All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists...LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS

[haikugal]

As a physicist, I do a lot of writing and public speaking about the remarkable nature of our cosmos, primarily because I think science is a key part of our cultural heritage and needs to be shared more broadly. Sometimes, I refer to the fact that religion and science are often in conflict; from time to time, I ridicule religious dogma. When I do, I sometimes get accused in public of being a “militant atheist.” Even a surprising number of my colleagues politely ask if it wouldn’t be better to avoid alienating religious people. Shouldn’t we respect religious sensibilities, masking potential conflicts and building common ground with religious groups so as to create a better, more equitable world?

I found myself thinking about those questions this week as I followed the story of 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. (She was released earlier today.) Davis’s supporters, including the Kentucky senator and Presidential candidate Rand Paul, are protesting what they believe to be an affront to her religious freedom. It is “absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberties,” Paul said, on CNN.


The Kim Davis story raises a basic question: To what extent should we allow people to break the law if their religious views are in conflict with it? It’s possible to take that question to an extreme that even Senator Paul might find absurd: imagine, for example, a jihadist whose interpretation of the Koran suggested that he should be allowed to behead infidels and apostates. Should he be allowed to break the law? Or—to consider a less extreme case—imagine an Islamic-fundamentalist county clerk who would not let unmarried men and women enter the courthouse together, or grant marriage licenses to unveiled women. For Rand Paul, what separates these cases from Kim Davis’s? The biggest difference, I suspect, is that Senator Paul agrees with Kim Davis’s religious views but disagrees with those of the hypothetical Islamic fundamentalist.

The problem, obviously, is that what is sacred to one person can be meaningless (or repugnant) to another. That’s one of the reasons why a modern secular society generally legislates against actions, not ideas. No idea or belief should be illegal; conversely, no idea should be so sacred that it legally justifies actions that would otherwise be illegal. Davis is free to believe whatever she wants, just as the jihadist is free to believe whatever he wants; in both cases, the law constrains not what they believe but what they do.
<snip>

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. I tend to disagree, seeing it like 'fat shaming'.

You can't force changes onto other people. You can teach them, and give them the tools to change themselves. Some people will always cling to the irrational, but those that can change and embrace an empirical life will do so only from within.

[RufusTFirefly]

4. This is why science is so threatening to some

Although there are some notable exceptions, the more science you know, the harder it becomes to accept the existence of a god.

[haikugal]

5. By way of answering...

First, I hope you read the article. It's very good and shames no one other than cowards.

Here is the last paragraph which brings it home.

I see a direct link, in short, between the ethics that guide science and those that guide civic life. Cosmology, my specialty, may appear to be far removed from Kim Davis’s refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, but in fact the same values apply in both realms. Whenever scientific claims are presented as unquestionable, they undermine science. Similarly, when religious actions or claims about sanctity can be made with impunity in our society, we undermine the very basis of modern secular democracy. We owe it to ourselves and to our children not to give a free pass to governments—totalitarian, theocratic, or democratic—that endorse, encourage, enforce, or otherwise legitimize the suppression of open questioning in order to protect ideas that are considered “sacred.” Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend.

If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. As humans, we seem to operate in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance

I am currently reading an intriguing book that addresses this phenomenon and tries to explain its evolutionary purpose.

[cleanhippie]

3. "...what is sacred to one person can be meaningless (or repugnant) to another."

Which is why personal religious beliefs do not deserve respect, only the right to hold those beliefs do.

But so many of the dolts that hold these religious beliefs can't seem to grasp that concept.

[Duppers]

6. Love Lawrence Krauss.

Actually met him in 2012!

[trotsky]

8. He, like Dawkins, gets a lot of hate from folks who can't address his points.

You'll find that most criticisms of Krauss generally amount to "He's a big stupid meanie!"

[Duppers]

10. Ha!

Every word after "He's a..." is absolutely wrong. He's rather short; he's brilliant; and he's so lovable. Yes, I have a crush.

I'm on camera standing so close, talking to him that I just wanted to hug him!

[struggle4progress]

7. Oh, goody! It's the thought police, talking out of both sides of his mouth!

[haikugal]

9. I can see why you struggle.

[beam me up scottie]

11. LMAO!

[haikugal]

12. .

[struggle4progress]

13. I rather doubt that.

Krauss, whatever his talents as a cosmologist, becomes merely vapid when he wanders into philosophy or social commentary: his rhetorical style then seems to consist of reciting, with grand authority, various trite platitudes, among which he interleaves other generalities, hoping that the already-convinced reader will begin nodding quickly and never cease afterwards. Such jumbles neither offer interesting careful argument, nor challenge readers with new perspectives

With respect to Kim Davis, he offers nothing unusual or insightful. Her views have lost, not only in court, but also in mainstream public opinion: notable majorities in the US concluded she ought to do her job and approved of her brief jailing for contempt; so Krauss's summary of the issues, as he saw them, offered us nothing that thousands of others, across the political spectrum, hadn't already concluded. Oddly, however, Krauss seems to believe that the Davis story can tell us something important about the role of science -- but, in fact, her story mostly informs us only about one very strange woman in Kentucky

From there, he rambles vacuously over related topics that enter his mind, such as our duty to obey the law, a question which can sometimes become thorny, since a satisfactory answer might depend quite delicately on exact context; but the difficulties do not seem much to concern him. Similarly he apparently claims to defend our right to think whatever we want, although such a right is safely abstract, since in practice no interesting questions currently arise until we discuss instead issues of saying what we want

All this, and more, is amateurishly glued together: Krauss writes as if he believes his own internal semantics justify his transitions. Indeed, the main thrust of the article seems to be to defend the label "militant atheist," since he begins with that label and eventually wanders back to it, after having traipsed a bit hither and yon in the middle

[haikugal]

14. Oh, so he isn't up to your standards then...

Sort of like Cornel West?

[struggle4progress]

15. Oh .. are we vetting candidates for a panel discussion or something?

And you're proposing (say) Davis, Krauss, and West?

I'll pass

[haikugal]

16. You gave a very verbose reply that sounded very familiar in tone so I made a comparison.

You've done nothing but give what appears to be your opinion. We disagree. Period. You don't like Krauss, I suspect you don't like West. I think we are on opposite sides of most issues and am surprised to meet you here but hey, it's a big tent.

I agree, I'll take a pass.

[struggle4progress]

17. It still sounds like the thought police to me!