I received an email today that brings up a curious decision by Lund University: they have appointed a new head of the university who seems to have a few bats in the belfry, and there is some concern that they may be rabid. The situation isn’t helped by the fact that this newly appointed head, Per Eriksson, refuses to discuss some of his beliefs, even though these beliefs may well affect his performance on the job.
I’m hampered by the fact that all the news about this selection is in Swedish, and I can’t read a word of it. Here’s the short summary I was sent.
The Lund University board ignored the recommendation of an examination committee consisting of 90 university professors, students, and other concerned parties and appointed a renowned creationist Per Eriksson with strong connections to the Baptist movement in Sweden. When interviewed concerning the appointment the appointed headmaster candidate proudly pronounced publicly that he faithfully consulted his bible on a daily basis. Although religious freedom should be adhered to, the appointed headmaster candidate made a clear and conscious gesture by displaying his biases. The public pronouncement of his personal beliefs may be an indication of how personal convictions may influence and bias the Prof Eriksson’s judgement in his influential position controlling the largest seat of learning in northern europe.
If he is a creationist, this is big trouble, and ought to be grounds for tossing him out on his ear. You cannot properly administer a modern university while simultaneously believing that the science disciplines are fundamentally in error because they do not bow down to your bronze age myths. However, I haven’t yet found anything in which his creationism is made explicit. Mainly, I’m finding news stories where Eriksson is pretty cagey about avoiding any association with the tenets of his church.
For instance, here’s a story in which the science faculty unanimously oppose his appointment (google translation), explaining that he is a member of a pentecostal church which is “connected to the Swedish Baptist community and the Evangelical Free Church”—that’s a nice stew of crazy right there. This is an anti-science church with the stated belief that homosexuality is wrong, but nothing about creationism, other than that they say the bible is literally true.
Another source (google translation) tried to grill Eriksson on his own personal views on homosexuality and stem cell research: he’s stonewalling (google translation).
Anyway, it’s a strange situation. The Lund University board has selected a candidate who was strongly opposed by a committee of university faculty, and who has very suspicious affiliations with pentecostal/fundamentalist/evangelical religion. That’s all I know at this point, but perhaps some of our Scandinavian readers can dig a little deeper than I can and report back.
Et tu Sweden?
I am *so* using “bronze age myths” at the next opportunity.
Perhaps it’s the affiliations of the “Lund University board” which you should be investigating (and how they got to be board members at all), since they’ve apparently chosen a nutter and have disregarded warnings from existing faculty members. I don’t know how Sweden runs its universities though – ie who is supposed to be in charge of what decisions and how or why.
I think it is time to check the background of the Lund University Board, and re-examine the process by which people are put on it.
I’m a Swedish student at Lund University, and a board member of the Swedish Youth Humanist Association, and I’ll see what I can digg up on this guy.
As of now, all I know is that he was (not anymore) a member of some swedish evengalical church and now he’s a member of a church with association to the evangelical and babtist church. He’s a major of telecommunications, he’s been head of several educational institutions and latest of a state owned comapany.
He has, as of now, only been nominated to head of Lund University by the university. It is the state who chooses whom will become principal in the end. I’ll return when I know more…
This is very disappointing. I thought Sweden was suppose to be the bright spot of the european athiest movement.
But I wonder, are the advancment of thiest in European countries the result of the growing influx of muslims??
Kinda like over correcting when you car skids out of control.
Having read the swedish articles i find the jury is still out on this one. The proposed chancellor declined to comment about his stance on homosexuality and stem cell research for instance. While he states reasons for not sharing his views on these subjects, namely that he is not yet officially instated. However, that is exactly the response that creates alot of debate and these issues are really not controversial, at least should not be to a university leader, so it is really something he should be able to answer anyway. All in all i still find it a bit disturbing.
Quiet_Desperation, I am *so* using “bronze age myths” at the next opportunity.
I hope that you won’t be doing that in the same way as the christians, hindus, jews, & moslems. I mean, they’re using Bronze Age myths to run their lives, sometimes even to run whole countries. What feckin’ edjits! I guess if one of them is using the Bronze Age myths nonsense in the running of a university, it seems so inappropriate because it’s the place above all others where irrationality should be totally absent.
Even on the Swedish site, we’re seeing lots of the same knee-jerk comments you would get here. Swedes and supporters of science are ‘intolerant’ and ‘dogmatic’ because they don’t want this guy (no word on whether it would be wise to appoint a person who appears very intolerant and dogmatic). And the usual ‘oh if he were Muslim there’d be no problem with you guys’.
Secular Liberals need to find a way to reach these people. We don’t want people like this as university leaders because we oppose dogmatism and intolerance. And we have neither any special like or dislike for Muslims as compared to Christians.
How can be show people the sincerity and importance of these principles? I wish I had some answers.
While he states reasons for not sharing his views on these subjects, namely that he is not yet officially instated.
That’s when your prospective employee needs to state his views. If you were hiring a guy to run your coffee shop and he refused to state his views on embezzling or giving the correct change or sexual harassment, would you hire him? Of course not. So why would you for a job like this?
This is also exactly the response we in the USA have seen over and over with applicants for high judicial positions, including the Supreme Court. Why it’s considered something you let them get away with when you wouldn’t if it were a coffee shop job is beyond me. The important thing to remember is that it’s a tactic, it’s hiding something you should know, and when your job applicant does that you don’t hire them. Period.
I’m swedish, and I can’t believe what I’m reading. In fact, I’ll look around to see if I can find anything.
This could be enough to get me to sell off my Swedish language dictionaries and tapes in favor of something like Czech or Dutch (as a hedge against a Palin White House: if this whackadoodle gets in, we’ll all need to seek political asylum).
This is the last country you’d expect to hear something of this nature. My bastion of liberal democracy has been shattered :(
I will cover this on my “about-religion” blog. I myself got a PhD from Lund University and I will follow it closey.
My google-translatet blog you can find here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fomreligion.blogspot.com&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&sl=sv&tl=en
Oh OH!!! Sounds like an infection by the fundie Death (Wish) Cult virus.
These are early symptons. It gets worse.
1. Sweden will next attack some smaller country for no particular reason and occupy it for a decade. Norway has oil, Denmark has wind power, and Lichtenstein has banks.
2. There will also be a credit/housing bubble leading to a financial crisis and economic collapse. In the ensuing chaos, the citizens will donate an astounding amount of their money to the thieves and plutocrats who caused the catastrophe.
Treatments are not particularly effective. The patient is usuallly placed in the Dark Ages for a century or two.
Not impossible. They probably caught it from us and look what happened to the USA.
“Bronze-age myths?” There you go again, egregiously insulting our ancient predecessors. I’ll have you know that bronze age peoples were every bit as intelligent and capable as we are. I’m sure that the myths you refer to were treated with an equal variation of fervency and disdain as they are treated by people today.
Except that the decriers probably referred to them as “stone age myths” back then.
Bronze-age myths are one thing, they didn’t know better back then. These days we do know better, yet new myths pop up all the time. You’ve got the anti-vaccination / alternative medicine crowd, the conspiracy theorists, the UFOlogists, cryptozoologists, climate-change deniers, followers of “the secret”, scientologists, raelians, the quantum healers… the list could go on forever. Bronze-age myths are laughable, but the age of science hasn’t stopped new myths from popping up and propagating.
This is the first I’ve heard about this, and it does seem a little disturbing. However, just from reading the linked articles I can’t say it’s possible to determine if he’s a raving creationist or relatively sane.
For those having their views of our lovely liberal atheist country shattered, consider that at least the story’s generated critical articles in a fairly big newspaper. And even if he’s appointed, and turns out to be the worst kind of fundamentalist, I suspect the worst he can do is be an annoyance, rather than cause any lasting damage. His position (should he turn out to be a fundamentalist christian) would be quite like an atheist being appointed headmaster of a bible college in the US. Infuriating to the faculty, but so bound by the rules of the place that his influence would be limited. Or at least I hope so.
Hopefully, our Swedish government will not allow this(Rectors in state-owned universities are government appointments). Or maybe, since the Christian Democratic party is part of the current administration……..
This would never happen at Chalmers (see bellow), even if we are engineers ;-)
http://www.chalmers.se/en/
Let’s just hope he’s a sane one that won’t impeach science.
Do they exist?
Like school boards in the U.S. (and maybe everywhere?) no one really pays much attention to the members of the board or takes much interest in their election/appointment until something like this happens. I suspect that’s what happened here. No proof, just speculation. I would be interested to know how the University board comes to exist: who makes the appointments, how are they ratified, etc.
And on a very tangential note, I surf multiple sites simultaneously. While waiting for one to load I am reading something on one of the others, including a database of Cantonese/Chinese words and phrases. In between reading this post and comments I stumbled upon an colloquial expression in Cantonese “making an idiotic suggestion” which is literally “using one’s anus to think.” Coincidence? I think not! I think it’s a message from God™. Isn’t that a far better explanation than ratty old coincidence?
How is this different from the Reiss case? Not 5 posts ago PZ suggested that religious belief per se should not be used as a litmus test, and that a person should be judged by their actions. What specifically has Eriksson done that warrants not hiring him, but keeping Reiss? (Note that Eriksson is just a layperson in charge of a university in general, while Reiss was an ordained minister responsible for education in a science organization)?
Here’s a little bit of information about the board and how the university is run. I’m sure someone else here knows more about it.
amphiox, that does paint a pretty picture to warm me this swedish autumn evening. Thanks.
/ Per
Well, is it really that surprising from a country where christianity is the official state religion, and it was illegal to be an atheist until 1951?
I’m not too worried about this. It is of course troubling that Per Eriksson did not respond to questions about stem cell research, and did not explicitly address homosexuality. He was on vacation in Tokyo at the time when he was asked, but I believe that he will have to answer these questions soon. At that point it will be much easier to comment on him.
This is what he did say:
“- I have a scientific critical basic outlook, and I believe in religious freedom.”
“- The strategic plan of the University says that everybody should be treated equally, in respects of religion, sex and etnicity. These things are self-evident.”
I find it extremely hard to believe that he does not believe in evolution. Such standpoints are extremely rare in Sweden, so to think that a person that has been in charge of science funding, and that nobody noticed such a peculiarity, is unlikely. But I see no evidence for either.
I searched Evangeliska frikyrkan and the Swedish Baptist Church for articles on evolution, abortion, stem cell research and homosexuality. I got no hits for any query on EFK (and yes I searched it with Google too), and the Baptist Church only seems to have online documents on homosexuality. This is what they wrote in 1995:
“We need to discuss further the differences and occasional conflicts of moral questions within our churches. Examples of such problems that have arised in the debate include abortion and homosexuality, environmental issues and the arms industry. We need to learn to handle the differnces, without trying to force a consensus when there is no grounds for one, without forgoing our faith. We also need to learn to tolerate and respect individuals regardless of their opinion.”
Not much. All I can say is that I know quite a few christians that belong to these “free churches” and they all have very progressive opinions on abortion and homosexuality. There is however a trend to criticize evolution in their internal magazines, although not on a level anywhere near the situation in the USA.
Sam
I am not sure there is any real cause for worry here. He might be insane, but Sweden is a solidly rational place (compared to most places in this world). It’s not that he’ll have any power to implement his beliefs anywhere without losing his job, and creationism in general has no significant following in Sweden anyway. In fact, I doubt he’ll last long if he says anything to support any kind of religious tenets (and he’ll be kicked out with full support from the majority of Swedes) – in fact, I think it’ll be sufficient if some crazies really started citing him as a supporter of their claims.
Having read a little more, I see both things to make me concerned and others to make me want to hold off on judging him until we know more. In the latter category are two statements by people active at the university.
One is Anders Björklund, Professor of Neurological Sciences and head of the stem cell center (and thus someone who might have reason to be suspicious of a fundie) saying “Through his previous work, he has knowledge and abilities the university has been looking for.” (My translation.)
The other is Petter Forkstam, head of the student union, who has contacted students at Blekinge Tekniska Högskola (Blekinge Institute of Technology), the college Eriksson previously headed. Apparently, the students there had not experienced any problems.
So Eriksson seems to manage compartmentalization reasonably well. The question is why he doesn’t simply allay everyone’s concerns by clearly stating that his private views on faith (which he of course is entitled to) will not in any way intefere with the way he runs the university. At the very least, it is poor framing…
rhr, you’re destroying our myths of a “promised land”, how dare you!? (insert appropriate fundie rant here)
:-p
if Sweden is having creationists run its universities, we’re all doomed. there won’t be anywhere left to run to when the U.S. sinks into the Dark Ages.
How is this different from the Reiss case?
For one thing, Per Eriksson is a creationist so is by definition anti-science, while Reiss is not anti-science. Doesn’t that seem like at least a slight difference to you?
Also, while Reiss was open about his beliefs, Per Eriksson is not, and is refusing to answer questions apropos to his employment until he’s hired. Is that something that would be acceptable in any employment situtation you’ve ever been in? Would it be acceptable even for a counter job at McDonald’s? No, of course not, so why should it be acceptable for a high paying job at a university?
I too have studied at Lund University and currently work there as SysAdmin. This situation will be monitored closely. It could indeed be a huge blow to the scientific credibility of Lund University if Per Eriksson lets his beliefs influence his work and the work of others, especially of the Science Faculty. LU have already taken a few missteps over the last few years (one was unfortunately the fault of my old home department, Computer Science) but this has the potential to be disastrous.
Still, we will have to give him the benefit of the doubt for a few months but not much more.
#25:
Since 2000, this is no longer the case. Naturally, that is very recently, but the formal separation happened long after the practical one, and there is no doubt that Sweden is a very secular country.
And I say secular rather than atheistic – people simply don’t give much thought to religion at all.
My (Irish guy) translation follows. Better than a Google translation, but unlikely to be as good as a Swede’s. It’s a pretty direct translation, which reads rather badly, but I don’t think it’s well-written in Swedish either…
The academic staff of the science faculty are not satisfied with the
choice of new chancellor. In a protest letter, they demand an explanation
from the university’s management why Per Eriksson was chosen and not
Pär Omling. The faculty is also concerned that Eriksson’s Free Church
background will have consequences for the university.
Lund. All seven academic staff from the science faculty who sat on
the selection committee have signed a letter to the university’s
management, in which they demand an explanation as to why they were
overruled in the choice of chancellor.
The selection committee consisted of 90 students and staff of the
university and had an advisory role in the choice of chancellor. The
committee recommended Pär Omling, but the management went for Per
Eriksson anyway.
“The management have to explain their choice”, says Professor of
Microbiological Ecology, Bengt Södertröm, one of the signatories of
the letter, and continues:
“The basis of the management’s move is that the selection committee
made no clear distinction between them. But we said that we had. Pär
Omling actually got 33 first-preference votes, while Per Eriksson got
21.”
At the science faculty, moreover, they have had lively discussions
lately about Per Eriksson’s Free Church background. He previously
attended a Pentecostal church, but in 2001 changed, according to
his own statement, in connection with his move to Malmö, and now
attends Hyllie Park Church, a Free Church community that is affiliated
with the Swedish Baptist Convention and the Evangelical Free Church.
“It can’t be denied that there’s disquiet. The Pentecostal Church
stands for values that don’t necessarily coincide with the values at
an independent university. But we don’t know if Per Eriksson has these
values”, says Bengt Söderström.
“The chancellor may believe what he wants, and be with whatever group he
wants. But as a representative of the university feel that it’s not
serious”, says lecturer in biochemistry, Cecilia Hägerhäll, another of
the letter’s authors.
She didn’t know that Per Eriksson had been a member of the Pentecostal
Church, but thinks that the selection committee should have found out
about it.
She is worried that Per Eriksson’s values will influence science
research within the university, but also research in the
humanities: for example, theology.
“He belongs to a movement where they believe that the Bible is God’s
word, period. And Pentecostal pastor Åke Green says that homosexuality
is a sin. It’s not such a person who should become our chancellor. The
Pentecostal Church is really a very extreme anti-science movement. If
he had been a Buddhist, it would’ve been much less controversial”,
says Cecilia Hägerhall.
Neither Bengt Söderström nor anyone else in the selection committee
asked questions about Per Erikssons belief system.
“This is tremendously difficult to ask questions about in a committee
of 90 people. It is about belief systems and, of course, we have
freedom of religion. I had really assumed that this was something that
was taken up in an in-depth interview by the consultants who are hired
in, or by managment”, says Bengt Söderström.
On the other hand, within the university, the concern is not so
strong. Sune Sunesson, Dean of the Social Science Faculty, says that
it would be tremendously offensive to assume that Per Eriksson
automatically harbours certain views just because he is a member of a
certain faith community.
“What we should be working on the assumption of is that the
chancellor supports the university’s strategic plan, the basic values
that are found there, and that he is not making changes that conflict
with these values”, says Sune Sunesson.
“I oppose examining people on their opinions beyond that.”
Fredrik Lindström, Dean of the Faculty of Theology, sees no problem
with Per Eriksson being a member of a Free Church and doesn’t believe
that it influences his view of research.
“In that case, he’ll have to live up to this preconception
first. Nobody should be condemned unheard”, says Fredrik Lindström.
Sydsvenskan had requested a copy of the letter from the university,
but was notified that it’s confidential. The authors of the letter
have, however, sent a copy to the newspaper.
Tulse@22 is seeing the same conflict that I see. There is little difference between Eriksson and Reiss, once you add and subtract the subtleties.
Personally, I think they are both dangerous because of the religious myths they are involved in. If there wasn’t the push by the religious to instill their myths into everything, I wouldn’t be concerned. As it is, the myth pushers can use each of these cases to support further intrusion.
There is no doubt that both persons have a conflict between being able to correctly carry out their job responsibilities regarding their myth and reality. A possible solution in both cases would be to get them to make a binding agreement that they will not allow their myth to affect any actions that they take while performing their reality duties and that they won’t allow their reality position to support the invasive nature of their myth.
I wish I had something to add to this discussion (being swedish and all) but unfortunately I got nothin’. This is the first I’ve heard of it! Still, I’m not too worried. And to those of you who are considering revising your entire opinion on Sweden based on this story, please keep in mind this is just one facet. Another one, for example, is how Stockholm University recently threw out Waldorf teacher education.
Felicia (#35), although I wholeheartedly agree that the discontinuation of the Waldorf teacher education was great news I find it rather telling of a big problem we Swedes generally have. Namely the relativism and indifference we have towards distinguishing scientifically backed claims and other (often crack pot) claims.
Sure, religion is sort of a fringe thing that most people mocks in Sweden. But new age thinking and the likes isn’t.
Even the state funded medical care somewhat embraces a lot of oriental/new age nonsense and thereby gives it more credit than it deserves.
Oh, I find the fact that there was a Waldorf there to discontinue in the first place telling. Sorry about that.
huh, I didn’t even know Waldorf was a religious school. I never really thought about it, other than wishing my mom had sent me to one (both my brother and I could read when we were 4, and we did math in our spare time, too. we were weird), because regular school was boring as hell. maybe i would have even graduated if i had gone to one, heheh.
*before i get slammed for supporting new-agey stuff… my opinion is that too many kids come out undereducated out of schools like that, but that there isn’t enough programs in europe for kids who learn quicker/differently than what’s catered to in regular schools. and the Waldorf stuff was the only alternative i knew when i was in school and it looked much more interesting to me than regular school.
Jadehawk, there is no support what so ever to the claim that Waldorf is superior to regular schools in seeing to the interests of either gifted or troubled kids… other then the claims of the supporters.
Waldorf isn’t really a religious school, but the founder Rudolf Steiner was a weird fellow. He believed in trolls, fairies, etc. He has a lot repulsive ideas about things like that the only chance troubled kids have is to be reborn fully in the next life since they lack a real full soul.
There is no reason to base education of kids on the “teachings” of this douche.
Tulse@22 is seeing the same conflict that I see. There is little difference between Eriksson and Reiss, once you add and subtract the subtleties.
Nonsense. The “subtlety” is that one is demonstrably anti-science and the other is demonstrably not anti-science; that’s hardly subtle.
The other “subtlety” is that one is open about his beliefs and the other is trying to hide them until after the ink dries on the contract. Again, hardly subtle.
How can you sthis and then in the Kroto article say:
“This is too close to blacklisting people for their personal affiliations, and it should not be acceptable. ”
I completely understand that there is a big difference between a creationist who avowedly consults their bible everyday and a scientist of the Royal Society who’s religious affiliations are questionable, but such opposing statements and tones really call into question just who is allowed to be a little nutty in their personal beliefs.
If anything, I would expect most atheists to hold their esteemed scientists to a higher standard when it comes to religious affiliation.
Well hey, if he does get booted from Lund U., he could always get a job here in the US. I’m sure Liberty University would love a little international flavor
Oskar, in my case just making it interesting enough to get me to show up often enough to graduate would have done the trick
:-p
but yeah, the dude sounds weird.
If anything, I would expect most atheists to hold their esteemed scientists to a higher standard when it comes to religious affiliation.
It’s possible to be a productive, indeed an esteemed, scientist and not be an atheist. In fact it’s pretty common. It is not possible to be anything good anywhere near science if you’re anti-science. If you actually cannot see a difference between those two positions I don’t know what to say. It sounds like troll behavior.
I am right now in a dicussion on the swedish skeptics society forum about this. You can find the translated version here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vof.se%2Fforum%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ff%3D17%26t%3D6852%26st%3D0%26sk%3Dt%26sd%3Da&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&sl=sv&tl=en
#36 – Of course there are problems, I was just trying to point out that we’re trying to deal with them, or at least some of us are. And at least we in Sweden have a bit of a head start!
#38 – You wouldn’t have enjoyed a waldorf education. In fact, anthroposophy frowns at children learning to read and count at a young age. According to Rudolf Steiner’s hallucinations – sorry, I mean revelations – it inhibits growth of internal organs and will leave the child stunted.
Finally I have some small amount of time to look into my favorite blogs again, and what do I see, a post about Sweden! But it could have been a more positive subject than creationism. :-(
This looks like a totally invented characterization. Per Eriksson is, as far as I can see, not renowned for his creationism.
OTOH, Eriksson has a solid experience in leading scientific research organizations without problem and with considerable success. Eriksson has already been a rector for an engineer institution equivalent to a university (Blekinge tekniska högskola 1989-2000), and have been the director for Vinnova since 2001. Vinnova is the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, and has been instrumental in promoting the little piece of applied research Sweden thinks it can afford.
But as swedish bloggers remind us, even in Sweden there have been an old, albeit small, movement there fundamentalists seek to inveigle themselves into high positions in the society.
However, why Eriksson would suddenly change his behavior after so many years being directly responsible for promoting solid science reminds to be explained.
Torbjörn, Problem is engineering and science isn’t quite the same thing and as most pharyngulites are aware engineers have this worrying tendency to take the teleological argument very literally… One can be a fantastic engineer doing applied research and still believe the earth is 6000 years old.
Personally I’m most worried about his refusal to tell people what he thinks about homosexuals. If he can’t even bring himself to pay lip service to the idea that discrimination on sexual grounds is just as bad as religious or ethnical… Lund has a problem.
QrazyQat: and where’s the proof that this guy is actually anti-science?
We know the beliefs of his church, but we do not yet know his beliefs on creation. If he does indeed believe that in the beginning all ecological systems were in balance, that men were free from oppression and that it is our habit to try to control God’s creation that is the root of our problems, as his church does, then this is a catastrophe, but let’s not jump to conclusions.
This may very well be another case of an otherwise intelligent person that for some completely unexplainable reason decides to mingle with fundies. It happens all the time. (And it draws tears to my eyes.)
In either case he needs to carefully address these issues. Let’s see what he does.
People that know Swedish may be interested in this: http://www.baptist.se/download/18.61632b5e117dec92f47800050357/gemtro_inlaga.pdf
The section on creation contains quite a few things that Per Eriksson needs to clarify his position on as they may very well conflict with his job. How about this, for example:
“This faith challenge the distortion of the biblical commandment to care for the creation, wherein Man in his rebellion against God has contributed to developments that threatens to destroy the creation. If we however understand the biblical mission in it’s proper context, it means that people are called upon to assist in the work of God and to preserve and fully welcome his creation, instead of using science and technology to destroy lives.
Salvation in Jesus Christ and a life in communion with Him is the basis for Christian ethical responsibility of Creation and the environment. Such an ethic requires us to give up the unjust advantages that we have reserved to ourselves, when we step by step have taken control over nature. The Christian belief that the world is God’s creation demand a more tender and responsible use of science and technology, a resistance against the destruction of people and a gratifying to human life and human relations that are given priority over material things.”
This can of course be read in many different ways, but he still needs to clarify his position.
I don’t understand PZ, why is it wrong for a creationist like this swedish guy to be the head of a University, but ok for an ordained minister be the Director of National Education in the Royal Society? What in your mind distinguishes these two cases, and where would you draw the line between being too religious and unreligious enough?
Said ordained minister was not a creationist. He was not anti-science. Eriksson belongs to a rather fundamentalist church, and therefore PZ thinks he’s a creationist…
QrazyQat: and where’s the proof that this guy is actually anti-science?
I humbly offer you the suggestion that anyone who is a “reknowned creationist” is by definition anti-science. And Santiago, it’s not a “line between being too religious and unreligious enough”; it’s who is anti-science and who is not. That’s an extremely clear line.
Plus, there is the line where one person is open about his beliefs, while the other is trying to hide his until he gets hired. If you were hiring an employee for any job, no matter how low-level — a counterperson at McDonald’s, a Walmart greeter — and they refused to respond to apropos questions (as a question about being anti-science would be in this case) would you hire them? Of course not. If you wouldn’t hire a person for such a low-level job for doing that, why would you hire a person for an important job who did the same thing?
Really, this isn’t rocket science. It’s easy to udnerstand and very clear. I have to think that anyone who doesn’t understand it after repeated clear, easy to understand explanations is a troll. If they aren’t they’re doing a terrific impression of one.
Isn’t this a little contradictory to your post, Aaargh — I have to disagree with Harry Kroto?
You said:
“This is too close to blacklisting people for their personal affiliations, and it should not be acceptable…people are really good, for the most part, at holding a lot of disparate ideas in their heads, and people…are…good, for the most part, at keeping the spiritual blather out of their science.”
That’s a bit of a double take, isn’t it?
PZ Myers:
I agree, but isn’t this in contradiction to your disagreement with Harry Kroto? Since Per Eriksson probably wouldn’t be dealing with specifics, the age of the earth and evolution would have nothing to do with general management of a university. I would agree he shouldn’t be appointed because it shows a general lack of being able to think and on the off chance that something that he would have to think rationally about did come in to conflict with one of his dogmas – but the same argument could be used, say, to argue that a priest shouldn’t be appointed to the head of education of a prestigious scientific organization under any circumstances.
Hugo, Nova, allow me to introduce you to the concept of reading the comments before posting. :)
I know, I do it too sometimes. But I end up regretting it about half the time.
So Reiss the ordained minister does not believe in the possibility of miracles? He doesn’t believe that a dead Jewish guy came back to life?
QrazyQat – Indeed! Per Eriksson, as the comments will show you if you read closely, is not in fact a renowned creationist. That was a slip-up on PZ:s part. We don’t really know what Eriksson’s beliefs are.
Me thinks qwazyqwat don’t like dem distagree’n wit. Qwazyqwat have say tis final! No distagree’n, finish.
QrazyQat – Indeed! Per Eriksson, as the comments will show you if you read closely, is not in fact a renowned creationist. That was a slip-up on PZ:s part. We don’t really know what Eriksson’s beliefs are.
My mistake and my apologies. So then all we have is the fact that the guy refuses to answer apropos questions relating to his employment unless he gets hired first. Hands up, all who think that’s okay, and who’d hire someone who did that at their business.
I’m from Sweden, and I really did not expect this to happen. But even though this is a very secular/atheist country, we still have our share or deluded idiots who prefer not to think.
Swede here.
Although I find this a bit disappointing as we are supposed to be the most secular country in the world, it seems legit. Can´t really fire the guy because he belongs to a nutty church. That´s really a private matter. I had a teacher in high school that belonged to the same church that Eriksson (Pingstkyrkan) did and he was a great teacher in match and physics that never mixed in any personal beliefs.
#32
“And I say secular rather than atheistic – people simply don’t give much thought to religion at all.”
I found that comment to be spot on. Religion is such a rare subject of conversation, so many people don´t really develop their views on it. The most you´ll hear is the swedish cliché “I´m not a christian, but I believe in Something”.
Science requires the basic assumption that miracles don’t happen often enough to make the world unpredictable. :-|
And, actually, given the fact that this guy is an Anglican minister, we can’t really take for granted he believes in miracles or even just considers the Resurrection to be understood literally…
Back when the state religion really meant something, the state took a dim view of “free” (ie. non-state) churches of the kind Eriksson belongs to.
If the descent of man from (A) the first moment a dead cell was made alive by a spark or something to (B) homo sapiens, could one of the evoluton-believers on here give us a short summary of how we got from A to B. Just the outline of the main line of descent would be sufficient, thanks. Yes, I know that we are supposed to have descended from a hitherto unknown ‘common ancestor’ with the apes, so just tell us how we got from the first living cell’ to that ‘common ancestor’
If the descent of man from (A) the first moment a dead cell was made alive by a spark or something to (B) homo sapiens, could one of the evoluton-believers on here give us a short summary of how we got from A to B. Just the outline of the main line of descent would be sufficient, thanks. Yes, I know that we are supposed to have descended from a hitherto unknown ‘common ancestor’ with the apes, so just tell us how we got from the first ‘living cell’ to that ‘common ancestor’
Tony @ #65 and #66: my suggested reading is “The Ancestor’s Tale” by Richard Dawkins, a wonderful trip backwards through time and our ancestry. It’s six hundred pages, but what would you expect to describe a few billion years of history, and you seem to be literate… Enjoy!
Tony – Also I think you need to rethink your ideas on life and death. There was no “dead” cell that suddenly became “alive”. There’s no intrinsic difference between live and dead matter, no magical life force, no “spark” that sets us aside from rocks. It’s all just chemical processes. Cells also evolved, from something that came before cells. A cell appearing randomly and turning alive by a “spark” would be, well, … a miracle! And very unscientific.
David, I don’t think that’s true — a commitment to methodological naturalism involves the basic assumption that every event has a naturalistic cause. If any “real” miracle occurs, it calls into question the possibility of scientific induction, and thus does indeed make the world unpredictable.
If Jesus really did turn water into wine through supernatural processes, then (broadly speaking) the assumptions of science are wrong.
@ #69
If Jesus, or anyone else turned water into wine, it would be through entirely natural processes. Even if he did nothing but snap his fingers and said “abracadabra” and it actually turned into wine, it could still be studied with scientific means. When water turns into wine, something is happening in the natural world (really, where else would it take place…?), it’s just that we don’t understand it yet. It didn’t happen anyway, so…
Swede here.
I think this might not be as big a problem as you all seem to fear.
Regardless of views on religion here, they are simply not part of social life. Until coming in contact with PZ’s Blog I didn´t consider the validity of evolution or religion worth discussing as they are so incredibly obviously true and false respectively!
If he ever does give a hint of a religious view in anything he says he would be ostracized so fast his religious nut would spin.
Another defeat for evolution thumpers.
Sweden shares a intellectual history with the Protestant peoples of risen to the highest intellectual heights relative to other men on the planet. Of coarse Sweden has creationists with excellent resumes. Evangelical christianity was important in Swedens rise since the reformation. Behind the British world but ahead of Catholic europe and the rest.
They are like all of Europe forsaken christ but still a unique thread of truth remains.
Have the posters here read Foxe book of martyres . well maybe your not calling for this Swedes burning but you are burning his legitamacy to high position for no other reason then his beliefs.
Make a deal here. Let this guy in for a year and if its a failure then dump him and you can say your right about creationist/Christian beliefs can’t exist in high Acaedemia.
If your wrong then the host and evolution posters of this forum should dump themselves off the internet.
A manly bet.
Okay, exactly how does a church believe the bible is literally true without believing creationism is literally true? Creation’s in the bible, isn’t it?
The Principal sends an open letter via the press:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsydsvenskan.se%2Flund%2Farticle375721%2FRektorn-svarar-pa-kritik-i-oppet-brev.html&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&sl=sv&tl=en
Google translation… I think the message mostly survives.
He does not say that he does not believe homosexuality to be a sin OR that he finds no problems with stem cell research. Nor does he state wether he believes in evolution or creation…
I should not trust the person who gave the information to you.
1. Eriksson is NOT a creationist!
2. The church he is a member of is not fundamentalist
3. Eriksson HAS commented on the two views he initially didn’t want to comment, in a paper, namely stemcellresearch and homosexuality. That is on the website of the University. In the same view he stated his critical-scientific approach, and that he stated also that their is religious freedom in Sweden, so a University principal should be able to be a Christian. That would be the relevant things to comment on.
4. It wasn’t an examination commité, but rather a hearing from students and teachers on the different candidates that the board had proposed. According to the board it was a very close voting, but that the other candidate got some more votes (apparently according to some tactic-voting.)
5. So much guilt by (imagined) assocation in such a short text.
/Christoffer
Sorry, wrote “in the same view he stated”
should be
“in the same interview he stated”.
/Christoffer
I’m a student of Lund University, and I’m a bit worried of this. This isn’t the first time they choose controversial characters for key positions though.