The Muddled Thinking & Sloppy Semantics of Lawrence Krauss

In this 3 part Reasonable Faith Podcast series, professional philosopher William Lane Craig critiques theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss on the muddled thinking and sloppy semantics of the arguments presented in Krauss’s book A Universe From Nothing.

Craig schools Krauss in the basics of rational thinking, linguistics, semantics and logical deduction – all important elements of the discipline of philosophy that Krauss so chauvanistically denigrates in his book and promotional interviews.

Bill Craig shows that Krauss would do well to educate himself better in the basics of the philosophy of science, philosophy of language, metaphysics and critical thinking. In this way Krauss might have avoided the elementary errors in his work, particularly his boo-boo in equating the term of universal negation “nothing” as if it is actually “something” – a distinct entity with its own ontology.

Craig goes onto to show that when Krauss arbitrarily uses the word “nothing” in his book – meaning dark energy in a quantum vacuum – he is still actually talking about “something” that exists prior to the Big Bang. In making this elementary error, Krauss does nothing to answer the question from Leibniz of “why there is something rather than nothing” – instead only succeeding in pushing the origin of the universe back one step further without answering anything at all — or is that nothing…

Krauss reveals himself as “nothing but” a crass apologist for anti-theistic scientism with a chip. If there ever was an example of prejudiced belief and motivational cognitive bias, Lawrence Krauss would fit the bill perfectly.

Listen to the three podcasts (dated 14th Feb, 23rd Feb & 1st Mar 2012) here or subscribe to the Reasonable Faith Podcast on iTunes here.