We have seen that both Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne have condemned Lawrence Krauss for his sexual harassment of women. Harris said that he believes the women, that Krauss needs to apologize, and that he is in a position to “know enough to want to step away from this whole business.” Coyne wrote , “In my view, then, Krauss had a propensity to engage in sexual misconduct. I therefore disassociate myself from the man.” He also wrote, “All I can do, and which I do here, is publicly disassociate myself from Krauss, declare that the behaviors I know of are reprehensible, and hope that he owns up to his behavior.”
Apart from being the two leading New Atheist activists who have publicly condemned Krauss, Harris and Coyne have something else in common – they are both the two leading advocates for determinism.
According to Coyne and Harris’s determinism, Krauss could not help but do what he did. His genes and environment made him do it. So we can’t hold him morally responsible for his actions. He is a victim here. And it is nothing but shear luck that keeps Coyne and Harris from putting their hands all over women they don’t know.
We’ve now seen with our own eyes that those deterministic postures are empty bluster. When the time came for both Coyne and Harris to live their determinism, they both failed. Gloriously. We have Harris wanting an apology for actions that could not have been otherwise. We have Coyne expecting Krauss to “own up” to actions he is not responsible for. But let’s make the hypocrisy even more clear than this.
Tweety Dawk is back:
One problem. I can’t find a positiva.tea anywhere on Twitter. When I google “positiva.tea” there is an instagram account which is now deleted. When I search google images for “positiva.tea”, I find the twitter image for positiva tea and it is listed at https://www.pictaramphotos.com under #bogus medias (check for yourself).
Could we be dealing with another Poe?
Here’s a video where atheist Lawrence Krauss talks about religion from his hostile perspective. I hope to address various points that he raises in the future, but for now, I’d like to focus on his basic point from 1:50 – 2:47. He is talking about morality from an atheistic perspective.
He admits that religion provides many things for people, like community ,support, and hope. He argues that what atheists need to do is to take these things out of religion and use the “real world” to build up those qualities. He preaches a “morality based on rationality, not outmoded religious beliefs.” He insists we “use the rational world to build a global society based on the reality we are all humans sharing this planet and we need to work together to build a better place.”
Of course, this is all just posturing rooted in empty words. Words, just empty words. Look, we’ve been watching the atheist activist community for the last couple of weeks, a community that claims to have constructed a morality based on rationality because, well, they are always guided by reason and evidence. But what we see is an atheist community at each others’ throats all because of the actions of one man – Lawrence Krauss himself. If atheists want to build a global society based on the reality that we are all humans who need to work together to make the world a better place, why not start with something more simple – build an atheist internet community where all atheists work together to build a better world? If you can’t handle that, what makes you think your ideas about a global society are anything other than delusions of grandeur? And where oh where is this atheist community filled with support and hope? I see a community filled with despair, anger, and even hate – all directed at each other. I see a deeply divided community where both sides claim that reason and evidence just happens to be on their side, of course. That’s the “real world” that is out there.
The best part is when Krauss says the following:
Over in the comments section of his blog, PZ Myers wrote:
10-15 years ago, we had this hope that atheism would inspire a global movement, one that would displace religion with an evidence-based philosophy.
We were wrong.
Indeed. It is encouraging that Myers is finally realizing this, as many of us figured this out a long time ago. The core problem was that the atheist movement was rooted in hate – hatred of religion that spilled over into hatred of the religious. They thought that if they could just remove the thing they hated so much that some lofty “evidence-based philosophy” would magically swoop in and replace it. The movement was never based on some wonderful “evidence-based philosophy” that would heal humanity and the planet. That was nothing more than a “hope.” The only thing solid and real was the hate.
The problem for the movement is that it lost focus on its common enemy – the object of its hate. The hate was instead directed at each other. And today we now have the two warring factions. Both still nurse their hatred of the religious. For some crazed reason, they still believe that if we can only put religion “in its place,” the world will magically become better. But now they’ve simply allowed the hate to metastasize. In addition to hating the religious (mostly Christian and Muslim), one side hates the “social justice warriors.” For the other side, in addition to hating the religious (mostly Christian), they also hate those who are not “woke” and label them as Nazis.
You are not going to build an inspiring, worldview-changing movement on hate and the demonization of the outgroup.
Anyway, over six years ago, atheists like Myers and Coyne and the lesser known Jason Rosenhouse were blogging about how it was so painfully obvious that religion was a bad, bad thing. So I wrote a reply at the time and wouldn’t ya know, it doesn’t seem all that dated in 2018. I’ve reposted it below the fold.
When Jerry Coyne posted his position about Lawrence Krauss, he took the highly unusual step of turning off the comments for that post. I can’t think of a single other example when he has done that. Of course, it’s obvious why he did it. As we all know by now, Coyne has no tolerance for dissent on his blog. And he must have known he would be betraying many readers who are part of his core audience.
And that seems to be the case. Coyne has things set up so that every time he posts a blog, his twitter account tweets it. I don’t think he tends to his twitter account and rarely does anyone comments on his auto-tweets. But this one was different. It generated over 50 responses and many atheists were obviously angry with Coyne. Here are as sample of some of their comments:
It sure looks like Lawrence Krauss has no allies. From Jerry Coyne:
After that article appeared, I did some digging on my own, and came up with three cases that have convinced me that Krauss engaged in sexual predation of both a physical nature (groping) and of a verbal nature (offensive and harassing comments). The allegations that convinced me are not public, but the accusers are sufficiently credible that I believe their claims to be true. Further, these claims buttress the general allegation of sexual misbehavior made in BuzzFeed. In my view, then, Krauss had a propensity to engage in sexual misconduct. I therefore disassociate myself from the man.
The only one left to speak about this is Richard Dawkins.
Atheist activist organizations continue their efforts to expel Lawrence Krauss from their community. The latest is none other than the Freedom From Religion Foundation:
In light of well-documented allegations of sexual misconduct against Lawrence Krauss, and in keeping with FFRF’s commitment to feminist values, the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Board of Directors voted on Feb. 22 to remove Professor Krauss from the organization’s honorary board.
So the day after Krauss releases his version of the accounts, FFRF kicks him in the face. They endorse the Buzzfeed account as “well-documented allegations” and strip him of his position.
What’s news to me is that the FFRF is an organization committed to “feminist values.” You have to wonder how many gullible non-feminist atheists have been donating money to this feminist organization, especially given that Jerry Coyne has often promoted them.
What’s interesting is how these events are helping to define modern day atheism. It’s looking more and more like PZ Myer’s version of atheism is winning out, such that post-modernism and social justice ideology are merging with atheism. A+ atheism is the wave of the future.
In fact, let me make a prediction. The last holdout to the post-modernist surge within atheism are the Richard Dawkins’ organizations. I predict that when Dawkins eventually passes away, feminists and other forms of postmodernists will infiltrate his organizations and take over. In fact, I predict further that there will come a day when these feminists will change of the name of the Richard Dawkins Foundation to something else that doesn’t have the words “Richard Dawkins” in it.