The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Atheist Creep Lawrence Krauss

Posted on | December 15, 2013 | 50 Comments

Professor Lawrence Krauss on Australian TV, February 2013.

“Science is based on telling the truth, which is a really important ethical boundary. It’s one that I don’t think religion shares, in fact. . . . I think that science can offer a better world.”
Lawrence Krauss

“Jen McCreight, who describes herself as ‘a liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted feminist atheist,’ wrote a blog post in which she recounted several tales of alleged harassment. She then deleted some of those tales, which involved a prominent author and academic who threatened to sue her. McCreight said she had two sources who ‘are too terrified to openly speak out against him in’ public.”
Robert Stacy McCain, “No Love for the Godless,” The American Spectator, Aug. 9

Chris Packham is an atheist who was offended by Dr. Lawrence Krauss in the new documentary The Unbelievers:

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.” . . .
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. . . .
So yes, he’s got the Boomer-defining lack of self-awareness; that’s obvious from his “cool” wardrobe and his open confusion about why people call him “strident.” But at one point — after stridently bitching about polls that show atheists are as unpopular as rapists — he draws a rhetorical parallel between believing in religion and believing it’s OK to have sex with animals.
I’m not saying he’s a villain, but he has a villain’s smugness. They’re always sure that their righteousness overcomes their unpleasantness. They lash out at straw men instead of regarding the human beings right in front of them. And they do things like invoke “science” to publicly defend their billionaire friends who confess to child rape.

Ah, yes, there is that, isn’t there? Vouching for the pervert:

“Jeffrey [Epstein] has surrounded himself with beautiful women and young women but they’re not as young as the ones that were claimed. As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people. . . . I don’t feel tarnished in any way by my relationship with Jeffrey; I feel raised by it.”

Jeffrey Epstein, who molested girls as young as 12, is just a swell guy, says Professor Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University. And what do atheist women say about Professor Krauss?

“When women come to me to warn me about what speakers to avoid at conferences or confide in me sexual harassment they’ve experienced, Lawrence Krauss is by far the most common name I hear.”
Jen McCreight

Oh, we wouldn’t want to forget that episode, would we?

[W]hen atheist blogger Jen McCreight had the temerity to repeat what she said women told her about Krauss’s behavior, she had to delete those stories because Krauss tried to intimidate her:

Well, Famous Skeptic is vaguely threatening to sue me. Since Famous Skeptic is rich and I am poor, and since my two sources are too terrified to openly speak out again him (I wonder why), I have removed the part of my previous post that refers to him so I don’t go bankrupt with legal fees.

Creep. Not saying I want bad things to happen to Dr. Krauss. Just saying it would be terrible if anything good happened to him.

 

 

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • richard mcenroe

    Mike Huckabee thinks he’s smarter than Jesus; Krauss thinks he’s smarter than Jesus and Nils Bohr…

  • Quartermaster

    Krauss is one of two people on which I use the labels, “Credentialed Morons” and “Preening Idiot.” He and Dawkins (the other guy I use those labels on) have both brought intense mockery on themselves, and it is richly deserved.

  • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

    “Dawkins effortlessly demonstrates his expertise to his philosophical opponents”

    ‘Effortlessly’ is debatable since Dawkins (last I heard) won’t publicly debate creationists who invite him to do so, but the fact is that he walks on eggshells around anyone whose particular religion allows them to cut his head off. Everyone else, he considers fair targets. Does that make him a coward or a hypocrite?

    Also don’t forget Dawkins cracked open the door to some kind of directed evolution in his chat with Ben Stein.

  • RS

    Dawkins effortlessly demonstrates his expertise to his philosophical opponents . . .

    I’ve read The God Delusion. His arguments would flunk a first year logic class. As for Krauss and his ilk, their science consists of denying and dismissing the relevancy of the philosophical “why?” With that dismissed, they can then dismiss anything other than a materially oriented metaphysics, no matter how remote their explanations are. When confronted with the mathematics underlying their pronouncements, they simply invoke “chance” as the explanation, because they’ve already denied any other alternative. He is nothing more than a walking example of petitio principii.

  • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    Not saying I want bad things to happen to Dr. Krauss. Just saying it would be terrible if anything good happened to him.

    Priceless.

  • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

    I’m no more a fan of Huckabee than I am of Romney or Christie (I distrust all late-inning conversions to conservatism which coincide with political campaigns) but what’s Huckabee got to do with this? Seriously puzzled.

  • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

    Perhaps it was just a drive-by troll pulling a fast one but someone posted this in the comments over at one of the links above. It speaks for itself and – have no doubt – says what many atheists will not say out loud (yet):

    “Shouldn’t a real skeptic be examining the merits of age of consent laws? You can’t deny that Krauss broke the law, but who can say what he did was morally wrong?”

    To their credit, others there ripped the troll.

  • richard mcenroe
  • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

    I see.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Krauss has the extremely uncharismatic tendency to view himself as a victim, referring to his “fight against evil…

    ‘Evil’, Larry?!? In your funhouse mirror world, there cannot be any stinkin’ ‘Evil’!

  • concern00

    Describing an atheist as a creep is bit of a tautology.

  • Julie Pascal

    Some people go through life without religion.

    Other people go through life without religion but hold on for dear life to Holier-than-thou. Because giving *that* up, would be a bridge too far.

  • M. Thompson

    Coward, at least.

  • RKae

    “Science is based on telling the truth…”

    Uh-huh.
    Like “Global warming”?
    And, gee, whatever happened to all that evidence that homosexuality was a mental aberration brought on by having a distant or abusive father figure? Was it ever disproven, or was it just thrown in the bin when it became uncool?

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    There have been epochs in human history, most of it in fact until the last century or so, where religions did indeed interfere with and dictate to scientific inquiry.

    Of course, during the same periods, humanity also did many stupid and unjust things that had nothing to do with religion, but the “skeptics” never seem to remember that.

    Science and faith are different things. They demand different things from within us. They should be regarded neither as necessarily intertwined nor as mutually exclusive.

    Krauss, and those with his attitudes as well, is just an ass. And his behavior should not be above condemnation where indicated.

  • tlk244182

    atheist=no god=everything is permitted

  • tlk244182

    The science of Prof. Krauss is based on getting a government grant. Follow the money. And real scientists are persecuted, just as ‘real’ Christians are. Jesus said “I am the…Truth,” not “I know the…Truth.” Thus, scientists who seek truth will eventually fall afoul of the Father of Lies.

  • Pingback: The Atheist Creep Lawrence Krauss | Dead Citizen's Rights Society

  • Quartermaster

    Ignorant fool as well.

  • Quartermaster

    The question of “why?” is beyond the reach of science. Dawkins and Krauss are preening idiots because they think nothing is beyond the reach of science.

  • Quartermaster

    Krauss and Dawkins are both quite religious. Atheism is a religion in the classical sense.

  • Mm

    Bingo.

  • Art Deco

    Was it ever disproven, or was it just thrown in the bin when it became uncool?

    To some extent fashion, but I would wager it was also thrown in a bin because the relationship is not regular and straightforward – it is one vector in a nexus that has a number of vectors. I have a suspicion that psychologists do not process hypotheses which posit multiple causes very well.

  • eccles11

    Dawkins openly criticises Islam.

    His chat with Ben Stein does not remove a necessity for natural selection. An already evolved species could direct another’s evolution. We have already done that on earth.

  • eccles11

    Theist= God on my side= all actions are justifiable

  • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

    1. Dawkins is never as nastily critical of Islam as he is of Christianity. Very, very few atheists are because they know how to keep their heads attached to their torsos and, some of them, how to keep the funding coming in. Hypocritical cowards, all.

    2. Show evidence of the directed panspermia (or whatever you wanna call it) which Dawkins mused to Stein was not out of the question, then explain why the concept of a designing, loving, judging God IS out of the question.

  • tlk244182

    I’ve learned the hard way that I have to think very carefully about what I’ve written before I hit ‘post,’ lest the world see how stupid I really am. Fortunately, there’s an ‘edit’ feature.
    Bread+waters=wet bread

  • Pingback: President Obama’s popularity is shrinking… | Batshit Crazy News

  • Pingback: The Wisdom of Duck Dynasty: Or who are the real BSC ones? Update: The Gay Mafia does a hit on Duck Dynasty | Batshit Crazy News

  • eccles11

    Why would I show evidence of directed panspermia? It’s hypothetically plausible, not something that’s been observed. We directed the evolution of domesticated plants and animals on earth however, by artificially selecting for traits rather than natural selective pressures.

    I am on limited internet so I can’t rewatch the Ben Stein piece. But an understanding of why one is possible but not the other can be gotten by reading “climbing mount improbable” out reading the argument titled “the ultimate 747″ which is in the God delusion, and almost certainly readable online.

    The gist of it is: The odds of complex beings coming in to existence is very improbable, and the more complex they are, the more improbable that something like that would come together spontaneously. simple things are far less improbable, and through slow cumulative changes, you can go from something simple to complex. The metaphor is a mountain with a steep cliff on one side, and long shallow steps on the other side. The important thing to note in this is that anything that is able to design and create complex organisms must be at least as complex as they are, and equally as improbable to have spontaneously generated. Therefore a being that was able to create or direct the evolution of another, most have first undergone an evolution process from a simple being to a complex one.

  • eccles11

    Deep man, deep.