Why Religion is Outdated in the 21st Century - Lawrence Krauss
Answers in Insanity | 26.XI.2016
- 0:42 [Krauss on transsubstantiation]
"No one really believes that nonsense"
Says more about the kind of Catholics who Krauss would frequent than of Catholics in general.
Plus, I am not even sure he even got it from any Catholic at all, he might simply be expressing what he feels is an obvious "guess" which to him doesn't even feel like a guess.
As a sociologist, Krauss is very far from being scientific.
You may have heard of the uproar a few years ago when an atheist stole a host from a Catholic Mass?
Well, the atheist converted, but you can ask one certain P Z Myers of the détails.
Yes, we definitely DO believe "that nonsense" as Krauss likes to put it.
0:55 "Most of the Jews I know are atheists"
I think we can guess where Krauss gets his Catholic sociology from : from his real experience with Jewish sociology.
There are lots of Catholics I would consider apostates, but they are usually NOT atheists, they are some uneasy mix between Deism and still admitting Trinity, Incarnation and Sacraments - in a "scientific" context that falsifies part of the doctrinal content. Bergoglio is an apostate - but not an atheist, as far as I can tell.
- 1:09 "were created by Bronze Age or Iron Age peasants who didn't even know the earth orbitted the Sun"
Nice ... a rather persuasive argument for the people who don't realise that Heliocentric scientists occasionally speak like fools.
Note, Krauss, I didn't call you one!
You are presupposing two things:
- 1) that Geocentrism is false;
- 2) that this matters very much for the truth of revealed religions (like the Abrahamic and semi-Abrahamic ones previous to Freemasonry and Enlightenment).
Guess what? I tend to agree on the second point. Heliocentrism really has contributed to the rise of atheism and of certain religions non-akin to the Abrahamic ones.
But you still have to prove the first one, that Geocentrism is false.
- 1:21 "science has taught us how the world works"
Yes, more or less back in the times of St Thomas Aquinas or Riccioli, when science was Geocentric ... wait, you meant modern Heliocentric "science"?
1:29 "now for science God is completely irrelevant to something"
Not in the scientific paradigm of scholasticism ...
1:46 "the more we've learned about the natural world, the more we've learned you don't need divine intervention to explain anything."
Do you need atomic intervention to explain material objects?
Do you need intervention of forces measured in Newtons to explain movements?
You don't speak of intervention there, because they are regular features of your world view.
Well, there are in fact miracles and providential events in which we could say God "intervened" - namely between an already expected normal result and what actually happened.
But we don't think God's regular exercise of His power as Creator and Upholder of the Universe can be classified as an "intervention". We think these are THE most regular feature of the Universe there is, whatever is not God and still exists, has God as Creator and ultimate upholder.
That is why God can also intervene on occasions.
Now, the thing is, the explanations which do not accept God as a regular feature qua Creator and Upholder and which try to make this explanation superfluous are usually not very Empiric.
Heliocentrism has less need for God as Upholder - and is to this day unproven. As well as being un-empiric in the obvious sense and as being counterintuitive.
Moyboy and Big Bang and Planetary and Stellar formation from gas clouds and Abiogenesis from Primordial Soup and Evolution of all or nearly all (and all non-microscopic) life from one single LUCA has less need for God as Creator. It is also to this day unproven, un-empiric in the obvious sense and counterintuitive.
- 2:25 "force people's beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality rather than the other way round"
Well, Heliocentrics and Evolutionists are not exactly doing that.
2:40 Oh, you are also one umpteenth globalist science believer ...
If we all share the same reality, it does not follow we all share the same beliefs about it or the same attitudes to it.
National separations have allowed rationality - bolstered by the divine revelation - to survive at least in some countries.
Globalism can allow rationality to be persecuted world wide, because whoever is de facto running the "global society" is not agreeing with it.
2:47 "a morality based on rationality and not outmoded religious beliefs"
Translate that phrase word for word into German and take a wild guess who would be saying that in the 1920's 30's and first half of the 40's ... OK in the latter part of the 40's you will have Commies reviving in Russian occupation zone part of who was saying it in 20's and very early 30's. And there it will continue even to 1989.
- 3:22 "I wouldn't want to live in a universe with one, okay"
[with a God and a purpose]
Well, that is at least honest.
Here is where a Christian shows his sword on the fencing ground and says "en garde"
It explains your preference in science and explains your disdain and probably wilful ignorance for past paradigms in science.
- 3:45 "the purpose and meaning in our lives is what we make it"
You just spoke of global society.
Your words hold quite a lot of social hopes for those hoping with realism to be part of the cabale running it - and quite a lot of social apprehension for those who fear with some realism to have their lives clustered with this global "we" and have its meaning made what other men make it for them. Because that is what is being done "together".
Nimrod had a global society over in 37° 13′ 23″ North, 38° 55′ 21″ East. Also known as Göbekli Tepe. Also known as Babel.
In GT, you find skulls which have been pierced and piled vertically on ropes or strings. And Nimrod did get his share of obedience and social compliance, or quite a lot more than his share.
We know the story from the Hebrews - Heber and Peleg and the guys - who refused to be part of that. Those who ran GT in the carbon dated year 8600 BC actually buried GT in sand.
Tower of Babel is the part of the Genesis 1-11 story which is least likely to be retold in non-Hebrew legends around the world.
Creation? Sure. Flood? Plenty. A first couple? Fairly common. A first male being from which both sexes came? Sometimes in twisted versions suggesting hermaphroditism, but you have Ymer in Nordic Myths and Mannus in the Hindu ones. A kind of conflict severing us from God or from the gods? Yes, that too.
But a globalist project buried in national separations imposed by God or by gods ... no.
In fact, Mahabharata is about "India" as a global society - and I believe it fairly correctly reflects some aspect of a pre-Flood globalist Nod.
To Hindoos, it happened AFTER the Flood of Matsya during the Satya Yuga, while Mahabharata takes place between Dvapara Yuga and the present Kali Yuga.
The non-globalism of close to present society is a kind of anomaly to them, they have no real myth about how mankind lost its unity. Mahabharata shows a "global" society and somehow the Bharat dwindles from the world disc as a whole (except rim and Mount Meru) to what Hindus could see when Alexander, Moguls, Portuguese, English and French came, when Pakistan and Bangladesh became Muslim countries. That is why speakers of Sanskrit, Hindi and Tamil are in conflict, each thinking he speaks the original language and accusing the other of having neglected it.
Hence Tamil Tigers vs Sinhalese.
- 4:17 You can imagine a globalist and scientific society will continue to produce compassion.
We are all one species ... heard of transhumanism? Heard of species in which populations are in conflict and the best adapted ones win, which is advantageous for evolution of its becoming an even better species?
Well - those are strands of thought which you might not count as "scientifically accurate" but which come from the general outlines of your world view plus perhaps a little twist here and there, if even that.
It was science which in Sweden, Norway and Denmark gave us decades of Eugenicism.
Since we had no defeat in 1945, it continued to the 70's.
"no different from other animals ... evolved species ... we share the earth with"
Attention, transhumanism and veganism ahead.
- 4:38 "if we keep going back to this medieval or earlier myth, we won't adress that"
In fact, a medieval outlook on production as something which shall not just adequately feed and clothe and so on a reasonable number (all alive more or less) of consumers but also give wages to an adequate number of producers is part of a solution which will:
- neither be "population reductional"
- nor consume very much fossil fuel (local production = less transport, more work for hands = less work done by modern "energy sources")
- nor necessarily even be globalist, even if one can hope it will eventually cover the globe.
However, as things are going, this is not too likely.
- 5:17 Large Hadron Collider, Geneva
Sure, the hundred different people come from very many countries and speak very many mother tongues.
They even have very many different cuisines, festivals, dances, if that is what you mean by "different cultures".
But they share one culture, the scientific one. Or scientific technological one. Or the technocratic one.
An Indian who has a full scale Hindu national culture will probably not fit in there. A Hispanic with a full scale Catholic and rural Hispanic culture won't do so either.
It is not really about a real variety of full society peoples, it's about a single élite with diversified origins.
And diversified origins is always easier in the élite.
In the Middle Ages, you had élite who had part Arabic origins in Europe - since Crusaders had married locals - or part Armenian or part Byzantine - since Crusaders met others than just Arabs and went elsewhere than just Palestine.
But the locals they ruled were locals. The people in Tours were Gallo-Romans, not Arabs, widely.
- 6:04 Human culture is always one way or another, imposing our beliefs on nature.