Snowflakes aren't special, you have no meaning, and that's good

Discussion in 'Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics' started by KindaGamey, Apr 18, 2017.

  1. KindaGamey

    KindaGamey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    104
    Ugh, I was longing for a skeptiko and didn't have one so I delved into other podcasts. This made me so aggravated I had to turn it off. Of course Joe didn't question any of this scientific mumbo-jumbo as nefarious as any new age spiel... try and find the part where he tells us how wonderful it is that we're a random accident with no meaning, but the meaning we give the universe ourselves. (But where did that meaning come from?)

     
    Bucky likes this.
  2. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    726
  3. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    726
    Posting this comment from the article to remind myself to read this book :)

     
  4. KindaGamey

    KindaGamey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    104
    Brian_the_bard, Baccarat and DarthT15 like this.
  5. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    336
    I find Krauss thoroughly disingenuous and worst of all, arrogant.

    He has a worldview, a metaphysics, a "faith" that appears to me to be in no way different or better than the religious fundamentalism to whom he constantly rails against.

    Want to watch something fun? Seek out the video of his mutual admiration interview of Johnny Depp. I mean, seriously?
     
  6. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,251
    Thanks for the discussion, folks. I haven't read Krauss's book, but I think I get the idea. You can argue that something came from nothing if you redefine "nothing" as ... man, this is too easy. I'll stop right there. Funny thing is, Krauss is almost certainly much smarter than I am.
     
    Bucky and Brian_the_bard like this.
  7. Brian_the_bard

    Brian_the_bard Lost Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    552
    Now I know to avoid Krauss. Thanks everybody!
     
  8. DarthT15

    DarthT15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2017
    Messages:
    57
    "When I mentioned Ellis’s critique to Krauss, he claimed that Ellis, although once a physicist, is now a “theologian.” Ellis, a Quaker, has indeed written about religion, among other topics, but he is renowned for his work as a physicist. He co-wrote with Stephen Hawking the classic work The Large-Scale Structure of Spacetime, published in 1973. Just in the past five years, Ellis, now 76, has edited one book on quantum gravity and co-written another on cosmology and has co-written more than a dozen papers on physics"

    This is easily the most intellectually dishonest thing I've ever seen a scientist do..
     
    Bucky, Lincoln, Doppelgänger and 4 others like this.
  9. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    336
    That's pretty mild for Krauss. I can't imagine anyone truly interested in intellectual integrity can take this guy seriously. He's a spin doctor when he moves beyond physics.
     
  10. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,251
    Not just to be a critic (because I'm being honest here) but 34 minutes into that video and I'm appreciating it very much - even if only because it's focussed on the incredible talent of Johnny Depp, and the man's own insights into his path. I don't mind at all that it's Laurence Krauss drawing out those insights - I'm sure that, despite my deep differences with his worldview, Laurence is a man I could potentially relate to in some meaningful way. OK, maybe not as Johnny Depp! But we don't have to hate on materialists, do we? Anybody can fall prey to bad ideas, and surely Laurence is at heart just as much a decent guy as any of us (including gals too).
     
    malf likes this.
  11. I suggest seeking out Krauss and telling him about your paranormal experiences.

    Let us know the results, specifically how he treats you.
     
  12. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,251
    Nah, man. I mean, fair call - what you say wouldn't go well, but don't we have to manage differing worldviews with many of our friends? Why would I approach in that way a man whom I know that would go down badly with? Some of my closest friends are materialists (I studied physics, chemistry and maths in high school with some of them, and computer systems engineering in university with others of them, before *#@! got weird and I dropped out), but that doesn't stop me from loving them. If there's one thing I've learnt from some of the most influential people in my life, including my mother, father, and a close university friend, it's that there's always a way to bridge the gap - to reach out, to form a new friendship... you just have to be open to the novelty of a human being you've not encountered before, but who has something mutually beneficial to share with you.
     
    Steve, Sciborg_S_Patel and DarthT15 like this.
  13. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    336
    To each his own I guess. Depp doesn't impress me and Krauss fawning/mutual idol worshipping was intolerable. The egos involved there were just too daunting for me to navigate. ;)

    I don't believe he's a decent guy though. He derides others in rather ugly and dare I say unethical ways. Tries to take the intellectual high ground while not only failing at it, but managing to seek the empathetic underbelly.

    Just do not appreciate his approach and treatment of others with differing views.
     
  14. Kamarling

    Kamarling Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    756
    I'm not sure what your position is on ID or Darwinism but I find it interesting to watch some debates on the subject. Of those I have watched, I've been most impressed with Stephen Meyer who always manages to keep his calm and dignity intact despite some really quite nasty attacks on his character and intellectual and professional standing. Usually he also manages to stick to the point by discussing the science behind his views on ID while his opponents insist on attacking his religious views.

    Which brings me to Krauss and why I don't believe he is a decent guy, as you suggest. Here is a video of him in a staged debate with Meyer and a Christian Darwinist, Denis Lamoureux. Meyer was clearly ill and when his turn came around he was unable to focus on his slides due to a severe migraine (if you are interested, you can watch Meyer on top form in many other debates - this was certainly not Meyer on top form). My point is to ask whether you still think Krauss is a nice guy after watching this debate.

    One final point. You are right about bridging gaps. I love my son dearly and discuss such matters with him often but he is an avowed atheist and he thinks his dad is slightly nuts for taking any of this afterlife stuff seriously. We somehow manage to keep our differences friendly though, thankfully, we are much closer on politics so we can both rant about Trump and Brexit and be in complete agreement.

    Here's the video - it is a long one.

     
  15. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,251
    Fair enough, guys, it seems you know the man better than I do - maybe I was being a little too lovey-dovey "everybody's OK at heart" without really looking at the facts. Will check out that video when I next have a nice chunk of laptop time, Kamarling. As for my position on ID, I haven't looked into it very closely, but what little I have looked into it has impressed me. I have always found raw, unmodified evolution / natural selection to be... quite a difficult story to swallow - for so long though it had seemed to be the only game in town (Creationism is even harder for me to swallow).
     
    Doppelgänger likes this.
  16. Kamarling

    Kamarling Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    756
    Definitions get a bit messy. To an atheist, any thought of God-the-designer is creationism. Meyer points out that, while he is a Christian and he does believe that God is the designer, he does not claim that ID demands that but rather shows evidence for design without specifying how the design came about. In my view there is no need to invoke the Abrahamic God (which many atheists and most religious people blindly insist is the only concept of God). That concept of God is an easy target. Mine is a concept of the source of infinite creativity, not some anthropomorphic personality viewing his creation from above. If I get close to any religious view it would be this:

     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
  17. Kamarling

    Kamarling Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    756
    BTW - sorry for the diversion. Not meaning to derail the thread so, yes, Krauss is a dick. ;)
     
  18. Doppelgänger

    Doppelgänger New

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    DarthT15 likes this.
  19. Brian_the_bard

    Brian_the_bard Lost Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    552
    There are actually many perceptions of the Abrahamic God and the early Jews and early Christians were more philosophical than one might think. That's the God I believe in, as is the source of infinite creativity also. I personally make no distinction. I think it is the usual case of religion distorting the message and missing the point that has produced the narrow views of God.
     
    Kamarling and Doppelgänger like this.
  20. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    336
    I agree in the binary nature here. The atheists like Krauss must be strict materialists. They can leave no "definitional" wriggle room. It is an affirmative "no God" stance.

    Thus, the word salads used by those who believe or may believe in a God are not relevant in the dialogue with a guy like Krauss. He's not going to give ground to someone believing in a "source of infinite creativity" while hammering the Abrahamic believer. Both are tossed in the anti-science, anti-materialist, woo woo, "all religion is bad" pile without distinction.

    This is why folks like Krauss are intellectual frauds. Utterly so. He has a clear, anti organized religion agenda that is not supported by science. Yet, he attempts to use whatever scientific authority he possesses in this crusade (and that's what it is). Its dishonest and dare I say unethical.
     
    Ian Gordon, Bucky, Kamarling and 3 others like this.

Share This Page