Saturday, January 21, 2012
Flora
Happy to report that the jelly lichen on the back patio, at least the green one, has been doing rather well all winter. Usually comes up after heavy rain spring & autumn, but it seems that the mild winter has been both warm and damp enough. Also that the first celandines and dandelions are showing through on the banks of the stream running down Longmead Road. Dandelions not particularly splendid examples, but they are up, running and yellow. Neither celandines nor dandelions in our own garden yet; not even a bit of leaf showing through, never mind flowers. Will have to take a more careful look in the morning.
In the meantime, I have been pondering about freedom of thoughts, speech & belief and about how much of it is a good thing. The start point for all this being pondering about whether I would employ a creationist as a biology teacher in a secondary school, against a background of faith schools and large numbers of both Christians and Muslims who are creationists. Or at least, that is my understanding.
First thought was that people are free to think what they like. We are not yet into the land of thought crime, although it might be fun to bet on how many years it will be before the shrinks can wire you up and get a text transcript of what you are thinking, or at least that part of what you are thinking which can conveniently expressed in words.
Second thought was that people are reasonably free to say what they like in a private place, particularly in their own home. A freedom which is, however, limited by the criminality of conspiracy to commit a crime, although that would raise the question of how the forces of law and order could get to know about this conspiracy without themselves breaking the law. And people are not free to say what they like in a public place. All kinds of rules and regulations here. In the olden days you might get done for blasphemy; nowadays you might get done for racism or homophobia.
Third thought was that, as a school governor, I should be free to choose someone to teach the children biology who is in the mainstream. Who is signed up to the central, mainstream tenets of biology. And I am free to reject someone who is not. I would not trust such a person to teach our children, our future, biology as I know it.
All of which adds up to, for me, that if a person thinks that God created the world as we know it in seven days and that Darwin is tripe, I am free not to hire him, even if he or she promises to teach evolution as per the syllabus and never to mention seven days in front of impressionable children.
Which further adds up to a consequence rather than a restriction on your freedom to think. If it is known that you hold objectionable beliefs, and I am not aware that creationists are in the least secretive about their beliefs, your employment in the state system, at least, will be limited. And I dare say that if I was director of a private laboratory, I would be very dubious about employing such a person. Someone who flies in the face of scientific wisdom is not likely to be a very good scientist. OK, so scientific wisdom sometimes turns out not to have been very wise, but it is, nevertheless, far and away the best show in town.
But a tricky area. One wants to be clear what sorts of beliefs would exclude in what contexts; one needs a bit of transparency and accountability. I would not mind, for example, having a Muslim teach Shakespeare. Although I dare say there are plenty of Muslims who would not care to be taught about the Koran by a Christian. Not sure if an atheist would be better or worse from that point of view. And one might argue that any exclusion on the ground of belief is the thin end of a nasty wedge. One has to prove that the belief has intruded into the work before exclusive action is appropriate.
In the meantime, I have been pondering about freedom of thoughts, speech & belief and about how much of it is a good thing. The start point for all this being pondering about whether I would employ a creationist as a biology teacher in a secondary school, against a background of faith schools and large numbers of both Christians and Muslims who are creationists. Or at least, that is my understanding.
First thought was that people are free to think what they like. We are not yet into the land of thought crime, although it might be fun to bet on how many years it will be before the shrinks can wire you up and get a text transcript of what you are thinking, or at least that part of what you are thinking which can conveniently expressed in words.
Second thought was that people are reasonably free to say what they like in a private place, particularly in their own home. A freedom which is, however, limited by the criminality of conspiracy to commit a crime, although that would raise the question of how the forces of law and order could get to know about this conspiracy without themselves breaking the law. And people are not free to say what they like in a public place. All kinds of rules and regulations here. In the olden days you might get done for blasphemy; nowadays you might get done for racism or homophobia.
Third thought was that, as a school governor, I should be free to choose someone to teach the children biology who is in the mainstream. Who is signed up to the central, mainstream tenets of biology. And I am free to reject someone who is not. I would not trust such a person to teach our children, our future, biology as I know it.
All of which adds up to, for me, that if a person thinks that God created the world as we know it in seven days and that Darwin is tripe, I am free not to hire him, even if he or she promises to teach evolution as per the syllabus and never to mention seven days in front of impressionable children.
Which further adds up to a consequence rather than a restriction on your freedom to think. If it is known that you hold objectionable beliefs, and I am not aware that creationists are in the least secretive about their beliefs, your employment in the state system, at least, will be limited. And I dare say that if I was director of a private laboratory, I would be very dubious about employing such a person. Someone who flies in the face of scientific wisdom is not likely to be a very good scientist. OK, so scientific wisdom sometimes turns out not to have been very wise, but it is, nevertheless, far and away the best show in town.
But a tricky area. One wants to be clear what sorts of beliefs would exclude in what contexts; one needs a bit of transparency and accountability. I would not mind, for example, having a Muslim teach Shakespeare. Although I dare say there are plenty of Muslims who would not care to be taught about the Koran by a Christian. Not sure if an atheist would be better or worse from that point of view. And one might argue that any exclusion on the ground of belief is the thin end of a nasty wedge. One has to prove that the belief has intruded into the work before exclusive action is appropriate.
# posted by Jim @ 7:49 AM 
