That’s the speech of a politician or a motivational speaker He needs to go into politics. It was a nice soapbox speech though, I’ll give him that.
Substitute America for Science and Communism for Religion and you have a nice speech for the 1950s America.
Horray for democracy over communism. I mean… Horray for science over religion. “merika! yey.
Scientists shouldn’t have to be considerate, yes. I agree. It’s the crossing over into political activism that’s a little strange. I wouldn’t even mind it, but they should form a party like everybody else instead of calling the activism science, which it isn’t.
thanks for the heads up on that. I wasn’t aware of them. That’s what Krauss should be speaking from then. At it stands, it’s misleading to mixup his atheism, with politics, with science and science spokesperson. People get confused and consider them all Science.
He can do what he likes. But in his role as Science Spokesperson on educational TV, I think he also has a responsibility to his role, that’s all. I have my opinion too, but he has an audience of millions who look up to him.
all that you said is fine. But he’s crossing over delicate lines in this article like a bulldozer. He’s going into divisive territory. Rather than speaking for, or even speaking against a specific issue, he’s speaking against *IN GENERAL*, stereotyping a very large group of people, and saying that all scientists – and more critically, citizens who agree with him – become militant atheists.
It’s a call to arms.
Much different than education.
Carl Sagan also spoke against government misspending, quackery in science and quackery in religions. But arguing for militant atheism? No. He rarely stated his religious stance, which was agnostic.
Yet he faught for the same things. Krauss is taking it into another territory.