I take the pro-market position in this special report on Fox News.
The discussion focuses on the following questions.
Does government spending create jobs? This is the discredited Keynesian notion that you become richer by switching money from your right pocket to left pocket, and I explain that this approach has never worked.
What does create jobs? I explain we need to shrink the burden of government and I cite my favorite Golden Rule about the importance of making sure the productive sector of the economy grows faster than the public sector.
Should there be more government workers? Anyone who has seen this video knows my answer to that question.
Is it a good idea to raise taxes on the rich? I argue that penalizing success doesn’t make sense, so class warfare tax policy should be rejected.
Would it help to impose higher taxes on corporations? Since the United States already penalizes companies with the world’s highest corporate tax rate, that question answers itself.
In other words, there is no secret to job creation. Just get government out of the way.
________________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
But there’s rarely, if ever, a discussion of wholesale reform.
That’s actually a good thing. Compared to the income tax, the payroll tax does far less damage. And it’s not just because it collects less money. On a per-dollar-raised basis, the payroll tax is considerably less destructive than the income tax.
It has only one tax rate. There’s a 12.4 percent tax for Social Security and a 2.9 percent tax for Medicare, which means a flat tax of 15.3 percent.
There’s almost no double taxation. The payroll tax applies to wage and salary income, as well as personal earnings from business activities (sometimes known as “Schedule C” income). But dividends, interest, and capital gains are generally spared – other than the 3.8 percent Obamacare surtax.
There are no loopholes or deductions for politically connected interest groups.
And because of these three features, the tax is remarkably simple and doesn’t even require a tax form unless taxpayers have Schedule C income.
None of this, by the way, means the payroll tax is a good or desirable levy.
It takes for too much money from the American people and is far and away the biggest tax paid by the majority of American workers.
The 15.3 percent tax undermines work incentives by driving a wedge between pre-tax income and post-tax consumption.
And the tax is very non-transparent, particularly since many taxpayers don’t even realize that the “F.I.C.A.” tax on their pay stub only reflects 50 percent of their payroll tax burden. In a hidden form of pre-withholding, employers pay an equal amount to the government on behalf of their workers – funds that otherwise would be part of worker compensation.
In other words, the payroll tax is a bad imposition. That being said, it still does considerably less damage, on a per-dollar-collected basis, than the income tax.
With that in mind, I’m puzzled that some folks want to keep the income tax and get rid of the payroll tax.
My friends at the Heritage Foundation, for instance, have a tax reform proposal that would fold the payroll tax into the income tax. Since they’re also proposing to turn the income tax into a form of flat tax, with one rate and no double taxation, the overall proposal clearly is a big improvement over today’s tax system. But all of the improvement is because of reforms to the income tax.
The payroll tax — 12.4 percent, split between workers and their employers to help finance Social Security – is one of the worst taxes on the books for several reasons. A basic economic principle is that when the government taxes something, the nation gets less of it. Because the payroll tax makes it more expensive and administratively burdensome for businesses to hire workers, it’s a drag on employment. Also, even the employer’s share of the tax is effectively passed on to workers in the form of lower salaries and benefits.
There’s nothing overtly wrong with the above passage. The tax does all those bad things. But the income tax does all those things as well, but in an even more destructive fashion.
The editorial addresses a couple of potential objections, starting with the notion that the payroll tax is a revenue dedicated to social Security.
There are two main objections to scrapping the payroll tax. The first is the theoretical idea that payroll taxes are a dedicated revenue stream for Social Security. In practice, it just isn’t true. All government expenditures ultimately come from the same place. Payroll taxes help subsidize other government functions, and the government will use other tax revenue and borrowing to pay for Social Security when revenues are short.
They’re right that all taxes basically get dumped into the same pile of money and that the relationship between payroll taxes and Social Security benefits is imprecise.
But since my argument has nothing to do with this issue, I don’t think it matters.
Here’s the part of the editorial that doesn’t make sense.
The other objection is the massive revenue hit to the federal government. In 2010 (the last year before the recent payroll tax holiday), social insurance taxes raised $865 billion in revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But there are a number of ways to recoup that revenue. As stated above, eliminating the payroll tax would make it easier to get rid of a lot of credits, loopholes and deductions. Also, if lower-income Americans aren’t paying payroll taxes, they can pay a bit more in income taxes. This would also deal with a conservative complaint that the income tax system needs to be reformed so everybody has at least some skin in the game.
This passage has a policy mistake and a political mistake.
The policy mistake is that the proposed swap almost surely would make the overall tax code more hostile to growth. The Examiner is proposing to get rid of an $865 billion tax that does a modest amount of damage per dollar collected, and somehow make up for that foregone revenue by collecting an additional $865 billion from the income tax system – which we know does a very large amount of damage per dollar collected.
To be sure, it’s possible to collect that extra money by eliminating distortions such as the state and local tax deduction or the healthcare exclusion. Compared to raising marginal tax rates, those are much-preferred ways of generating more revenue. But even in a best-case scenario – with politicians miraculously trying to collect an extra $865 billion without making the income tax system even worse, it’s hard to envision a better fiscal regime if we swap the payroll tax for a bigger income tax.
The political mistake is the assumption that more people will have “skin in the game” if the income tax is expanded. That’s almost surely not true. The poor don’t pay income tax, but the payroll tax grabs 15.3 percent of every penny earned by low-income households. And since very few taxpayers pay attention to which tax is shrinking their paychecks, it doesn’t really matter whether the “skin” is a payroll tax or an income tax.
Since the Examiner isn’t proposing a specific plan, there’s no way of making a definitive statement, but it’s 99 percent likely that eliminating the Social Security payroll tax would result in low-income households paying even less money to Washington. I think everybody should send less to Washington, but I don’t think shifting a greater share of the tax burden onto the middle class and the rich is the right way of achieving that goal.
I have one final objection, and this applies to both the Heritage Foundation plan and the Examiner proposal.
Notwithstanding everything I just wrote, I actually agree with them that we should eliminate the Social Security payroll tax. But we should get rid of the tax as part of a transition to a system of personal retirement accounts.
This is a reform that has been successfully implemented in about 30 nations and it also should happen in the United States. But an integral feature of this reform is that workers would be allowed to shift their payroll taxes into personal accounts. Needless to say, that’s not possible if the payroll tax has disappeared.
And let’s not forget that the Medicare portion of the payroll tax could and should be part of a broader agenda of entitlement reform. But that’s also less likely if the payroll tax is folded into the income tax.
Milton Friedman shot straight with Donahue on two great episodes. I have posted several of these clips the past here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
The liberal John Brummett in his article, “The fine art of thinking,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, August 2, 2012, asserted:
This pledge has become ruling Republican creed and a requirement to escape a GOP primary since it was cooked up by Grover Norquist. He’s a pugnacious lobbyist and conservative activist, formerly with the rabidly right-wing U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who heads a group he calls Americans for Tax Reform.
The pledge is probably not wholly responsible for destroying Washington.
Part of the blame also must be assigned to money, particularly the kind to which Burris referred that comes only if you sign the pledge.
If exercised to its logical conclusion, the pledge would force Republicans in Congress to reduce spending without adding new tax revenue. That, in turn, would send new burdens for roads and human services to state governments, where Republican legislators also would have vowed not to raise taxes.
Not only is that the logical conclusion, but it is also, I suspect, the real objective. By that I mean trying to squeeze government nearly out of business.
Liberals like Brummett think the government knows better than us how to spend money and that is why he is so angry at Grover Norquist. I come from a conservative point of view and I see the world much differently.
Government will spend whatever money we give it. About 100 years ago the federal government was spending than 5% of GDP and state and local governments were spending about double that amount. Now the federal government is at 24.7%. We need to stop giving them so much money and the only way to do that is to cut taxes.
“.If we adopt such programs, does not fiscal responsibility at least call for imposing taxes to pay for them? The answer is that postwar experience has demonstrated two things. First, that Congress will spend whatever the tax system will raise—plus a little (and recently, a lot) more. Second, that, surprising as it seems, it has proved difficult to get taxes down once they are raised. The special interests created by government spending have proved more potent than the general interest in tax reduction.
“If taxes are raised in order to keep down the deficit, the result is likely to be a higher norm for government spending. Deficits will again mount and the process will be repeated.”
Sure enough, a year later a 10% income tax surcharge was enacted by Congress to cut the deficit and fight inflation. His prediction having been confirmed
__________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 11 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]
Milton Friedman – White House Tribute (2002) Published on May 31, 2012 by BasicEconomics President Bush spoke about the life and career of Milton Friedman at a ceremony honoring him for his work and impact in the field of economics. Friedman was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1976 ___________ Milton Friedman – Biography From Milton […]
MILTON FRIEDMAN: THE MIND BEHIND THE REPUBLICAN TAX REVOLT Jack Roberts | Jul 22, 2011 | 0 comments The on-going debate over raising the debt ceiling has focused on many areas of disagreement between Democrats and Republicans but none bigger than the Republican determination not to raise taxes. Many pundits credit this to the […]
Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 10 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]
Milton Friedman – Power of Choice (Biography) Part 3 Published on May 21, 2012 by BasicEconomics Tribute to Milton Friedman English Pages, 8. 9. 2008 Dear colleagues, dear friends, (1) It is a great honor for me to be asked to say a few words to this distinguished and very knowledgeable audience about one of our greatest […]
Milton Friedman on the American Economy (6 of 6) Uploaded by donotswallow on Aug 9, 2009 THE OPEN MIND Host: Richard D. Heffner Guest: Milton Friedman Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77 _____________________________________ Below is a transcipt from a portion of an interview that Milton Friedman gave on 5-31-77: Friedman: […]
Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 9 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]
Below is a discussion from Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. February 10, 1999 | Recorded on February 10, 1999 audio, video, and blogs » uncommon knowledge PRESIDENTIAL REPORT CARD: Milton Friedman on the State of the Union with guest Milton Friedman Milton Friedman, Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution and Nobel Laureate in […]
Biography Part 2 In 1977, when I reached the age of 65, I retired from teaching at the University of Chicago. At the invitation of Glenn Campbell, Director of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, I shifted my scholarly work to Hoover where I remain a Senior Research Fellow. We moved to San Francisco, purchasing […]
Milton Friedman was a great economist and a great american. A Tribute to Milton Friedman by Mark Skousen on November 28, 2006 Mark Skousen and Milton Friedman at lunch I was at the New Orleans Investment Conference when I learned that free-market economist extraordinaire Milton Friedman, died on November 16. He was a dear friend. […]
BERTRAND RUSSELL
But aren’t you now saying in effect, I mean by God whatever is good or the sum total of what is good — the system of what is good, and, therefore, when a young man loves anything that is good he is loving God. Is that what you’re saying, because if so, it wants a bit of arguing.
FATHER COPLESTON
I don’t say, of course, that God is the sum-total or system of what is good in the pantheistic sense; I’m not a pantheist, but I do think that all goodness reflects God in some way and proceeds from Him, so that in a sense the man who loves what is truly good, loves God even if he doesn’t advert to God. But still I agree that the validity of such an interpretation of a man’s conduct depends on the recognition of God’s existence, obviously.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, but that’s a point to be proved.
FATHER COPLESTON
Quite so, but I regard the metaphysical argument as probative, but there we differ.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don’t say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.
FATHER COPLESTON
Yes, but what’s your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?
BERTRAND RUSSELL
I don’t have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.
FATHER COPLESTON
Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?
BERTRAND RUSSELL
By my feelings.
FATHER COPLESTON
By your feelings. Well, that’s what I was asking. You think that good and evil have reference simply to feeling?
BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, why does one type of object look yellow and another look blue? I can more or less give an answer to that thanks to the physicists, and as to why I think one sort of thing good and another evil, probably there is an answer of the same sort, but it hasn’t been gone into in the same way and I couldn’t give it [to] you.
FATHER COPLESTON
Well, let’s take the behavior of the Commandant of Belsen. That appears to you as undesirable and evil and to me too. To Adolf Hitler we suppose it appeared as something good and desirable, I suppose you’d have to admit that for Hitler it was good and for you it is evil.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
No, I shouldn’t quite go so far as that. I mean, I think people can make mistakes in that as they can in other things. if you have jaundice you see things yellow that are not yellow. You’re making a mistake.
FATHER COPLESTON
Yes, one can make mistakes, but can you make a mistake if it’s simply a question of reference to a feeling or emotion? Surely Hitler would be the only possible judge of what appealed to his emotions.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
It would be quite right to say that it appealed to his emotions, but you can say various things about that among others, that if that sort of thing makes that sort of appeal to Hitler’s emotions, then Hitler makes quite a different appeal to my emotions.
FATHER COPLESTON
Granted. But there’s no objective criterion outside feeling then for condemning the conduct of the Commandant of Belsen, in your view?
BERTRAND RUSSELL
No more than there is for the color-blind person who’s in exactly the same state. Why do we intellectually condemn the color-blind man? Isn’t it because he’s in the minority?
FATHER COPLESTON
I would say because he is lacking in a thing which normally belongs to human nature.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, but if he were in the majority, we shouldn’t say that.
FATHER COPLESTON
Then you’d say that there’s no criterion outside feeling that will enable one to distinguish between the behavior of the Commandant of Belsen and the behavior, say, of Sir Stafford Cripps or the Archbishop of Canterbury.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
The feeling is a little too simplified. You’ve got to take account of the effects of actions and your feelings toward those effects. You see, you can have an argument about it if you can say that certain sorts of occurrences are the sort you like and certain others the sort you don’t like. Then you have to take account of the effects of actions. You can very well say that the effects of the actions of the Commandant of Belsen were painful and unpleasant.
FATHER COPLESTON
They certainly were, I agree, very painful and unpleasant to all the people in the camp.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, but not only to the people in the camp, but to outsiders contemplating them also.
FATHER COPLESTON
Yes, quite true in imagination. But that’s my point. I don’t approve of them, and I know you don’t approve of them, but I don’t see what ground you have for not approving of them, because after all, to the Commandant of Belsen himself, they’re pleasant, those actions.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
Yes, but you see I don’t need any more ground in that case than I do in the case of color perception. There are some people who think everything is yellow, there are people suffering from jaundice, and I don’t agree with these people. I can’t prove that the things are not yellow, there isn’t any proof, but most people agree with him that they’re not yellow, and most people agree with me that the Commandant of Belsen was making mistakes.
FATHER COPLESTON
Well, do you accept any moral obligation?
BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, I should have to answer at considerable length to answer that. Practically speaking — yes. Theoretically speaking I should have to define moral obligation rather carefully.
FATHER COPLESTON
Well, do you think that the word “ought” simply has an emotional connotation?
BERTRAND RUSSELL
No, I don’t think that, because you see, as I was saying a moment ago, one has to take account of the effects, and I think right conduct is that which would probably produce the greatest possible balance in intrinsic value of all the acts possible in the circumstances, and you’ve got to take account of the probable effects of your action in considering what is right.
FATHER COPLESTON
Well, I brought in moral obligation because I think that one can approach the question of God’s existence in that way. The vast majority of the human race will make, and always have made, some distinction between right and wrong. The vast majority I think has some consciousness of an obligation in the moral sphere. It’s my opinion that the perception of values and the consciousness of moral law and obligation are best explained through the hypothesis of a transcendent ground of value and of an author of the moral law. I do mean by “author of the moral law” an arbitrary author of the moral law. I think, in fact, that those modern atheists who have argued in a converse way “there is no God; therefore, there are no absolute values and no absolute law,” are quite logical.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
I don’t like the word “absolute.” I don’t think there is anything absolute whatever. The moral law, for example, is always changing. At one period in the development of the human race, almost everybody thought cannibalism was a duty.
FATHER COPLESTON
Well, I don’t see that differences in particular moral judgments are any conclusive argument against the universality of the moral law. Let’s assume for the moment that there are absolute moral values, even on that hypothesis it’s only to be expected that different individuals and different groups should enjoy varying degrees of insight into those values.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
I’m inclined to think that “ought,” the feeling that one has about “ought” is an echo of what has been told one by one’s parents or one’s nurses.
FATHER COPLESTON
Well, I wonder if you can explain away the idea of the “ought” merely in terms of nurses and parents. I really don’t see how it can be conveyed to anybody in other terms than itself. It seems to be that if there is a moral order bearing upon the human conscience, that that moral order is unintelligible apart from the existence of God.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
Then you have to say one or other of two things. Either God only speaks to a very small percentage of mankind — which happens to include yourself — or He deliberately says things are not true in talking to the consciences of savages.
FATHER COPLESTON
Well, you see, I’m not suggesting that God actually dictates moral precepts to the conscience. The human being’s ideas of the content of the moral law depends entirely to a large extent on education and environment, and a man has to use his reason in assessing the validity of the actual moral ideas of his social group. But the possibility of criticizing the accepted moral code presupposes that there is an objective standard, and there is an ideal moral order, which imposes itself (I mean the obligatory character of which can be recognized). I think that the recognition of this ideal moral order is part of the recognition of contingency. It implies the existence of a real foundation of God.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
But the law-giver has always been, it seems to me, one’s parents or someone like. There are plenty of terrestrial law-givers to account for it, and that would explain why people’s consciences are so amazingly different in different times and places.
FATHER COPLESTON
It helps to explain differences in the perception of particular moral values, which otherwise are inexplicable. It will help to explain changes in the matter of the moral law in the content of the precepts as accepted by this or that nation, or this or that individual. But the form of it, what Kant calls the categorical imperative, the “ought,” I really don’t see how that can possibly be conveyed to anybody by nurse or parent because there aren’t any possible terms, so far as I can see, with which it can be explained. it can’t be defined in other terms than itself, because once you’ve defined it in other terms than itself you’ve explained it away. It’s no longer a moral “ought.” It’s something else.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, I think the sense of “ought” is the effect of somebody’s imagined disapproval, it may be God’s imagined disapproval, but it’s somebody’s imagined disapproval. And I think that is what is meant by “ought.”
FATHER COPLESTON
It seems to me to be external customs and taboos and things of that sort which can most easily be explained simply through environment and education, but all that seems to me to belong to what I call the matter of the law, the content. The idea of the “ought” as such can never be conveyed to a man by the tribal chief or by anybody else, because there are no other terms in which it could be conveyed. It seems to me entirely….
BERTRAND RUSSELL
But I don’t see any reason to say that — I mean we all know about conditioned reflexes. We know that an animal, if punished habitually for a certain sort of act, after a time will refrain. I don’t think the animal refrains from arguing within himself, “Master will be angry if I do this.” He has a feeling that that’s not the thing to do. That’s what we can do with ourselves and nothing more.
FATHER COPLESTON
I see no reason to suppose that an animal has a consciousness or moral obligation; and we certainly don’t regard an animal as morally responsible for his acts of disobedience. But a man has a consciousness of obligation and of moral values. I see no reason to suppose that one could condition all men as one can “condition” an animal, and I don’t suppose you’d really want to do so even if one could. If “behaviorism” were true, there would be no objective moral distinction between the emperor Nero and St. Francis of Assisi. I can’t help feeling, Lord Russell, you know, that you regard the conduct of the Commandant of Belsen as morally reprehensible, and that you yourself would never under any circumstances act in that way, even if you thought, or had reason to think, that possibly the balance of the happiness of the human race might be increased through some people being treated in that abominable manner.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
No. I wouldn’t imitate the conduct of a mad dog. The fact that I wouldn’t do it doesn’t really bear on this question we’re discussing.
FATHER COPLESTON
No, but if you were making a utilitarian explanation of right and wrong in terms of consequences, it might be held, and I suppose some of the Nazis of the better type would have held that although it’s lamentable to have to act in this way, yet the balance in the long run leads to greater happiness. I don’t think you’d say that, would you? I think you’d say that sort of action is wrong — and in itself, quite apart from whether the general balance of happiness is increased or not. Then, if you’re prepared to say that, then I think you must have some criterion of feeling, at any rate. To me, that admission would ultimately result in the admission of an ultimate ground of value in God.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
I think we are perhaps getting into confusion. It is not direct feeling about the act by which I should judge, but rather a feeling as to the effects. And I can’t admit any circumstances in which certain kinds of behavior, such as you have been discussing, would do good. I can’t imagine circumstances in which they would have a beneficial effect. I think the persons who think they do are deceiving themselves. But if there were circumstances in which they would have a beneficial effect, then I might be obliged, however reluctantly, to say — “Well, I don’t like these things, but I will acquiesce in them,” just as I acquiesce in the Criminal Law, although I profoundly dislike punishment.
FATHER COPLESTON
Well, perhaps it’s time I summed up my position. I’ve argued two things. First, that the existence of God can be philosophically proved by a metaphysical argument; secondly, that it is only the existence of God that will make sense of man’s moral experience and of religious experience. Personally, I think that your way of accounting for man’s moral judgments leads inevitably to a contradiction between what your theory demands and your own spontaneous judgments. Moreover, your theory explains moral obligation away, and explaining away is not explanation.
As regards the metaphysical argument, we are apparently in agreement that what we call the world consists simply of contingent beings. That is, of beings no one of which can account for its own existence. You say that the series of events needs no explanation: I say that if there were no necessary being, no being which must exist and cannot not-exist, nothing would exist. The infinity of the series of contingent beings, even if proved, would be irrelevant. Something does exist; therefore, there must be something which accounts for this fact, a being which is outside the series of contingent beings. If you had admitted this, we could then have discussed whether that being is personal, good, and so on. On the actual point discussed, whether there is or is not a necessary being, I find myself, I think in agreement with the great majority of classical philosophers.
You maintain, I think, that existing beings are simply there, and that I have no justification for raising the question of the explanation of their existence. But I would like to point out that this position cannot be substantiated by logical analysis; it expresses a philosophy which itself stands in need of proof. I think we have reached an impasse because our ideas of philosophy are radically different; it seems to me that what I call a part of philosophy, that you call the whole, insofar at least as philosophy is rational.
It seems to me, if you will pardon my saying so, that besides your own logical system — what you call “modern” in opposition to antiquated logic (a tendentious adjective) — you maintain a philosophy which cannot be substantiated by logical analysis. After all, the problem of God’s existence is an existential problem whereas logical analysis does not deal directly with problems of existence. So it seems to me, to declare that the terms involved in one set of problems are meaningless because they are not required in dealing with another set of problems, is to settle from the beginning the nature and extent of philosophy, and that is itself a philosophical act which stands in need of justification.
BERTRAND RUSSELL
Well, I should like to say just a few words by way of summary on my side. First, as to the metaphysical argument: I don’t admit the connotations of such a term as “contingent” or the possibility of explanation in Father Copleston’s sense. I think the word “contingent” inevitably suggests the possibility of something that wouldn’t have this what you might call accidental character of just being there, and I don’t think is true except int he purely causal sense. You can sometimes give a causal explanation of one thing as being the effect of something else, but that is merely referring one thing to another thing and there’s no — to my mind — explanation in FATHER COPLESTON’s sense of anything at all, nor is there any meaning in calling things “contingent” because there isn’t anything else they could be.
That’s what I should say about that, but I should like to say a few words about Father Copleston’s accusation that I regard logic as all philosophy — that is by no means the case. I don’t by any means regard logic as all philosophy. I think logic is an essential part of philosophy and logic has to be used in philosophy, and in that I think he and I are at one. When the logic that he uses was new — namely, in the time of Aristotle, there had to be a great deal of fuss made about it; Aristotle made a lot of fuss about that logic. Nowadays it’s become old and respectable, and you don’t have to make so much fuss about it. The logic that I believe in is comparatively new, and therefore I have to imitate Aristotle in making a fuss about it; but it’s not that I think it’s all philosophy by any means — I don’t think so. I think it’s an important part of philosophy, and when I say that, I don’t find a meaning for this or that word, that is a position of detail based upon what I’ve found out about that particular word, from thinking about it. It’s not a general position that all words that are used in metaphysics are nonsense, or anything like that which I don’t really hold.
As regards the moral argument, I do find that when one studies anthropology or history, there are people who think it their duty to perform acts which I think abominable, and I certainly can’t, therefore, attribute Divine origin to the matter of moral obligation, which FATHER COPLESTON doesn’t ask me to; but I think even the form of moral obligation, when it takes the form of enjoining you to eat your father or what not, doesn’t seem to me to be such a very beautiful and noble thing; and, therefore, I cannot attribute a Divine origin to this sense of moral obligation, which I think is quite easily accounted for in quite other ways.
President Reagan, Nancy Reagan, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton attending the Dinner Honoring the Nation’s Governors. 2/22/87.
Ronald Reagan is my favorite president and I have devoted several hundred looking at his ideas. Take a look at these links below:
President Reagan and Nancy Reagan attending “All Star Tribute to Dutch Reagan” at NBC Studios(from left to right sitting) Colleen Reagan, Neil Reagan, Maureen Reagan, President, Nancy Reagan, Dennis Revell. (From left to right standing) Emmanuel Lewis, Charlton Heston, Ben Vereen, Monty Hall, Frank Sinatra, Burt Reynolds, Dean Martin, Eydie Gorme, Vin Scully, Steve Lawrence, last 2 unidentified. Burbank, California 12/1/85.
Above you will see the picture of Charlton Heston. My wife actually got her picture taken with Heston in 1992 when he came in to try to jump start Mike Huckabee’s effort to beat Senator Dale Bumpers.
My favorite president is Ronald Wilson Reagan. President Reagan with Nancy Reagan, William Wilson, Betty Wilson, Walter Annenberg, Leonore Annenberg, Earle Jorgensen, Marion Jorgensen, Harriet Deutsch and Armand Deutschat at a private birthday party in honor of President Reagan’s 75th Birthday in the White House Residence. 2/7/86. Milton Friedman’s book “Free to Choose” did influence […]
Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Sep 7, 2011 Share this on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/qnjkn9 Tweet it: http://tiny.cc/o9v9t In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy goal, one point is forgotten: Government doesn’t create jobs. Government only diverts resources from one use to another, which doesn’t […]
Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 16, 2010 http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/16/new-video-pork-filled-spending-bill-just-… Despite promises from President Obama last year and again last month that he opposed reckless omnibus spending bills and earmarks, the White House and members of Congress are now supporting a reckless $1.1 trillion spending bill reportedly stuffed with roughly 6,500 earmarks. ________________________ Below you see an […]
Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman discusses the principles of Ronald Reagan during this talk for students at Young America’s Foundation’s 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN In Friday’s WSJ, Milton Friedman reflectedon Ronald Reagan’s legacy. (The link should work for a few more […]
Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict Concerning spending cuts Reagan believed, that members of Congress “wouldn’t lie to him when he should have known better.” However, can you believe a drug addict when he tells you he is not ever going to do his habit again? Congress is addicted to spending too […]
A Ronald Reagan radio address from 1975 addresses the topics of abortion and adoption. This comes from a collection of audio commentaries titled “Reagan in His Own Voice.” I just wanted to share with you one of the finest prolife papers I have ever read, and it is by President Ronald Wilson Reagan. I have […]
Princess Diana dancing with John Travolta in the entrance hall at the White House. 11/9/85. From November of 1980, here is CBS’s coverage of Election Night. Taped from WJKW-TV8, Cleveland. This is part 3 of 3. Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation wrote an excellent article on Ronald Reagan and the events that transpired during the […]
The Reagans have tea with Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the White House residence. 11/9/85 . I remember when I visited London in July of 1981 and the whole town was getting ready for the big royal wedding between Prince Charles and Princess Diana. Above you will see them pictured with President Reagan. From […]
This song is about life, the title ‘Bittersweet Symphony’ refers to the ups and downs of life. The song deffinately has a great sense of irony about it, the lyrics, ‘try to make ends meet, your a slave to money till you die’ have a message of inevitablitiy about them.
The song furthers this idea of the inevitability of life with the lyrics, I’ll take you down the only road I’ve ever been down, you know the one that takes you to the places where all of ends meet yeah’. The ‘places’ in this case are the end of life or the end of the road in the metaphorical sense the song uses.
The ‘Bittersweet’ aspect can also be see in the lyrics, the singer often expresses hope citing music as an important factor in this ‘I let the melody shine let it clense my mind I feel free now’. However the ‘bitter’ aspect is always shown straight afterwards ‘but the airways are clean and theres nobody singing to me now’.
Essentially ‘Bittersweet Symphony’ is about the realisation that all life will end at some point and uses the metaphor of a road to express this.
_____________
I agree with the review above. It is true that life will end at some point. Chris Martin has written alot about this same subject and that is no doubt why he chose this song as the best ever written. (You will see below that the song “Dust in the Wind” by Kansas in 1978 also had the same final result of ‘Bittersweet Symphony.”)
‘Cause it’s a bittersweet symphony, this life
Try to make ends meet
Your a slave to money then you die
I’ll take you down the only road I’ve ever been down
You know the one that takes you
to the places where all the things meet yeahNo change,
I can’t change I can’t change, I can’t change
But I’m here in my mold, I am here in my mold
But I’m a million different people from one day to the next
I can’t change my mold
No, no, no, no, no
Well I never pray
But tonight I’m on my knees yeah
I need to hear some sounds
that recognize the pain in me, yeah
I let the melody shine, let it cleanse my mind,
I feel free now
But the airways are clean
and there’s nobody singing to me now
No change,
I can’t change I can’t change, I can’t change
But I’m here in my mold, I am here in my mold
And I’m a million different people from one day to the next
I can’t change my mold
No, no, no, no, no
I can’t change I can’t change
‘Cause it’s a bittersweet symphony, this life
Try to make ends meet
Try to find some money, then you die
I’ll take you down the only road I’ve ever been down
You know the one that takes you
to the places where all the things meet yeah
You know I can’t change, I can’t change
I can’t change, I can’t change
But I’m here in my mold, I am here in my mold
And I’m a million different people from one day to the next
I can’t change my mold
No, no, no, no, no
I can’t change my mold
no, no, no, no, no,
I can’t change
I’ll take you down the only road I’ve ever been down
I’ll take you down the only road I’ve ever been down
(It justs sex and violence melody and silence)
(Been down)
(Ever been down)
That you’ve ever been down
That you’ve ever been down
Chris Martin was brought up as an evangelical Christian but he left the faith once he left his childhood home. However, there are been some actions in his life in the last few years that demonstrate that he still is grappling with his childhood Chistian beliefs. Let us take look at a few verses in the Book of Romans chapter one and we will see how they are relevant to a song written by Coldplay.
On June 23, 2012 my son Wilson and I got to attend a Coldplay Concert in Dallas. It was great. I wish they had played “Cemeteries of London” at the Dallas concert since I like that song a lot. Let me show you two points from the Book of Romans:
God reveals Himself in two Ways
Lets take a look at the lyrics from the song “Cemeteries of London:”
God is in the houses
And God is in my head
And all the cemeteries of London
I see God come in my garden
But I don’t know what He said
For my heart, it wasn’t open
Not open
Romans chapter one clearly points out that God has revealed Himself through both the created world around us and also in a God-given conscience that testifies to each person that God exists.
Notice in this song that the song writer notes, “I see God come in my garden” and “God is in my head.” These are the exact two places mentioned by the scripture. Romans 1:18-20 (Amplified version)
18For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.
19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.
20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(B)
Concerning these verses Francis Schaeffer said:
The world is guilty of suppressing God’s truth and living accordingly. The universe and its form and the mannishness of Man speak the same truth that the Bible gives in greater detail.
This is what Chris Martin is having to deal with and he is clearly searching for spiritual answers but it seems he have not found them quite yet. The song “42“: “Time is so short and I’m sure, There must be something more.” Then in the song “Lost” Martin sings these words: “Every river that I tried to cross, Every door I ever tried was locked..”
Solomon went to the extreme in his searching in the Book of Ecclesiastes for this “something more” that Coldplay is talking about, but he found riches (2:8-11), pleasure (2:1), education (2:3), fame (2:9) and his work (2:4) all “meaningless” and “vanity” and “a chasing of the wind.” Every door he tried was locked.
Solomon is searching for the meaning of life in the Book of Ecclesiastes and that reminds me a lot of the search that Chris Martin is currently in. By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. My prediction: I am hoping that Coldplay’s next album will also come to that same conclusion that Solomon came to in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14:
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.
Kerry Livgren of Kansas found Christ eventually after first trying some Eastern Religions. I remember telling my friends in 1978 when “Dust in the Wind” was the number 6 song in the USA that Kansas had written a philosophical song that came to the same conclusion about humanistic man as Solomon did so long ago and I predicted that some members of that band would come to know the Christ of the Bible in a personal way.
You can hear Kerry Livgren’s story from this youtube link:
Coldplay Live in Dallas – Lover’s in Japan Ball Drop Published on Jun 23, 2012 by TheRyanj64 Live From the American Airlines Center in Dallas Texas June 22, 2012 Coldplay – Lover’s in Japan Ball Drop Coldplay brought confetti, lights and thousands of fans to the American Airlines Center; see photos from their colorful show […]
Coldplay – Yellow (Live) @ American Airlines Center Published on Jun 23, 2012 by Crwdickerson Coldplay Performing Yellow @ American Airlines Center Dallas June 22, 2012 Coldplay brought confetti, lights and thousands of fans to the American Airlines Center; see photos from their colorful show Photo Gallery News Sports Lifestyles Comments (0) 3/11 Chris […]
THE FRANCIS SCHAEFFER CENTENNIAL – INVOCATION – PASTOR TONY FELICH Uploaded by schaefferstudies on Feb 3, 2012 Pastor Tony Felich of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Overland Park, KS gives the invocation to the mini conference event in honor of Francis Schaeffer’s 100th Birthday. __________________________ This year Francis Schaeffer would have turned 100 on Jan 30, […]
Coldplay “paradise” Dallas Texas 6/22/12 ( Floor View ) Published on Jun 23, 2012 by ccam cher Awesome concert Coldplay brought confetti, lights and thousands of fans to the American Airlines Center; see photos from their colorful show Photo Gallery News Sports Lifestyles Comments (0) 9/11 Chris Martin was brought up as an […]
Coldplay – In My Place (Live in Dallas) June 22 2012 Published on Jun 24, 2012 by maimiaa Coldplay performing at American Airlines Center in Dallas, TX Coldplay brought confetti, lights and thousands of fans to the American Airlines Center; see photos from their colorful show Photo Gallery News Sports Lifestyles Comments (0) […]
Coldplay – Mylo Xyloto/Hurts Like Heaven (Live) @ American Airlines Center Coldplay brought confetti, lights and thousands of fans to the American Airlines Center; see photos from their colorful show Photo Gallery News Sports Lifestyles Comments (0) 2/11 Published on Jun 24, 2012 by Crwdickerson Coldplay Performing Mylo Xyloto/Hurts Like Heaven @ […]
Is our country learning from history? California keeps raising their taxes on the wealthy and people keep moving from California to Texas. What does our federal government do? They also have been raising taxes on the wealthy lately. Take a look at this excellent video below and then read a great article by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute on what is happening in California right now.
Will Higher Tax Rates Balance the Budget?
Published on Apr 11, 2012
As the U.S. debt and deficit grows, some politicians and economist have called for higher tax rates in order to balance the budget. The question becomes: when the government raises taxes, does it actually collect a larger portion of the US economy?
Professor Antony Davies examines 50 years of economic data and finds that regardless of tax rates, the percentage of GDP that the government collects has remained relatively constant. In other words, no matter how high government sets tax rates, the government gets about the same portion. According to Davies, if we’re concerned about balancing the budget, we should worry less about raising tax revenue and more about growing the economy. The recipe for growth? Lower tax rates and a simplified tax code.
Like most people, I’m a sucker for a heartwarming story around the holidays.
Sometimes, you get that nice feeling when good things happen to good people, like you find at the end of a classic movie like “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
But since I’m a bit of a curmudgeon, I also feel all warm and fuzzy when bad things happen to bad people.
That’s why I always smile when I read stories about taxpayers moving across borders, thus preventing greedy tax-hiking politicians from collecting more revenue.
I smile because I envision the moment when some budget geek tells these sleazy politicians that projected revenues aren’t materializing and they don’t have more money to spend.
So I wish I could be a fly on the wall when this moment of truth happens to California politicians. They convinced voters in the state to enact Prop 30, a huge tax increase targeting those evil, awful, bad rich people.
Governor Brown and his fellow kleptocrats in Sacramento doubtlessly are salivating at the thought of more money to waste.
But notwithstanding a satirical suggestion from Walter Williams, there aren’t guard towers and barbed-wire fences surrounding the state. Productive people can leave, and that’s happening every day. And they take their taxable income with them.
Usually in ways that don’t attract attention. But sometimes a bunch of them leave at the same times, and that is newsworthy. Here’s an example of that happening, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.
Chevron Corp. will move up to 800 jobs – about a quarter of its current headquarters staff – from the Bay Area to Houston over the next two years but will remain based in San Ramon, the oil company told employees Thursday. …The company already employs far more people in Houston – about 9,000 full-time employees and contractors – than it does in San Ramon.
We don’t know a lot of details, but these were positions at the company’s headquarters and they were “technical positions dealing with information and advanced energy technologies…tied to Chevron’s worldwide oil exploration and production business.”
Let’s assume these highly skilled employees earn an average of $250,000. I imagine that’s a low-ball estimate, but this is just for purposes of a thought experiment. Now multiply that average salary by 800 workers and you get $200 million of income.
And every penny of that $200 million no longer will be subject to tax by the kleptocrats in the state’s capital.
What’s happening in a big way with Chevron is happening in small ways every single day with investors, entrepreneurs, small business owners, and other “rich’ people.
That’s good for the people escaping. And it also will warm my heart when California’s despicable politicians discover next year that there’s an “unexpected” revenue shortfall.
How can Washington D. C. get enough money to balance the budget and not cut spending. The answer is that everyone’s taxes must go up. Don’t let anyone fool you. There is not enough money to just tax the rich. Instead, entitlements need to be reform and real spending cuts need to be made. The real problem is spending. Washington already has enough of our taxes.
The Washington establishment loves talking about the “distribution” of income and taxes. The CBO has issued a new report on the topic that will no doubt keep the discussion rolling on.
The mindset of many people in government is encapsulated by this sentence in the CBO report: “Market income is very unevenly distributed.” But anyone with a decent appreciation of America’s economy knows that market income is in fact earned in a decentralized fashion by 140 million people and 25 million businesses spread across this vast land. It is not ”distributed” from a big vault in the capital by central-planning czars with a god-given preemptive right to decide how much everyone gets.
Yes, the huge subsidies that the federal government hands out each year are “distributed.” But CBO statisticians seem to be so used to thinking about the entire economy as a giant government-created pie that they say market income is also distributed.
That said, the CBO report has some interesting statistics to consider. Most important are calculations of average federal tax rates, which are total federal taxes paid as a share of income. The chart shows average tax rates by quintiles, which each contain one fifth of U.S. households grouped by income level. The households at the top are hit with the largest burdens by far. Elsewhere, I’ve discussed who some of these high-earning households are and the damage done by nailing them with such high taxes. (For example, see here and here).
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Uploaded by Scott87508 on Oct 3, 2010 __________________ Some wise words below I got off the internet: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 The Infinite-Personal God: Thoughts from Francis Schaeffer’s Escape from Reason Perhaps you are familiar with the indie band Arcade Fire. Their […]
L’Abri : Sounds & Sites of a Shelter Uploaded by mdshivers on Nov 12, 2006 A fun video of the day in the life at L’Abri Fellowship in Switzerland. I made this video in 2003 while there and I was trying to capture the sounds and everyday life of it. Was on the Labri.org site […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2 Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970′s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him. Francis Schaeffer 1912-1984 Christian Theologian, Philosopher, […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]
Part 1 Part 2 Below is a summary of “A Christian Manifesto” which is a very important book written by Francis Schaeffer just a couple of years before his death in 1984. A Christian Manifesto by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer This address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian […]
Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29) What Ever Happened to the Human Race? I recently heard this Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson and it just reminded me of how prophetic Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were in the late 1970′s with their book and film series “Whatever happened to the human […]
___________________________________________ Francis Schaeffer is a hero of mine and I want to honor him with a series of posts on Sundays called “Schaeffer Sundays” which will include his writings and clips from his film series. I have posted many times in the past using his material. Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has argued, “If […]
(“Schaeffer Sundays” Part 1) Francis Schaeffer is a hero of mine and I want to honor him with a series of posts on Sundays called “Schaeffer Sundays” which will include his writings and clips from his film series. I have posted many times in the past using his material. Communism has never been […]
I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: elimination of belief in a Creator.1. Closed system derives not from the findings of science but from philosophy.2. Now there is no place for the significance of Man, for morals, or for love.C. Darwin taught that all life evolved through the survival of the fittest.1. Serious problems inherent in Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.
This is probably one of the most important episodes in the series.
T h e
SCIENTIFIC AGE
I. Church Attacks on Copernican Science Were Philosophical
Galileo’s and Copernicus’ works did not contradict the Bible but the elements of Aristotle’s teaching which had entered the Church.
II. Examples of Biblical Influence
A. Pascal’s work.
1. First successful barometer; great writing of French prose.
2. Understood Man’s uniqueness: Man could contemplate, and Man had value to God.
B. Newton
1. Speed of sound and gravity.
2. For Newton and the other early scientists, no problem concerning the why, because they began with the existence of a personal God who had created the universe.
C. Francis Bacon
1. Stressed careful observation and systematic collection of information.
2. Bacon and the other early scientists took the Bible seriously, including its teaching concerning history and the cosmos.
D. Faraday
1. Crowning discovery was the induction of the electric current.
2. As a Christian, believed God’s Creation is for all men to understand and enjoy, not just for a scientific elite.
III. Scientific Aspects of Biblical Influence
A. Oppenheimer and Whitehead: biblical foundations of scientific revolution.
B. Not all early scientists individually Christian, but all lived within Christian thought forms. This gave a base for science to continue and develop.
C. The contrast between Christian-based science and Chinese and Arab science.
D. Christian emphasis on an ordered Creation reflects nature of reality and is therefore acted upon in all cultures, regardless of what they say their world view is.
1. Einstein’s theory of relativity does not imply relative universe.
2. Man acts on assumption of order, whether he likes it or not.
3. Master idea of biblical science.
a) Uniformity of natural causes in an open system: cause and effect works, but God and Man not trapped in a process.
b) All that exists is not a total cosmic machine.
c) Human choices therefore have meaning and effect.
d) The cosmic machine and the machines people make therefore not a threat.
IV. Shift in Modern Science
A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.
B. From an open to a closed natural system: elimination of belief in a Creator.
1. Closed system derives not from the findings of science but from philosophy.
2. Now there is no place for the significance of Man, for morals, or for love.
C. Darwin taught that all life evolved through the survival of the fittest.
1. Serious problems inherent in Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.
2. Extension of natural selection to society, politics and ethnics.
D. Natural selection and Nazi ideology.
E. The new authoritarianism: not the crudely dictatorial regimes of Hitler and Stalin. New regimes will be subtly manipulative, based on sophisticated arsenal of new techniques now available.
1. To obtain organs for transplants forces acceptance of new definition of death. Possible abuses.
2. Without the absolute line which Christianity gives of the total uniqueness of Man, people have no boundary line between what they can do and what they should do.
3. Moral and legal implications of Artificial Insemination by Donor (A.I.D.)
4. Skinner’s social psychology and the abolition of Man.
5. Tell people they are machines and they will tend to act accordingly.
6. Each theory of conditioning leads to social application.
a) Koestler: tranquilizer to cure human aggression.
b) Clark and Lee: controlling aggressions of politicians.
c) Kranty: control reproduction through the water supply.
7. Who controls the controllers? —The unasked question.
a) The basic question begged: the psycho-civilizer as King?
b) If people are machines, why should biological continuation have value?
V. Need to Reaffirm That Which Was the Original Base for Modern Science
Questions
1. Explain the important contributions to science made by biblical principles.
2. How should our knowledge of the biblical view of work and nature affect our own attitudes to research, study of the Bible, and the use of our minds?
3. Does this segment help you to understand how and why men of great intellectual refinement in Nazi Germany could accept what was going on?
4. “Without the absolute line which Christianity gives of the total uniqueness of Man, people have no boundary line between what they can do and what they should do.” Discuss.
Key Events and Persons
Copernicus: 1475-1543
Francis Bacon: 1561-1626
Novum Organum Scientiarum: 1620
Galileo: 1564-1642
Pascal: 1623-1662
Isaac Newton: 1642-1727
Principia Mathematica: 1687
Michael Faraday: 1791-1867
Charles Darwin: 1809-1882
Origin of Species: 1859
Herbert Spencer: 1820-1903
Albert Einstein: 1879-1955
Russel Lee: 1895-
Heinrich Himmler: 1900-1945
B.F. Skinner: 1904-1990
Arthur Koestler: 1905-
Kenneth B. Clark: 1914-
Murray Eden: 1920-
Kermit Kranty: 1923-
Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity: 1971
Further Study
Robin Briggs, ed., The Scientific Revolution of the Seventeenth Century (1969).
E.A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (1932).
Arthur Koestler, The Watershed. A Biography of Johannes Kepler (1960).
Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1967).
C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength (1945).
C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1972).
D.M. Mackay, The Clockwork Image (1974).
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. Wistar Symposium
Monograph, no. 5 (1967).
B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971).
How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason)
#02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer
10 Worldview and Truth
Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100
Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION
Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR
BERTRAND RUSSELL
FATHER COPLESTON
The Daily Hatch 