Start the happy music! It’s time for the end of the world!

Yes, these are giddy and unnerving times, but it’s also time to bring out popcorn and balloons.  It’s time to celebrate the end of the world!

You can hear it 24/7 on evangelical radio, (I’ve been listening to radio station KJSL, based in St. Louis).  Each passing month, the voices of those radio preachers are getting faster and higher-pitched. It’s all intensely festive, in a macabre sort of way.  All the signs are there, the preachers proclaim.  This is really “it.” 

Syndicated talk show host Paul McGuire is among the many radio preachers leading the cheers with their own gnashing teeth.  McGuire just wrote a book entitled ARE YOU READY?  WELCOME TO THE END OF THE WORLD.   What’s his new book about?  Check out McGuire’s website:

A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON AMERICA; THE COMING MEXICO, U.S. & CANADIAN MERGER; ISRAEL & THE PALESTINIAN STATE; GLOBAL GOVERNMENT; TERRORISM; HURRICANES, FREAK WEATHER & EPIDEMICS; PREDICTIONS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREW PROPHETS; SIGNS OF THE TIMES

Any time the radical Christ crowd gets this excited (excited enough to use the Caps Lock key so extensively), it’s worth checking out.  Just because they’ve been wrong about the end of the world so often before doesn’t mean that they aren’t on target this time. 

But there’s this other thing on my mind—why have those evangelicals gotten so enamored about protecting their very very very good friend, Israel?  It turns out that these two things—the end of the world and the existence of Israel–are connected.

Remember Pat …

Continue ReadingStart the happy music! It’s time for the end of the world!

The meaning of life?

People who believe in god(s) are inclined to say that one reason they believe in god(s) is because they would find their lives "meaningless" otherwise.  So, here's my question:  how does belief in god(s) create "meaning" in life?  Let's consider an example.  Many Christians are inclined to say that one…

Continue ReadingThe meaning of life?

Bush & Cheney: screwing America to pay off their friends

When the news this morning reported yet more staggering profits for big oil companies, I realized that I could think of only three groups of Americans who have benefitted in a big way -- i.e., with obscene profits -- since George Bush took office:  big oil companies (Bush's former business…

Continue ReadingBush & Cheney: screwing America to pay off their friends

Loyalty is not a virtue

What is it to be loyal? According to Merriam Webster, to be "loyal" is to be

1 : unswerving in allegiance: as a: faithful in allegiance to one's lawful sovereign or government b: faithful to a private person to whom fidelity is due c: faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, or product.
I don't have a problem with this definition. I do object, however, that "loyalty" has been given a free pass in modern American culture, as though loyalty is always a good thing. In particular, the mass media has bought into this linguistic sleight-of-hand: according to the mainstream media, it is always a good thing to be "loyal." Loyalty is undoubtedly a virtue when we are dealing with pet dogs. We like our dogs to be loyal. We like our dogs to do what we tell them to do. The loyalty of a human being is not necessarily a good thing, however. Loyalty is a matter of committing oneself to a person, to a group of people or to a cause. But people and causes can be either praiseworthy or despicable (or something in between). If a social cause to which I am loyal is that all babies should have basic medical care, loyalty to such a cause would be a good thing. If my idea is that we should all give homage to Hitler, loyalty to this cause would be a horrible idea. Therefore, how can it be said that loyalty is per se a good thing unless one first examines the merit of the person(s) or clause(s) to which a person is being loyal? [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingLoyalty is not a virtue

Are you a rebel? What is your birth order?

Here’s an interesting example on how intuition can go awry.  What would you guess to be the primary factor for determining whether a scientist is receptive to new and innovative scientific theories?  Education? Economic resources? Gender? None of the above! 

In Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics and Creative Lives (1996), a meticulously researched book that has now withstood a decade of criticism, Frank Sulloway concluded that those people who tend to cling to old paradigms, who are not confortable with new innovative scientific theories, have something surprising in common.  They tend to be firstborns. Sulloway based his conclusions on the analysis of the written positions of 3,890 persons, writers who have commented over the past several hundred years on controversial new scientific theories.

Firstborns are significantly more likely to “identify more closely with parents and authority,” and more “conforming, conventional and defensive—attributes that are all negative features of openness to experience.” [pp. 21-22.] 

Sulloway analyzed the attitudes of the writers of published commentary regarding the theory of Copernicus during the early stages of that controversy:

[I]ndividual laterborns were 5.4 times more likely than individual firstborns to support Copernicus’s claim that the earth revolves around the sun.  Copernicus himself was the youngest of four children.

[p. 38] There are many books written for a lay audience on the topic of birth order, but very few of them are carefully documented with statistical analyses.  Sulloway’s book is a shining exception to the rule.  It is a highly detailed work …

Continue ReadingAre you a rebel? What is your birth order?