Lawrence Krauss

[ProfessorDavey]

The fact is that from early on in his antitheism Krauss, a commentator on religion, has numerically had a far far bigger following than Christ or Mohammed or Buddha at a comparable stage ...

Impossible to support this claim with evidence and also irrelevant.

... and yet as the threads on Krauss show here the impulse is to not wish to discuss the issue when applied to antitheists.

We are discussing it, and have done so on this thread for some 3 pages.

Why aren't you interested in discussing other prominent scientists accused of abuse who aren't (in your words) prominent antitheists?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As to science imputing righteousness - you are presumably forgetting all the times when "atheist" posters have told you that science is neutral in such matters as morality or righteousness.

Really you are very confused.

Hi Trent
I have taken the liberty to dismiss the first two paragraphs.
I have not forgetten those atheists who have said that science is neutral and, in this matter they are the good guys. I feel confident though that there are those who feel religion does make good people do bad things and that is prevented by science and could watch Krauss's uttering on that famous YouTube video on religion and find themselves agreeing wholeheartedly

[ProfessorDavey]

... could watch Krauss's uttering on that famous YouTube video on religion ...

Famous? Really? Or just a video that the vast majority of people have never seen (including me) but is the subject of Vlad's bizarre obsession.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

May I remind you that this is the Religion and Ethics MB and therefore any topic related to either religion or ethics is equally welcomed.

Indeed the topic supports topics that are much broader again, e.g. sport.
There is no requirement to discuss any topic, but you have raised the issue of abuse in science - so why not discuss it, rather than use an individual example of alleged wrongdoing as a tool to further your bizarre crusade against (as you see them) prominent antitheists.

If you are eager for it to be discussed then start a thread. I have no objection to your doing so in fact on a forum where there can be a thread title called Science Indian Style focussing on a select group of pseudoscientists and imputing their error on the whole of Indian science in a ridiculous thread title.....a thread on the issue of abuse in science will be refreshingly uplifting.....be my guest....

[ProfessorDavey]

If you are eager for it to be discussed then start a thread.

I might, but that is besides the point.

It was you who claimed in replies 65 and 66 that you were, in this thread, discussing the 'the wider issue of abuse in academic science'.

In which case please go ahead, let's discuss it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Famous? Really? Or just a video that the vast majority of people have never seen (including me) but is the subject of Vlad's bizarre obsession.

Ok let's have a look at YouTube numbers.

The video in question had 429 000 views.

A few hundred thousand more than Jesus had in his lifetime.

The greatest number of views at the brief glance I had for Krauss is 2 000 000 views. Far more than his exclusively scientific vids.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I might, but that is besides the point.

It was you who claimed in replies 65 and 66 that you were, in this thread, discussing the 'the wider issue of abuse in academic science'.

In which case please go ahead, let's discuss it.

What?
On this thread?
After all your complaints about focussing on Krauss?

No, if you have the cojones, start a new thread.

[Maeght]

Hi Trent
I have taken the liberty to dismiss the first two paragraphs.
I have not forgetten those atheists who have said that science is neutral and, in this matter they are the good guys. I feel confident though that there are those who feel religion does make good people do bad things and that is prevented by science and could watch Krauss's uttering on that famous YouTube video on religion and find themselves agreeing wholeheartedly

There is a difference between science and scientists.

Never heard of or seen this 'famous' video.

[Maeght]

The forum has had a long tradition of reporting the allegations against the clergy but many posters wanted to suppress discussion when it came to those against an antitheist.

Haven't seen anyone trying to suppress a discussion. Could you point this out please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Haven't seen anyone trying to suppress a discussion. Could you point this out please.

The threads "prominent antitheist suspended" and " Am I the only one to notice" are available for perusal. Both master classes in diverting attention away from the alleged behaviour and affiliation of their subject and shooting the messenger.

One poster did produce a summary for the consequence and subsequent judgment on the individual concern but none have commented except to suggest we stop discussing the issue.

As I say there are several threads on this open for perusal including this one.

[Maeght]

The threads "prominent antitheist suspended" and " Am I the only one to notice" are available for perusal. Both master classes in diverting attention away from the alleged behaviour and affiliation of their subject and shooting the messenger.

One poster did produce a summary for the consequence and subsequent judgment on the individual concern but none have commented except to suggest we stop discussing the issue.

As I say there are several threads on this open for perusal including this one.

Diverting attention isn't the same as suppression. You have said people wanted to suppress discussion and suggested we stop discussing the issue. Surely you can give examples of what you mean.

[ProfessorDavey]

The video in question had 429 000 views.

Globally? Since when?

That is a tiny number of views in youtube terms. Hardly 'famous as you claim'. Plenty of obscure daytime tv programmes get more than that in a day.

A few hundred thousand more than Jesus had in his lifetime.

Correct me if wrong, but I didn't think youtube was around 2000 years ago.

The greatest number of views at the brief glance I had for Krauss is 2 000 000 views. Far more than his exclusively scientific vids.

Wong - his top viewed videos (just him) are science ones. Admittedly his most viewed on (2.1M) is perhaps not science - but is a two hander with Richard Dawkins (who is much more famous so I guess the high views are largely due to Dawkins).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Globally? Since when?

That is a tiny number of views in youtube terms. Hardly 'famous as you claim'. Plenty of obscure daytime tv programmes get more than that in a day.
Correct me if wrong, but I didn't think youtube was around 2000 years ago.
Wong - his top viewed videos (just him) are science ones. Admittedly his most viewed on (2.1M) is perhaps not science - but is a two hander with Richard Dawkins (who is much more famous so I guess the high views are largely due to Dawkins).

Do you think it would be more appropriate to talk about Krausses conduct in the context of conduct in antitheism or in the context of conduct in academic science?

[Enki]

Do you think it would be more appropriate to talk about Krausses conduct in the context of conduct in antitheism or in the context of conduct in academic science?

I would suggest that Krauss's conduct should be discussed/investigated on its own merits/demerits rather than it be linked to philosophical positions(antitheism) they are advocating. If there is a link between his behaviour and the behaviour of academic science then that should be investigated/discussed also, as in the case of certain Catholic priests and the behaviour of their church. I am not aware of any such linkage in this case however.

However the methodology/philosophy/religion/politics that they are advocating should always be subject to rigorous analysis too, as it stands or falls, not on the person proclaiming it, but on the arguments and evidence inherent/associated with that which they are proclaiming.

Fianally the idea that 'many posters wanted to suppress discussion' on Krauss is not borne out by the facts at all. Just because many posters had different views to yourself is not evidence of suppression.

[jeremyp]

The forum has had a long tradition of reporting the allegations against the clergy but many posters wanted to suppress discussion when it came to those against an antitheist.

Which posters? Name names.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would suggest that Krauss's conduct should be discussed/investigated on its own merits/demerits rather than it be linked to philosophical positions(antitheism) they are advocating.

Krauss trumpeted the moral improvement over religion that science brings

There.....not a mention of the word antitheist or antitheism.

[jeremyp]

Krauss trumpeted the moral improvement over religion that science brings

Citation needed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Citation needed.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3d8NthEFWow

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lawrence Krauss on science and morality

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L_y6L0cplLk

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Findings of ASU investigation as reported by State press

http://www.statepress.com/article/2018/08/spscience-asu-investigation-states-lawrence-krauss-groped-woman-while-on-asu-funded-trip

[Gordon]

Vlad

Is there any new point to your ongoing obsession with Krauss that hasn't already been discussed when you raised it last March?

As far as I can see nobody is arguing that people who behave in ways that are considered to be inappropriate towards others shouldn't be dealt with by investigation and, if indicated, sanction through legal process or in respect of their working roles and responsibilities: and that this principle applies be they accountants, IT specialists, butchers or scientists, and applies irrespective of whatever their religious affiliations are, or aren't.

It seems that we are in agreement on this, so which part of 'agree' are you still struggling with?
   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

Is there any new point to your ongoing obsession with Krauss that hasn't already been discussed when you raised it last March?

As far as I can see nobody is arguing that people who behave in ways that are considered to be inappropriate towards others shouldn't be dealt with by investigation and, if indicated, sanction through legal process or in respect of their working roles and responsibilities: and that this principle applies be they accountants, IT specialists, butchers or scientists, and applies irrespective of whatever their religious affiliations are, or aren't.

It seems that we are in agreement on this, so which part of 'agree' are you still struggling with?
   

Unfortunately for them a major plank of the celebrity antitheist circuit was moral superiority over religions and Krauss was vocal in this direction.

He seems therefore to have blown his own thesis. Can I take it then that your post is acceptance of that fact? Then it just leaves me to express curiosity as to how this matter will eventually play out for the aforementioned antitheist network.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

Is there any new point to your ongoing obsession with Krauss that hasn't already been discussed when you raised it last March?

And yet you are happy to see the same arguments trotted out again and again on the searching for God thread. Looks like special pleading on your part.

[Gordon]

Unfortunately for them a major plank of the celebrity antitheist circuit was moral superiority over religions and Krauss was vocal in this direction.

I'm sure that is how it seems you.

He seems therefore to have blown his own thesis.

I couldn't possibly comment since I don't know what his thesis is/was.

Can I take it then that your post is acceptance of that fact?

No, since as I've said I don't know enough about either the details of the case or what this thesis you speak of contains.

Then it just leaves me to express curiosity as to how this matter will eventually play out for the aforementioned antitheist network.

In that case you'll need to find someone who belongs to this 'antitheist network' and ask them.
 

[Enki]

Krauss trumpeted the moral improvement over religion that science brings

There.....not a mention of the word antitheist or antitheism.

So?  I repeat:

I would suggest that Krauss's conduct should be discussed/investigated on its own merits/demerits rather than it be linked to philosophical positions(antitheism) they are advocating. If there is a link between his behaviour and the behaviour of academic science then that should be investigated/discussed also, as in the case of certain Catholic priests and the behaviour of their church. I am not aware of any such linkage in this case however.

You have not said anything here which challenges what I have said.