Yesterday, one of our top stories was “William Lane Craig is disingenuous, and he ‘shocked’ Larry Krauss” [his materialist atheist opponent].
The oddest thing about the story is that Krauss is, as it happens, a multi-awarded physicist, hailed by Scientific American as “one of the few top physicists who is also known as a “public intellectual.” Yet his post-debate comments sound like the circular rants of a sore loser.
The really interesting question is why such behaviour is so widely admired. Why do Krauss’s friends not discreetly suggest he quit talking like this?
Is materialist atheism so rotten that all behaviour, of whatever type, is admired – the way parents rejoice at the antics of a toddler – because, well, he is sentient? Thoughts?
Celeb British atheists Dawkins and Grayling have refused to debate Craig, despite in house criticism (here and here). Do they fear that, no matter what happens, someone might confuse them later with Larry “the Grouse” Krauss? Maybe their friends can’t stand all the whining … The desired dinner invitations might cease to arrive in bundles …
(Note: In 2009, I’d written about Krauss’s presentation at a Canadian science conference. He didn’t like what I said. )
Follow UD News at Twitter!