My article Lawrence Krauss “can’t prove that God doesn’t exist” set the table for our consideration of Krauss’ article All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists, September 8, 2015 AD.
One thing to immediately note is that he is not only making the radical claim that “All Scientists Should Be Atheists” but the militantly radical claim that “All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists.”
Lawrence Krauss is a militant Atheist missionary who is also, on the side, the foundation professor and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, and the chair of the board of sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. He has stated, “I can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, but I’d much rather live in a universe without one.”
One thing that his article makes abundantly clear is that Krauss is the sort who has been, apparently despite his public forums, safely locked away atop his imitation ivory tower as he speaks as if he is solely aware of well-within-the-box-Atheist-group-think-talking-points-de-jour and not in the least bit conversant with well, those who actually converse about such matter—with those with whom the disagree.
He references, “Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who directly disobeyed a federal judge’s order to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, and, as a result, was jailed for contempt of court” and asks, “To what extent should we allow people to break the law if their religious views are in conflict with it?”
He notes, “The problem, obviously, is that what is sacred to one person can be meaningless (or repugnant) to another.” This reminded me of Prof. Richard Lewontin’s statement, “Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity ‘in deep trouble.’ Two’s company, but three’s a crowd” (see “Billions and Billions of Demons”).
Lawrence Krauss then writes, “That’s one of the reasons why a modern secular society generally legislates against actions, not ideas.” Apparently, he has not heard that we are living in a neo-McCarthy Era whereby newspeak and thought crime are in full effect and where personages such as Sam Harris write, “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them” (The End of Faith (W. W. Norton & Company, 2005 AD), pp. 52-53).
Krauss’ solution? “No idea or belief should be illegal; conversely, no idea should be so sacred that it legally justifies actions that would otherwise be illegal.” I have added emphasis so as to denote that the point of agreeing or not is secondary to the fact that, you will note, Krauss is not telling society that which is should and should not do; base, of course, on his capacity as a cosmologist—go figure!
He also notes:
“In science, of course, the very word “sacred” is profane. No ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass. The notion that some idea or concept is beyond question or attack is anathema to the entire scientific undertaking.” Again, Prof. Lewontin breaks in with an admission:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Thus, we have already been told, told the obvious of course, that scientists also function upon a series of presuppositions (philosophical, worldview based, etc.) and so the fact is that in science, of course, the very word “sacred” is profane because scientists of Krauss’ school are anti-sacred or rather, they hold Atheism to the sacred and the true sacred as profane (read Romans 1). Atheism gets a free pass. The notion upon which they function is that that only Atheism is beyond question or attack and it is anathema to be a Judeo-Christian theistic scientist, the same Judeo-Christian theism upon which the entire scientific undertaking is premised.
Lawrence Krauss quotes the biologist J.B.S. Haldane’s 1934 AD statement:
“My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career.” Yet, this is merely Atheistic propaganda as the scientists who came before him, those who established the scientific method upon Judeo-Christian theism, held that science was, as it has been stated, thinking God’s thoughts after Him. Yet, they did not think that God, an angel, or the devil was going to interfere with their science because the very premise of the scientific method is that the material realm was created by a rational being who created a rational creation and populated it with rational creatures who could rationally discern it. The fact that the material realm functions on the basis of cause followed by effect is that which makes science possible and this was thought to have been a direct reflection of the rational God’s mind.
The point being that those Judeo-Christian theistic scientists based the scientific method on that which on not expecting that God, an angel, or the devil was going to interfere and had utterly no need for Atheism in order to do so in fact, they held to the exact opposite. Their practice as a scientist is Judeo-Christian theism and that assumption has been justified by such success as they achieved in their professional careers.
Now, despite these historical facts, Krauss invents the following idea (actually, he did not invent it but merely promulgates a well-within-the-box-Atheist-group-think-talking-point-de-jour), “It’s ironic, really, that so many people are fixated on the relationship between science and religion: basically, there isn’t one.”
As proof of this, Krauss wrote, “In my more than thirty years as a practicing physicist, I have never heard the word ‘God’ mentioned in a scientific meeting.” Well, if you can get fired for mentioning the “G” word then it is no surprise. Yet, more to the point is that which I just explained about the premise, history and method of science. This is tantamount to claiming that Henry Ford has nothing to do with Ford cars because I have worked at an auto repair shop that specialized on Fords for 35 years and have never heard anyone make reference to Henry Ford.
Krauss also wrote, “Because science holds that no idea is sacred…” as aforementioned and emphasized by Krauss via his favorable quotation of Haldane neo-so-called-science (scientism) holds that no idea is sacred except Atheism “…it’s inevitable that it draws people away from religion. The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems” and yet, one would only come to the conclusion that the universe is purposeless if one holds to an Atheistic view.
In this particular regard, as noted in my article PZ Myers Said That Scientific Thinking Has a Corrosive Influence on Religious Belief, Myers was asked, “What’s most important to you: advancing atheism or advancing the public understanding of science – or are they kind of one in the same for you?” and he replied that “They are inseparable.” The follow up was:
“Yeah, Jonathan Miller had that study out a few years ago, you know, countries in Europe, people score higher in science literacy therefore, they were more accepting of, of evolution, more naturalistic. But, the University of Buffalo recently had a study, oh I think just in the last year, that suggested that it was a chicken and egg sort of thing. That people who were already kind of skeptical and secular ended up choosing to go into the sciences rather than the other way around.” To this PZ Myers replied as follows:
“Yes I, I can see it working both ways. That’s not earth shaking news either, I don’t think. If you’re into religion you are going to be steered away, by your own interests, from science. So there’s, there is a self-selection going on. But still, you know, we, we want more scientists right? We want more people thinking critically and skeptically about the world around them, it’s something that we want to encourage lots more people [sic].”
Lawrence Krauss wrote, “Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature” which is somewhat tricky. For example, how do a long series of happy accidents result in induction (that the future will, generally, be like the past—without granting uniformateriansim), cause and effect, rational minds, etc.
Belief in God is relevant to our understanding of the workings of nature as per the premise, history and methods of science. Nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature because nonbelief in God simply beg, borrow and steal from believers in God and then claim that there isn’t a relationship between science and religion.
Even on socio-political issues as recent as right now Krauss seems to be utterly out of step with reality as he writes:
“Consider the example of Planned Parenthood. Lawmakers are calling for a government shutdown unless federal funds for Planned Parenthood are stripped from spending bills for the fiscal year starting October 1st. Why? Because Planned Parenthood provides fetal tissue samples from abortions to scientific researchers hoping to cure diseases, from Alzheimer’s to cancer.
(Storing and safeguarding that tissue requires resources, and Planned Parenthood charges researchers for the costs.) It’s clear that many of the people protesting Planned Parenthood are opposed to abortion on religious grounds and are, to varying degrees, anti-science.” Only part of the issue that is Planned Parenthood provides fetal tissue samples. Planned Parenthood is in the business of murdering beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies in inhuman, inhumane and subhuman dismembering manners which seek to preserve portions of the corpses so that they can be sold.
Thus, they charge for abortion, they charge for “Storing and safeguarding that tissue” and, on top of it, all US tax payers are forced to give them even more money. Krauss notes that “this tissue would otherwise be thrown away” so why not make bank on it—what’s that Josef Mengele, you think that it is a great idea?!?!
Krauss also plays they martyr card by writing, “I have heard from many young people about the shame and ostracism they experience after merely questioning their family’s faith.” Well, the fact of reality is that personage such as myself have experienced shame and ostracism after merely questioning their family’s lack of faith. Since this goes both ways, it is a non-issue and is merely an emotive appeal by Lawrence Krauss.
Krauss also writes that “Whenever scientific claims are presented as unquestionable, they undermine science.” Is he altogether unfamiliar with, citing merely one example, Darwinian evolution: that most unquestionable of (pseudo) scientific claims?
He also writes, “Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance” and yet, this is merely more ignorance of the history of science not to mention the enforced ignorance that is currently being promulgated by their claims of those who believe, by fatheism, that the universe and everything within it, including Krauss, is the result of a long, long series of happy accidents.
Thus, it would do Lawrence Krauss some good to actually listen to those with whom he disagrees on those rare moments when he traipses down from atop his imitation ivory tower.
Can you imagine such majestic creatures seeing themselves depicted as chubby babies?