HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025652.jpg

1.88 MB

Extraction Summary

5
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Email thread
File Size: 1.88 MB
Summary

This document is an email thread from September 10, 2015, initiated by physicist Lawrence Krauss, sending a New Yorker article about militant atheism to Noam Chomsky and Jeffrey Epstein (using the alias 'jeffrey E.' and email 'jeevacation@gmail.com'). Chomsky replies with a lengthy philosophical argument against ridiculing religious dogma, suggesting secular dogmas (like nationalism) are more dangerous, and comments on the 'Davis' case (likely Kim Davis). The thread concludes at the top with a brief reply, likely from Epstein, stating a belief that religion plays a positive role in many lives.

People (5)

Name Role Context
Noam Chomsky Sender/Recipient
Responds to an article shared by Krauss; discusses secular vs. religious dogma and 'Davis'.
Lawrence Krauss Sender
Initiates the thread sharing a New Yorker article with Chomsky and Jeffrey Epstein.
Jeffrey E. Recipient
Addressed as 'jeffrey E.' with email 'jeevacation@gmail.com'. The top line of the document ('I think religion plays a...
Obama Mentioned
Referenced by Chomsky regarding 'Obama's mass murder campaign'.
Davis Mentioned
Referenced by Chomsky (likely Kim Davis) regarding refusing to do a job due to beliefs.

Organizations (5)

Name Type Context
The Origins Project at ASU
Lawrence Krauss's affiliation in signature.
Cosmology Initiative
Lawrence Krauss's affiliation.
School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department
Lawrence Krauss's department.
The New Yorker
Source of the article shared.
House Oversight
Document stamp indicating source of the file.

Relationships (3)

Lawrence Krauss Professional/Social Jeffrey Epstein
Krauss emails Epstein (jeffrey E.) directly to share an article.
Lawrence Krauss Professional/Intellectual Noam Chomsky
Krauss emails Chomsky to share an article; Chomsky replies with a detailed philosophical response.
Noam Chomsky Correspondent Jeffrey Epstein
Included on the same email thread; the top line of the document appears to be Epstein responding to Chomsky's points.

Key Quotes (5)

"I think religion plays a major positive role in many lives. . i dont like fanaticism on either side. . sorry"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025652.jpg
Quote #1
"in my opinion the secular religions – nationalist fanaticism, etc. – are much more dangerous."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025652.jpg
Quote #2
"Obama’s mass murder campaign"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025652.jpg
Quote #3
"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_025652.jpg
Quote #4
"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_025652.jpg
Quote #5

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,637 characters)

I think religion plays a major positive role in many lives. . i dont like fanaticism on either side. . sorry
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Noam Chomsky [REDACTED] wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Foundation Professor
School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025652

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document