HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029234.jpg

From: jeffrey E. [jeevacation@gmail.com] Sent: 9/18/2015 4:08:16 PM To: Lawrence Krauss Subject: Re: an article you may both hate. or like. Importance: — High you can invite depp to visit us when you are in the caribean On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Lawrence Krauss qa wrote: Ps. My piece argued against fanaticism. Lawrence M. Krauss Director, The Origins Project at ASU Foundation Professor School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871404, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404 Research Officc Iii i ///7/7/7/# Assistant Origins Offic Iii krauss@asu.edu origins.asu.edu | twitter.com/Ikraussl | krauss.faculty.asu.edu —— Sent from my iPhone On Sep 10, 2015, at 12:02 PM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote: I think religion plays a major positive role in many lives. . i dont like fanaticism on either side. . sorry On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Noam Chomsky <q wrote: Thanks for sending. A wide area of agreement, but not total. On confronting dogma, | of course agree — though in my opinion the secular religions — nationalist fanaticism, etc. — are much more dangerous. And if some find rational discussion offensive — as, for example, mainstream academics find dismantling myths of “American exceptionalism” or “Israeli self-defense” or Obama’s mass murder campaign, etc., offensive — so be it. But | don’t see why that should extend to ridicule. That includes astrologists. Astronomers can refute astrology, while recognizing that perfectly honest and deluded people may believe it and should be treated with respect, while their beliefs are confronted with evidence. | also don’t see why we should ridicule religious dogma, just as | don’t think we should ridicule the much more pernicious secular dogmas. Rather, we should respond to irrational belief with argument and 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, when the icon and founding father of sober non-sentimental Realism in International Affairs informs us that the US, unlike other countries, has a “transcendental purpose,” and the fact that it constantly acts in contradiction to its purpose doesn’t matter because the facts are just “abuse of history” while real history is “the evidence of history as our minds reflect it,” then it’s hard to avoid ridicule. But we should. There’s no point ridiculing HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029234