Yirah.fi
EN

ajankohtaista · tutkittua tietoa · Raamattu & teologia

Uutta Joukkovaikuttamisen keinot · kirja nyt saatavilla

SÄHKÖPOSTIKETJU

an article you may both hate. or like.

3 viestiä

Lähettäjät: Lawrence Krauss · Noam Chomsky

Viestit on järjestetty aikajärjestykseen, kun kaikkien viestien aikaleima on tulkittavissa; muuten ne näytetään arkiston alkuperäisjärjestyksessä. Esiintyminen kirjeenvaihdossa ei ole osoitus osallisuudesta rikoksiin. Lähde: Epstein Files -arkisto (House Oversight Committee).

VIESTI 1 / 3

an article you may both hate. or like.

Lähettäjä: Lawrence Krauss <[email protected]>
Vastaanottajat: Noam Chomsky <[email protected]>, Jeffrey E. <[email protected]>
Aika: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:51 AM
hope all is well.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists
VIESTI 2 / 3

Re: an article you may both hate. or like.

Lähettäjä: Noam Chomsky
Vastaanottajat: Lawrence Krauss
Aika: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:52 PM
Thanks for sending. A wide area of agreement, but not total.

On confronting dogma, I of course agree — though in my opinion the secular religions — nationalist fanaticism, etc. —
are much more dangerous. And if some find rational discussion offensive — as, for example, mainstream academics
find dismantling myths of “American exceptionalism” or “Israeli self-defense” or Obama’s mass murder campaign,
etc., offensive — so be it.

But I don’t see why that should extend to ridicule. That includes astrologists. Astronomers can refute astrology,
while recognizing that perfectly honest and deluded people may believe it and should be treated with respect, while
their beliefs are confronted with evidence. I also don’t see why we should ridicule religious dogma, just as I don’t
think we should ridicule the much more pernicious secular dogmas. Rather, we should respond to irrational belief
with argument and evidence, while recognizing that their advocates (like most of the intellectual world in the case of
secular dogma) are people who we should be responding to but without ridiculing them. It may be hard

sometimes. For example, when the icon and founding father of sober non-sentimental Realism in International
Affairs informs us that the US, unlike other countries, has a “transcendental purpose,” and the fact that it constantly
acts in contradiction to its purpose doesn’t matter because the facts are just “abuse of history” while real history is
“the evidence of history as our minds reflect it,” then it’s hard to avoid ridicule. But we should. There’s no point
ridiculing virtually the entire IR profession and the major journals, even though such extraordinary irrationality leads
to major human disasters.

On Davis, I frankly think that’s a non-issue. If she decides she cannot do her job as the conditions of employment
require (including following the law), then she can quit and look for another job. As in any other such case.

Noam
VIESTI 3 / 3

an article you may both hate. or like.

I think religion plays a major positive role in many lives. . i dont like fanaticism on either side. . sorry