Take a photo of a barcode or cover
kevin_shepherd's Reviews (563)
Nietzsche comes down so hard on christianity that he makes Christopher Hitchens look positively Presbyterian.
"This book belongs to the very few." ~FN
In his preface, Nietzsche anticipates a probable backlash to what he is about to publish. He states that only a person of sound intellect, one who is above "the wretched gabble of politics and national egotism" will comprehend all that he has to say. Or, plainly stated: This publication will not be well received by everyone. (Thank you Captain Obvious.)
"Christianity has sided with everything weak, low, and botched; it has made an ideal out of antagonism towards all the self-preservative instincts of strong life: it has corrupted even the reason of the strongest intellects, by teaching that the highest values of intellectuality are sinful, misleading and full of temptations." (pg 5)
For as my long as priests are held in high regard, Nietzsche asserts, truth and lies will always be transposed. He defines the term 'faith' as the blind ignorance of truthful thought and reason.
"...that is to say, to shut one's eyes once and for all, in order not to suffer at the sight of incurable falsity. People convert this faulty view of all things into a moral, a virtue, a thing of holiness. They endow their distorted vision with good conscience, they claim that no other point of view is any longer of value, once theirs has been made sacrosanct with the names "God," "Salvation," "Eternity." "(pg 8)
Christianity, in Nietzsche's eyes, is completely detached from reality. Its validity is bouyed up by the imaginary effects of imaginary causes, supported by imaginary beings, using imaginary psychology, based on an imaginary natural history. Sin, salvation, grace, punishment, forgiveness, and immortality are all tools of the nefarious trade.
"[Christianity] knows that it is a matter of indifference whether a thing be true or not; but that it is of the highest importance that it should be believed to be true. Truth and the belief that something is true: two totally separate worlds of interest, almost opposite worlds, the road to the one and the road to the other lie absolutely apart." (pg 21)
The keys to the control of the Christian congregations, Nietzsche believes, are the concepts of 'guilt' and 'sin.' Without one, the other is useless. Without both, Christianity is rendered impotent. It matters not that a person is indeed sinful, only that they should FEEL sinful. It is the very real guilt of the very imaginary sin that keeps the priest employed and the flock in line.
"..."sins" are indispensable: they are the actual weapons of power, the priest lives upon sins, it is necessary for him that people should "sin." ...Supreme axiom: "God forgiveth him that repenteth" - in plain English: him that submitteth himself to the priest." (pg 27)
Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, depending on your point if view, Nietzsche has a soft spot for Christ himself, repeatingly referring to him as the 'only true Christian' who ever lived and comparing him favorably to Buddha.
"This saintly anarchist who called the lowest of the low, the outcasts and "sinners," the Chandala of Judaism, to revolt against the established order of things - this man was a political criminal in so far as political criminals were possible in a community so absurdly non-political. This brought him to the cross: the proof of this is the inscription found thereon. He died for 'his' sins - and no matter how often the contrary has been asserted there is absolutely nothing to show that he died for the sins of others." (pg 28)
So, if Christ's ideals were praise worthy and of good intent, who bastardized the Christian identity? Nietzsche lays the blame squarely on St Paul:
"Paul is the incarnation of a type which is the reverse of that of the Savior; he is the genius in hatred, in the standpoint of hatred, and in the relentless logic of hatred." (pg 43)
But wait, there's more...
"Even what he himself did not believe, was believed in by the idiots among whom he spread HIS doctrine. What he wanted was power; with St Paul the priest again aspired to power" (pg 44)
Overall, Nietzsche's take on Christianity is a collection of many valid points interspersed with a few questionable conjectures. It is cynical, eristic and inflammatory. Five stars!
"This book belongs to the very few." ~FN
In his preface, Nietzsche anticipates a probable backlash to what he is about to publish. He states that only a person of sound intellect, one who is above "the wretched gabble of politics and national egotism" will comprehend all that he has to say. Or, plainly stated: This publication will not be well received by everyone. (Thank you Captain Obvious.)
"Christianity has sided with everything weak, low, and botched; it has made an ideal out of antagonism towards all the self-preservative instincts of strong life: it has corrupted even the reason of the strongest intellects, by teaching that the highest values of intellectuality are sinful, misleading and full of temptations." (pg 5)
For as my long as priests are held in high regard, Nietzsche asserts, truth and lies will always be transposed. He defines the term 'faith' as the blind ignorance of truthful thought and reason.
"...that is to say, to shut one's eyes once and for all, in order not to suffer at the sight of incurable falsity. People convert this faulty view of all things into a moral, a virtue, a thing of holiness. They endow their distorted vision with good conscience, they claim that no other point of view is any longer of value, once theirs has been made sacrosanct with the names "God," "Salvation," "Eternity." "(pg 8)
Christianity, in Nietzsche's eyes, is completely detached from reality. Its validity is bouyed up by the imaginary effects of imaginary causes, supported by imaginary beings, using imaginary psychology, based on an imaginary natural history. Sin, salvation, grace, punishment, forgiveness, and immortality are all tools of the nefarious trade.
"[Christianity] knows that it is a matter of indifference whether a thing be true or not; but that it is of the highest importance that it should be believed to be true. Truth and the belief that something is true: two totally separate worlds of interest, almost opposite worlds, the road to the one and the road to the other lie absolutely apart." (pg 21)
The keys to the control of the Christian congregations, Nietzsche believes, are the concepts of 'guilt' and 'sin.' Without one, the other is useless. Without both, Christianity is rendered impotent. It matters not that a person is indeed sinful, only that they should FEEL sinful. It is the very real guilt of the very imaginary sin that keeps the priest employed and the flock in line.
"..."sins" are indispensable: they are the actual weapons of power, the priest lives upon sins, it is necessary for him that people should "sin." ...Supreme axiom: "God forgiveth him that repenteth" - in plain English: him that submitteth himself to the priest." (pg 27)
Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, depending on your point if view, Nietzsche has a soft spot for Christ himself, repeatingly referring to him as the 'only true Christian' who ever lived and comparing him favorably to Buddha.
"This saintly anarchist who called the lowest of the low, the outcasts and "sinners," the Chandala of Judaism, to revolt against the established order of things - this man was a political criminal in so far as political criminals were possible in a community so absurdly non-political. This brought him to the cross: the proof of this is the inscription found thereon. He died for 'his' sins - and no matter how often the contrary has been asserted there is absolutely nothing to show that he died for the sins of others." (pg 28)
So, if Christ's ideals were praise worthy and of good intent, who bastardized the Christian identity? Nietzsche lays the blame squarely on St Paul:
"Paul is the incarnation of a type which is the reverse of that of the Savior; he is the genius in hatred, in the standpoint of hatred, and in the relentless logic of hatred." (pg 43)
But wait, there's more...
"Even what he himself did not believe, was believed in by the idiots among whom he spread HIS doctrine. What he wanted was power; with St Paul the priest again aspired to power" (pg 44)
Overall, Nietzsche's take on Christianity is a collection of many valid points interspersed with a few questionable conjectures. It is cynical, eristic and inflammatory. Five stars!
“The impulse of men to own women would be there whether they believed in god or not. It’s just that it might be a bit harder to persuade female babies that they should be owned by men, if they were not told that god wants it to be true. ...getting rid of the idea of the supernatural is one step - only one, but a very important one, perhaps the first one, perhaps the biggest one - on the road to emancipation.” ~Christopher Hitchens
No words of mine could elevate this book more than those written herein by the women who speak out against religious subjugation, or by the words of men (including those written in the Bible) that seek to sustain it:
“Supernatural shackles on our minds have replaced iron shackles around our ankles, and through religious misogynistic indoctrination, women are taught to enslave themselves for men’s benefit. The subjugation of women and children is not an unfortunate side effect of religion - it is religion’s purpose.” ~Lauri Weissman
• for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 1 Corinthians 11:9
• How then can a man be just with God? Or how can he be clean who is born of woman? Job 25:4
• For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:7
• Do not give your strength to women, Or your ways to that which destroys kings. Proverbs 31:3
“Digging into the Bible searching for truth was like putting my fingers deep into a sandcastle. It fell apart.” ~Alexis Record
“Even if women wear themselves out or die from childbearing - no harm done. Let them die from bearing. This is the purpose for which they exist.” ~Martin Luther
• Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34
“The visceral disgust toward women that oozes out of so many Bible texts has echoed down through history in the attitudes and words of Christian leaders - from Catholic Fathers, to Protestant Reformers, to modern leaders of sects like Mormonism and Evangelicalism ...for the church to justify subjugation of women - to make chattel culture righteous - women had to be defined as inferior: morally weak, spiritually debased, physically defective, promiscuous, and stupid.” ~Valerie Tarico, PhD
“Those who conform to all the privileges and niceties of culture invariably reject those who do not. In a strange sort of way, the privilege of rejection heightens the senses of those outside the circle’s influence. We have time to consider things more deeply. We see better. And once we’ve removed our culturally attuned lenses, what we see when looking at the church is a hierarchical, self-preserving, bigoted, chauvinistic institution dulled by successive generations of leaders whose circumcised intellect prevented them from exploring beyond their own reiterated dogma and canonical laws.* Once you see it, those scales, you know... they don’t just fall; they crash.” ~Gretta Vosper (*referencing Friedrich Nietzsche)
No words of mine could elevate this book more than those written herein by the women who speak out against religious subjugation, or by the words of men (including those written in the Bible) that seek to sustain it:
“Supernatural shackles on our minds have replaced iron shackles around our ankles, and through religious misogynistic indoctrination, women are taught to enslave themselves for men’s benefit. The subjugation of women and children is not an unfortunate side effect of religion - it is religion’s purpose.” ~Lauri Weissman
• for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 1 Corinthians 11:9
• How then can a man be just with God? Or how can he be clean who is born of woman? Job 25:4
• For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:7
• Do not give your strength to women, Or your ways to that which destroys kings. Proverbs 31:3
“Digging into the Bible searching for truth was like putting my fingers deep into a sandcastle. It fell apart.” ~Alexis Record
“Even if women wear themselves out or die from childbearing - no harm done. Let them die from bearing. This is the purpose for which they exist.” ~Martin Luther
• Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34
“The visceral disgust toward women that oozes out of so many Bible texts has echoed down through history in the attitudes and words of Christian leaders - from Catholic Fathers, to Protestant Reformers, to modern leaders of sects like Mormonism and Evangelicalism ...for the church to justify subjugation of women - to make chattel culture righteous - women had to be defined as inferior: morally weak, spiritually debased, physically defective, promiscuous, and stupid.” ~Valerie Tarico, PhD
“Those who conform to all the privileges and niceties of culture invariably reject those who do not. In a strange sort of way, the privilege of rejection heightens the senses of those outside the circle’s influence. We have time to consider things more deeply. We see better. And once we’ve removed our culturally attuned lenses, what we see when looking at the church is a hierarchical, self-preserving, bigoted, chauvinistic institution dulled by successive generations of leaders whose circumcised intellect prevented them from exploring beyond their own reiterated dogma and canonical laws.* Once you see it, those scales, you know... they don’t just fall; they crash.” ~Gretta Vosper (*referencing Friedrich Nietzsche)
“I truly felt that for some reason I’ve been spared to tell this story. Everybody I know is dead... I’m still here. Okay, thank you, God. I don’t believe in you, but thank you, anyway.” ~Larry Kramer, ACT UP
Before I get started, let me say that some bad things happened to me when I was a child, things that had nothing at all to do with religion. My father was a high functioning sociopath who ladled out beatings for the slightest transgressions. Even though my beatings (there were LOTS) were strictly “secular,” they were still things that impacted my feelings about religion, specifically about fundamentalist, evangelical, fire & brimstone, southern baptistery.
“...that is the model of the Christian God. Creating a heaven. Then an Eden. And when Eden failed, he opened the rest of the world. “This time it will be good,” he said to himself, before erasing humanity with a flood and starting over. And he will try again, or so Christians believe. The promise of Revelation is that God will set up a new heaven and a new earth. I can’t wait to see how those fail too.” (pg 94)
My parents weren’t church-goers. My mom might have been had she married someone in the faith, but my father was a skeptic. We children, my sister and my brother and I, attended church. In the beginning, mom would drive us there and drop us off, then pick us up when sunday school and church services were over. Later, when our attendance started to wane, someone from the church would come pick us up every sunday morning and return us back to the farm every sunday afternoon.
“Personally, I feel outrage regularly, not just at minor inconveniences, but also at things that seem unjust, that disrupt the way I think things should work: sexism, racism, homophobia, Republican tax plans that steal from the poor to give to the rich, the fact that Donald Trump was elected president. Of course, for many conservative Christians, the outrage runs the other way. The things that disrupt the natural order for them are gay marriage, abortion, a black man being elected president.” (pg 107)
As I became an adult and moved away from home, my faith ebbed and flowed. There were a few periods where being a baptist was the focal point of my existence, but more often my religious identity lingered ominously on the periphery of my existence. Eventually I let it go entirely. There is no single moment that I can point to and say ‘THAT was my Great Epiphany!’ It was a gradual process. It was a culmination of many, many weak, ethereal answers to many, many simple, earthly questions. You know the sort:
“Where did all the fossils come from?”
“They are the remnants of animals killed in the great flood” or “They are decorations God put in the earth” or “Satan put them there to trick us” or, my personal favorite, “God created them to test our faith in his word”
Try telling a moderately intelligent 15 year old kid that this intricate Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton was magically put there to see if we would use our supposedly god-given intellect or if we would dismiss it as a “test.”
Another issue I had with fundamentalism
(there were LOTS of issues) were the seemingly arbitrary manifestations of Grace. If god was watching over me, why was he allowing my father to beat the shit out of me for some imagined or contrived impertinence? It had to be my fault, right? I was unworthy of grace, unworthy of protection, unworthy of my dad’s love.
“To survive, I lived in a world of pretend. I pretended that my life at home was normal. I pretended that my father loved me. I pretended that my father only hurt me because I had done something wrong. I told myself that I deserved it.” (pg 123)
I eventually figured out that it wasn’t my fault. It wasn’t me.
This obviously isn’t the whole story of how I came to terms with the universe and my place in it, but it’s enough to let you know that I found a little piece of myself in every essay of ‘Empty The Pews.’ Twenty-one deeply personal stories, each one unique, all describe one person’s exodus from a particular religion. Some of the stories are heartbreaking, some are enlightening, all are inspirational. A few of these authors are still believers, others are in a state of transition, a few (like me) have decided that every evangelical thing we were taught to believe is 100% bullshit.
“On most days, I am reasonably certain that Denmark is a country in Europe. But it’s one of those things I haven’t been able to test for myself, so I cannot be precisely sure about it. The same people who taught me that Denmark was a country taught me that black people are a different species from white people, and once I learned that black people were just humans like anybody else, I had to question the existence of Denmark.” (pg 219)
Before I get started, let me say that some bad things happened to me when I was a child, things that had nothing at all to do with religion. My father was a high functioning sociopath who ladled out beatings for the slightest transgressions. Even though my beatings (there were LOTS) were strictly “secular,” they were still things that impacted my feelings about religion, specifically about fundamentalist, evangelical, fire & brimstone, southern baptistery.
“...that is the model of the Christian God. Creating a heaven. Then an Eden. And when Eden failed, he opened the rest of the world. “This time it will be good,” he said to himself, before erasing humanity with a flood and starting over. And he will try again, or so Christians believe. The promise of Revelation is that God will set up a new heaven and a new earth. I can’t wait to see how those fail too.” (pg 94)
My parents weren’t church-goers. My mom might have been had she married someone in the faith, but my father was a skeptic. We children, my sister and my brother and I, attended church. In the beginning, mom would drive us there and drop us off, then pick us up when sunday school and church services were over. Later, when our attendance started to wane, someone from the church would come pick us up every sunday morning and return us back to the farm every sunday afternoon.
“Personally, I feel outrage regularly, not just at minor inconveniences, but also at things that seem unjust, that disrupt the way I think things should work: sexism, racism, homophobia, Republican tax plans that steal from the poor to give to the rich, the fact that Donald Trump was elected president. Of course, for many conservative Christians, the outrage runs the other way. The things that disrupt the natural order for them are gay marriage, abortion, a black man being elected president.” (pg 107)
As I became an adult and moved away from home, my faith ebbed and flowed. There were a few periods where being a baptist was the focal point of my existence, but more often my religious identity lingered ominously on the periphery of my existence. Eventually I let it go entirely. There is no single moment that I can point to and say ‘THAT was my Great Epiphany!’ It was a gradual process. It was a culmination of many, many weak, ethereal answers to many, many simple, earthly questions. You know the sort:
“Where did all the fossils come from?”
“They are the remnants of animals killed in the great flood” or “They are decorations God put in the earth” or “Satan put them there to trick us” or, my personal favorite, “God created them to test our faith in his word”
Try telling a moderately intelligent 15 year old kid that this intricate Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton was magically put there to see if we would use our supposedly god-given intellect or if we would dismiss it as a “test.”
Another issue I had with fundamentalism
(there were LOTS of issues) were the seemingly arbitrary manifestations of Grace. If god was watching over me, why was he allowing my father to beat the shit out of me for some imagined or contrived impertinence? It had to be my fault, right? I was unworthy of grace, unworthy of protection, unworthy of my dad’s love.
“To survive, I lived in a world of pretend. I pretended that my life at home was normal. I pretended that my father loved me. I pretended that my father only hurt me because I had done something wrong. I told myself that I deserved it.” (pg 123)
I eventually figured out that it wasn’t my fault. It wasn’t me.
This obviously isn’t the whole story of how I came to terms with the universe and my place in it, but it’s enough to let you know that I found a little piece of myself in every essay of ‘Empty The Pews.’ Twenty-one deeply personal stories, each one unique, all describe one person’s exodus from a particular religion. Some of the stories are heartbreaking, some are enlightening, all are inspirational. A few of these authors are still believers, others are in a state of transition, a few (like me) have decided that every evangelical thing we were taught to believe is 100% bullshit.
“On most days, I am reasonably certain that Denmark is a country in Europe. But it’s one of those things I haven’t been able to test for myself, so I cannot be precisely sure about it. The same people who taught me that Denmark was a country taught me that black people are a different species from white people, and once I learned that black people were just humans like anybody else, I had to question the existence of Denmark.” (pg 219)
A.C. Grayling’s collection of short, philosophical articles and essays is more suggestive than instructive. Topics are loosely grouped under the chapter headings of Morality, Culture, Community, Conflict, Grief, Nature, and Thought, and include subjects as diverse as suicide, vegetarianism, voting, and monsters.
Fans of news agencies like The Guardian will no doubt appreciate the author’s journalistic prowess; meaning Grayling can aptly convey complex ideas with a deft economy of words. There is no essay here that cannot be read, in its entirety, during commercial breaks of Grey’s Anatomy or The Walking Dead. This is philosophy whittled down to accessible, digestible chunks.
• Grayling on Sex: “The common thread is ‘Mrs Grundyism’, the moral conservatism which presumes to tell other people what to think and how to behave.”
• Grayling on Protest: “...every serious demonstration about social and political matters is invariably joined, and often hijacked, by vandals and extremists, who thereby divert attention from important questions at issue in the protest, and fill the next day’s newspapers with endless reports and debates about violence, police tactics, injuries and arrests - thus robbing the protest of its point. One wonders if they are in the pay of those against whom the protest is directed; for these latter are the only ones who benefit from what they do.”
• Grayling on Liberty: “...those who live by hard and uncompromising views in political, moral and religious respects always, if given half a chance, silence liberals because liberalism, by its nature, threatens the hegemony they seek to impose.”
• Grayling on War: “None of the major faiths is bloodless; history reeks with the gore of their wars and persecutions... From a secular point of view, religious beliefs are at best absurd and at worst dangerous, and the amount of free play they are given in the public domain is a menace.”
Four Stars
Fans of news agencies like The Guardian will no doubt appreciate the author’s journalistic prowess; meaning Grayling can aptly convey complex ideas with a deft economy of words. There is no essay here that cannot be read, in its entirety, during commercial breaks of Grey’s Anatomy or The Walking Dead. This is philosophy whittled down to accessible, digestible chunks.
• Grayling on Sex: “The common thread is ‘Mrs Grundyism’, the moral conservatism which presumes to tell other people what to think and how to behave.”
• Grayling on Protest: “...every serious demonstration about social and political matters is invariably joined, and often hijacked, by vandals and extremists, who thereby divert attention from important questions at issue in the protest, and fill the next day’s newspapers with endless reports and debates about violence, police tactics, injuries and arrests - thus robbing the protest of its point. One wonders if they are in the pay of those against whom the protest is directed; for these latter are the only ones who benefit from what they do.”
• Grayling on Liberty: “...those who live by hard and uncompromising views in political, moral and religious respects always, if given half a chance, silence liberals because liberalism, by its nature, threatens the hegemony they seek to impose.”
• Grayling on War: “None of the major faiths is bloodless; history reeks with the gore of their wars and persecutions... From a secular point of view, religious beliefs are at best absurd and at worst dangerous, and the amount of free play they are given in the public domain is a menace.”
Four Stars
"If scientists were paid by results, the last parapsychologist would have long since died of hunger..." ~Alexander Baron
Astral Projection, Ectoplasm, ESP, EVP, Ghosts, Hauntings, Poltergeists, Heavenly Tourism, Hypnotic Regression, Levitation, Reincarnation, Spiritual Mediums, Near Death Experiences, Spirit Photography, Psychokinesis, Telekinesis... That's not a comprehensive list, but you get the picture. John Grant takes them all on with the heart of a scientist and the eye of a skeptic.
This is where psychic phenomena comes to die, or at least to be skewered with reason. Elements which are not exposed as outright fraud can be explained (with varying degrees of certainty) by physics, psycology and even neurology. And Grant accomplishes this with a sarcastic wit that sometimes (often) borders on snarky.
There are plenty of historical incidents and references. So many, in fact, that some may find it a little tedious. I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed it.
Astral Projection, Ectoplasm, ESP, EVP, Ghosts, Hauntings, Poltergeists, Heavenly Tourism, Hypnotic Regression, Levitation, Reincarnation, Spiritual Mediums, Near Death Experiences, Spirit Photography, Psychokinesis, Telekinesis... That's not a comprehensive list, but you get the picture. John Grant takes them all on with the heart of a scientist and the eye of a skeptic.
This is where psychic phenomena comes to die, or at least to be skewered with reason. Elements which are not exposed as outright fraud can be explained (with varying degrees of certainty) by physics, psycology and even neurology. And Grant accomplishes this with a sarcastic wit that sometimes (often) borders on snarky.
There are plenty of historical incidents and references. So many, in fact, that some may find it a little tedious. I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed it.
It is important to note that the author is a sociologist and a professor at the Iliff School of Theology. His study of far right evangelical tactics and protocols is laced with terminology that would befuddle most of his scientifically illiterate critics. Hence, what few one star reviews you see are undoubtedly from individuals who are dumbfounded by big words like "bioethics" and "climatology." Perhaps their MAGA hats are just a little too tight?
“...cut yourself adrift from comforting, tame, apparent certainties and embrace the wild truth” ~RD
Dawkins can get carried away with his science writing, often forgetting that not all of us are versed in the vernacular - but not here. Here, in theology, he writes with meticulous intent. Imagine Einstein speaking to a class of college freshmen, not just blurting out E=mc2, but rather taking the time to explain that “E” represents “energy” and “m” represents “mass” and “c” represents the speed of light, and that the speed of light is 186,000 miles/second. Dawkins isn’t speaking down to us, he’s quite eloquently lifting us up, wielding his unassailable logic with phenomenal grace and clarity. This is a primer for critical thinkers and those who may be wavering at the threshold of reason.
*Do the English really say ‘anti-clockwise’? Seriously?
Dawkins can get carried away with his science writing, often forgetting that not all of us are versed in the vernacular - but not here. Here, in theology, he writes with meticulous intent. Imagine Einstein speaking to a class of college freshmen, not just blurting out E=mc2, but rather taking the time to explain that “E” represents “energy” and “m” represents “mass” and “c” represents the speed of light, and that the speed of light is 186,000 miles/second. Dawkins isn’t speaking down to us, he’s quite eloquently lifting us up, wielding his unassailable logic with phenomenal grace and clarity. This is a primer for critical thinkers and those who may be wavering at the threshold of reason.
*Do the English really say ‘anti-clockwise’? Seriously?
Fetzer, like Daniel Dennett, shreds creationist doctrine philosophically. His approach is more agnostic than atheistic, and at times he comes across as a Roman Catholic apologist, but far right fundamentalist will find no solace here.
This book became a topic of discussion at my office when one of my far-right coworkers referred to it as “subversive literature”. Now that I know that it pisses off evangelistic conservatives I am making it my mission to promote it (t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc) ad nauseam…
Pluto gets around. It has been a planet, a dwarf planet, a minor planet, a planetoid, a “non-planet,” a comet, an asteroid, an ice ball, a Greek god, an underdog, a cartoon dog, and a laxative. Smaller than our moon, and six other moons in this solar system, Pluto (the celestial body, not the laxative) is a veritable David in a solar system of Goliaths.
Way back in 1970, my second grade teacher, Mrs. Mordecai, introduced me to mnemonics. My favorite was always, “My very excellent mother just served us new potatoes,” which correlates to the (then) nine planets in positional order.
My - Mercury
Very - Venus
Excellent - Earth
Mother - Mars
Just - Jupiter
Served - Saturn
Us - Uranus
New - Neptune
Potatoes - Pluto
Cancel Culture (or “How my very excellent mother just served us nothing…”)
plan·et /ˈplanət/ noun: a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star.
That definition, thank you Oxford, was far too broad for any discerning astrophysicist looking to disqualify asteroids (such as Ceres), comets (such as Hale-Bopp), and neptunian bodies (such as 2000 EB173), from full fledged planethood. Thus, in 2006, the IAU (International Astronomical Union) convened a general assembly specifically to define, with as much precision as possible, what a “planet” actually is. After much debate, the definition they agreed on is thus:
“a PLANET is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around a star, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.”
Because Pluto basically resides in a debris field known as “Kuiper belt,” it by no means meets the ‘cleared orbit’ criteria. Bye-bye planethood.
Let’s be real. Pluto’s reassignment (a.k.a. demotion) was the right thing to do. It’s not even the largest known object in the Kuiper belt (see: Eris). If we allow Pluto membership in the planet club then there are definitely other contenders that would be equally qualified. And what seven year old kid wants to memorize a twenty eight word mnemonic? Screw that!
I read books on astronomy because it fascinates me and I want to know more about it. I specifically read books on astronomy authored by Neil deGrasse Tyson because it fascinates me and I want to know more about it AND I want to have fun doing it. Neil makes it fun.
Way back in 1970, my second grade teacher, Mrs. Mordecai, introduced me to mnemonics. My favorite was always, “My very excellent mother just served us new potatoes,” which correlates to the (then) nine planets in positional order.
My - Mercury
Very - Venus
Excellent - Earth
Mother - Mars
Just - Jupiter
Served - Saturn
Us - Uranus
New - Neptune
Potatoes - Pluto
Cancel Culture (or “How my very excellent mother just served us nothing…”)
plan·et /ˈplanət/ noun: a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star.
That definition, thank you Oxford, was far too broad for any discerning astrophysicist looking to disqualify asteroids (such as Ceres), comets (such as Hale-Bopp), and neptunian bodies (such as 2000 EB173), from full fledged planethood. Thus, in 2006, the IAU (International Astronomical Union) convened a general assembly specifically to define, with as much precision as possible, what a “planet” actually is. After much debate, the definition they agreed on is thus:
“a PLANET is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around a star, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.”
Because Pluto basically resides in a debris field known as “Kuiper belt,” it by no means meets the ‘cleared orbit’ criteria. Bye-bye planethood.
Let’s be real. Pluto’s reassignment (a.k.a. demotion) was the right thing to do. It’s not even the largest known object in the Kuiper belt (see: Eris). If we allow Pluto membership in the planet club then there are definitely other contenders that would be equally qualified. And what seven year old kid wants to memorize a twenty eight word mnemonic? Screw that!
I read books on astronomy because it fascinates me and I want to know more about it. I specifically read books on astronomy authored by Neil deGrasse Tyson because it fascinates me and I want to know more about it AND I want to have fun doing it. Neil makes it fun.