Last updated on: July 12, 2016 at 3:03 pm By Michael Stone
“Scientists have an obligation not to lie about the natural world.” – Lawrence Krauss.
In an essay for The New Yorker titled “All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists” Lawrence Krauss makes a powerful argument for science and against the urge to protect religious superstition from scrutiny.
The essay, published last September, begins with a discussion concerning conservative culture warrior Kim Davis using her Christian religious beliefs to deny wedding licenses to gays and lesbians in Kentucky. Commenting on the controversy, Krauss notes:
The Kim Davis controversy exists because, as a culture, we have elevated respect for religious sensibilities to an inappropriate level that makes society less free, not more. Religious liberty should mean that no set of religious ideals are treated differently from other ideals.
Krauss dismisses the demand that many make for respecting religious superstitions by noting the obvious:
The problem, obviously, is that what is sacred to one person can be meaningless (or repugnant) to another.
Krauss is correct. What is a sacred commandment or belief for one is another’s moral abomination. One need only be reminded of the sexism and misogyny woven into the fabric of all three of the Abrahamic religions to understand why many would find the supposedly sacred to be morally repugnant. The refusal by Kim Davis to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians is another example, and there are of course many more.
Krauss goes on to move from a discussion of Davis to a discussion of science, opining:
In science, of course, the very word “sacred” is profane. No ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass. The notion that some idea or concept is beyond question or attack is anathema to the entire scientific undertaking. This commitment to open questioning is deeply tied to the fact that science is an atheistic enterprise.
Krauss observes that science is inherently dangerous to religion because scientific understanding often draws people away from religion:
Because science holds that no idea is sacred, it’s inevitable that it draws people away from religion.
Yet the uncomfortable fact that science often has the effect of exposing religious superstitions as irrational and ultimately untenable beliefs about the world means that the culture of science often panders to the faithful by sugar coating the truth about the natural world:
Even so, to avoid offense, they sometimes misleadingly imply that today’s discoveries exist in easy harmony with preexisting religious doctrines, or remain silent rather than pointing out contradictions between science and religious doctrine.
Krauss rejects the misleading fabrication that science and religious dogma are compatible, at one point declaring:
Scientists have an obligation not to lie about the natural world.
In concluding, Krauss sees a direct link “between the ethics that guide science and those that guide civic life.” Arguing that honesty should take priority over religious dogma, Krauss says “we owe it to ourselves and to our children not to give a free pass” to those “that endorse, encourage, enforce, or otherwise legitimize the suppression of open questioning in order to protect ideas that are considered ‘sacred.’”
Bottom line: Krauss is right, all scientists, and all thinking people, should be atheists.
Religion is a negative force for humanity because … it implies things about the real world that are just not true.
While acknowledging that religious myths often bring comfort to some, Krauss observes that making decisions based on those myths often “lead to bad consequences.”
Krauss states:
[Religion] has provided opportunities for groups to sometimes do progressive things. But inevitably it’s based on myth and superstition, based on ideas created by Iron Age peasants who didn’t even know the Earth orbited the sun. And ultimately why we should view that as wisdom is beyond me.
Eschewing false moral equivalencies, Krauss takes a particularly brave stance on Islam by challenging the current misguided liberal orthodoxy which attempts to excuse or diminish the violence associated with Islam. Krauss opines:
Now in the current world, I think there’s no doubt that right now Islam is a source of more violence than a number of the other organized religions.
Krauss points out that taken literally the holy texts of the Christian and Jew are just as likely to lead to violence, before going on to make the provocative observation that the problem with Islam is one of timing:
Islam is 500 years younger than say Christianity. And 500 years ago Christianity was producing far more violence than Islam ever is today from the Crusades to the Inquisition.
Krauss goes on to observe “the fundamental difference” between followers of the Bible and followers of the Koran, stating:
… highly religious people take the Bible allegorically… when it says you can stone your children if they disobey you, no one takes that seriously anymore. The difference is that many people take the Koran every word of the Koran as not only divine but literally. And therefore when it exhorts you to violence they take that literally. That’s not done any more in the older religions, in the Abrahamic religions. The Bible still says to do those awful things but people don’t take it seriously.
As the title indicates, the larger theme Krauss explicates is the “us vs. them” mentality that is inevitably associated with organized religion, a mentality which often triggers a dangerous form of xenophobia.
In concluding, Krauss offers a prescription for escaping the bigotry and xenophobia often associated with organized religion and its attending religious superstitions:
… what seems to me the thing that we have to overcome the most is people recognizing that you can be a good person by accepting reality for what it is and questioning everything including questioning the existence of God.
Bottom line: organized religion is a destructive and divisive force which implies things about the real world that are just not true. In addition, and perhaps more important: one can be good without God.
Lawrence Krauss is a Canadian-American theoretical physicist who is a professor of physics, and the author of several bestselling books, including The Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing.
Last updated on: July 2, 2015 at 11:19 am By Michael Stone
Taking a stand for kids, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss argues teaching children creationism is a form of child abuse.
Krauss, appearing on the “The Weekly,” an Australian satirical TV news show, stressed the importance of teaching children critical thinking skills.
After that, host Charlie Pickering brought up the fact that Krauss had previously stated that teaching children creationism is a form of child abuse. Krauss doubled down on his claim, noting:
But it’s true. I mean, there are different levels of child abuse. It’s like not allowing your children to have medicine, not allowing you children to be vaccinated, for example, is child abuse, because you are doing them harm.
Krauss went on:
In some sense, if you withhold information from your children because you would rather them not know what reality is really like, for fear that it is going to affect their beliefs, then you are doing them harm.
Krauss is correct. Preventing children from learning the truth about the world, like teaching children that creationism is an acceptable scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, is a mild form of child abuse.
Previously, in 2013, while appearing on The David Pakman Show, Krauss acknowledged that teaching creationism to children was not on the same level of abuse as sexual assault, but insisted it should still be considered abusive because it puts children at a disadvantage.
If you’re introducing it (creationism or Intelligent Design) as reality, if you’re telling your kids the world is 6,000 years old, and they shouldn’t believe scientists because there is no way humans are related to other animals, and don’t believe any of that stuff you learned in school, or take you kids of out of school because they are learning something, then it is like the Taliban at some level, which is an extreme form of child abuse.
Earlier this year, Krauss, and another leading scientist, Richard Dawkins, advocated for the intellectual rights of children, arguing children should be allowed to develop as critical thinkers and be protected from religious indoctrination.
It seems clear to many rational people that forcing children to accept the religious superstitions of their parents can be a form of child abuse. And it follows that teaching children Biblical creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is an example of such child abuse.
Yet if we are to accept this claim, what are the implications for social policy? Should the government step in and protect children from the religious superstitions of their parents?
Or should parents retain the right to force their religious beliefs upon their children, even when those beliefs are demonstrably harmful to the education of the child, as is the case with the teaching of creationism?
And what about religious schools, as well as homeschoolers, engaged in the explicit task of indoctrinating children?
How does society protect children from the damaging excesses of religion?
How does society defend a child’s right to a proper education, even if that education violates the sincerely held religious beliefs of their parents?
Lawrence Krauss is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is a professor of physics and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. He is also the author of the bestselling book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing.
(Portions of this post were previously published here)
Last updated on: November 4, 2014 at 4:53 pm By Michael Stone
Too good to be true? Renowned theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss suggests religion could disappear in the span of a single generation.
Appearing in front of the Victorian Skeptics earlier this year, Krauss was asked what he thought about religion being taught in public schools. Krauss responded by advocating for the teaching of comparative religion.
What we need to do is present comparative religion as a bunch of interesting historical anecdotes, and show the silly reasons why they did what they did.
People say, ‘Well, religion has been around since the dawn of man. You’ll never change that.’
This issue of gay marriage, it is going to go away, because if you’re a child, a 13-year-old, they can’t understand what the issue is. It’s gone. One generation is all it takes.
So, I can tell you a generation ago people said there is no way people would allow gay marriage, and slavery — essentially — [gone in] a generation; we got rid of it.
Change is always one generation away. So if we can plant the seeds of doubt in our children, religion will go away in a generation, or at least largely go away. And that’s what I think we have an obligation to do.
Lawrence Krauss is Director of the ASU Origins Project at Arizona State University and Foundation Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and the Department of Physics.
Described by Scientific American as a unique scientific “public intellectual,” Krauss is a renowned theoretical physicist as well as one of the most well-known advocates for science worldwide. In addition to over 300 scientific publications, He has written nine books for a general audience, including the international bestsellers The Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing.
Recently Krauss teamed up with Richard Dawkins to create the documentary The Unbelievers.
Last updated on: January 30, 2018 at 9:53 am By Michael Stone
Teaching children the earth is only 6,000-years-old, that human beings and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time, and that the story of Noah’s Ark is true, constitutes intellectual child abuse.
Every child deserves an education. However, many children in the U.S. and around the world are denied an education in the name of religious superstition. In the U.S. some children are denied a science education because they are being home-schooled or attend Christian schools that fail to teach the facts of basic biology, like evolution.
Instead of learning about evolution, children in extreme Christian environments are taught creationism. This is wrong, and immoral. Children have a right to a science education. Denying children a science education by teaching creationism is a form of child abuse.
Evolution
Evolution is the single, unifying scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth, and the foundation upon which the biological sciences are built.
Indeed, the scientific theory of evolution is accepted by an overwhelming majority of mainstream scientists around the world as the cornerstone of biology. To deny the reality of evolution is to deny the foundation upon which modern medicine and related biological sciences are built.
Thus, if there is a controversy about evolution, it is not scientific. The controversy is not about science, but religion. The fact is that once the theory of evolution is accepted, a literal, fundamentalist reading of Biblical creation is rendered untenable. Many Christian and other religious fundamentalists are simply unable to accept evolution as a scientific truth for this reason.
And because adults refuse to accept the scientific truth of evolution, children suffer.
Recently, a voice of reason, everybody’s favorite “Science Guy,” Bill Nye, spoke out against creationism in an essay published in Skeptical Inquirer. Noting that creationism is “bad for science education, bad for the U.S., and thereby bad for humankind,” Nye went on to note:
“… if you, as an adult, want to hold on to a completely unreasonable explanation of the Earth’s natural history that is useless from a practical standpoint, that’s your business. But we don’t want our kids, our science students, to be indoctrinated into that weird worldview, because our kids are the scientists and engineers of the future. They need to be the innovators that drive the U.S. economy in the coming decades.”
And speaking to Popular Mechanics about the problems of teaching children creationism, and why evolution is key to a science education, Nye declared:
“Science is the key to our future, and if you don’t believe in science, then you’re holding everybody back. And it’s fine if you as an adult want to run around pretending or claiming that you don’t believe in evolution, but if we educate a generation of people who don’t believe in science, that’s a recipe for disaster. We talk about the Internet. That comes from science. Weather forecasting. That comes from science. The main idea in all of biology is evolution. To not teach it to our young people is wrong.”
Nye is not alone. Top scientists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss also advocate for children, arguing children should be allowed to develop as critical thinkers and be protected from religious indoctrination.
Speaking with The Irish Times, Dawkins, a leading biologist, and Krauss, a leading physicist, defended a child’s right to a proper education.
“There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents. Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.”
“That means parents have a limited — it seems to be — limited rights in determining what the curriculum is. The state is providing the education, it’s trying to make sure all children have equal opportunity.
“And parents of course have concerns and a say, but they don’t have the right to shield their children from knowledge. That’s not a right any more than they have the right to shield their children from health care or medicine.
“And those parents that do that are often tried and imprisoned when they refuse to allow their children to get blood transfusions or whatever is necessary for their health. And this is necessary for their mental health.”
Dawkins, Krauss, Nye, and others make an interesting and compelling claim: Forcing children to accept the religious superstitions of their parents can be a form of child abuse.
For example, teaching children Biblical creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is considered by many to be a form of child abuse.
Ken Ham
The leading proponent of creationism is Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, an organization devoted to teaching and promoting the false notion that Biblical creationism is a legitimate scientific theory. Ham and his organization produce and supply much of the literature and curriculum used by Christian schools and others to teach children creationism.
Ham and his organization are also behind the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum. Aimed at children and located in Kentucky, the multi-million dollar facilities are part of Ham’s Christian fundamentalist project to spread his flawed and misleading message based on discredited science and a literal interpretation of Genesis.
The Creation Museum and life-size version of Noah’s Ark are designed to be an exercise in Christian propaganda: a deplorable attempt to deceive children and others by denying the scientific reality of biological evolution and promoting Christian mythology as scientific fact.
The 500-foot-long, $100 million ark opened in 2016, and is dedicated to indoctrinating children with ridiculous and discredited claims from the dubious field of “creation science,” claims such as the earth is only 6,000-years-old, that human beings and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time, and that the story of Noah’s Ark is true.
By teaching children creationism is a legitimate scientific theory that disproves the theory of evolution, Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter is engaged in a despicable form of intellectual child abuse.
However, Ham is not alone in his desire to force creationism into the science classroom. American politicians routinely try to smuggle creationism into the public school classroom via various nefarious legislative efforts. From state legislatures to the highest reaches of government, creationism has powerful proponents that would happily sacrifice the intellectual health of children on the altar of religious superstition.
Mike Pence
In fact, even Vice President Mike Pence believes that creationism should be taught in public schools. When serving as a congressman, Pence made it clear that he opposes evolution, while claiming that creationism (intelligent design) provides the only “rational explanation for the known universe.”
In 2002, Pence delivered a passionate speech on the floor of the House of Representatives arguing that evolution is “only a theory” and that public schools should teach the theory of intelligent design as well as the theory of evolution.
“I believe that God created the known universe, the earth and everything in it, including man. And I also believe that someday scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a remotely rational explanation for the known universe.”
In other words, for Pence, the only rational explanation is “God did it.”
In his speech to congress, Pence also made the false and misleading claim that creationism is a valid scientific alternative to the theory of evolution, arguing that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the public school science classroom.
Christianity
The question is begged: Why is creationism so important to so many Christians? Well, it may be that evolution exposes the flimsy house of cards that is the foundation of Christianity, and by extension, all Abrahamic religions. For if one embraces science, and accepts the scientific account of evolution, one must dismiss biblical creationism as myth, metaphor, or some other euphemism for factually untrue.
Speaking for many Christian fundamentalists, Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham argues that any coherent understanding of Christianity depends upon a literal interpretation of the Bible, including a belief that the story of Noah and the account of creation offered in the Book of Genesis is historically accurate.
The fact is, for many, once biblical creationism is rejected, Christianity unravels: there is no Adam and Eve, no original sin, and no need for redemption through the blood of Christ.
In addition, once one biblical account of supernatural absurdity is rejected, all other biblical accounts of supernatural absurdities become suspect, including the absurdity that is God. Indeed, implicit in evolution is a powerful argument for atheism. And this drives some Christians to ridiculous positions, like clinging to the untenable claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that human beings and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time, and that the story of Noah’s Ark is true.
To conclude: Forcing children to accept the religious superstitions of their parents is a form of child abuse. And it follows that teaching children Biblical creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is an example of such child abuse.
Last updated on: July 6, 2016 at 12:55 pm By Michael Stone
Convincing children creationism is true constitutes intellectual child abuse.
Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter is a Christian fundamentalist project based on discredited science and a literal interpretation of Genesis.
The The life-size version of Noah’s Ark is located in Williamstown, Ky., just south of Cincinnati, Ohio, and is designed to be an exercise in Christian propaganda: a deplorable attempt to deceive children and others by denying the scientific reality of biological evolution and promoting Christian mythology as scientific fact.
The 500-foot-long, $100 million ark opens to the public on Thursday.
Ark Encounter is dedicated to indoctrinating children with ridiculous and discredited claims from the dubious field of “creation science,” claims such as the earth is only 6,000-years-old, that human beings and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time, and that the story of Noah’s Ark is true.
The truth is that there is no scientific controversy concerning evolution. The assumption that creationism, or intelligent design, constitutes a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is simply false.
Simply put, creationism is not a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. And preventing children from learning the truth about the world, like teaching children that creationism is an acceptable scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, is a form of child abuse.
Bottom line: By teaching children creationism is a legitimate scientific theory that disproves the theory of evolution, Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter is engaged in a despicable form of intellectual child abuse.
Watch as leading scientist Lawrence Krauss gives a powerful and well reasoned argument for why teaching children creationism is a form of child abuse:
Last updated on: June 4, 2016 at 4:41 pm By Michael Stone
Have you told your parents you’re an atheist?
Thousands of atheists, agnostics, and other freethinkers rally for reason at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. Saturday.
Aside from promoting the importance of secular society and the separation of church and state, the rally’s major issues of focus included climate change, reproductive rights and LGBT equality.
Bill Nye, comedian Julia Sweeney, magician Penn Jillette, Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, NASA scientist Carolyn Porco, activist Maryam Namazie, The Amazing James Randi, Lawrence Krauss, Dave Silverman from American Atheists, Annie Laurie Gaylor & Dan Barker from Freedom From Religion Foundation, and members of the Wu-Tang Clan all made appearances at the rally.
Lyz Liddell, Executive Director of the Reason Rally, told CNN the gathering is “absolutely” a political event, noting:
That’s the reason we’re holding this in an election year. We want to see reason taking precedence over religious-driven ideology.
A promotion for the rally described the event as “the biggest gathering of nonreligious people in history,” declaring:
Speak Up for Reason!
If you know that you can be a good person without believing in a god …
If you think public policy should be based on scientific evidence, not religious beliefs …
If you support the separation of church and state …
… then join us for the biggest gathering of nonreligious people in history!
NASA scientist Carolyn Porco told the crowd the only way to address our political problems is not to “pray the problems away, but to think the problems away,” declaring:
Just practice respect for the truth. Follow logical reasoning… We need to use scientific guidelines in crafting the laws governing our national life if we are to have hope in arriving at the right answers.
Voice of America reports speakers at the rally also addressed science-based sex education in schools, evidence-based responses to climate change, dialogue with lawmakers in Congress and transgender people’s use of public restrooms.
Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, who is also a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Congress, stressed the importance of church state separation, telling the crowd:
We must tell the world of how America broke from theocracy and religious war by protecting both freedom of thought and freedom of worship. Both secular government and religious liberty [were protected] simply by the ingenious act of separating the church from the state.
Bottom line: Thousands of atheists, agnostics, and other freethinkers turned out Saturday to take part in the Reason Rally, a rally promoting the increasing political power of the growing number of non-religious, secular Americans.
Last updated on: March 1, 2016 at 11:21 am By Michael Stone
Leading creationist Ken Ham claims that teaching children the science of evolution is “intellectual child abuse.”
Ham, CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, used his Facebook page earlier this week to rail against teaching children the science of evolution, arguing that teaching students that humans are “animals in an evolutionary process” is “intellectual child abuse.”
Commenting on a speaking engagement in front of 1,000 children in Alabama, Ham writes:
Intellectual child abuse: when kids are taught they’re just animals in an evolutionary process. This morning I taught kids the creation/gospel message!
The young people today in Alabama learned they’re not made in the image of an ape — they’re created in the image of God.
Obviously Ham is wrong. Teaching children the science of evolution is not intellectual child abuse, it is education.
However, teaching children Biblical creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is a form of child abuse. In fact, top scientists like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss have been strong advocates for children, and against the teaching of creationism, even going so far as to argue that teaching children creationism is a form of child abuse.
Indeed, many reasonable people argue that children should be allowed to develop as critical thinkers and be protected from the kind of pernicious religious indoctrination advocated by Ham and his fellow creationists.
It is ironic that Ham would claim that teaching children the science of evolution is intellectual child abuse, given the fact that many accuse Ham and his followers of the same thing. Those familiar with psychology may suspect that Ham is guilty of projection, accusing legitimate science educators of intellectual child abuse while denying the fact that in reality he is guilty of intellectual child abuse by teaching children a demonstrably false account of reality based on Biblical creationism.
Perhaps more important, Ham is so blinded by religious superstition that he honestly believes that it is better for children to think that they are born flawed and broken, and subject to eternal torture; rather than think that they are simply part of the natural world, like all the other animals.
Bottom line: Teaching children the science of evolution is not child abuse, but teaching children Biblical creationism as science does constitute “intellectual child abuse.”
Last updated on: February 25, 2015 at 6:54 pm By Michael Stone
Top scientists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss advocate for children, arguing children should be allowed to develop as critical thinkers and be protected from religious indoctrination.
Speaking with The Irish Times, Dawkins, a leading biologist, and Krauss, a leading physicist, defended a child’s right to a proper education.
There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents. Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.
That means parents have a limited — it seems to be — limited rights in determining what the curriculum is. The state is providing the education, it’s trying to make sure all children have equal opportunity.
And parents of course have concerns and a say, but they don’t have the right to shield their children from knowledge. That’s not a right any more than they have the right to shield their children from health care or medicine.
And those parents that do that are often tried and imprisoned when they refuse to allow their children to get blood transfusions or whatever is necessary for their health. And this is necessary for their mental health.
Dawkins, Krauss, and other intellectuals make an interesting and compelling claim: forcing children to accept the religious superstitions of their parents can be a form of child abuse. For example, teaching children Biblical creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is a form of child abuse.
Yet if we are to accept this claim, what are the implications for social policy? Should the government step in and protect children from the religious superstitions of their parents?
Or should parents retain the right to force their religious beliefs upon their children, even when those beliefs are demonstrably harmful to the education of the child, as is the case with teaching creationism?
And what about religious schools, as well as homeschoolers, engaged in the explicit task of indoctrinating children?
How does society protect children from the damaging excesses of religion?
How does society defend a child’s right to a proper education, even if that education violates the sincerely held religious beliefs of their parents?
Last updated on: April 7, 2014 at 6:21 pm By Michael Stone
Geocentrism? A new documentary film narrated by Kate Mulgrew, who played Captain Kathryn Janeway on “Star Trek: Voyager,” claims the sun revolves around the Earth, and that the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe.
The film’s ultra conservative Catholic producer believes the early leaders of the Catholic Church, who interpreted the Bible to mandate an Earth-centered universe, were right after all.
The film, entitled “The Principle,” promotes “Geocentrism,” the absurd notion that the Catholic church was right, that the Earth is at the center of the universe and it does not move, and that scientists since Galileo have got it all wrong
Geocentrism is creationism on steroids, and is often attributed to a literal reading of the Bible.
Perhaps even more disturbing than the iconic Kate Mulgrew, of Star Trek: Voyager and Orange Is the New Black, the film also features appearances by big-name scientists like Michio Kaku and Lawrence Krauss.
The new documentary was produced by Robert Sungenis, a controversial figure known to be a virulent anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. Promoting his book, “Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right,: Sungenis asks, “Were the Fathers, the Medievals, our popes and cardinals of the 17th century correct in believing that the Earth, based on a face value reading of Scripture, was standing still in the center of the universe?”
Progressive Secular Humanist
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In