding for your own trip. Specifically invite people of all religions, to make a point.

>> No.3450468

Take his money

>> No.3450480

>>3450136
Post this on Reddit (reddit.com/r/askreddit). They have a larger community with more experience than we do here, and they're less likely to troll the shit out of you either
Is your team the only people the money would be going to? If the funding is to be redistributed then the loss is much smaller, if at all. If there's another team willing to do the project, you might even be able to join them.

>> No.3450486

>lure the professor into a secluded area
>seduce him into sucking your dick
>film it
>black mail him
>????
>PROFIT!

>> No.3450511
File: 2 KB, 223x176, 1310274833328.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3450511

>>3450136
What field of science are you researching that the majority is NOT atheist?

>> No.3450515
File: 7 KB, 211x175, 1287194922005.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3450515

>>3450511

biblical science

>> No.3450518

>>3450511
Teams with similar interests will cluster. Even in physics you get groups of people who all attend the same church. It's not great, but normally there's little to no problem with this.

>> No.3450551

>>3450518
>>3450518
>normally there's little to no problem with this.

Except those pesky times when they flip out, decide that they are knight-templars, bomb their own capital and go on a kids-killing-spree. Yeah, except those once in a while happenings, christians are just fine.

>> No.3450582

>>3450551
I don't need to respond to what you're saying here, because I'm certain that the only people who would agree with you are unpersuadable.

>> No.3450588

Take the hit. It's for science. If you really care about your principles you should be willing to take a personal loss in exchange for not inhibiting scientific progress.

>> No.3450603

>>3450582

>>I'm certain that the only people who would agree with you are unpersuadable.

"I can claim they are impossible to reason with, therefore absolving me of the responsibility of actually mounting an argument against them. Brilliant!"

The dude was inflammatory but basically right. Christianity has a far far lower incidence of terrorism than Islam but it seems to be catching up lately.

>> No.3450604

>>3450588
But the money would be re-invested, and the scientific work is possibly going to be compromised by a lack of impartiality by the team.

>> No.3450616

>>3450603
>but it seems to be catching up lately.
What, with a single incident from an individual?
I was talking about scientific research, that much was obvious. Belief doesn't normally matter.

>> No.3450620

If the christians are okay with their sky daddy killing millions in their holy book there shouldn't be any problem that the financial higher power moves his weight around to show that exclusionary tactics aren't cool.

>> No.3450652

>>3450620
This.

Also, what field of science are you in that there isn't an overwhelming atheist/agnostic majority?

>> No.3450657

>>3450652
>extrapolation ad absurdum
NICE ONE
>>3450620
>straw man
EXCELLENT WORK

>> No.3450666

>>3450616

>>What, with a single incident from an individual?

No, with a string of shootings by conservative Christians. Why do you people always pretend every single one is an isolated incident? What about Jim Adkisson? What about the Pittsburgh immigration center shooter? What about George Tiller's assassin? Do you just selectively decline to remember these things because they don't fit with the desired narrative, or what?

>> No.3450677

>>3450666
On a different continent with a different demographic.
Do you assume that the majority of muslims are at risk of being terrorists?

>> No.3450714

>>3450657
I didn't even pose an argument, nor make a claim, or extrapolate any data, besides that he's on a "science trip", and that he's clearly being surrounded by, or has surrounded himself with christians.

Citing logical fallacies only makes you look intelligent if you're remotely accurate, now fuck off.

>> No.3450724

who is the celebrity and what is the scientific research being carried out? surely it isn't hard science as we all know christian nut jobs can't into science.

>> No.3450729

>>3450714
>Also, what field of science are you in that there isn't an overwhelming atheist/agnostic majority?
You implied that there wasn't an overwhelming atheist/agnostic majority in their field of science from the fact that a single team of researchers is mainly Christian.

>> No.3450736 [DELETED] 
File: 35 KB, 320x240, 162764.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3450736

>>3450724

>mfw someone is just now asking this

>> No.3450781

How about you don't put stupid shit on your Facebook that may impact your professional life?

>> No.3450783

>>3450736
If OP wasn't willing to say in first post it's because they're personally identifiable with that information.
>>3450781
How about you read the post?

>> No.3450831

>not having 2 facebooks, one dirty one for people you would think of as friends, the other squeeky clean for people you would consider contacts, and family members

Picture of you doing a body shot off a waitress, friend facebook
Picture of you playing catch with your nephew, family and contact facebook

>> No.3450842

>>3450831
>having relationships with people who don't accept you

that must suck.

>> No.3450845

>>3450831
>using facebook when google plus has circles.

>> No.3450846

>>3450729
Still wanna know what branch even has isolated pockets of super religious. I could continue to argue, but if you're aspie-prodding a simple fucking question like it's the state championship for your highschool debate team, you really aren't worth speaking to.

Anyway, op, what field (feel free to be general enough that you don't give the e-detectives a scent of the trail. God forbid we let Facebook fundies know you're not only atheist, but on "the fourchannel")

>> No.3450867

>>3450846
I know mechanical engineers in the pentecostal church, muslim doctors in theoretical physics whp pray together, and former members or religious study groups at top 5 universities in the UK. It's not normal, but it's not exactly unheard of.

>> No.3450881

>>3450846
Furthermore, accusing me of making arbitrary claims against
>I didn't even pose an argument, nor make a claim, or extrapolate any data, besides that he's on a "science trip"
because you did is bullshit. You're making a weak point.

>> No.3450887

If you get dropped from the trip because you don't share the professor's religious beliefs, you can probably get him fired by talking to the right people (the dean and other higher-ups). Threaten to go to the press if they don't take action.

Go to the professor first and explain that you will not tolerate his prejudice. Also point out that it is by the grace of an atheist that he can even hope to go.

What possible science could a group of bigoted Chrisitians be doing on a south Pacific island that would set back humanity if they were not allowed to go? Fuck them. If it all goes to shit for you, contact this mystery "celebrity" who happens to fund scientific excursions to tropical islands in your little fantasy world.

7/10 for originality

>> No.3450897

Let the celebrity know. You don't owe anything to science. It's tit for tat.

>> No.3451004

>>3450783

I did read the post, I read all of the posts. If OP is really in college, then he should know that putting up any information that others may not agree with (religion, political party, drinking/drug use) is a bad idea. OP should have thought for a second before deciding to tell everyone who he adds to FB his beliefs. Just keep shit professional, it's not difficult, do you lose something from not including that on your facebook? Is anyone really going to think, "Oh he's an atheist, that's super cool, we should be better friends!". The truth is the whole religious status deal is like posting your membership to a club, expect all other clubs to hate you, and your own "members" to barely care at all.

>> No.3451032

>>3450867
People should be made to make a choice of either science or god. Both at the same time is not an option in these modern times (yeah I know some old-time scientists were religious, but that was then and now is now, much has changed).

People who reject reason and logic should not be allowed to have any form of academic career. End of story.

>> No.3451040

>>3451004
OP didn't do anything wrong.

>> No.3451053

>>3451032
You're a dick and you have no real life experience. I doubt you have any education beyond a high school level. Had you, you would realise that there are smart religious scientists and dumb atheistic scientists, and that you can't regulate knowledge.

>> No.3451073

>>3451040

He didn't do anything wrong, you're correct about that; but he really didn't do it right either. Leaving that information up is a risk, assuming he's American, he should know that 83% of his fellow countrymen are religious. With each and everyone one he adds to his FB, he's taking a gamble, will this person give a fuck, does it matter if they do?

Also, why would an atheist bother advertising their atheism? It's like a nihilist telling others he's nihilistic, what's the point? If it's spreading atheism, isn't that the same as preaching religion? This last paragraph is filled with honest questions, could someone answer these?

>> No.3451095

>>3451053
this

Also, adolescent-minded cunts like >>3451032 who spout out shite along the lines of "anyone who doesn't think the same way I do should not be allowed to do things" are Dunning-Krugeresque cryptofascists. Grow the fuck up and learn to evaluate science based on merit.

If someone believes in an Abrahamic god but makes amazing contributions to particle physics then it doesn't matter if he thinks the universe is designed or not as long as the science is valid. Also, there are varying levels of philosophical understanding of the universe itself, and many of them will be so far advanced beyond anything you could ever hope to even recognize that having some little shit like you make such requests is absurd in the highest.

Obviously a naïve creationist should not be a professor of evolutionary biology etc, but that's because the beliefs are in direct opposition to the science in question.

>> No.3451109 [DELETED] 

>>3451040

He didn't do anything wrong, but he didn't really do the right thing either. In a nation with a population consisting of 83% religious folk (assuming American), should you really risk telling everyone you add to FB that you don't give two shits about their God? Seems risky, professionally at least.

I've got some questions too, because I'm kind of confused by all this. Why would an atheist advertise their atheism on FB? Isn't it like a nihilist letting everyone know that they're nihilistic? What's the point? It's just like Christians telling everyone their religion, are atheists proclaiming their beliefs for a reason? I understand there's freedom of speech and yada yada yada... but it seems kind of pointless, nobody truly gives a fuck about someone elses beliefs, we're all to self centered, so we post our own assuming everyone else cares.

>> No.3451129

>>3451073
Significantly less of the scientific community are; those who are religious are expected to not let their faith get in the way of their work. It's in no way professional to lie on your facebook profile to please scientists, of all people.
>Also, why would an atheist bother advertising their atheism?
Why would a Christian bother advertising their Christianity? Because it's their personal belief. There's no sensible reason why not.
>It's like a nihilist telling others he's nihilistic, what's the point?
To spread a philosophy seen as more probably correct than another. You're essentially asking "why would you want to inform people?" and ignoring the information given is free to do.
>If it's spreading atheism, isn't that the same as preaching religion?
The Preaching isn't the problem, the inability to avoid it is the problem. Facebook is level ground, you aren't being intimidated by anyone because of their beliefs.
I don't mind people spreading their beliefs. When people force them on me, I get annoyed. Likewise in this situation.

>> No.3451136

>>3450842
It's ok though, because they pay me

>> No.3451176

This can all be avoided once google+ comes out.

>> No.3451186

>>3451129

So the atheist merely includes his atheism to make himself feel good or superior, just like the religious do? I understand that in a perfect world scientists (or people in general) wouldn't judge others based on their beliefs, and we wouldn't need to "lie" on FB, but this is far from a perfect world. You can tell people not to show biases at work, but they're going to, maybe not blatantly, maybe not even consiously, but it's going to happen, to err is human. I also fail to see how not including something is lying, to change what you have posted for someone else, that would be lying; but to not include it to prevent possible ramifications?

>> No.3451227

>>3451186
No, the atheist includes his atheism because it's his belief. Arguably they're giving information about themselves as a sign of confidence, but that's a different matter and has no relation to religious belief in particular.
>this is far from a perfect world. You can tell people not to show biases at work, but they're going to, maybe not blatantly, maybe not even consiously, but it's going to happen, to err is human.

so
>treat people who don't share your beliefs badly
is ok, whereas
>make your beliefs publically known to people who look for your beliefs
isn't?
I'm torn between incredulity and annoyance, There's such incredible hypocrisy in that.

>also fail to see how not including something is lying, to change what you have posted for someone else, that would be lying; but to not include it to prevent possible ramifications?
That's called non-full disclosure in marketing circles.
The majority of scientists are agnostic atheists. The vast, vast majority of scientists are accepting of agnostic atheists and of others' personal beliefs in general. OP has the significant misfortune of being stuck with an anomaly, and what he describes is anything but common.
Even if it were, I would not be accepting that from a pragmatic point of view your argument is correct: Were the scientific community close minded enough to expel you based upon your personal beliefs or lack thereof, I would want no part in it. Because there is not, even the justification that it's practical to not list religion is absurd.