File 028931
Email Chain Between Noam Chomsky and Lawrence Krauss Regarding Atheism and Religious Dogma (File 028931)
Email correspondence between Noam Chomsky and Lawrence Krauss discussing an article about scientific atheism, with Chomsky's perspective on confronting dogma and the role of ridicule in intellectual discourse.
Summary
Lawrence Krauss forwards a New Yorker article titled 'All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists' to Noam Chomsky and Jeffrey E., prompting Chomsky's detailed response. Chomsky agrees with confronting dogma but argues against ridicule, distinguishing between religious and secular forms of dogma like nationalism. He uses examples of International Relations scholars who espouse irrational views about American exceptionalism to illustrate why ridicule should be avoided despite the temptation, and addresses the Kim Davis case as a non-issue of employment law.
From: Noam ChomskySent: 9/10/2015 5:52:30 PMTo: Lawrence Krauss [CC:Subject: RE: an article you may both hate. or like.Attachments: image001.pngImportance: High; jeffrey E. [jeeyacation@gmail.com]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 [mailtoSent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:51 AMTo: Noam Chomsky jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.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 DepartmentArizona State University,P.O. Box 871404, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404Research Office: , AssistantOrigins OfficeHOUSE OVERSIGHT 028931origins.asu.edu I twitter.com/Ikraussl I krauss.faculty.asu.eduPal OrigKI.EciARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITYHOUSE OVERSIGHT 028932