Over at the Friendly Atheist blog, Hemant Mehta has a blog entitled “Lawrence Krauss Talks About How To Become a Better Critical Thinker.” It amuses me that a propagandist like Mehta would try to promote critical thinking. It’s like a social justice activist posturing as a defender of free speech.
Mehta quotes Krauss:
… we should never take anything on faith. That’s really the mantra of science, if you want, that faith is the enemy of science. We often talk about a loss of faith in the world today; you don’t lose anything by losing faith. What you gain is reality.
It’s obvious that Krauss embraces faith to uphold his self-perception as a critical thinker. For he is a man who does not practice what he preaches.
For example, Krauss relies on faith to embrace the New Atheist talking point that religion, on balance, is evil. I exposed his hypocrisy back in March 2016:
Wright then goes on to make a good point – the reason the New Atheists are into proselytism is because they think religion is evil and cites the subtitle of Hitchen’s book, “How Religion Poisons Everything.” At this point, Krauss agrees, but adds the qualifier “on balance” multiple times. After repeatedly insisting that religion is bad “on balance,” Wright finally asks Krauss, ” Have you done the inventory?” Has Krauss made the effort to score religion in terms of its good and bad effects? Krauss’ reply is classic:
“No, it’s not important enough to do that. I have more important things to do.”
This man thinks he understands critical thinking, but he doesn’t. Which is not surprising given that he is more of an activist than a scientist. Critical thinking is incompatible with activism.
Activist Mehta quotes some more from Krauss:
When you’re presented with questions or answers about any problem there are a few questions you can ask yourself, that you should ask yourself right away. First of all, you can ask yourself, ‘Do I like this answer?’ And if you do you should be suspicious because you’re much more likely to accept something that appeals to you whether it’s right or not. So if you inherently like something in some sense that’s a reason to be almost more suspicious of it…
Has Krauss ever asked himself whether he liked the answer that teaching creationism to children is child abuse? It’s another one of his crackpot notions he holds by abandoning the scientific approach. Again, this was all explained back on July 2015.
Mehta then comments:
Or you can just live in your bubble and listen to the news sources that confirm whatever you already think. It’s a lot less complicated.
LOL! This is hilarious. Mehta not only lives in a bubble, he is the Bubble Maker and makes money off his bubble. His blog and FB page are textbook examples of confirmation bias.
Mehta ends with these words of wisdom.
But if you value honesty and reason, accepting comfort over truth isn’t an option.
I would agree. But there is one catch. While this is true if Christian theism is true, is it really true if atheism is true? Why should atheists always value honesty and reason? After all, they don’t. Why should atheists accept truth over comfort?