WSJ Refused To Publish Lawrence Krauss' Response To "Science Proves Religion" 556
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.
HHG Strikes Again (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I applaud your dedication to the faith.
A Simple Retort (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Re:A Simple Retort (Score:5, Insightful)
Note: My philosophy is "when you die, you're dead."
My philosophy is "when you die, your relatives will throw out 99% of what you own." So throw your stuff out first, live with less and be happy.
Re: A Simple Retort (Score:4, Funny)
Throw your relatives away before and you'll be even happier.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be by with a truck to pickup your good stuff.
Re:A Simple Retort (Score:5, Interesting)
You have that a little wrong. God *can* (in principle) be proven. If the sky breaks open, choirs of angels break forth, a 10km-long arm reaches down from the skies and an 8km golden-haired, bearded face looks down upon humanity and utters words of unshakable truth...then God is proven.
God cannot, however, be DISproven. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. So, you're right, science cannot ever say, definitively, that god doesn't exist. It also can't disprove the hypothesis that the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn...or any other random idea that humans might come up with that entails a literally omnipotent/omniscient being.
But that COMPLETELY misses what this is all about. The original WSJ article is a non-scientist claiming that science has indeed proven the existence of god. That's quite clearly incorrect...and I think you'd have to look very hard to find a competent scientist in the fields involved who'd agree with that claim. So WSJ (essentially) published something that's completely untrue, incorrect, misleading - just plain *WRONG*...and journalistic integrity says that they should now be working very hard to fix that...not rejecting a perfectly sensible response from someone who knows exactly what he's talking about.
So bad on WSJ...and at least we can make that badness clear by discussing it here.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, in my mind, Jesus will return some day. There will be rolling peals of thunder, clouds will part, the trumpets will blare, and He will majestically float to Earth. He'll be meeting and greeting..."Hi ya, how ya doing?" After a few hours of this, He looks at his watch, and says that time is awasting. The peals of thunder start again, the trumpets blare, He majestically floats upward, the clouds close in. And His promise of return has been fulfilled. He's a busy guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Or not.
We can do that with CGI now. In 100 years, maybe we'll be able to do it live-action.
Re:A Simple Retort (Score:5, Insightful)
God cannot, however, be DISproven. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Well, up to a point. Many theologies try to make claims that amount to predictions: God will answer your prayers etc. So far, none of these have passed the test, thus demonstrating that whether God is real or not, the theologies that try to make us believe that he is, are not true. Most people would long have abandoned a concept with such a poor track record. The only reason why some people hold on to this, as far as I can see, is bullying: every time you dare raise the question of why God never answers even the most reasonable prayers, or the most desperate ones, or indeed any prayers at all, you are met with "How dare you test God?!? Who are you to demand any proof of God?!?". Bullying, plain and simple. If God was real and cared about us, he wouldn't be so petty, I'm sure.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a bad acid trip, or a good rock concert. With sufficiently advanced technology you can do a lot of showmanship to claim to be god.
Proving that, however, is simply not possible. I would immediately assume any such
Specific claims can be disproven (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"You have that a little wrong. God *can* (in principle) be proven. If the sky breaks open, choirs of angels break forth, a 10km-long arm reaches down from the skies and an 8km golden-haired, bearded face looks down upon humanity and utters words of unshakable truth...then God is proven."
No, God isn't proven. It might very well be an alien.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're going to invoke an omnipotent being who has no limitations on his possible actions, then no, such a being could never be proven, since every possible observation would be compatible with his existence.
Special effects, no matter how elaborate, do not constitute a proof of God.
Re: (Score:3)
It might very well be an alien.
The PC term is "undocumented".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$1,000,000? That is one expensive tab of acid.
Incorrect (Score:2)
No you have only proven an entity is capable of that. You have not provided evidence that that entity is a god or similar avatar. Misquoting clark : sufficientely advanced science can look like magic. How do you prove that enti
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore the denominator.
How many planets with liquid water, an atmosphere and a magnetosphere?
You don't know?
The probability that life would develop on any given planet (even assuming the 'standard' number is not pure BS) is not sufficient to do the analysis of probability that life would develop.
This is aside from all the other problems with the 'tornado assembles a 747' argument. Complex life was not formed in a single random event.
The odds that an individual sperm containing half of your DNA wo
Re: (Score:2)
The nature of God is such that it cannot be proven. Otherwise, we lose the choice to believe.
I am sitting in a chair. The chair is observable, provable, and I know for certainty that is it holding me up. It requires no faith, and in fact my consideration of the chair is nothing more than an afterthought. I take this chair for granted, and it is thus not quite so important to me as the things I cannot see but fear: my bank balance, flu strains, how my puppy is doing at home when I am not watching her. A god who is observable and provable, with enumerable powers, isn't really a god at all, is he? It
Re: (Score:2)
The nature of God is such that it cannot be proven. Otherwise, we lose the choice to believe.
Belief is not a choice.
For example, you don't have the choice to believe that you exist. You either believe that, or don't.
If I wake up one day and say today I'm choosing to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'd be just pretending to believe in Him. Of course if I actually truly believed in His Noodly Appendage, then I wouldn't have the choice to simply un-blieve in Him anytime I like. Otherwise I would just be pretending.
Fair and balanced, just like Fox News. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. WSJ is now just a version of Fox News with wood and brushed metal paneling on it, aimed at a wealthier set of idiots looking for their reality-incompatible worldview to be confirmed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And like Fox news, the WSJ doesn't believe the tripe in this article. It's just another tactical maneuver to discredit the rest of legitimate journalism for refusing to print reasonable sounding 'opposing views'. To them, it's irrelevant that those opposing views are based on easily countered, cherry-picked data. But the real goal is to lend legitimacy to right-wing pols and think tanks that use the so-called "liberal bias of the mainstream media" as the only evidence that their arguments make any sense
It's not your father's Wall Street Journal (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
This Again (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree that it is easy to be both scientific and religious. These traits are strongly inversely correlated. One of the basic tenets of religion is to accept certain truths without questioning them, which is an antithesis of good science.
Yes, there are some good/very good scientists which are also _somewhat_ religious. But very good and _very_ religious/devouted at same time.. not common, at least not after XIX century.
[cue some clueless fellow claiming Einstein to be religious person]
Murdoch Bought the WSJ (Score:5, Informative)
Analogy (Score:2)
Fresh from Rupert Murdoch's press (Score:2)
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
Because... (Score:2)
Way to go WSJ...
There's no point in having a useless debate. I question them posting the original article, but there's no reason to make it worse by pretending there's any way to come up with a retort. Science cannot, ever, prove or disprove religion. Period. Religion cannot, ever, prove or disprove Science. They are polar opposites and not related.
At best, Science could claim that Religion is an fascinating form of Philosophy and an interesting topic for study. While Religion could say that Science was an
Schizophrenic company (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Except that... (Score:2)
All this says is that scientifically, one cannot prove the existence of God simply trough appearance of design, because evolution is capable of producing the same appearance. It does not say, however, that such an appearance is necessarily
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You not only missed the article but the summary also. What was not printed was an attempt at proof FOR religion, not against it.
You've got it exactly backward. (Score:5, Informative)
"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.'"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TFS is two sentences long. You clearly understood neither.
What WAS printed was a claim by a non-scientist that science had proven god.
What was NOT printed was a rebuttal by a scientist saying "science has proven no such thing and stop speaking for science".
Re: (Score:2)
Infidel. Only my invisible tyrant is valid! YOU WILL BE PUNISHED!
Re:America... fuck yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't agree with the WSJ editorial, it was just that, an editorial. They have a right to their own spin on their editorial page. If that means they come across as narrow-minded squits with a scientific IQ of 0, well, so be it.
Re: (Score:3)
What if Zeus is right and the Christian god is wrong? What if Odin is right and Zeus is wrong? Choices, choices...
Re: Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
WSJ news and editorial divisions are two (Score:2)
Re: Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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... [nytimes.com] It was the greatest tragedy that journalism has ever suffered.
Re: Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not. A scientist's argument when dealing with science is more likely to be valid, yes. But it is no more valid based purely on their author's characteristics. To say that one argument is more valid because it was written by a scientist is a classic appeal to authority.
Re: Yawn (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Dumping the Magisteria POV... whoops (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 beca
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good practice to get both sides of the story. When I read something controversial, I always think, "Sounds pretty convincing. What's the other side?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is, every time there's an op-ed piece, someone get's to have a retort published? Really?
So what you are saying is that it is invalid to discuss the editorial policies of major newspapers?
No, that would be just another hyperbolic outburst of the sort that I am replying to here.
Re: Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there isn't. But there is this notion of journalistic ethics.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Actually, there is a right of reply. It's not a law, but it's a standard journalistic practice, and it's in every newspaper style book I've ever seen (including the New York Times style book). The WSJ used to apply that rule religiously, until Murdoch took over. If they had a news story attacking socialism, they would get a response from a socialist.
The reason is, good information is valuable (and sells). A news story that gets both sides is more informative and useful than a news story that gets only one s
Re: (Score:3)
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 a
Re:Yawn (Score:4)
I honestly can't tell if you're being ironical, or moronical.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the WSJ editors are here in force.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Who like to take science, and pretend that it disproves God" - no, they say God is more and more improbable.
"that is says that every religious person is ethically and intellectually inferior to themselves." - you must work for Fox news
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get this from Krauss. Hitchens maybe, did not like his approach. Krauss and Dawkins are not as aggressive, they only say they need proof and they challenge absurd assumptions based on faith alone. They even say it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. What we know about the universe today leads us to believe that there isn't but in the end it is impossible to know for sure.
Re: (Score:3)
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 demonstr
Null hypothesis (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Null hypothesis (Score:5, Insightful)
Which god? What happens if you believe in the wrong one and the real god ends up super pissed off? For all you know, the god you believe in might be an ex of the real god.
You might very well be worse off than if you had believed in no god.
Pascals Wager has been a discredited reason for believing in a god for a long time now.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, philosophy is science by pure reason. It's just been superseded by evidence-based science over the last couple of hundred years.
That old chestnut, "science can't prove x, so must be god" doesn't even deserve a retort. Really, I don't know why my fellow atheists bother. You just lend the fools credibility by responding.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, philosophy is science by pure reason. It's just been superseded by evidence-based science over the last couple of hundred years.
Pure reason is not science and never has been.
Re: (Score:2)
Before Locke formalized the scientific method it was something else entirely. Philosophical thought about the nature of the world. Including loads of 'scientific' nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Science is self correcting, meaning it is flawed. People who believe and promote that science is perfect (or pretend to be) do a disservice to what Science actually is, knowledge of the world as we can understand it. That understanding is improving, but not perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Thus proving their prejudice. The 'paper of record' should not be prejudiced.
Re: (Score:2)
What prejudice? They have a right to publish whatever they feel like.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is prejudiced. Pretending one is not is itself prejudice of sorts.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of bias though is it? The assumption I'm seeing is that, the WSJ doesn't want to print the retort for religious or support of religious reasons. But is that the case? Could it just be that they don't feel the need, desire, or inclination to publish every letter to the editor that comes out? Could it be that they might have thought that there were other articles that were deserving to be printed? And let's be honest, from what I saw of the letter, it's short. I can't believe that it really had anyt
Re: (Score:2)
And everyone else has a right to judge the publishing decisions by whatever criteria they please.
Do we really have to do this rather bizarre "using First Amendment violates it" dance every time someone is criticized on Slashdot in any way?
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about the first amendment. It's their business, they put what's in that paper. It's their decision. Got nothing to do with the First Amendment, so I'm not sure what the quotes were for.
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I can agree with that, but do we really want a slashdot summary for every time somebody decides to write a response letter to some op-ed piece? This is just drama, not actual news.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well the clickbait mentality has well permeated through both new and old media. "News articles" are just a different color of advertizing, they are designed to attract eyeballs to sell them to the advertisers. We may very well have entered a post journalism era.
#newjournonormal
But good on Dawkins for doing so. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't read either because I can't read the original behind the paywall. I have no need to read a retort to something I can't read and I have no desire to read something that I can't fact check (i.e. make sure the retort doesn't make things up).
Re:The same Lawrence Krauss (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Metaxas' entire article seems to hinge on a failure to understand the anthropic principle. It's not even remotely a novel argument, either. Why the WSJ decided it was worth printing in the first place, I'm not sure.