Lawrence Krauss, who was unexplainably radicalized to become a New Atheist, gave an interview about his most recent book to a Christian radio show. You can listen to the podcast here, but I simply want to draw your attention to two rather stunning admissions.
The first one comes at 54:50. Krauss says:
First BTW, and I don’t call myself an atheist, I call myself an antitheist. I can’t say for certain there is no God, but I can certainly say I wouldn’t want to live in a universe with one, some cosmic Saddam Hussein who set things up.
Krauss admits that he doesn’t want to live in a universe where there is a God.
Then at 58:00, he adds some more:
You talk about this god of love and everything else. But somehow if you don’t believe in him, you don’t get any of the benefits, so you have to believe. And then if y’does anything wrong, you’re going to be judged for it. I don’t want to be judged by God, that’s the bottom line.
There y’go. He doesn’t want to live in a universe with a God and the bottom line is that he does not want to be judged by God. The whole idea of God clearly causes him some sort of psychological/emotional distress, so his atheist arguments can be viewed as elaborate rationalizations to justify the reality he wants to live in. It’s not that there is no evidence. It’s that Krauss doesn’t want to be judged by a God.
One has to wonder just how common this is among the New Atheists. For this would explain the widespread intellectual inconsistency we see among the New Atheists. The New Atheists don’t seem interested in developing a coherent worldview and then practicing what they preach. Instead, they seem more interested in using any and all possible arguments and talking points against God and religion, even if those arguments and talking points contradict each other and expose New Atheists as hypocrites. It’s as if the core principle among New Atheists is a very strong emotion – I don’t want to live in a universe with God and I don’t want to be judged by God – and the “arguments” are all post hoc rationalizations that serve as a thick smokescreen to deceive them, and us, into thinking this is all about “reason and evidence.”