After his debate with William Lane Craig, atheist Lawrence Krauss became in some online circles known as 2+2=5 atheist genius. But after the publication of his book "A Universe from Nothing", some prefer call Krauss "Mr.Nothing = Unstable Something", because Krauss main thesis is that the universe came from some basic or fundamental something (a "something" that Krauss, contrary to the common and philosophical use of the words, prefers to call "nothing").
I've explained in other posts that the atheist conflation of "something" with "nothing" (which by no means is exclusive of Krauss, and can be seen also in many atheist "intellectuals" like Richard Dawkins, John Loftus, Stephen Hawking, Victor Stenger and many others) is a symptom and consequence of a empircal law wich holds for most hard-core atheists and that I've called Jime's Iron Law.
Fortunatley, not all atheists are affected by my law, that is, some of them seem to have escaped from it, at least regarding its most dramatic manifestations. Some of them seem to be completely unaffected by the law in question (see for example, atheist philosopher Daniel Came, who clearly realizes the fallacies and imbecilities of contemporary atheism, specially the Dawkins' branch).
An example is another atheist who seems to be free from the constraints imposed by Jime's Iron Law is atheist biologist and philosopher Maximo Pligiucci. Even though not a very sophisticated philosopher, he's at least CONSISTENT with his worldview (see evidence here) and is not intellectually afraid of holding the implications of his beliefs.
In his blog, Pigliucci correctly castigates the intellectual imbecility of Krauss as shown in the latter's lastest book on "nothing". Pigliucci realizes the conflation of "somehting with nothing" is seen commonly in the works of contemporary physicists: "I don’t know what’s the matter with physicists these days. It used to be that they were an intellectually sophisticated bunch, with the likes of Einstein and Bohr doing not only brilliant scientific research, but also interested, respectful of, and conversant in other branches of knowledge, particularly philosophy. These days it is much more likely to encounter physicists like Steven Weinberg or Stephen Hawking, who merrily go about dismissing philosophy for the wrong reasons, and quite obviously out of a combination of profound ignorance and hubris (the two often go together, as I’m sure Plato would happily point out). The latest such bore is Lawrence Krauss, of Arizona State University."
Pigliucci observes: "Here is another gem from this brilliant (as a physicist) moron: “Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, ‘those that can’t do, teach, and those that can’t teach, teach gym.' And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics what so ever. ... they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn’t.”
Okay, to begin with, it is fair to point out that the only people who read works in theoretical physics are theoretical physicists, so by Krauss’ own reasoning both fields are largely irrelevant to everybody else (they aren’t, of course). Second, once again, the business of philosophy (of science, in particular) is not to solve scientific problems — we’ve got science for that (Julia and I explain what philosophers of science do here). To see how absurd Krauss’ complaint is just think of what it would sound like if he had said that historians of science haven’t solved a single puzzle in theoretical physics. That’s because historians do history, not science. When was the last time a theoretical physicist solved a problem in history, pray?"
Okay, to begin with, it is fair to point out that the only people who read works in theoretical physics are theoretical physicists, so by Krauss’ own reasoning both fields are largely irrelevant to everybody else (they aren’t, of course). Second, once again, the business of philosophy (of science, in particular) is not to solve scientific problems — we’ve got science for that (Julia and I explain what philosophers of science do here). To see how absurd Krauss’ complaint is just think of what it would sound like if he had said that historians of science haven’t solved a single puzzle in theoretical physics. That’s because historians do history, not science. When was the last time a theoretical physicist solved a problem in history, pray?"
Pigliucci's remarks are of common sense. In any person who is not affected by hidden irrationality factors would understand those points. But these points are clearly beyond Krauss' intellectual powers. He simply cannot grasp them.
In a postcript to his post, Pigliucci comments "As people have pointed out, Krauss has issued an apology of sorts, apparently forced by Dan Dennett. He still seems not to have learned much though. He confuses theology with philosophy (in part), keeps hammering at a single reviewer who apparently really annoyed him (in the New York Times), and more importantly just doesn't get the idea that philosophy of science is NOT in the business of answering scientific questions (we've got, ahem, science for that!). It aims, instead, at understanding how science works. Really, is that so difficult to understand, Prof. Krauss?"
I don't want to sound as a defender of Krauss, but to Pigliucci's question, I have to answer YES: It is very difficult (for Krauss) to understand that, because he suffers from Jime's Iron Law. What Pigliucci doesn't understand is that atheists affected by this law are intriniscally IMPAIRED to understand certain things (specially difficult and subtle concepts related to God or spirituality, and the concept of "nothing" is one of them because God is supposed to be creator of the universe from nothing... so the concept "creation of out nothing", implied by the absolute origin of the universe, is far beyond the intellectual reach of hard-core atheists. Jime's Iron Law forces them to misunderstand the concept of nothing in order to avoid the theologically charged concept of creation out of nothing).
Now, Pigliucci correctly complains that physicists in particular seems to be affected by the "nothing=something" confusion and ignorance of philosophy. Another philosopher, Edward Feser, also makes the same observation.
They're a right. But I think the imbecility of the "nothing is something" view is attached to more to the atheist's mindset than to a concrete discipline. The proof of this is that atheists who are NOT physicists also commit the same stupidity. Just consider zoologist Richard Dawkins and atheist writer John Loftus:
If the "nothing is something" confusion were induced by particular training in physics, we won't see non-physicists arguing like that (moreover, we would see these people REALIZING that what they're sayings is a straightforward imbecility whick makes them look like idiots and causes laughs in observers or readers).
Now, Jime's Iron Law can be seen not only in the "nothing is something" confusion, but in the "What caused God?" question too (or similar ones, like "God is not an explanation, because God himself remain unexplained", which is even more stupid than the "What caused God?" question). Dawkins is a leading exponent of this kind of first-rate stupidity:
Clearly, we're in presence of a phenomenon which goes beyond any field or discipline. It has to do with ATHEISTS as such.
Only people armed with Jime's Iron Law will understand (and predict) these things.
People like Krauss and Dawkins have destroyed their own intellectual credibility for ever.
0 comments:
Post a Comment