FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 176 Nat Hentoff, historian,atheist, pro-life advocate, novelist, jazz and country music critic, and syndicated columnist (Featured artist is Gerard ’t Hooft )

Remembering Nat Hentoff, Don Ciccone, Peter Sarstedt

Jewish World Review Feb. 2, 2011 / 28 Shevat, 5771

Pro-lifers herald a breakthrough

By Nat Hentoff |With Egypt and other challenges occupying him, the president and other pro-abortion forces may soon have to deal with another problem: the rising results of a landmark law passed by the Nebraska legislature (44-5) and signed into law by Gov. Dave Heineman on Oct. 15, 2010. For the first time in any state legislature, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act:

“Prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother has a condition which so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

As National Right to Life Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch explains the meaning of “pain capable unborn children”: “Given the overwhelming body of evidence showing that unborn children can feel pain by at least 20 weeks postfertilization, states have a compelling interest to step in and protect these children from the excruciating pain of abortion.

“We fully expect that by the end of the spring state legislative session, more states will join Nebraska in prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks” (, Jan. 24).

I am a secularist (non-religious) pro-lifer; but I am also a fact-based reporter. For a partial but long list of clinical scientific studies that document these post-20 weeks pain capabilities, I recommend — beginning with a Nov. 19, 1987, New England Journal of Medicine report, “Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus” by Dr. K.J.S Anand, followed by many later studies.

Preparing for this column, I have now read many of these scientific studies. They bring me back to why and how I became a pro-lifer in the 1980s, to the surprise and anger of some of my journalism colleagues. I had long accepted the pro-choice position of most people I knew until, working on a story about a heated abortion controversy, my research included a non-political, non-polemical medical textbook, “The Unborn Patient: Prenatal Diagnosis and Treatment” by Harrison, Globus and Filly, published by W.B. Saunders, a division of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

What first jolted me, forcing me to read it more than once, was: “The concept that the fetus is a patient, an individualwhose maladies are a proper subject for medical treatment as well as scientific observation, is alarmingly modern. Only now are we beginning to consider the fetus seriously, medically, legally and ethically.”

Thus began my controversial path as a pro-lifer. Some women reporters I knew stopped speaking to me. In 1995, when I was astonished to receive the National Press Foundation award for “lifetime distinguished contributions to journalism,” I came to Washington to eagerly accept it.

The head of the foundation had told me the selection committee’s vote was unanimous; but in the elevator on the way to the auditorium, I ran into one of the jurors who laughed when I thanked her for being part of that unanimous recognition.

“Well,” she told me, “there was a very lively session before the final vote.” Immediately guessing what had provoked that lively debate about my being the recipient, I said to the former juror:

“You mean because I’m pro-life?”

She nodded in affirmation. My heresy having been overcome, I took my seat at the table and listened to the introduction from the then editor of the Washington Post’s editorial page, the legendary Meg Greenfield, who had some years before made me a weekly columnist for that paper:

“Nat Hentoff is not chic. Never has been, as those of us who have known him over the centuries can attest. Never will be. He is independent, not tribal in his views. And he is stubborn — not to put too fine a point on it, he is terminally stubborn. He has come to the defense of some of the most loathsome human beings in our society when he knew their fundamental rights — and by extension the rights of all — were being endangered.”

Sitting next to me, my wife, on hearing the “stubborn” reference, vigorously nodded assent. But how could I not have become stubbornly pro-life once I saw the fetus as an individual — medically, legally and ethically. I would think that anyone who has seen a multidimensional sonogram of an actual fetus would find it hard to deny that he or she is an individual, a human person.

There was more to my education. In 1997, as I wrote in my memoir, “Speaking Freely” (Alfred A. Knopf): “I spoke to a number of physicians who do research in prenatal development, and they emphasized that human life is a continuum from fertilization to death. Setting up divisions of this process to justify abortion, for example, is artificial. It is the life of a developing (human) being that is being killed.

“The euphemisms for an aborted fetus — ‘the product of conception’ and ‘a clump of cells’ — are what George Orwell might have called newspeak.” Orwell was a pro-lifer (Crisis Magazine, February 2004).

This year, as versions of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are introduced in a number of state legislatures, there will obviously be fierce opposition from local, state and national pro-choice organizations and political figures, as well as President Obama. I expect, however, that this Nebraska breakthrough for pro-lifers may well become law in certain states.

One of those laws is likely to come before the Supreme Court. As a civil libertarian, I’m not a fan of the Roberts Court, but Mary Spaulding Balch may be right in declaring: “Although it will be a case of first impression, there are strong grounds to believe that five members of the current U.S. Supreme Court would give serious consideration to Nebraska’s assertion of a compelling interest in preserving the life of an unborn child whom substantial medical evidence indicates is capable of feeling pain during an abortion.”

Who knows? Someone whose life is saved by such a law might someday be on the Supreme Court. Or, if Obamacare is repealed, another survivor may find ways to significantly improve health care for many of us, without rationing it.

Every weekday publishes what many in the media and Washington consider “must-reading”. Sign up for the daily JWR update. It’s free. Just click here.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of several books, including his current work, “The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance”. Comment by clicking here.

Nat Hentoff Archives

Nat Hentoff like and Milton Friedman and John Hospers was a hero to Libertarians. Over the years I had the opportunity to correspond with some prominent Libertarians such as Friedman and Hospers. Friedman was very gracious, but Hospers was not. I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link.  Earlier I posted the comments made by Hospers in his letter to me and you can access those posts by clicking on the links in the first few sentences of this post or you can just google “JOHN HOSPERS FRANCIS SCHAEFFER” or “JOHN HOSPERS ADRIAN ROGERS.”

Image result for john hospers francis schaeffer


Image result for nat hentoff milton friedman

Likewise I read a lot of material from Nat Hentoff and I wrote him several letters. In the post I will include one of those letters.

Nat Hentoff on abortion

Published on Nov 5, 2016


August 9, 2016

Nat Hentoff c/o Cato Institute,

Dear Mr. Hentoff,

This is the 5th time I have written in the last three years. I just learned today that your old friend Bob Dylan is going to be in concert in October in nearby Tulsa.  I am very excited about that I am going to be there with my sons and some of their friends too.

I am really hoping that one of the songs Dylan play in Tulsa is A BALLAD OF A THIN MAN which is a song that has a lot of great meaning to it.

I have written about Dylan several times on my blog and here is a portion below from a post I did a couple of years ago entitled: FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 25 BOB DYLAN (Part C) Francis Schaeffer comments on Bob Dylan’s song “Ballad of a Thin Man” and the disconnect between the young generation of the 60’s and their parents’ generation (Feature on artist Fred Wilson)

Bob Dylan looked into the modern thought  of the 1960’s and he saw that the educated class did not have the answers and he was looking for the answers to the big questions of life in his writings. Over and over again back then reporters were asking him what his songs meant. Actually his songs were an effort to bring up the big questions but he did not have the answers. In the song “A Ballad of a Thin Man” Dylan ridicules the reporter “Mr. Jones” throughout the song for his lack of understanding of this new generation.  “Oh my God, am I here all alone?” is the feeling that Mr. Jones has after following around Dylan because he doesn’t even to begin to understand the deep seated dissatisfaction of this new generation with the status quo. Every person that ever lived has had this feeling at one time or another and Romans chapter one discusses the inner conscience that everyone has that points them to the God of the Bible that created the world and put them on this earth for a purpose. 

Francis Schaeffer in his film series THE AGE OF PERSONAL PEACE AND AFFLUENCE  made the following points concerning the young people of the 1960’s:

I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought

II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism

Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed Values

A. General acceptance of selfish values (personal peace and affluence) accompanied rejection of Christian consensus.

1. Personal peace means: I want to be left alone, and I don’t care what happens to the man across the street or across the world. I want my own life-style to be undisturbed regardless of what it will mean — even to my own children and grandchildren.

2. Affluence means things, things, things, always more things — and success is seen as an abundance of things.

B. Students wish to escape meaninglessness of much of adult society.

1. Watershed was Berkeley in 1964.

Bob Dylan also was writing in his music about the disconnect between the young generation of the 1960’s and their parents’ generation. Francis Schaeffer noted: It is called “A Ballad of a a Thin Man” and it apparently was written by Bob Dylan himself. Last time I read you the back cover of the album and I pointed out that when you go to the museums and also in the Theater and  in the pop records you see this same message. This is far from nothing. The very music is tremendous. It is great communication. It is like pop art. It is very destructive and just like the Theatre of the absurd although it destroys everything and leaves you with nonsense seemingly yet when you listen to the words with great care it has made a very selective destruction. Let me read the words.

You walk into the room
With your pencil in your hand
You see somebody naked
And you say who is that man?
You try so hard
But you don’t understand
Just what you would’ve said
When you get home

Something is happening
But you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

You sneak into the window
And you say, “Is this where it is?”
Somebody points his finger at you
And says, “It’s his”
And you say, “What’s mine?”
Someone else says, “Where what is?”
And you say, “Oh my God, am I here all alone?”

Something is happening
But you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

You hand in your ticket
And you go see the geek
Who walks up to you
When he hears you speak
And says, “How does it feel
To be such a freak?”
And you say, “Impossible”
As he hands you a bone

Something is happening
And you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

You have many contacts
Out there among the lumberjacks
To get you facts
When someone attacks your imagination
But no one has any respect
Anyway they just expect
You to hand over your check
To tax deductible charity organizations

The sword swallower walks up to you
And he kneels
He crosses himself
And then he clicks his high heels
And without further notice
Asks you how it feels
And says, “Here’s your throat back
Thanks for the loan”

Something is happening
And you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

You crawl into the room
Like a camel and you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And you put your nose into the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin’ around
You got to be made
To be wearing a telephone

But something is happening
And you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

Something is happening here
And you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

Bob Dylan

Francis Schaeffer observed:

In the June 28, 1966 issue of Look Magazine in the article on California the writer concludes, “It may seem ironical that a highly technical society demands a means for mystically exploration and this is LSD.” All of these may sound different. LSD and Bob Dylan may sounds miles apart. A tremendous art work in one of our great museums and the kids in a concert listening to Bob Dylan but in reality the message is the same. The tension is that according to all logic and rationality ALL IS ABSURD, yet man at the same time can not live with this and he is in this tremendous tension. He just can’t get away from being human. This is exactly what Paul was talking about in the Book of Romans and that man really knows about God and he knows about God in his conscience and from God’s external [creative] works.


At one point in his life Bob Dylan did come to the same final conclusion that Solomon did so long ago in the Book of Ecclesiastes  when he observed the world around him and Dylan expressed this same conclusion in his song “Gotta Serve Somebody” back in the early 1980’s.

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.

Was Schaeffer right to point at that all people have to deal with the world that God has made around them and they must struggle with their own agnostic views because the conscience that God has given them and the evidence from the creation around them tells them that God exists? (Schaeffer’s terms are the universe and its form and the mannishness of man.)

I have a good friend who is a street preacher who preaches on the Santa Monica Promenade in California and during the Q/A sessions he does have lots of atheists that enjoy their time at the mic. When this happens he  always quotes Romans 1:18-19 (Amplified Bible) ” For God’s 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. For that which is KNOWN about God is EVIDENT to them and MADE PLAIN IN THEIR INNER CONSCIOUSNESS, because God  has SHOWN IT TO THEM,”(emphasis mine). Then he  tells the atheist that the atheist already knows that God exists but he has been suppressing that knowledge in unrighteousness. This usually infuriates the atheist.

My friend draws some large crowds at times and was thinking about setting up a lie detector test and see if atheists actually secretly believe in God. He discussed this project with me since he knew that I had done a lot of research on the idea about 20 years ago.

Nelson Price in THE EMMANUEL FACTOR (1987) tells the story about Brown Trucking Company in Georgia who used to give polygraph tests to their job applicants. However, in part of the test the operator asked, “Do you believe in God?” In every instance when a professing atheist answered “No,” the test showed the person to be lying. My pastor Adrian Rogers used to tell this same story to illustrate Romans 1:19 and it was his conclusion that “there is no such thing anywhere on earth as a true atheist. If a man says he doesn’t believe in God, then he is lying. God has put his moral consciousness into every man’s heart, and a man has to try to kick his conscience to death to say he doesn’t believe in God.”

It is true that polygraph tests for use in hiring were banned by Congress in 1988.  Mr and Mrs Claude Brown on Aug 25, 1994  wrote me a letter confirming that over 15,000 applicants previous to 1988 had taken the polygraph test and EVERY TIME SOMEONE SAID THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, THE MACHINE SAID THEY WERE LYING.

It had been difficult to catch up to the Browns. I had heard about them from Dr. Rogers’ sermon but I did not have enough information to locate them. Dr. Rogers referred me to Dr. Nelson Price and Dr. Price’s office told me that Claude Brown lived in Atlanta. After writing letters to all 9 of the entries for Claude Brown in the Atlanta telephone book, I finally got in touch with the Browns.

Adrian Rogers also pointed out that the Bible does not recognize the theoretical atheist.  Psalms 14:1: The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”  Dr Rogers notes, “The fool is treating God like he would treat food he did not desire in a cafeteria line. ‘No broccoli for me!’ ” In other words, the fool just doesn’t want God in his life and is a practical atheist, but not a theoretical atheist. Charles Ryrie in the The Ryrie Study Bible came to the same conclusion on this verse.

Francis Schaeffer in his book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? noted:

In about A.D. 60, a Jew who was a Christian and who also knew the Greek and Roman thinking of his day wrote a letter to those who lived in Rome. Previously, he had said the same things to Greek thinkers while speaking on Mars Hill in Athens. He had spoken with the Acropolis above him and the ancient marketplace below him, in the place where the thinkers of Athens met for discussion. A plaque marks that spot today and gives his talk in the common Greek spoken in his day. He was interrupted in his talk in Athens, but his Letter to the Romans gives us without interruption what he had to say to the thinking people of that period.

He said that the integration points of the Greek and Roman world view were not enough to answer the questions posed either by the existence of the universe and its form, or by the uniqueness of man. He said that they deserved judgment because they knew that they did not have an adequate answer to the questions raised by the universe or by the existence of man, and yet they refused, they suppressed, that which is the answer. To quote his letter:

The retribution of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which is known of God is evident within them [that is, the uniqueness of man in contrast to non-man], for God made it evident to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made [that is, the existence of the universe and its form], even his eternal power and divinity; so that they are without excuse. [Roman 1:18ff.]

Here he is saying that the universe and its form and the mannishness of man speak the same truth that the Bible gives in greater detail. That this God exists and that he has not been silent but has spoken to people in the Bible and through Christ was the basis for the return to a more fully biblical Christianity in the days of the Reformers. It was a message of the possibility that people could return to God on the basis of the death of Christ alone. But with it came many other realities, including form and freedom in the culture and society built on that more biblical Christianity. The freedom brought forth was titanic, and yet, with the forms given in the Scripture, the freedoms did not lead to chaos. And it is this which can give us hope for the future. It is either this or an imposed order.

As I have said in the first chapter, people function on the basis of their world view more consistently than even they themselves may realize. The problem is not outward things. The problem is having, and then acting upon, the right world view — the world view which gives men and women the truth of what is.

Actually the answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted.

Thanks for your time.


Everette Hatcher,,, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 7222

Featured artist is Gerard ‘t Hooft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gerard ‘t Hooft
Gerard 't Hooft.jpg

November 2008
Born July 5, 1946 (age 70)
Den Helder, Netherlands
Nationality Dutch
Fields Theoretical physics
Institutions Utrecht University
Alma mater Utrecht University
Doctoral advisor Martinus J. G. Veltman
Doctoral students Robbert Dijkgraaf
Herman Verlinde
Known for Quantum field theory, Quantum gravity, ‘t Hooft–Polyakov monopole, ‘t Hooft symbol, ‘t Hooft operator, Holographic principle, Renormalization, Dimensional regularization
Notable awards Heineman Prize (1979)
Wolf Prize (1981)
Lorentz Medal (1986)
Spinoza Prize (1995)
Franklin Medal (1995)
Nobel Prize in Physics (1999)
Lomonosov Gold Medal (2010)

Gerardus (Gerard) ‘t Hooft (Dutch: [ˌɣeːrɑrt ət ˈɦoːft]; born July 5, 1946) is a Dutch theoretical physicist and professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He shared the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics with his thesis advisor Martinus J. G. Veltman “for elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions“.

His work concentrates on gauge theory, black holes, quantum gravity and fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. His contributions to physics include a proof that gauge theories are renormalizable, dimensional regularization, and the holographic principle.

Personal life[edit]

He is married to Albertha Schik (Betteke) and has two daughters, Saskia and Ellen.


Early life[edit]

Gerard ‘t Hooft was born in Den Helder on July 5, 1946, but grew up in The Hague, the seat of government of the Netherlands. He was the middle child of a family of three. He comes from a family of scholars. His grandmother was a sister of Nobel prize laureate Frits Zernike, and was married to Pieter Nicolaas van Kampen, who was a well-known professor of zoology at Leiden University. His uncle Nico van Kampen was an (emeritus) professor of theoretical physics at Utrecht University, and while his mother did not opt for a scientific career because of her gender,[1] she did marry a maritime engineer.[1] Following his family’s footsteps, he showed interest in science at an early age. When his primary school teacher asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up, he boldly declared, “a man who knows everything.”[1]

After primary school Gerard attended the Dalton Lyceum, a school that applied the ideas of the Dalton Plan, an educational method that suited him well. He easily passed his science and mathematics courses, but struggled with his language courses. Nonetheless, he passed his classes in English, French, German, classical Greek and Latin. At the age of sixteen he earned a silver medal in the second Dutch Math Olympiad. [1]


After Gerard ‘t Hooft passed his high school exams in 1964, he enrolled in the physics program at Utrecht University. He opted for Utrecht instead of the much closer Leiden, because his uncle was a professor there and he wanted to attend his lectures. Because he was so focused on science, his father insisted that he join the Utrechtsch Studenten Corps, an elite student association, in the hope that he would do something else besides studying. This worked to some extent, during his studies he was a coxswain with their rowing club “Triton” and organized a national congress for science students with their science discussion club “Christiaan Huygens”.

In the course of his studies he decided he wanted to go into what he perceived as the heart of theoretical physics, elementary particles. His uncle had grown to dislike the subject and in particular its practitioners, so when it became time to write his ‘doctoraalscriptie’ (Dutch equivalent of a master’s thesis) in 1968, ‘t Hooft turned to the newly appointed professor Martinus Veltman, who specialized in Yang–Mills theory, a relatively fringe subject at the time because it was thought that these could not be renormalized. His assignment was to study the Adler–Bell–Jackiw anomaly, a mismatch in the theory of the decay of neutral pions; formal arguments forbid the decay into photons, whereas practical calculations and experiments showed that this was the primary form of decay. The resolution of the problem was completely unknown at the time, and ‘t Hooft was unable to provide one.

In 1969, ‘t Hooft started on his PhD with Martinus Veltman as his advisor. He would work on the same subject Veltman was working on, the renormalization of Yang–Mills theories. In 1971 his first paper was published.[2] In it he showed how to renormalize massless Yang–Mills fields, and was able to derive relations between amplitudes, which would be generalized by Andrei Slavnov and John C. Taylor, and become known as the Slavnov–Taylor identities.

The world took little notice, but Veltman was excited because he saw that the problem he had been working on was solved. A period of intense collaboration followed in which they developed the technique of dimensional regularization. Soon ‘t Hooft’s second paper was ready to be published,[3] in which he showed that Yang–Mills theories with massive fields due to spontaneous symmetry breaking could be renormalized. This paper earned them worldwide recognition, and would ultimately earn the pair the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics.

These two papers formed the basis of ‘t Hooft’s dissertation, The Renormalization procedure for Yang–Mills Fields, and he obtained his PhD in 1972. In the same year he married his wife, Albertha A. Schik, a student of medicine in Utrecht.[1]


Gerard ‘t Hooft at Harvard

After obtaining his doctorate ‘t Hooft went to CERN in Geneva, where he had a fellowship. He further refined his methods for Yang–Mills theories with Veltman (who went back to Geneva). In this time he became interested in the possibility that the strong interaction could be described as a massless Yang–Mills theory, i.e. one of a type that he had just proved to be renormalizable and hence be susceptible to detailed calculation and comparison with experiment. According to his calculations, this type of theory possessed just the right kind of scaling properties (asymptotic freedom) that this theory should have according to deep inelastic scattering experiments. This was contrary to popular perception of Yang–Mills theories at the time, that like gravitation and electrodynamics, their intensity should decrease with increasing distance between the interacting particles; such conventional behaviour with distance was unable to explain the results of deep inelastic scattering, whereas ‘t Hooft’s calculations could. When he mentioned his results at a small conference at Marseilles in 1972, Kurt Symanzik urged him to publish this result.[1] He did not, and the result was eventually rediscovered and published by Hugh David Politzer, David Gross, and Frank Wilczek in 1973, which led to them earning the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.[4][5]

In 1974, ‘t Hooft returned to Utrecht where he became assistant professor. In 1976, he was invited for a guest position at Stanford and a position at Harvard as Morris Loeb lecturer. His eldest daughter, Saskia Anne, was born in Boston, while his second daughter, Ellen Marga, was born in 1978 after he returned to Utrecht, where he was made full professor.[1]

In 2007 ‘t Hooft became editor-in-chief for Foundations of Physics, where he sought to distance the journal from the controversy of ECE theory.[6] ‘t Hooft held the position until 2016.

On July 1, 2011 he was appointed Distinguished professor by Utrecht University.[7]





1 2 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1,2,3 ( 316 kb), 4,5: Spheres shining with color and reflecting a window.
6: Pythagoras’ Tree.
7: The 3-4-5 Triangle and its Fractal.
8: A Fractal Leaf.
9 ( 1,632 kb) and 10: Trees as 3 dimensional Fractals.
11: Tiling of the Plane with 7-fold Rotational Symmetry – a Mathematical Impossibility.
Then a 3 dimensional fractal produced from dodecaeders, followed by some 3-dimensional curved surfaces.
18:  my original design for the cover of my book “The Ultimate Building Blocks”. Unfortunately, the Editor didn’t like it. See my home page for what they did make.

These pictures have been reduced in size. Some of the pictures can be clicked to see the full resolution.
Poster format files (>10 times higher resolution) of all pictures can be obtained from Gerard ’t Hooft.


Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 135 H. J. Blackham Part C Featured artist is Richard Anuszkiewicz

________     H. J. Blackham H. J. Blackham, (31 March 1903 – 23 January 2009), was a leading and widely respected British humanist for most of his life. As a young man he worked in farming and as a teacher. He found his niche as a leader in the Ethical Union, which he steadfastly […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 134 H.J.Blackham Part B (Featured artist is Richard M. Loving)

H.J.Blackham pictured below: I had to pleasure of corresponding with Paul Kurtz in the 1990’s and he like H. J. Blackham firmly believed that religion was needed to have a basis for morals. At H. J. Blackham’s funeral in 2009 these words were read from Paul Kurtz: Paul Kurtz Founder and Chair, Prometheus Books and the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 133 A Portion of my 1994 letter to H. J. Blackham on the 10th Anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing (Featured artist is Billy Al Bengston )

H. J. Blackham pictured below:   On May 15, 1994 on the 10th anniversary of the passing of Francis Schaeffer I sent a letter to H.J. Blackham and here is a portion of that letter below: I have enclosed a cassette tape by Adrian Rogers and it includes  a story about  Charles Darwin‘s journey from […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 132 Part D Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Ronald Davis )

  I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92. Who were the artists who influenced […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 131 Part C Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Janet Fish )

__ I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92.       Who were the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 130 Part B Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Art Green )

Andy, Ellsworth Kelly, Richard Koshalek and unidentified guest, 1980s I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 129 Part A Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Sherrie Levine )

How Should We Then Live – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation   I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 128 Will Provine, Determinism, Part F (Featured artist is Pierre Soulages )

Today I am bringing this series on William Provine to an end.  Will Provine’s work was cited by  Francis Schaeffer  in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? I noted: I was sad to learn of Dr. Provine’s death. William Ball “Will” Provine (February 19, 1942 – September 1, 2015) He grew up an […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 127 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part E (Featured artist is Jim Dine )

___ Setting the record straight was Will Provine’s widow Gail when she stated, “[Will] did not believe in an ULTIMATE meaning in life (i.e. God’s plan), but he did believe in proximate meaning (i.e. relationships with people — friendship and especially LOVE🙂 ). So one’s existence is ultimately senseless and useless, but certainly not to those […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 126 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part D (Featured artists are Elena and Olivia Ceballos )

I was sad when I learned of Will Provine’s death. He was a very engaging speaker on the subject of Darwinism and I think he correctly realized what the full ramifications are when accepting evolution. This is the fourth post I have done on Dr. Provine and the previous ones are these links, 1st, 2nd […]


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: