We Need Better Atheists: The Smug Humanism of Lawrence Krauss

[rug]

By Chris Packham Fri., Dec. 13 2013 at 2:15 PM

- snip -

Krauss is an accomplished cosmologist and theoretical physicist who is capable of speaking eloquently on the areas of his expertise, such as quantum mechanics and, presumably, dad-khakis. But this isn't a film about science; it's a meta-conversation about unwelcome religious intrusions into science. The film documents a joint tour with Krauss and zoologist Richard Dawkins, who give a series of talks about the importance of rationality, skepticism, and atheism.

The difference between Dawkins and Krauss is that Dawkins can be funny. Krauss doesn't use humor; he openly mocks people who disagree with him in front of audiences who do. Dawkins effortlessly demonstrates his expertise to his philosophical opponents; Krauss shouts his expertise at people he could be trying to persuade. Where Dawkins is cranky about the intrusion of superstitious religious belief into the public sphere, Krauss emanates wavy, cartoon stink-lines of smugness with his own superiority.

"While you mentioned quantum mechanics," he sneers at a polite young Muslim scholar during a debate, "I actually understand it." We don't have a clip; it helps if you picture Franklin from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre reading from a transcript of Krauss's dialogue.

Like Franklin -- or, really, any villain -- Krauss has the extremely uncharismatic tendency to view himself as a victim, referring to his "fight against evil" and describing his work as "under attack." Let's be clear: Krauss is a wealthy member of a highly educated and privileged class. He's influential and well regarded in his field. He travels around the world, he goes on The Colbert Report and gets retweeted by Miley Cyrus. Other than self-satisfaction and the menswear department at Kohl's, Krauss isn't a victim of anything, and it's ironic that an avowed skeptic and atheist would adopt the same rhetorical ploys as the white men on Fox News who describe themselves as victims of poor people with access to health insurance.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/12/we-need-better-atheists.php

[eqfan592]

1. Anybody that compares the actual discrimination faced by atheists...

...to the imaginary discrimination espoused by Fox News in terms of poor people with access to healthcare, is not somebody worth listening to.

[cbayer]

2. Do you really think Krauss faces discrimination of any kind because he is an atheist?

He's a white, male, straight, highly educated member of the economic upper class who lives in the US.

If he faces any discrimination at all because of his atheism, it's miniscule.

This is not to say that discrimination towards atheists does not exist. It does.

It's just to say that Krauss probably experiences none of it.

[eqfan592]

3. I have no idea what he has or hasn't experienced.

The author is making an assumption either way, and the comparison soured me on the article.

[cbayer]

4. The author was comparing Krauss's faux outrage over his "victimization" to the

same tactics that Fox news uses when talking about how they are being victimized by the poor.

[longship]

8. People assume that Krauss is speaking for himself.

Just like people assume Dawkins speaks for himself.

Just like people assume that Harris speaks for himself.

Just like people assume Hitchens spoke for himself.

Just like people assume any atheist active in the political sphere is speaking for themself.

It's a meme -- BTW, a Dawkins invention -- that almost anybody who sees atheists as a threat will inevitably trot out, even by some who profess to be non-believers. This shit gets awfully tiring.

The issue is very simple. For the most part, atheists and other non-believers are not some perverse proselytizing sect, who want the whole world to agree with them. Those who say they are are confusing atheists with the fervent religious. If atheists seem strident it is because we are often relegated to the bottom of the heap. How many countries have a death penalty for atheism? How many for apostasy? In how many countries can one be jailed or even put to death for blasphemy?How many laws are put into place to promote religious belief over science in the USA? It's been going on since the 70's and many scientists are sick and fucking tired of it.

That's what Krauss and others are fighting!

If people cannot understand these concepts, by all means, they should proceed. We may see how it all works out soon enough. But I fear that the devil may take the hind side. (So to speak.)

Krauss is a scientist who sees religion intruding on his turf. (As does Dawkins. As does Dennett. As does Stenger. As does any biologist in the USA, and a vast majority of others in all the sciences.)

If religionists cannot understand this simple thing, that's their problem. If other atheists cannot understand it either, that's too fucking bad. I would suggest that they try to learn real biology in high school in Louisiana these days.

That is where Krauss and many of us are coming from. And we are not going to stop. Ever! (on edit: and don't get me started about religion and the GOP.)

on edit: sorry for the rant. But this article sucks and totally ignores the bigger picture of which Krauss and many others have spoke for decades.

[eqfan592]

9. Thank you for putting it much better than I could.

Well said, sir.

[cbayer]

10. There was recently an article posted here about the consequences of being

atheist in some Muslim countries. Apparently a dozen or so have death penalty laws for apostasy, but none for just being atheist. Pakistan is the only country with death penalty laws for blasphemy.

The fact is that in the US, the atheist demographic is predominantly white, male, straight, educated, employed, and financially well off. While there is no doubt that there are areas of prejudice against atheists, most sit at such a high level of privilege that to call them the "bottom of the heap" seems a little silly.

It's not just scientists that are sick of intrusions of religion into the government. There are secularists of all stripes, including some religion people.

I don't particularly dislike Krauss. I think the author speaks more to tone than substance.

Excuse me, but I have three kids educated in Louisiana. One is an epidemiologist, another a scientifically based agriculturist and the third not a scientist but well educated in science. It's that kind of arrogant and prejudiced statement that may lead some to develop negative feelings about some atheists, longship. I think you have just done what the author takes Krauss to task for doing. You want to be heard? Show some respect for those that see things differently than you.

[Rob H.]

11. longship's reference to Louisiana is about what's going on there *now*

Science education has really taken a beating there recently, after the 2008 passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act, which allows creationism to be taught alongside actual science in science classes. (We had a very similar bill pass here in TN a while back, the infamous "Monkey Bill," which allows subjects like creationism to be discussed in science class as long as students, not teachers, bring them up; it leaves the door open to other stupidity like climate change denialism, as well.) A repeal has been attempted in Louisiana, but has so far been unsuccessful:

Louisiana Science Education Act Repeal Fails, Keeping Door Open For Teaching Of Creationism
The Huffington Post | By Nick Wing Posted: 05/02/2013
...
On the face of it, the law lets schools use supplemental texts "to help students understand, analyze, critique and review scientific theories" such as "evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning." Backers say it does not authorize religious teachings. Gene Mills, president of the Louisiana Family Forum, wrote to NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune saying the law "encourages academic freedom and inquiry."

The act specifically states it "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine." But Barbara Forrest of the Louisiana Coalition for Science said it included coded language -- like "the origins of life" and references to academic freedom -- that was developed by religiously conservative groups to get around court decisions against laws expressly allowing creationist theory. The result is a law that claims to promote critical thinking while paradoxically doing the opposite, Forrest said.

"It's not about teaching science. It's about sneaking creationism into the classroom," said Zack Kopplin, a college student and one of Louisiana's leading anti-creationism advocate. "You don't need a law to teach critical thinking in science." Kopplin's father, Andy, is former chief of staff to two Louisiana governors and current deputy mayor of New Orleans.

Many states have considered similar legislation, but only Tennessee has approved its own version, Forrest said: "Even friggin' Texas has the good sense not to pass one of these bills."

Edited for clarity.

[cbayer]

12. I appreciate that information and understand that this is hugely problematic.

But it is the broad brush statements that put people off. There are lot so intelligent people in Louisiana, lots of schools that will not teach creationism and lot os kids who will get good science education.

I think we can fight back against bad legislation like this and ridicule those individuals and groups that push it without making statements that appear to sweep up the entire populace and paint them as ignorant fools.

Knowing longship, I suspect that he meant exactly what you are saying and did not mean to be insulting. But the statement really pushed a button for me. If it does that for me, I think it does it for others.

[Rob H.]

14. That's just it, though

IMO, what you're seeing as a broad brush attack on Louisianans was an attack (perfectly justifiable, imo, as we're dealing with much the same thing in TN) on the state of science education in Louisiana, not the people who live there. I'm sure there are lots of people in the state who are against the Louisiana Science Education Act (otherwise there wouldn't be an effort to repeal it) just as there are lots of people who are against the Monkey Bill here in TN. Saying, "I would suggest that they try to learn real biology in high school in Louisiana these days," isn't anything like saying, "Man. Can you believe those people in Louisiana? What a bunch of backwards rubes."

Edited for clarity.

[cbayer]

15. I agree with you and I most likely read it wrong.

But being clear might be something to strive for. Like I said, it hit me wrong and I would suggest that it might hit others wrong as well.

[edhopper]

5. The vehement language of this column

Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2013, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

makes me think the author has an axe to grind rather than present any type of objective view of Krauss.

[rug]

6. Vehement language tends to do that.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Krauss isn't a victim of anything, well other than for example this hit piece. Nt.

[cbayer]

13. I am interested in this concept of "hit piece".

It seems that anytime someone writes critically of another, the article and opinion is dismissed as a "hit piece".

Perhaps I am using a different definition, but I always thought of a "hit piece" as a distorted article written with the aim of discrediting someone who held views that were contrary to your own.

I can see, for example, a leftist writer publishing a hit piece about a righty, and vice versa. I could see a climate change denier writing a hit piece about a climate change scientists. And so on.

But I don't see how an atheist writing an article about another atheists is a hit piece. Why would they want to discredit them?

Are there, in fact, factions within atheism that are intent on besting each other? Or is the movement too new and too fragile to tolerate what might be legitimate criticism from within? Or is there some other explanation?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. no you aren't.

"We don't have a clip; it helps if you picture Franklin from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre reading from a transcript of Krauss's dialogue."

Is that clear enough? Or is a LOL forthcoming?

[cbayer]

21. Yes, I am.

I find some of what this author says rather juvenile and he certainly doesn't hold back on the criticism.

But I am interested in what makes it a "hit piece" in your opinion. That term indicates a motive to discredit the target.

What do you think this author's motive might be?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. I can't read a column talking about 'dad-khakis', 'Kohl's menswear' and 'his "cool" wardrobe'

without concluding the author is a smug bastard himself, whether or not his target is.

Fuck me, when you look at his review of the film, you discover he is still obsessed with Krauss's clothes:

Sure, R.E.M.'s "Orange Crush" lends a degree of urgency to shots of Christian protestors the director never places into a narrative context, but the mood is diminished by the uneventful tour and Krauss's clownish Boomer ensemble of Converse high-tops with Men's Wearhouse suits.

Who asked their hipster fashion correspondent to do the review for a science road trip documentary? And what the hell is the comparison with a character in a 1970s horror movie? Looking up the movie plot, I find 'Franklin' was indeed under attack. If this guy's first thought of who to liken Krauss to is someone under threat of death, doesn't that justify Krauss?

[cbayer]

17. I have to agree. I thought the criticism of his clothes was pretty juvenile.

Have you seen the movie?

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. No, which makes it hard to respond to the accusation of smugness

It's possible that Krauss is smug in it; or maybe he's not - the "I actually understand quantum physics" remark might be condescending, or it might be in response to some idiotic misuse of the concept of quantum physics (all kinds of people do that, so it's quite possible).

[cbayer]

19. I've not seen it either, though I would like to.

When I have heard Krauss speak, I have had difficulty following him, but that could be me.

I much prefer the style of a Neil Degrasse Tyson, who never makes you feel stupid.