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


One day closer to the inevitable void, remember to keep checking off your calendars.

It's hard to believe this guy is so prominent.

* Would like to add a point. It's funny to me that he does not understand how much he delves into philosophical musing (something he is highly critical of when others do it). He is literally speaking for the universe and its purpose. Hmm.. what other establishments do that?
 
Last edited:
Here is a video of [Krauss] in a staged debate with Meyer and a Christian Darwinist, Denis Lamoureux.

OK, seriously, Meyer dominated that debate (in terms of force of ideas, not necessarily rhetoric), despite his migraine. I am more sympathetic to ID than ever before after watching that and seeing the "best" that the opposition can throw at him. Neither of his opponents in that debate came even close to meaningfully and fairly responding to, let alone refuting, his arguments from statistical improbability. The "best" Krauss could do was to misrepresent Meyer as saying that neo-Darwinism posits that evolution is utterly random - a mistake that, if he had made it (which he quite obviously didn't), would have made one wonder how he could ever have been awarded a degree in the first place.

Do I think, though, that, based on that debate, Krauss is a jerk / bad person? No. I think he is factually wrong about certain things, but, if I held those same certain things (factually wrongly) to be true, I might too have "taken a stand" as he did in the opening remarks on Meyer of his 25 minute speech. And I don't think that he was unkind to Meyer other (arguably) than in those opening remarks: he seemed genuinely sympathetic towards Meyers' physical ailment.

As for his Epstein defence, I think his perspective has some merit - after all, he claims to have spoken personally to his friend, who has given what he holds to be believable explanations, which, based on his friendship, he trusts. Wouldn't we each stand by our friends in that case? Or, at least, wouldn't we hope that our friends stood by us in the reverse scenario?

[Edit 2018-05-08: Ouch. How could I have defended that?]

So, I would argue that any "jerkishness" is more an outcome of views which we (on this forum) understand to be wrong, rather than any objectively bad behaviour.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps your definition of jerk and mine are different and while you see Krauss taking a stand, I see an unnecessary personal attack. But ok, we can agree that Krauss - for all his arrogance - couldn't make a good case (despite the cheers from the audience).

I read somewhere that he was primed for the debate by his good friend Richard Dawkins yet I find it significant that Dawkins has avoided debate with Meyer, yet others have been prepared to do just that.

Again, I apologise for the diversion but I'd like to post a natural follow-up the to the previous video even though Krauss is not involved. It still speaks to the materialist bias in the scientific community.The following is a video I'd recommend because it is a panel comprised of scientists and philosophers from both sides of the argument. This is the video which contains the contention from one of the critics of ID (Dr. Hoffman) that ID cannot be considered by scientists because it is outside of science - that it invokes something that is non-materialistic and science is about materialism (naturalism). Move to 1h 14m 40s into the video for the actual quote. By the way, Meyer has no migraine in this one so he's even more impressive and the whole debate (another long one) is worth another couple of hours of your time, IMHO.

 
Perhaps your definition of jerk and mine are different and while you see Krauss taking a stand, I see an unnecessary personal attack.

No, I think I'm just in some sense trying to practice empathy, as "lovey dovey" as that might seem - i.e. to put myself in the shoes of another and try to understand where he's coming from, and whether it has, at the very least from his own perspective, any integrity. That's not to say that I fail to understand why you would see a personal attack, and I am - in some sort of moral superposition :-) - very sympathetic to that view too.

But ok, we can agree that Krauss - for all his arrogance - couldn't make a good case (despite the cheers from the audience).

Yes. He failed badly. Then again, it's not his area of expertise - which is not to say that I think he would have succeeded had it been his area of expertise: I very much doubt that!

Again, I apologise for the diversion but I'd like to post a natural follow-up the to the previous video even though Krauss is not involved. [...] By the way, Meyer has no migraine in this one so he's even more impressive and the whole debate (another long one) is worth another couple of hours of your time, IMHO.

Alas, you have now earnt my trust as a video debate recommender, and so I will (must!) watch this one too. Will let you know my thoughts afterwards.
 
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).


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.

Thanks for writing this Laird, I think it's an important thing to realise.

I just wanted to comment on the "Everybody's OK at heart" thing that you wrote in your reply to Kamarling. I disagree with your premise, even though you probably didn't mean it literally, or even believe it? The thing is... they're not, but what's important, is being able to recognise that and somehow come to terms and be at peace with it, more importantly, can we learn to do so as tribes?

We all have a sliding scale that we place individuals that we know or sometimes think we know, on, the scale goes from bad on one end to good at the other. For example mine might have my wife & daughter at one end, and maybe Hitler or child killers at the other, with everyone else somewhere in between. Even though I have placed my nearest and dearest at one end, I am fully aware of their weaknesses. I would say that is my bias. I love them. So that changes things.

I have recently written on Facebook, having similar ideas to yours, using the example of Ian Paisley, the N Irish Unionist, and Malcolm McGuinness, the Ira leader turned politician. If those two can overcome such divides to become friends, perhaps good friends, surely anything is possible.

We could meet Laurence Krauss under two very different circumstances, but these differences would exist in our heads only. If I were a millionaire, looking to give him funding for research, as a 'believer in him' - and him in me, we would probably quickly find common ground and relax into friendship. If, on the other hand, I was a spotty youth that his daughter was introducing to him for the first time, or a man known to hold a very different worldview to his own, I'm certain we would see two very different Laurence Krauss's.

It's been an interesting exercise, me trying to find people that I would put at the 'bad' end of my good/bad scale. The thing is, there's no one that I feel strongly should be there. I can find faults with even the 'best' people I know, but they would remain near the good end. But even though they display weaknesses, I don't really dislike them. Even though I suspect that Krauss wouldn't be very nice, I would try to ignore that side of him. No, not ignore, I might even have a rant about him, call him some colourful names, my feelings wouldn't run deep. Even in people that I thought might be 'very good' a few short years ago, I have found have worldly weaknesses. Spiritual seekers among them, I have not met anyone like Wild Bill, or don't think I have. Do they exist here on earth?

"Wild Bill leaned back in the upright chair and sipped at his drink. “We lived in the Jewish section of Warsaw,” he began slowly, the first words I had heard him speak about himself, “my wife, our two daughters, and our three little boys. When the Germans reached our street they lined everyone against a wall and opened up with machine guns. I begged to be allowed to die with my family, but because I spoke German they put me in a work group.” He paused, perhaps seeing again his wife and five children. “I had to decide right then,” he continued, “whether to let myself hate the soldiers who had done this. It was an easy decision, really. I was a lawyer. In my practice I had seen too often what hate could do to people’s minds and bodies. Hate had just killed the six people who mattered most to me in the world. I decided then that I would spend the rest of my life—whether it was a few days or many years—loving every person I came in contact with.” Loving every person . . . this was the power that had kept a man well in the face of every privation. It was the Power I had first met in a hospital room in Texas, and was learning little by little to recognize wherever He chose to shine through—whether the human vehicle was aware of Him or not."

From: Return from Tomorrow. By George Ritchie
 
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?)
Yeah, I saw this one a few weeks ago... I watched it in installments, I can stand only so much Krauss before I get belly cramps :eek:
Of all atheists superstars I like deGrasse Tyson much more. He's definitely less obnoxious, I am not even sure he's part of the club... (you know the Harris, Dawkins Krauss club...)

Kudos to you if you could follow the whole thing. I quit 3/4 of the way through.

Cheers
 
I wonder if Krauss even matters. Like Sam Harris I'm sure he has his fans, but it seems to me many, many more people - for example - listen to Alex Jones than either of them.

The decentralizing of news & academic authority is going to be harder on "skeptics" than proponents.
 
I just wanted to comment on the "Everybody's OK at heart" thing that you wrote in your reply to Kamarling. I disagree with your premise, even though you probably didn't mean it literally, or even believe it?

From memory I was denying it, but ... well, just to reflect on it a little: I think that for most (all?) people, when you see the world from their own perspective, they would see themselves as "OK at heart". It might not be objectively true, but very few people can continue living on the basis that they're (from their own perspective) an awful, monstrous human being. They might tie themselves in internal knots trying to justify this, but - there it is. Most if not all of us have to manufacture a flattering self image if we don't already objectively possess one.

Thanks for your post, there was some very good stuff in it. I think we see things pretty similarly.
 
From memory I was denying it, but ... well, just to reflect on it a little: I think that for most (all?) people, when you see the world from their own perspective, they would see themselves as "OK at heart". It might not be objectively true, but very few people can continue living on the basis that they're (from their own perspective) an awful, monstrous human being. They might tie themselves in internal knots trying to justify this, but - there it is. Most if not all of us have to manufacture a flattering self image if we don't already objectively possess one.
Occasionally I've noticed that I myself have been "an awful, monstrous human being", usually when I come to a fuller understanding of certain events earlier in my life.

However, in my case it didn't require either tieing myself in internal knots or a flattering self-image. It was simply that based on the knowledge and understanding I had at a particular point in time, my attitudes and behaviour were completely natural, there was no other way to be.

What changed things for me was a gradual enlargement of experience, which allowed the placing of things within a larger context.

I suppose I conclude from this that it's a mistake to assume that those who act 'badly' are somehow different from ourselves, or that they are in some way acting irrationally. It seems more likely to be the case that we all travel the same road, and we may all have been in the other person's shoes in the past, or maybe will be in the future.
 
Again, I apologise for the diversion but I'd like to post a natural follow-up the to the previous video even though Krauss is not involved. [...] By the way, Meyer has no migraine in this one so he's even more impressive and the whole debate (another long one) is worth another couple of hours of your time, IMHO.

OK, I watched it. Have to say, the ID guys came out pretty much on top again. Stephen Meyers impressed again too. I still prefer the first one you shared though, as it provided a better overview - most of the objections raised in this video were not very well-considered.
 
OK, I watched it. Have to say, the ID guys came out pretty much on top again. Stephen Meyers impressed again too. I still prefer the first one you shared though, as it provided a better overview - most of the objections raised in this video were not very well-considered.

The reason this one stands out for me is not so much the debate on the details of ID but rather the point I made earlier: that the materialists set the rules of the game and then rule out ID accordingly. We might complain this is so but here they are not only admitting it is so but demanding that their rules, and only their rules, be adhered to. They set the boundaries of nature and rule that anything beyond those boundaries is classed as supernatural. So the borders are drawn precisely to the extent covered by materialism which, to me, is entrenching an ideology. When religion does something similar, all the atheists point and shout "foul".

To me, science should be open enquiry. If there is interaction between the physical and the non-physical, scientists should not be excluded from the club for investigating it. Yet the first response you hear about claims for the psi, etc., is that there is no evidence!

Scientist: I found some interesting effects that suggest telepathy.
Materialist: No you didn't. Telepathy doesn't exist and there's never been any evidence to suggest that it does.
Scientist: I think I can show you evidence if you let me work on it.
Materialist: You can't work on it because science is about the natural world and you are talking about a supernatural cause.
Scientist: What if I work on it on my own time?
Materialist: Then we will dismiss you as a pseudo-scientist and your career will be in the toilet.
 
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).
It's the first time I have seen Meyer and I thought he was pretty good even with a migraine. I look forward to seeing more of his presentations.
 
It's the first time I have seen Meyer and I thought he was pretty good even with a migraine. I look forward to seeing more of his presentations.

I could never understand how opposition to ID seemed determined not to believe what Meyer says, that he's a scientist as well as a Christian. He has always been my favourite ID proponent, his friend and colleague Douglas Axe is up there with him. I get the impression that Axe is admired for his intellect. Axe seems to provide a more 'aggressive' defence.
 
I could never understand how opposition to ID seemed determined not to believe what Meyer says, that he's a scientist as well as a Christian. He has always been my favourite ID proponent, his friend and colleague Douglas Axe is up there with him. I get the impression that Axe is admired for his intellect. Axe seems to provide a more 'aggressive' defence.
I've just been watching Douglas Axe after reading your post. He's another one I would like to see more of.
 
Back
Top