File 028936
Email Chain Between Lawrence Krauss and Noam Chomsky on Atheism and Dogma (File 028936)
Email correspondence from September 2015 between physicist Lawrence Krauss and linguist Noam Chomsky discussing an article about militant atheism, with debate over the merits of ridicule versus evidence-based argumentation in confronting religious and secular dogma.
Summary
Lawrence Krauss forwards a New Yorker article to Noam Chomsky and Jeffrey E., sparking a discussion about confronting dogma and the role of ridicule in intellectual discourse. Chomsky argues for evidence-based argumentation over ridicule when addressing irrational beliefs, whether religious or secular, while distinguishing between refuting ideas and disrespecting the people who hold them. Krauss clarifies his position that pointing out logical inconsistencies and contradicting evidence constitutes a form of subjecting ideas to scrutiny rather than personal ridicule.
From: Lawrence KraussSent: 9/10/2015 8:09:42 PMTo: jeffrey E. [jeeyacation@gmail.com]Subject: Fwd: an article you may both hate. or like.Attachments: DA866543-7401-4A5A-8E50-FD32E33A5OEC.png; DA866543-7401-4A5A-8E50-FD32E33A5OEC.pngImportance: HighLawrence M. KraussDirector, The Origins Project at ASUFoundation ProfessorSchool of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics DepartmentArizona State University, P.O. Box 871404, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404Research Office: AssistantOrigins Officeorigins.asu.edu I twitter.comilkraussl I krauss.faculty.asu.eduSent from my iPhoneBegin forwarded message:From: "Noam Chomsky"Date: September 10, 2015 at 12:01:39 PM MSTTo: Lawrence Krauss <Subject: RE: an article you may both hate. or like.Then we're in complete agreement.NoamFrom: Lawrence Krauss [mailto:Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:46 PMTo: Noam Chomsky ____________________Subject: Re: an article you may both hate. or like.I couldn't agree more. Re ridicule. I never suggest ridiculing people. However by pointing out the inconsistency,or contravening evidence associated with various ideas, including for example American exceptionalism, thenwe are essentially subjecting ideas to ridicule. That is what I meant.Lawrence M. KraussDirector, The Origins Project at ASUFoundation ProfessorSchool of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics DepartmentArizona State Universit, P.O. Box 871404, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404Research Office: AssistantHOUSE OVERSIGHT 028936Origins Officeorigins.asu.edu I twitter.comilkrausst I krauss.faculty.asu.eduSent from my iPhoneOn Sep 10, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Noam Chomsky < > wrote: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. — aremuch more dangerous. And if some find rational discussion offensive — as, for example, mainstream academics finddismantling 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, whilerecognizing that perfectly honest and deluded people may believe it and should be treated with respect, while theirbeliefs are confronted with evidence. I also don't see why we should ridicule religious dogma, just as I don't think weshould ridicule the much more pernicious secular dogmas. Rather, we should respond to irrational belief with argumentand 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, whenthe icon and founding father of sober non-sentimental Realism in International Affairs informs us that the US, unlikeother countries, has a "transcendental purpose," and the fact that it constantly acts in contradiction to its purposedoesn't matter because the facts are just "abuse of history" while real history is "the evidence of history as our mindsreflect it," then it's hard to avoid ridicule. But we should. There's no point ridiculing virtually the entire IR professionand 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 employmentrequire (including following the law), then she can quit and look for another job. As in any other such case.NoamFrom: Lawrence Krauss [mailtolSent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:51 AMTo: Noam Chomsky ; jeffrey E. <jeevacation@email.com>Subject: an article you may both hate. or like.hope all is well.Lawrencehttp://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheistsLawrence M. KraussDirector, The Origins Project at ASUCo-Director, Cosmology InitiativeFoundation ProfessorSchool of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics DepartmentHOUSE OVERSIGHT 028937Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871404, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404Research Office AssistantOrigins Officeorigins.asu.edu I twitter.comilkraussl I krauss.faculty.asu.edu<image001.png>HOUSE OVERSIGHT 028938