Slashdot Mirror
WSJ Refused To Publish Lawrence Krauss' Response To "Science Proves Religion"
First time accepted submitter Kubla Kahhhn! writes Recently, the WSJ posted a controversial piece "Science Increasingly Makes a Case for God", written by non-scientist Eric Metaxas. Noted astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss wrote a simple and clear retort in a letter to the editor, which the WSJ declined to publish, but Richard Dawkins did.
Let me guess, it was written by Oolon Colluphid.
They didn't publish a retort from a respected scientist after publishing a some complete woo by a charlatan.
It's considered good journalistic practice to publish responses or apologies when you fuck up - not that I'm implying that WSJ deserves such high expectations.
The nature of God is such that it cannot be proven. Otherwise, we lose the choice to believe.
That said, science has yet to prove what the universe is, so how could we expect it to prove something outside of it?
Note: My philosophy is "when you die, you're dead."
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
"The article [which was printed] was written by the evangelical author Eric Metaxas, and in it, he argued that scientists have determined that life is so improbable it must have been created."
"Krauss concluded [in a letter which was not printed] by writing that '[r]eligious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist [Wall Street Journal] did a disservice to its readers.'"
They didn't print an opposing and well written view by one of the leading voices in the scientific community on this issue. So the claim here is that the WSJ are biased. But you are right about the yawn. That WSJ article was preaching to the choir and there are plenty of other places to get the counter view.
I would now expect nothing less from the WSJ, once it became a sister publication to the Boston Herald or the New York Post or any of the other myriad rag sheets put out by that wonderful, effervescent, owner, Rupert Murdoch.
There is no right of reply or requirement for any journalistic body in the US to print any opposing view point for anything, so why is this newsworthy?
It was bought by Murdoch in 2007 and it's editorial director fired in 2008. Since then, it's just another mouthpiece for conservative Republicans (Murdoch also owns Fox News). The Wall Street Journal purchase was made to make Murdoch's news organizations look respectable.
As is turns out, it was just an expensive suit on a cheap hustler who got lucky enough to get rich with media organizations after inheriting the family business from his father.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
When you publish something controversial (which the original article most certainly was) and take the word of someone who is self-evidently not an expert in the field about which he's writing - you really have to do one of two things:
a) Do careful fact-checking on the article and publish it as 'The Truth'...or...
b) Publish it as an op-ed piece - essentially saying "This is just the opinion of this guy".
This clearly wasn't (a) - so WSJ doesn't have to admit error or look bad in the eyes of the public. However, when accepting op-ed pieces, they need to be acutely aware of bias - and when a well-written response is provided - especially by an expert in the field - it deserves equal coverage...and that's where they failed.
I can actually understand them not wanting to publish this response as a "letter to the editor" kind of thing - but they really *should* commission an author with scientific credentials to write an opposing-view op-ed piece of more substantial weight.
www.sjbaker.org
Aren't they owned by News Corp now?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Institutions like the Wall Steet Journal no longer exist to serve meaningful information to people in order to assist in their formation of knowledge, wisdom, or even understanding of the wold around them. Thanks to clenchfist profiteering as a normative model of business in the 21st century we get articles about things that drive advertising revenue and in turn function as a means to consumption, not knowledge. Taking a cursory glance at the WSJ we have 'us stocks drop sharply' 'A Nonprofit Restaurant Falls to the Minimum Wage ' and 'Russian Fund Boss Vanishes '. the wallstreet journal, as does every other news outlet controlled by our modern robberbarons, pedals fear uncertainty and doubt as a model through which products and services are delivered, not practical or even contextual study of matters at hand
actual, useful information about how god is not in fact validated, or even designed to be validated, by science will not be tolerated. There is no product to be consumed or shared in this, and it may in fact be slightly detremental to the seasonal consumption holiday in the united states and other nations to simply tell people there isnt a valid point to be had in adhering to a religeon outside of subjugation. being told that a system of detection, observation and analysis has confirmed a superstition serves to re-enforce a behavior that benefits no one but plutocrats and oligarchs.
Good people go to bed earlier.
It's not just a business folding to the religious. If you want to spin this as a big problem, it's a respected news paper, now owned by News Corp (i.e. Fox News), pushing to validate religious beliefs. That is, you could push this as evidence that the Wall Street Journal has become a part of Fox News and is no longer reputable.
Or you could point out that newspapers often don't print letters and articles that people submit, and conclude that this isn't a big deal.
It really is tiring to see such incendiary articles posted to slashdot. I mean, whether religious or non, is anyone here hoping to have an intelligent or civil debate on the subject? Aren't you just allowing the editors to prove how well they are doing to their Dice overlords by pointing to a piece such as this and saying "look, 600 comments! think of all the ad-revenue this article must have generated!"
If you want to be religious and non-scientific, do that. Likewise, if you choose to be scientific and non-religious, do that as well. One can also be both or neither, and those are both valid options for how one should live his life, too. However, it serves no purpose but to further degrade the quality of this site when we engage in such a meaningless flame-war, especially when it is generated by such blatant pandering.
ergo unbiased, fair and balanced Op-Ed does not exist there
Mr Jrauss is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, so whatever his politial leanings, he is in fact qualified to hold an opinion on science; probably more so than Eric Metaxas or a jeering Anonymous Coward.
I honestly can't tell if you're being ironical, or moronical.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Frankly it's more surprising that a respectable publication, even a right-leaning one like the Wall Street Journal would think it's a good idea to wade into the religion/science "debate" even in its opinion section. Of course it is irresponsible for a newspaper to not publish articulate expert-authored responses to an opinion piece, newspapers have a responsibility to publish responses written by more-famous and more-qualified persons when the response meets the paper's basic standards. But the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch so I can't say this is a particularly surprising lapse of journalism. (This is hardly first time their editorials have been accused of deliberate bias imposed by the paper, over and above the author's opinion)
In defense of the WSJ, they do seem to keep their bias to the opinions section, which is the appropriate place for it after all.
More interesting will be seeing what the long term effects of Murdoch's influence does to the paper's reputation; in the extreme case it may turn out like Fox News (also owned by Murdoch) and become a punch line to anyone who isn't among their readership. Though I think it's more likely they will successfully navigate the slippery slope, and maintain their position despite having these minor scandals every year or so.
It's a bit depressing, since the editorial in TFA and all their climate nonsense are counterfactual in the fairly literal sense of ignoring and misapplying science and logic in a way that could nominally support any conclusion whatsoever. A newspaper of the WSJ's former caliber should and surely does know better, but such is the state of the american press in 2015.
And just because you are a minor celebrity does not mean that everyone has to bend over backwards and publish everything you write.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
That's not what he's saying, and you know it.
Strawman arguments are lies.
And there is no appeal to authority, because when the topic is science, a well-respected (note that I don't use scare quotes to dishonestly imply that this isn't really the case) scientist's opinion IS in fact more valid than a non-scientist's.
God cannot, however, be DISproven. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. So, you're right, science cannot ever say, definitively, that god doesn't exist.
True but science CAN definitively disprove specific claims about the nature of god. There are innumerable and fairly specific claims made in religious texts detailing the nature and actions of god(s). Many of these are of such a nature that they are falsifiable and thus can be subjected to scientific inquiry. Unsurprisingly most of these claims regarding god turn out to be made up nonsense when looked at objectively or have been so twisted from the actual facts as to be effectively unrecognizable from what actually occurred.
So if someone wants to make a completely vague assertion that there is a god and make no specific claims regarding the nature of said deity then no, science cannot disprove that. (though it doesn't mean we should believe said claim either) But it's hard to make a believable story about god without adding some details to the story and that is usually where the wheels come off. Claims about the physical world we live in can (frequently) be tested and dismissed as the made up poppycock that they so often are.
Having the right to publish whatever you feel like does not imply that you don't have prejudice. They choose to publish only the religious interpretation of some somewhat misunderstood facts, and not the scientific interpretation of the corrected facts. That is bias. They have the right to have that bias, but it is still bias.
Athiesm is philosophy, not science.
That is indeed true. However atheism is essentially a null hypothesis. It makes FAR more sense, in the absence of credible evidence, to believe that there is no "god(s)" than to by default in a theist position. Believing in a deity as a default position because you can't prove one doesn't exist is completely irrational. By comparison the only irrational position an atheist can take is to say they are unwilling to be convinced by credible evidence that a god of some description exists. But since no such credible objective evidence actually has ever been presented it's only irrational in principle since their conclusion (the null hypothesis) remains the same.
Since scientists tend to be rational thinkers they would logically start with the null hypothesis that there is no god unless evidence shows otherwise. Most would be willing to be convinced that god exists (call that agnosticism if you want) but can find no sane basis to do so without some amount of credible evidence. So they maintain the null hypothesis that there is no god as there is no evidence to move them from the null hypothesis.
Guys, calm down. This is the Wall Street Journal, the most schizophrenic company in the world. Read a couple of issues of the newspaper and you'll see what I mean.
Articles - 99% of the paper, well written, fact based pieces on current issues of the day. Not balanced since it's understandably tilted toward the business aspects of those issues but an extremely reliable source of information.
Editorials - 2 pages, far right diatribes with the basic premise that big business & capitalism == good, everything else bad.
I don't know how the feature reporters survive in that environment but I applaud them for living in a harsh environment and doing an excellent job.
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
They didn't publish a retort from a respected scientist after publishing a some complete woo by a charlatan.
It's considered good journalistic practice to publish responses or apologies when you fuck up - not that I'm implying that WSJ deserves such high expectations.
Some of the best essays I've read were letters of rebuttal in the WSJ editorial page.
The WSJ is a useful catalog of right-wing stupidity. When they were good, they published both sides of the argument. (Once in a rare while, they were actually right.)
I used to read them religiously every day, back in the days of paper, but I stopped after Murdoch bought them. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12... It was the greatest tragedy that journalism has ever suffered.
A scientists view of claims that "science proves religion" however, is likely to be *far* more valid. Especially in the typical case where the arguments are as blatantly misleading as "science says this is hard, so god must have done it" while ignoring that science also explains why we should expect it to happen anyway.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What if Zeus is right and the Christian god is wrong? What if Odin is right and Zeus is wrong? Choices, choices...
A scientists view of claims that "science proves religion" however, is likely to be *far* more valid. Especially in the typical case where the arguments are as blatantly misleading as "science says this is hard, so god must have done it" while ignoring that science also explains why we should expect it to happen anyway.
A scientist who claims that science proves religion if far more likely to be invalid! Why? Because religion involves that which is outside the natural world while science is about the natural world. Neither the supernatural or natural can be used to prove or disprove the other.
Oh bullshit. He chose December 25 and he constructed his tweet to lead in in almost identical phraseology to a Christmas sermon only to caveat the whole thing with the last section. The hell he didn't realize he was doing that. And then later he feigns amazement at the backlash. It's either on purpose or he's a dumbass.
a "well respected" scientist's opinion is no more valid than a "charlatan's.
Surely we would prefer the opinion of a scientist on the subject of what science can tell us? Unless you're a child of postmodernism where there are no wrong answers and everyone's opinion is equally valuable because we're all special little snowflakes?
You seem to be confusing "I don't care about it" with "it's not newsworthy." Your strongest argument is "they have the right to do it."
Well damn - nothing ever newsworthy involves somebody doing something they have the right to do? So if they start publishing pro-nazi propaganda that's not "newsworthy?"
The very fact that people are discussing the issue makes it newsworthy - your apathy notwithstanding.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
If we were talking subtle, well-reasoned arguments such as a skilled and honest theologian might make, I would agree with you. But mostly we're talking claims based on blatant misrepresentation of physical realities.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Likewise, atheism is not a lack of a value system. Just because I don't believe in some sort of higher power does not mean I don't have values.
Pretending that atheists are amoral is a fool's errand.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
The whole of "intelligent design" arguments come down to this same argument: something is really unlikely; therefore the only possibility left is god. It's not a scientific argument. It's not even a logical argument. It's an emotional one predicated on couching it in emotional terms and then relying on the fallacy that unlikely things never happen, or pseudo-mathematically, "p == 0 for p epsilon, for suitably small values of epsilon".
It's really an argument from ignorance. "Anything I can't understand must have been made by god."
A Scientists view of GOD is no more valid because he is a Scientist. Neither is a Theologian's view of Science more valid because he is respected in Theology. Mind you, I haven't read either's article, because I think such arguments are silly, on both accounts :-P
The scientist in this case is making no assertions about God. He is only refuting scientific claims made by the previous author. He is clearly staying within his area of expertise. And regardless of any authority either side of the argument has, Krauss simply has the more well reasoned argument (not hard to have in this case).
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Good information doesn't necessarily sell unfortunatley. I'm willing to bet the WSJ editors have a much better understanding of what sells, and are activley using on that information. People looking for good, accurate information will probably get access to it for free.
At least up to the 1980s, the WSJ used to target the American elite -- every congressional office subscribed, corporate executives and top lawyers read it, and anyone else (like leftist revolutionaries) who wanted a free ride into what was going on in the halls of power and on the street. I could be wrong, but I think their circulation was 100,000, and they could get premium advertising dollar. They were run by the Bankroft (sp?) family, who according to insiders just hired the best editors they could get and told them to publish the best paper they could. The family was wealthy and the paper was very profitable. So they were free to do whatever they wanted. Who cared what sells? They were turning out the best journalism they could. And it was very good. You can read their old stories on the Pulitzer Prize web site.
Good, accurate information did sell. I bought it.
Then the phenomenal profitability tapered off, and the next generation of Bankrofts wanted to increase their profits and didn't have that dedication to great journalism.
First, they increased the circulation to something over 1 million. So instead of hard-hitting stories on coal mine fatalities or welfare, they started filling up additional sections with fluff on how to buy handbags. They weren't writing for that 100,000 elite any more, but for the 1 million broader circulation.
Then, Rupert Murdoch made his offer. He was the most unscrupulous scumbag in journalism, and he wanted the WSJ for its respectability. (Of course nothing could damage the WSJ's credibility more than having Murdoch own it.)
So now you can't trust the WSJ any more, because everything goes through Murdoch's right-wing partisan editors, like the Supreme Court.
One of the WSJ's best stories was a series they did during the Murdoch takeover on Murdoch's sordid history, and about the Bankroft family. I guess the editors and reporters figured they weren't going to be around much longer, so this was their moment to tell it all. For example, they pointed out that Murdoch agreed to have his newspapers ignore human rights abuses in China, in order to get an entry into China for his cable system.
You can't get that kind of stuff free on the Internet. The WSJ used to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees to get freedom of information requests from government agencies. They would send a reporter to Peru for an interview. They would spend 100 hours or more on one of those stories. They would interview dozens of people. They would hire people with good salaries who didn't have to worry about anything except doing their job.
Now, the people who write stuff on the rare paying blogs, like Scientific American's, or articles in Slate, get about $200-250 a story. You can't do any significant research for that kind of money.
LOL. If it's not outside the natural world, then it has every characteristic of the most dishonest bunkum, and no characteristics of something -- anything -- to do with objective reality. In other words, if you remove the "disjoint magisteria" claim from the assessment of religion, you don't have anything left worth a plugged nickle.
Which is not to say you have much with the "disjoint magisteria" argument; but at least you have something.
The whole argument boils down to "there's no scientific proof of religion because science has no access to religion, and that's the way God wants it." As soon as you assert science does have access to religion... game over, because now you require consensually experiential, repeatable evidence to back your assertion -- and no one's been able to meet that standard since day one. Not that it wouldn't be super if you could do it; but all of human experience lands on the side of the scale that says you won't.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
People have killed in the name of specific religions, that is to say specific ideologies that have the notion of a deity as a central tenet -- that does not equal "in the name of religion". People have killed in the name of specific ideologies that have the notion of the nonexistence of a deity as a central tenet -- which similarly does not equal "in the name of atheism".
I'm not making any value judgement on the relative "good and evil" of atheistic and religious ideologies -- I am simply trying to demonstrate the flaws in his logic.
(And of course, it should be remembered that there are also "secular" ideologies that in traditional terms are agnostic, and don't actually have any dogma on the existence or otherwise of any gods. One of my biggest concerns about "Christian conservatism" is their confusion of the secular separation of church and state as atheism.)
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Actually I think scientists have an insight into theology that actual theologians lack. Religious and tribal instincts were shaped by evolution, since they conferred a selective advantage to early humans. Back in the Stone Age, if someone shared your religion, you'd probably have more genes in common with them than with people of other faiths, and you're more likely to befriend and ally with them. But, it's a one way street. Aside from being research subjects, theologians have nothing to offer in return except for denial.
I don't disagree with the first part of your statement, but I think that in the area of psychology, there could be quite a bit of overlap between theology. For instance, the catholics have something called an annulment that people must go through if they've been divorced and want to get married again. There is also statistical evidence to show that the divorce rate among catholics who went through it is statistically lower than those who didn't. Now, is it because some magical thing happened or is it because in the process they have to deal with all of the excess baggage they would carry into the next marriage? I'd opt for the second explanation, however, for the past 1000 years, they've figured out it was good.
Or take the ancient Jews. They believe that their God told them not to eat pork. What we know through science is that the primitive cooking styles back then would not adequately kill off the worms and if eaten people would become sick. Regardless of whether one uses ancient theology or modern science, we would come to the same conclusion.
My point being is that so much of theology and science is based on actual experience. Of course, the scientific method is more efficient, but enough people eating undercooked pork and getting sick gets you to the same point. Heck, when I was in college, there was this new fangled thing called Quantum Theory and it was widely disputed. Now, it is pretty much mainstream. Why? Because our experience, this time through repeated experimentation and observation kept showing the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, I am not equating science and theology. They are two distinct things in their own realms. However, both depend on repeated experiences to come to their propositions.
As for theologians having nothing to offer, I'd be careful with that. In many fields, their were Jesuit Priests that were instrumental in them. They were both theologians and scientists.