His gay marriage example is instructive of the weakness of this type of argument. Marriage is purely a social institution, so what does science have to say on the subject, anyway? Well, he appeals to equality. If we have these laws, they should be applied equally. Ok then, what&#x27;s the scientific argument for equality? He takes these things as axiomatic, which, presumably, means that these are the types of things he should most militantly be examining.<p>What if self-described militant atheists like Krauss took their atheism seriously and considered fundamental values, whether they come from a sincere belief in a deity or not, to be essentially the same, since they basically are if there&#x27;s in fact no God? They would have to look closer at values and see if there was perhaps a social or personal utility to having certain types of values. Study them, and figure out what makes certain values work well and which ones implode. Create some kind of explanatory model of values. If you will, come up with a &quot;scientific&quot; way of analyzing values. One might even put some effort into examining value systems for consistency, figure out if they have side-effects or study what types of outcomes they optimize for, and make a good one for the outcome you desire. Just don&#x27;t tell Krauss that this is what philosophy does, because he thinks philosophy is dumb and a waste of time.