…by Jonas E. Alexis
Lawrence Krauss is an interesting fellow. You can rightly say that is an academic superstar. This can easily be proved by taking a casual look at his books such as his best-seller The Physics of Star Trek.
Krauss is a physicist at Arizona State University, but he usually spends his time hanging out with pedophiles like Jeffrey Epstein, who once cruise with Stephen Hawking on Epstein’s own “Island of Sin.” It was reported that:
“Hawking was one of 21 internationally-renowned scientists attending a conference, funded by Epstein, on gravity at the Ritz-Carlton hotel on neighbouring island St Thomas… Besides Hawking, there were three Nobel laureates on the trips… Legal documents have claimed that Epstein’s properties were decorated with photographs of naked adolescent girls.”
The interesting thing is that after Epstein admitted that he paid underage girls to have sex with him, Krauss was on the front line defending his close friends. Krauss unapologetically said:
“As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people.”
Rebecca Watson, a fellow atheist and feminist, declared that “Krauss’ statement is extremely disturbing and makes scientists look like ignorant, biased fools who will twist data to suit their own needs.”
The question then becomes: why did Krauss really humiliate the scientific community by inexorably associating science—or shall we say scientism—with pedophiles? Well, Krauss launched the Origins Project at Arizona State, and Epstein was actually paying Krauss’ bill. “Epstein was one of the Origins Project’s major donors.”
The Origins Project featured public intellectuals like Steven Pinker of Harvard. So Krauss had some financial stake if Epstein was proven to be a pedophile. Kraus had basically three choices: he could have stayed quiet about Epstein’s accusations; he could have declared that Epstein was guilty as charge; or he could have said Epstein is a nice old man whose character and integrity had been placed under the balance.
For Krauss to stay quiet would have been an embarrassment to the man who had poured thousands upon thousands of dollars to the Origins Project. For him to say that Epstein was guilty as charged would have sent him to what one ought to call economic Siberia. According to the Inside Higher Education, “Krauss said he would feel cowardly if he turned away from Epstein…”
Krauss, in that sense, had only one choice: defend a pedophile. Robert Trivers, “a Rutgers University biologist who received about $40,000 from Epstein to study the link between knee symmetry and sprinting ability,” also defended Epstein by saying:
“By the time they’re [the underage girls] 14 or 15, they’re like grown women were 60 years ago, so I don’t see these acts as so heinous.”
There might be another reason as to why Krauss ended up supporting his buddy: Krauss had been accused of sexual misconduct by numerous independent college students and women as well. In fact, Kraus was banned from Arizona State University when his sexual investigation was going on.
Other organizations such as The American Physical Society and The Center for Inquiry have all suspended their association with Krauss. Krauss eventually “resigned from the board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which is best known for its Doomsday Clock that represents that danger of atomic war and other calamities to the planet.”
What is Krauss’ overarching argument? Simple. He told the Guardian back in 2012 that “our understanding of neurobiology and evolutionary biology and psychology will reduce our understanding of morality to some well-defined biological constructs.”
The plot thickens. If morality can be reduced to biology, then we are in deep trouble because morality would no longer be obligatory or objectively binding. And if morality is not objectively binding, then it is perfectly legitimate to sexually harass women because what is wrong for one person may be absolutely right for another.
What we are seeing here is that people like Krauss are couching their wicked deeds under the umbrella of “science,” but the simple fact is that they just want to pursue an immoral lifestyle. Aldous Huxley was quite frank with his intellectual entourage when he declared explicitly in Ends and Means:
“For myself, as for no doubt most of my contemporaries, the essence of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation…We objected to the morality because it interferes with our sexual freedom.”
Who then were Huxley’s contemporaries, the ones who made up the “we” who objected to morality? Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, H. G. Wells, D. H. Lawrence, among others. (We know for example that Lawrence wrote at least one letter to Huxley.) Almost all of them followed Huxley’s anti-moral principle, embracing meaninglessness in some way.
Russell’s daughter Katherine Tait noted, “Having given up strict monogamy with the end of his first marriage, he no longer felt any need to restrict his affections, which he distributed most liberally throughout the rest of his life.” A
t one point, one of Russell’s lovers became pregnant by another man, which infuriated Russell, despite his philosophical stance on unfettered love.
At another point, he gave Katherine advice that directly contradicted his own behavior.
“Once I asked him if I should sleep with an amiable young man of my acquaintance. ‘Do you love him?’ ‘No, not really.’ ‘Then you shouldn’t. It’s best to save that for someone you love and not treat it lightly.’”
Although Russell saw no problem with his own pattern of promiscuity, he was not so cavalier with his daughter’s virginity. Because of these contradictions, Tait came to the realization that the atheism which her father had followed to his dying day was irrational and unsustainable.
Even in his parenting Russell displayed his inconsistent thinking. Once when Tait asked her father why she should do something, he answered merely that she would make more people happy by doing it than by avoiding it. That was it. No appeal to reason or preference or even higher authority—just social consensus.
Russell, an implacable mathematician and philosopher, was not able to convince his own daughter about his worldview. Tait concludes, “We felt the heavy pressure of his rectitude and obeyed, but the reason was not convincing—neither to us nor to him.”
Perhaps it is high time that people like Lawrence Krauss stop using the word “science” for their own wicked ideology, and we hope that his recent behavior has opened people’s eyes about why Krauss has deliberately misused science for his own sexual and financial gain.
-  “Stephen Hawking pictured on Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Island of Sin,’” Telegraph, January 12, 2015.
-  Ibid; for similar reports, see “Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had ‘regular’ orgies at his Caribbean compound that the former president visited multiple times,” Daily Mail, March 19, 2014; “The one weird court case linking Trump, Clinton, and a billionaire pedophile,” Politico, May 4, 2017.
-  Ibid; for similar reports, see also Alexandra Wolfe, “Katie Couric, Woody Allen: Jeffrey Epstein’s Society Friends Close Ranks,” Daily Beast, January 11, 2015.
-  M. L. Nestel, “Sleazy Billionaire’s Double Life Featured Beach Parties With Stephen Hawking,” Daily Beast, January 8, 2015.
-  Peter Aldhous, Azeen Ghorayshi, Virginia Hughes, “He Became A Celebrity For Putting Science Before God. Now Lawrence Krauss Faces Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct,” Buzzfeed, February 23, 2018.
-  Ibid.
-  Scott Jaschik, “Some Professors Defend Ties to Financier Accused of Using Underage Girls,” Inside Higher Education, February 2, 2015.
-  Ibid.
-  Chris Scragg, “ASU professor Lawrence Krauss accused of sexual misconduct,” The State Press, February 25, 2018.
-  Kenneth Chang, “Arizona State Suspends Lawrence Krauss During Inquiry Over Sexual Misconduct Accusations,” NY Times, March 7, 2018.
-  Julian Baggini and Lawrence Krauss, “Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?,” Guardian, September 9, 2012.
-  Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for their Realization (London: Chatoo & Windus, 1946), 273.
-  D. H. Lawrence, The Portable D. H. Lawrence (New York: Random House, 1986), 600-601.
-  Katherine Tait, My Father, Bertrand Russell (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1975), 46.
-  Ibid., 155-146.
-  Ibid., 184-185.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.