It may not be morally relevant in academic circles with people who know better, but when one of the main ad populum arguments against homosexuality is 'not natural' it becomes so.

Fwiw I agree with what Craig says here and would direct it towards Jib in the monkey/murder discussion

This is a slightly different issue. I think something can be found in nature but not be natural for man.

For instance, some animals, like spiders, eat their mates. Someone, maybe Darwin, said that if humans had evolved like bees it would be natural for queens to kill their daughters.

WLC does point out, I think correctly, that having homosexual tendencies or desires isn't itself sinful, anymore than having desires for illicit heterosexual relations. The sin is either in the act or in dwelling on the desire (lust = adultery, hate = murder).

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If in fact we cannot look to the animal kingdom on subjects of murder and rape then we cannot look to them on subjects of homosexuality. After all, is the animal actually "sexually attracted" to the other animal or is it just humping whatever is in it's path.

In any event, my original point still stands. Because something is found in nature that does not mean that it is therefore morally good. Which is what Krauss was trying to say in an attempt to show that science can give us moral direction.

The irony is that Krauss is making the same egregious errors as he is accusing (sometimes rightfully so) the theist of making.

The other theme that I noticed that bothered me is Krauss putting "science" on some sort of untouchable pedestal. He continued to say that science was not a "thing", but then would turn around and say that science (as if it were a thing) is only after truth and ethics. Science, if not a thing, is not after anything. The people doing science maybe after those things, or they may not be. Science in this regard is no different than religion. There is nothing that Krauss said about science that could not also be said about religion.

This is the scary thing when you listen to people like Krauss. He is no different than a religious fundamentalist.

Yeah, just like them. Flying planes into buildings, picketing soldier's funerals, mutilating genitalia. False equivalency much?

Are you saying that these are things that all religious fundamentalists do?

No but words have connotations.

Right...

Given that Jibninjas also used the word "scary" just before "religious fundamentalists" I think the connotation is fair. No need to pretend he was doing anything other than making a cheap shot designed to troll.

Exactly. Ask people to make a list of scary things religious fundamentalists do. I bet you dollars do doughnuts that my examples rank much higher than anything jibninjas had in mind when talking about Krauss.

This is not true. Krauss made several points about what defines a scientific approach, none of which can be applied to religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are not Falsifiable or Useful (in building on and confirming previous theories and making predictions about things that have not yet occurred), for example, which are two of the aspects of the scientific process that Krauss mentioned.


Krauss is not saying anything about the process of science that any other scientist would disagree with, where religious fundamentalists stand in opposition (in their interpretation of the fundamentals of their religion) with many other followers of the same religion.

I find the whole thrust of that type of argument really odd. There's a nice bit from a Lesswrong article that touches on it:

Disregarding anything else, "Then why do they say "Science is based on faith too!" in that angry-triumphal tone, rather than as a compliment?" is easily explained (though I'd not subscribe to the "angry": IF it were true that science is based on faith too, then those who argue contra faith via pro science are essentially committing a performative contradiction: They blast something in one area that they practice in another, without giving reasons why we should consider that a "benign" practicing of faith. As performative contradictions are generally frowned upon, pointing it out is accompanied by "angry-triumphal" noises.

Also, Jib isn't talking about faith in general (or as a system of beliefs) but about certain traits and tendencies in Krauss' presentation.

It seems like an extension of this would be that it is fair to blast creationists who dismiss science but use it everyday, agree?

Sure, that's why I said "thrust of this type of argument" not "thrust of this argument". Specifically, the type of argument that compares science/scientists to religion/theists in order to make some sort of negative point.

Scary religious fundamentalism is not the same as scary religious extremism. I also think you're stretching quite a bit in your interpretation of "scary" in that sentence.

You really love to argue semantics, don't you?

Given that semantics is all about the meaning of words, yes.

I think it's deliciously ironic that you accused Jib of false equivalence by using a false equivalence.

In one of those debates Krauss gets asked something about what he believes about the origin of the universe. Krauss goes on some rambling monologue to the tune of "I don't believe in anything. Here is what science does. Things are either likely or unlikely. Sciences assesses the likelyhood of things. Less likely, more likely and when some likelihood approaches near certainty you .... might call it a belief ... but it's not a belief, it's not something where you'd say "I believe this"."

So yeah, given the utter rambliness of a discussion based on poor semantic distinctions, semantics are important.

I know you and Aaron just kinda enjoy this sort of thing, but I'd love to know if you actually, hand on heart, believe that Krauss is "just like a religious fundamentalist" to the point where it is "scary"? If so, what exactly are you scared of?

Well, for one, I took jib's comment to mean something like "Regarding these specific blind spots of his presentations, he's not really arguing any differently, and certainly not more circumspect than reg. fundies".

This is why I 2nd aaron in finding your insinstence on "scary" somewhat strange. Suggesting that he meant scary in the sense of "shiffering angst and horror" seems far-fetched. Nothing in his post suggests this reading imo. (After all: Even IFF Krauss' insistence actually was as stubborn as that of a religious extremist, given that he's just insisting that science is pure and truthful and shiny blablub, why would I be scared by that!?)

Given that, the "scary" seemed more of the figurative kind a la "It's kind of scary to think that Obama, being a constitutional lawyer, is proposing he has the authority to start a war w/out congressional approval"

In short, I think you guys are reading way too much into a statement that probably could've been presented more carefully, but nonetheless wasn't all that ambiguous, imo. And Aaron and me are more objecting to the perceived contrivedness (is that a word?) of interpreting fundamentalist as "rel. extremist steering planes into buildings" and "scary" as "cold sweat all over".

The Obama context works just as well here. Maybe pick a different example because pushing for an unconsitutional war doesn't seem to me to be a different sort of scary to flying a plane into a building, especially as the death toll in the first is likely to be much higher. But regardless, if you think that LC or I are claiming that Jibs is in a some sort of primal state of fight-or-flight or equally as silly then I don't know what to say to you.

As for "insistence" it's the entire context of the thought!

Honestly dude, you really seem to have this thing where you will defend any old nonsense, even stuff you patently disagree with, in the defence of another theist. At the very least both of Jibs sentence in question are hyperbole, and that is something you bash MB for relentlessly, so have some consistency. The overall impression you give is that however dumb something a theist says is, you will interpret it in the most charitable way possible, whereas you will interpret it in the least charitable way possible for atheists.

And if you want to play semantics then we can just dismiss Jibninjas comment immediately, as Krauss is, in fact, different from religious fundamentalists because he is not, in fact, religious.

Fundamentalists are not the same as extremists. Aaron is exactly right in what he is saying. If you ask people (especially on this board) what are the traits of christian (or religious) fundamentalists they would talk about young earth creationism, being against evolution, hating gays, and creating a system that isn't allowed to be questioned.

People that fly planes into buildings are few and far between. And those are almost never the types of religious people we discuss on this board.

Well, I would say that it was put into context by the paragraph preceding the comment:

So the fear would be that "science" is becoming the ultimate and unquestionable arbiter of truth and ethics, except that "science" is being mediated and driven by people whose understanding of truth and ethics may not be that which science measures.

It's sort of a scientists as an intelligentsia sort of thing.

I feel I should get back to this thread with regards to the above post. It was a hasty post made after a long day where I was, what the tabloid press would euphemistically refer to as, 'tired and emotional' n

Therefore I'm not going to attempt to defend it.

While I obviously agree with just about everything Krauss has to say, I think he comes off as a bit rude and a curmudgeon.

Clearly, he wants to be a horseman. Maybe he's trying to fill the void left by his good friend Hitchens? If so, he'd do well to well to study the remaining 3. Dennett is simply too polite to ever come off as being rude. Harris uses intellectual wit and humor to win over his audience. Hitchens (and Dawkins to some degree) get away with being incredibly acerbic, because their English accents, which are pleasant on the ears, somehow excuse them. Give it a try. Say, "Blimey you are a moron and a no good bastard to boot!" with an English accent. Somehow, it still sounds charming, doesn't it?

Krauss needs to find his niche. The guy's incredibly smart and says all the right things, but he comes off as just plain rude and argumentative, which isn't a good way to win over an audience, in my opinion.