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
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.