If nothing is sacred, then everything is for sale

Last updated on: September 10, 2015 at 4:07 pm by Fred Clark

If nothing is sacred, then everything is for sale 2015-09-10T16:07:51-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Lawrence Krauss tells us that we mustn’t trust anything he has to say.

I don’t think he meant to tell us that. Nor do I think he’s actually as mercenary and devoid of integrity as he insists that he is. I think he just doesn’t know what the word “sacred” means and thus, accidentally, winds up accusing himself of some awful things in the pages of The New Yorker.

Martin Longman (BooMan) summarizes:

In the process of defending “militant atheism,” physicist Lawrence Krauss writes something inadvertently revealing:

In science, of course, the very word “sacred” is profane. No ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass. The notion that some idea or concept is beyond question or attack is anathema to the entire scientific undertaking.

What a strange concept of “the sacred” this man has!

For him, something “sacred” is something that must not be questioned and that requires protection. It’s a word for something that must not be discussed. It’s like the only concept of the sacred he has is of the Holy Bible for people who believe it is the literal word of God.

I don’t want to get into a deep theological discussion here, but that’s a very pinched and truncated view of the sacred.

Fortunately, Krauss’ weird misuse of the word includes a clear definition of what he imagines it to mean. He believes that “sacred” means “some idea or concept is beyond question or attack.” That’s a serviceable definition of the word “dogma.”

In the sentences quoted above and throughout Krauss’ piece, that seems to be mainly what he’s talking about: Dogma. And if we read his essay as a lively rant against dogma, then it makes sense rather than nonsense, and Krauss comes across as he apparently intends — as a principled scientist, and a principled atheist, rather than as a hack-for-hire who would happily produce whatever data or results anyone paid him to produce just as long as the checks didn’t bounce.

Again, that’s not me saying that about him. That’s Krauss saying that about himself. Because everywhere he means to talk about dogma and dogmatic thinking, he instead insists on writing “sacred.”

And “sacred” does not mean that something “is beyond question.” It means that something is beyond price.

When we describe something as “priceless,” we usually don’t mean what that sounds like. When we say that some great work of art is “priceless” what we usually mean, rather, is that it has a very high price. Picasso’s Les Femmes d’Alger is a “priceless” masterpiece that sold for $179 million at auction this spring. You probably couldn’t afford its price, but it most definitely has one.

Sacred means more than that. It means we’re talking about something that cannot be bought and sold — something for which the very idea of price would be obscene.

To say that nothing is “sacred,” then, is to say that everything is for sale. This is not just a deeply cynical thing to say about the world, but a bitterly cynical thing to say about oneself.

To reject the idea of the sacred is to say that you will do anything for the right price. It means you would be willing to sell everything — including your integrity, including your commitment to science or to reason or to whatever other principles you tenuously hold until such time as someone offers you enough money to abandon them.

That’s why Krauss’ repeated attacks on the word “sacred” would be a horrific example of self-slander if we couldn’t otherwise tell he was misunderstanding and misusing that word. Because if we took him at his word, then we would have to conclude that we cannot take him at his word. For someone who believes “the very word ‘sacred’ is profane,” everything is for sale — including their word, their integrity, their reasoning, etc. People who believe that everything has a price cannot be trusted. We can never be sure that they’re saying what they believe to be true or just saying whatever the highest bidder has asked them to say.

Fortunately for Lawrence Krauss, his essay otherwise makes it very clear that he doesn’t actually reject the idea of the sacred. He makes it quite clear throughout that he is devoted to science and to scientific integrity and that he would never put those principles up for sale.

He also tells us, repeatedly, that he is a committed atheist — feistily reclaiming and redeeming the epithet of “militant” atheist. It’s obvious from reading his piece that it would be pointless to offer Krauss any amount of money to convince him to abandon this “militant atheism.” If we offered him $50 to become a Mormon, he would refuse — insulted by the suggestion. He would do the same if we offered him $50 million, or $500 million, or $50 billion. There would be no point haggling over price, because the subject — Krauss’ principles and his commitment to his understanding of reason — is one that he regards as beyond price. Something, in other words, he regards as sacred.

Sacredness is not a threat to the practice of science. Sacredness is necessary for science. Science is trustworthy because it offers a way of pursuing truth that cannot be bought and sold — because its methods and its findings are not contingent on the price they can get on the auction block. If nothing is sacred, then science isn’t a possibility. If nothing is sacred, then everything has a price and you’re no longer a scientist, you’re a Merchant of Doubt and you’re going to wind up working for the Heartland Institute or some other euphemistically named “institute” of corporate hacks for hire.

Nor is sacredness anathema to atheism. Some of my favorite writers are atheists. They’re good writers because they are principled and trustworthy — because their words and ideas and reason and opinions are not for sale at any price. I’m a religious person — a Christian — and so I have a different perspective than they do on the sources and foundations of sacredness, but I trust these atheist writers because I can see that they have integrity, which is to say that they would never be willing to sell that integrity at any price.

The claim that nothing is sacred is incompatible with atheism. If nothing is beyond price, and therefore everything has a price, then price becomes God. And making price into a God doesn’t make you an atheist, it makes you a worshipper of Mammon.

Previous Post

September 9, 2015

Please throw the little fish back

Next Post

September 10, 2015 OK, then what else would we call it?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In 2 Thessalonians, what does Paul say the man of lawlessness will proclaim himself to be?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The Messiah God King of the world A prophet