I was intrigued by what Dr. Krauss had to say concerning his own specific scientific discipline. The knowledge he has and shared does cause one to be prompted to wonder and awe. That having been said, his vitriolic arrogance was in full display when it came to his dogmatic assertions about religion and philosophy. The entire foundation for his unlearned stand was demolished by the woman who simply asked him to give an answer for the origin of love. Obviously stumped, he stumbled back into his argument of making further dogmatic assertions about chemical processes and the like yet with no scientific evidence to support his position.
Also as I listened, I heard him at the beginning be sure to remove the possibility of meaning or reason or purpose by removing the question why from the discussion. Even later on when he inadvertently used the word why, he was quick to correct himself so as to not destroy his own presuppositions. Yet having removed meaning and reason from his own worldview, he constantly used words infused with that which he himself refused to believe. Words like important, should, ought, good , better, right, these all imply a moral imperative that answers the question why and drives the person who uses and believes in them. The question then becomes, if there is no reason or meaning or purpose, why should we even care about what he has to say? He operates in a world infused with purpose and meaning yet having discovered it himself as evidenced by his own use of language, he himself refuses to acknowledge it. That seems to be intellectually dishonest.
Lastly, in this discussion, he himself again acknowledges that there is so much that remains unknown and I assume that he means that he also has not arrived at the state of infinite knowledge. My question would be then, how can he be so arrogantly dogmatic about the existence of God. He, in his atheistic stance, presupposes that he himself has infinite knowledge.
More information about text formats