HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025637.jpg
1.97 MB
Extraction Summary
6
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email thread
File Size:
1.97 MB
Summary
An email thread from September 2015 initiated by Lawrence Krauss, sending a New Yorker article about militant atheism to both Noam Chomsky and Jeffrey Epstein (using the alias jeevacation@gmail.com). Chomsky replies with a detailed philosophical rebuttal regarding the use of ridicule against religious and secular dogmas, while also commenting on 'American exceptionalism,' 'Obama's mass murder campaign,' and the controversy surrounding Kim Davis. The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Noam Chomsky | Sender (top email) / Recipient (bottom email) |
Renowned linguist and philosopher; replying to Krauss with thoughts on secular religion, ridicule, and Kim Davis.
|
| Lawrence Krauss | Sender (bottom email) |
Physicist and Director of The Origins Project at ASU; sent an article link to Chomsky and Jeffrey Epstein.
|
| Jeffrey E. | Recipient (bottom email) |
Addressed via email 'jeevacation@gmail.com' (a known Jeffrey Epstein alias). Included in the email loop by Krauss.
|
| Obama | Mentioned |
Referenced by Chomsky regarding 'Obama's mass murder campaign'.
|
| Davis | Mentioned |
Likely Kim Davis (county clerk); Chomsky comments on her refusal to do her job/follow the law.
|
| Jessica | Assistant |
Listed as Assistant to Lawrence Krauss in his email signature.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Arizona State University (ASU) |
Employer of Lawrence Krauss.
|
|
| The Origins Project at ASU |
Lawrence Krauss is Director.
|
|
| Cosmology Initiative |
Lawrence Krauss is Co-Director.
|
|
| The New Yorker |
Publisher of the article shared by Krauss.
|
|
| US House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Address for Arizona State University in Krauss's signature.
|
Relationships (2)
Krauss includes Epstein (as Jeffrey E.) on an email sharing an intellectual article alongside Noam Chomsky.
Krauss shares articles with Chomsky; Chomsky replies with detailed philosophical commentary.
Key Quotes (4)
"secular religions – nationalist fanaticism, etc. – are much more dangerous."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025637.jpg
Quote #1
"mainstream academics find dismantling myths of 'American exceptionalism' or 'Israeli self-defense' or Obama’s mass murder campaign, etc., offensive – so be it."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025637.jpg
Quote #2
"I also don’t see why we should ridicule religious dogma, just as I don’t think we should ridicule the much more pernicious secular dogmas."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025637.jpg
Quote #3
"On Davis, I frankly think that’s a non-issue. If she decides she cannot do her job as the conditions of employment require (including following the law), then she can quit and look for another job."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025637.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,651 characters)
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Noam Chomsky <[REDACTED]> wrote:
Thanks for sending. A wide area of agreement, but not total.
Thanks for sending. A wide area of agreement, but not total.
On confronting dogma, I 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.
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 I 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. I also don’t see why we should ridicule religious dogma, just as I 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
virtually the entire IR profession and the major journals, even though such extraordinary irrationality leads to major
human disasters.
recognizing that perfectly honest and deluded people may believe it and should be treated with respect, while their
beliefs are confronted with evidence. I also don’t see why we should ridicule religious dogma, just as I 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
virtually the entire IR profession and the major journals, even though such extraordinary irrationality leads to major
human disasters.
On Davis, I frankly think that’s a non-issue. If she decides she cannot do her job as the conditions of employment
require (including following the law), then she can quit and look for another job. As in any other such case.
require (including following the law), then she can quit and look for another job. As in any other such case.
Noam
From: Lawrence Krauss [mailto:[REDACTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:51 AM
To: Noam Chomsky [REDACTED] Jeffrey E.
Subject: an article you may both hate. or like.
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:51 AM
To: Noam Chomsky [REDACTED] Jeffrey E.
Subject: an article you may both hate. or like.
hope all is well.
Lawrence
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists
Lawrence M. Krauss
Director, The Origins Project at ASU
Co-Director, Cosmology Initiative
Director, The Origins Project at ASU
Co-Director, Cosmology Initiative
Foundation Professor
School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department
Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871404, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404
Research Office: [REDACTED] Assistant (Jessica): [REDACTED]
School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department
Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871404, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404
Research Office: [REDACTED] Assistant (Jessica): [REDACTED]
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025637
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document