Category Archives: Francis Schaeffer

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 244 ART AND THE BIBLE Part 1 Three basic possibilities concerning the nature of a work of art (Feature on artist Laylah Ali)

__________

Art and the Bible
by Francis Schaeffer

There is a very real sense in which the Christian life itself should be our greatest work of art.
Even for the great artist, the most crucial work of art is his l
distinct perspectives on art
francis schaeffer

All of us are engaged daily with works of art, even if we are neither professional nor amateur artists. We read books, we listen to music, we look at posters, we admire flower arrangements.

Art, as I am using the word, does not include just “high art” — that is, painting, sculpture, poetry, classical music — but also the more popular expressions — the novel, the theater, the cinema and popular music.

In fact, there is a very real sense in which the Christian life itself should be our greatest work of art. Even for the great artist, the most crucial work of art is his life. In what follows, I wish to develop a Christian perspective on art in general.

How should we as creators and enjoyers of beauty comprehend and evaluate it? There are, I believe, at least eleven distinct perspectives from which a Christian can consider and evaluate works of art. These perspectives do not exhaust the various aspects of art. The field of aesthetics is too rich for that. But they do cover a significant portion of what should be a Christian Ìs understanding in this area.

artwork as artwork

The first is the most important: a work of art has a value in itself. For some this principle may seem too obvious to mention, but for many Christians it is unthinkable. And yet if we miss this point, we miss the very essence of art.

Art is not something we merely analyze or value for its intellectual content. It is something to be enjoyed. The Bible says that the art work in the tabernacle and the temple was for beauty. How should an artist begin to do his work as an artist? I would insist that he begin his work as an artist by setting out to make a work of art. What that would mean is different in sculpture and poetry, for example, but in all cases the artist should be setting out to make a work of art.

As a Christian we know why a work of art has value. Why? First, because a work of art is a work of creativity, and creativity has value because God is the Creator. The first sentence in the Bible is the declaration that the Creator created: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So too the first words of the prologue to the Gospel of John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … . All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made (John 1:1, 3). Therefore, the first reason that creativity has value is that God is the Creator.

Second, an art work has value as a creation because man is made in the image of God, and therefore man not only can love and think and feel emotion, but also has the capacity to create. Being in the image of the Creator, we are called upon to have creativity. In fact, it is part of the image of God to be creative, or to have creativity. We never find an animal, non-man, making a work of art. On the other hand, we never find men anywhere in the world or in any culture in the world who do not produce art. Creativity is a part of the distinction between man and non-man. All people are to some degree creative. Creativity is intrinsic to our “mannishness.”

But we must be careful not to reverse this. Not everything that man makes is good intellectually or morally. So, while creativity is a good thing in itself, it does not mean that everything that comes out of man’s creativity is good. For while man was made in the image of God, he is fallen. Furthermore, since men have various gifts and talents, everyone cannot create everything equally well. However, the main point is that creativity as creativity is a good thing as such.

When I was younger, I thought it was wrong to use the word create in reference to works of art. I thought it ought to be used solely in relation to what God can do. Later, I saw that I was desperately wrong; I am now convinced that it is important to understand that both God and man create. Both make something. The distinction is this: God, because He is infinite, can create out of nothing by His spoken word. We, because we are finite, must create from something else that has already been created. Yet the word create is appropriate, for it suggests that what man does with what is already there is to make something new. Something that was not there before, something that began as an unmannish part of reality, is transformed by the mannishness of man and now reflects that mannishness.

I am convinced that one of the reasons men spend millions in making art museums is not just so that there will be something “aesthetic,” but because the art works in them are an expression of the mannishness of man himself. When I look at the preColumbian silver or African masks or ancient Chinese bronzes, not only do I see them as works of art, but I see them as expressions of the nature and character of humanity. As a man, in a certain way they are myself, and I see there the outworking of the creativity that is inherent in the nature of man.

Many modern artists, it seems to me, have forgotten the value that art has in itself. Much modern art is far too intellectual to be great art. I am thinking, for example, of such an artist as Jasper Johns. Many modern artists do not see the distinction between man and non-man, and it is a part of the lostness of modern man that they no longer see value in the work of art as a work of art.

I am afraid, however, that as evangelicals we have largely made the same mistake. Too often we think that a work of art has value only if we reduce it to a tract. This too is to view art solely as a message for the intellect.

There are, I believe, three basic possibilities concerning the nature of a work of art. The first view is the relatively recent theory of art for art’s sake. This is the notion that art is just there and that is all there is to it. You can’t talk about a message in it, you can’t analyze it, it doesn’t say anything. This view is, I think, quite misguided. For one thing, no great artist functions on the level of art for art’s sake alone. Think, for example, of the high Renaissance, beginning with Cimabue (c. 1240-1302) and leading through Giotto (1267-1337), Masaccio (1401-28), and all the way up to Michelangelo (1475-1564) and Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). All of these artists worked from one of two viewpoints, and sometimes there was a confusion between the two. They worked either from their notion of Christianity (which to us who hold a biblical viewpoint was often deficient) or from a Renaissance form of humanism. Florence, for example, where so many excellent works of art were produced, was a center for the study of Neoplatonism. Some of the artists studied under Ficino (1433-99), perhaps the greatest of the Neoplatonists and influential throughout Europe. These artists showed their viewpoint in their art.

It is true that the great modern artists such as Picasso never worked for only art for art’s sake either. Picasso had a philosophy which showed through in his paintings. It is true that many lesser artists now work, or try to work, in the milieu of art for art’s sake, but the great masters did not.

The second view, which I spoke of above, is that art is only an embodiment of a message, a vehicle for the propagation of a particular message about the world or the artist or man or whatever. This view has been held by Christians as well as non-Christians, the difference between these two versions being the nature of the message which the art embodies. But, as I have said, this view, Christian or non-Christian, reduces art to an intellectual statement, and the work of art as a work of art disappears. The third basic notion of the nature of art — the one I think is right, the one that really produces great art and the possibility of great art — is that the artist makes a work of art, and that then the body of his work shows his world-view. No one, for example, who understands Michelangelo or Leonardo can look at their work without understanding something of their respective worldviews. Nonetheless, these artists began by making works of art, and then their world-views showed through the body of their work. I emphasize the body of an artist’s work because it is impossible ible for any single painting, for example, to reflect the totality of an artist’s view of reality. But when we see a collection of an artist’s paintings or a series of a poet’s poems or a number of a novelist’s novels, both the outline and some of the details of the artistØs conception of life shine through. How then should an artist begin to do his work? I would insist that he begin by setting out to make a work of art. He should say to himself, “I am going to make a work of art.” Perspective number one is that a work Of art is first of all a work of art.

____________

_________________________________________________________________

Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000 years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” episode 6 “The Scientific Age” episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” ,  episode 4 “The Reformation” episode 3 “The Renaissance”episode 2 “The Middle Ages,”, and  episode 1 “The Roman Age,” . My favorite episodes are number 7 and 8 since they deal with modern art and culture primarily.(Joe Carter rightly noted, “Schaeffer—who always claimed to be an evangelist and not a philosopher—was often criticized for the way his work oversimplified intellectual history and philosophy.” To those critics I say take a chill pill because Schaeffer was introducing millions into the fields of art and culture!!!! !!! More people need to read his works and blog about them because they show how people’s worldviews affect their lives!!!!)

There is evidence that points to the fact that the Bible is historically true as Schaeffer pointed out in episode 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE  HUMAN RACE? There is a basis then for faith in Christ alone for our eternal hope. This link shows how to do that.

 

 

____________________

Francis Schaeffer with his son Franky pictured below. Francis and Edith (who passed away in 2013) opened L’ Abri in 1955 in Switzerland.

Featured artist:Laylah Ali

Something happens that she is not entirely in control of and she can’t tell you the meaning of a painting till after it is finished and time goes by.

Laylah Ali: Meaning | Art21 “Exclusive”

Uploaded on Sep 18, 2009

Episode #074: While painting in her Williamstown, Massachusetts studio, artist Laylah Ali discusses the imperative she feels to make things and the nuanced relationship of political and personal events to the work.

Laylah Ali creates gouache-on-paper paintings that take her many months to complete. Ali meticulously plots out in advance every aspect of her work, from subject matter to choice of color, achieving a high level of emotional tension in her paintings as a result of juxtaposing brightly colored scenes with dark, often violent subject matter.

Learn more about Laylah Ali: http://www.art21.org/artists/laylah-ali

VIDEO | Producer: Wesley Miller & Nick Ravich. Interview: Susan Sollins. Camera: Joel Shapiro. Sound: Tom Bergin. Editor: Mary Ann Toman. Artwork Courtesy: Laylah Ali.

______________________

Laylah Ali: Designer Nicole Parente | Art21 “Exclusive”

Uploaded on Jun 11, 2009

Episode #060: Artist Laylah Ali and graphic designer Nicole Parente work together in the designer’s home office in Cambridge, MA. The artist’s hand-drawn notes are transformed into precise digital illustrations otherwise impossible without a computer.

Laylah Ali creates gouache-on-paper paintings that take her many months to complete. Ali meticulously plots out in advance every aspect of her work, from subject matter to choice of color, achieving a high level of emotional tension in her paintings as a result of juxtaposing brightly colored scenes with dark, often violent subject matter. In style, her paintings resemble comic-book serials, but they also contain stylistic references to hieroglyphics and American folk-art traditions.

Learn more about Laylah Ali: http://www.art21.org/artists/laylah-ali

VIDEO | Producer: Wesley Miller & Nick Ravich. Interview: Susan Dowling. Camera & Sound: Ken Willinger and Bob Freeman. Editor: Jenny Chiurco. Artwork Courtesy: Laylah Ali. Special Thanks:

__________________

Dean Moss and Laylah Ali “Voluntaries”

Published on Oct 24, 2012

Choreographer Dean Moss with artist Laylah Ali offer a performance (MOMA commissioned) of a work concerning the legacy of an attempted armed slave revolt by John Brown ,abolitionist. (This video shows the second half of the performance).

__________

From PBS:

Biography « previous artist | next artist »
Laylah Ali was born in Buffalo, New York in 1968, and lives and works in Williamstown, Massachusetts. She received a BA from Williams College and an MFA from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. The precision with which Ali creates her small figurative gouache paintings on paper is such that it takes her many months to complete a single work. She meticulously plots out in advance every aspect of her work, from subject matter to choice of color and the brushes that she will use. In style, her paintings resemble comic-book serials, but they also contain stylistic references to hieroglyphics and American folk-art traditions. Ali often achieves a high level of emotional tension in her work as a result of juxtaposing brightly colored scenes with dark, often violent subject matter that speaks of political resistance, social relationships, and betrayal. Although Ali’s interest in representations of socio-political issues and current events drives her work, her finished paintings rarely reveal specific references. Her most famous and longest-running series of paintings depicts the brown-skinned and gender-neutral Greenheads, while her most recent works include portraits as well as more abstract biomorphic images. Ali endows the characters and scenes in her paintings with everyday attributes like dodge balls, sneakers, and band-aids as well as historically- and culturally-loaded signs such as nooses, hoods, robes, masks, and military-style uniforms. Her drawings, to which she refers as ‘automatic’, are looser and more playful than the paintings and are often the source of material that she explores more deeply in her paintings. Laylah Ali has had solo exhibitions at the Museum of Modern Art, New York; ICA, Boston; MCA Chicago; Contemporary Art Museum, St. Louis; and MASS MoCA, among others. Her work was exhibited at the Venice Biennale (2003) and the Whitney Biennial (2004).For additional biographic & bibliographic information:
303 Gallery, New York  |  Miller Block Gallery, Boston
Laylah Ali on the Art21 blog

____________+++

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 1 HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? “The Roman Age” (Feature on artist Tracey Emin)

I want to make two points today. First, Greg Koukl has rightly noted that the nudity of a ten year old girl in the art of Robert Mapplethorpe is not defensible, and it demonstrates where our culture is  morally. It the same place morally where  Rome was 2000 years ago as Francis Schaeffer has demonstrated […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 1 0   Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min 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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

  Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE   Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

____________

Advertisements

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! PART 149 BBB Professor comments on Schaeffer’s view on Bertrand Russell

 

_

Image result for bertrand russell
157 × 217Images may be subject to copyrightLearn More

Image result for bertrand russell

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:

…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975

and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.

Harry Kroto

__

 

Harold W. Kroto (left) receives the Nobel Prize in chemistry from Swedish King Carl XVI Gustaf in Stockholm, in 1996.

Soren Andersson/AP

Image result for harry kroto nobel prize

 

__

Image result for harry kroto

I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:

Arif Ahmed, Sir David AttenboroughMark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael BatePatricia ChurchlandAaron CiechanoverNoam Chomsky,Alan DershowitzHubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan FeuchtwangDavid Friend,  Riccardo GiacconiIvar Giaever , Roy GlauberRebecca GoldsteinDavid J. Gross,  Brian Greene, Susan GreenfieldStephen F Gudeman,  Alan Guth, Jonathan HaidtTheodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison,  Hermann HauserRoald Hoffmann,  Bruce HoodHerbert Huppert,  Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve JonesShelly KaganMichio Kaku,  Stuart Kauffman,  Lawrence KraussHarry Kroto, George LakoffElizabeth Loftus,  Alan MacfarlanePeter MillicanMarvin MinskyLeonard Mlodinow,  Yujin NagasawaAlva NoeDouglas Osheroff,  Jonathan Parry,  Saul PerlmutterHerman Philipse,  Carolyn PorcoRobert M. PriceLisa RandallLord Martin Rees,  Oliver Sacks, John SearleMarcus du SautoySimon SchafferJ. L. Schellenberg,   Lee Silver Peter Singer,  Walter Sinnott-ArmstrongRonald de Sousa, Victor StengerBarry Supple,   Leonard Susskind, Raymond TallisNeil deGrasse Tyson,  .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John WalkerFrank WilczekSteven Weinberg, and  Lewis Wolpert,

_

 

In  the first video below in the 14th clip in this series are his words and I will be responding to them in the next few weeks since Sir Bertrand Russell is probably the most quoted skeptic of our time, unless it was someone like Carl Sagan or Antony Flew.  

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)

__

Quote from Bertrand Russell:

Q: Why are you not a Christian?

Russell: Because I see no evidence whatever for any of the Christian dogmas. I’ve examined all the stock arguments in favor of the existence of God, and none of them seem to me to be logically valid.

Q: Do you think there’s a practical reason for having a religious belief, for many people?

Russell: Well, there can’t be a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. That’s quite… at least, I rule it out as impossible. Either the thing is true, or it isn’t. If it is true, you should believe it, and if it isn’t, you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment. But you can’t… it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful, and not because you think it’s true._

 

From WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?

The Unveiling of Truth
The famous Hindu writer and statesman Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan once wrote, “The altars erected to the unknown gods in the Graeco-Roman world were but an expression of man’s ignorance of the divine nature. The sense of failure in man’s quest for the unseen is symbolized by them. When asked to define the nature of God, the seer of the Upanishad sat silent, and when pressed to answer claimed that the Absolute is silence.”
By contrast, the Apostle Paul, speaking in the context of the very same altars to unknown gods in Athens, said, “…Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23). And again, writing to the Corinthians not far away, “However, as it is written: `No eye has seen, nor ear has heard, no mind has conceived …’ but God has revealed it to us …” (1 Corinthians 2:9,10). This claim is common to the whole Bible. God has not waited for us to stumble to Him in the dark (which would be impossible anyway), but has revealed Himself to us. The word revelation in Greek is apokalupsis which means literally “unveiling”; so God has “unveiled” to us the things we could not know because of our finiteness and sin.
This revelation or unveiling to finite and sinful people is the Bible as the written Word. This is the claim of the whole Bible. Moreover, through the Bible we learn of the life and teaching of the Second Person of the Trinity, who became man at a point in history and so became the Living Word of the Godhead: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).
In this claim the dilemma of all humanistic systems is overcome at a stroke. The infinite God has spoken. None of the many finite attempts to define truth, doomed to failure as we have seen, is necessary. God has communicated to man, the infinite to the finite. God has communicated, in addition, in words that are understandable to us. The One who made man capable of language in the first place has communicated to man in language. Also, God has communicated truth about both spiritual reality and physical reality, about both the nature of God and the nature of man, about both events in past history and events in the future. Where all humanistic systems of thought are unable to give an adequate explanation of things, the Bible as God’s statement is adequate.
It is equally important to note that the Bible’s answer does not have to be believed blindly. There are good and sufficient reasons for seeing that it is true. It is the key that fits into the lock of what we know best about ourselves and the universe around us.
To change the metaphor: Imagine a book which has been mutilated, leaving just one inch of printed matter on each page. Although it would obviously be impossible to piece together and understand the book’s story, few people would imagine that the printing which was left on those one-inch portions had come together by chance. However, if the torn pieces of each page were found in a trunk and were added in the right places, then the story could be read and would make sense.
So it is with Christianity. The ripped pages remaining in the book correspond to the universe and its form and to the mannishness of man. The parts of the pages discovered in the trunk correspond to the Scriptures, which are God’s propositional communication to mankind. Neither the universe nor personality can give the answer to the whole meaning of the created order. Yet both are important as a testimony in helping us know that the Scriptures, God’s communication to man, are what they claim to be. The question is whether the communication given by God completes and explains the portions we had before and especially whether it explains what was open to observation before (though without an explanation), that is, that the existence of the universe and its form and the mannishness of man are not just chance configurations of the printer’s scrambled type.
This illustration is important for several reasons. First, it emphasizes that Christians do not start out from themselves autonomously, as the humanists try to do. God gives the pages, and thus God gives the answers.
Second, it helps us see the proper place of man’s reason. Just as a scientist does not create the order in the universe but does recognize it, so reason does not create the answer but simply recognizes it. Of course this does not mean that reason will necessarily receive the answer. Each person has to choose to receive God’s truth. But God’s truth is clear. The individual must acknowledge that he (and mankind) is not autonomous, not the center of all things, and he must acknowledge that he has many times done what he knows to be wrong and thus needs the work of Christ for himself. Those who refuse to back down from the position of autonomy make it impossible for themselves to receive the truth, even though there are good and sufficient reasons for knowing that it is the truth.

_________________

Now to pages 119 to 123 of THE GOD WHO IS THERE in chapter 5 (How Do We Know It Is True?) of section three (How Historic Christianity Differs from the New Theology).

 

All men on their own level face a problem. Confronted with the existence and form of the external universe and the “mannishness” of man, how does it fit together, and what sense does it make?

(Then Schaeffer goes on and talks about propositional communication from the personal God before us, not only the things of the cosmos and history match up… a moral absolute and morals; the universal point of reference and the particulars, and the emotional and aesthetic realities of man as well.)

 

The Nature of Proof

In dealing with the question of proof which has been raised by the illustration of the book, I want to suggest that scientific proof, philosophical proof and religious proof follow the same rules. We may have any problem before us which we wish to solve; it may concern a chemical reaction or the meaning of man. After the question has been defined, in each case proof consists of two steps:

A. The theory must be non-contradictory and must give an answer to the phenomenon in question.

B. We must be able to live consistently with our theory.

…Then there is the negative consideration. After a careful definition has weeded out the trivial, the other possible answers that do not involve a mystical leap of faith are of the following nature:

  1. That the impersonal plus time plus chance have produced a personal man. But this theory is against all experience and thus usually the advocates of this theory end with a leap of faith, often hidden by connotation words.
  2. That man is not personal, but dead;that he is in reality a machine, and therefore personality is an illusion. This theory could fit the first criterion of being non-contradictory, but it will not fit the second, for man simply cannot life as though he were a machine. This may be observed as far back in the history of man as we have evidence–for example, from the art and artifacts of the caves or from man’s burial rites….Although man may say that he is no more than a machine, his whole life denies it.
  3. That in the future man will find another reasonable answer. Firstly, this could be said about any answer to anything and would bring all thought and science to an end. It must be seen to be an evasion and an especially weak reply if the person using it applies it only to this one question. Secondly, no one can live with this answer, for it simply is not possible to hold one’s breath and wait until some solution is found in the future. Continually the individual makes moral judgments which affect himself and others, and he must be using some working hypothesis from which to start. Thus, if a person offers this seriously as an alternative theory, he should be prepared to go into deep freeze and stop making judgments which touch on the problem of man. Bertrand Russell, for example, should have stopped making sociological decisions which involved others. This position is only possible if one stops the clock.
  4.  That the scientific theory of relativity may in the future prove to be a sufficient answer for human life. But the scientific theory of relativity cannot be applied to human life in this way. The scientific theory is constantly being tested, both as a theory and by measurement. Therefore it does not mean that “anything goes,” as it does when relativity is applied to human values. Moreover, in science the speed of light in a vacuum is considered an absolute standard. Therefore, scientific relativity does not imply that all scientific laws are in a constant state of flux. To use scientific relativity to buttress the concept of relativity in regard to human life and human values is completely invalid.

Image result for francis schaeffer

I mailed this above to a professor that I have a lot of respect for and asked a few questions and he gave me permission to post this response of his:

As to Schaeffer’s comments on Russell, I think what Schaeffer is doing is using Russell as an illustration. He is making the point in these passages in his books that only with help of Scripture can we truly understand anything. It is the torn off section of the page which completes the revelation God has given us, but in fact it is the most important part. Schaeffer’s main point is epistemological namely that we cannot know anything for certain without the Bible – in any sphere of life, spiritual, scientific or moral. On what basis therefore does Russell (who was a prominent atheist as you know), or anyone else for that matter, make the kind of judgements he makes on sociological (or any other) issues? He has no basis for knowing who man is or where he comes from; Schaeffer in ’The God who is There’ sets out what he says are the possible options if one rejects the idea of an infinite personal God. He says none of them really makes sense and so Russell (or whoever) should be silent because they have no basis for making claims purporting to make judgements.
So he is not saying Russell takes ‘the position that we cannot know anything is true unless there is an absolute’ but rather that Russell should  take that position if he were consistent. He is inconsistent in making judgements that presuppose he can know things are true – and yes, since Russell does not have an authoritative basis for knowing anything (or ‘ unified field of knowledge’) he should be quiet as you say.  Schaeffer is not saying either  ‘that Russell has taken the position that we don’t have a unified field of knowledge’ but he operates as if he did have such a field. The argument that ‘one day we will’ have such a field is not Russell’s but one of the hypotheses that Schaeffer puts forward as a possible but flawed alternative to revelation. So ‘Russell should shut up today’ – or any day till he comes up with an adequate epistemology!
I am not sure if this helps! Do remember though that Schaeffer is not making a detailed critique of Russell here but simply using Russell as an example of positivism which Schaeffer argues has a flawed epistemology.

(End of Professor’s response )

 

——

 

 

 

Image result for bertrand russell

[From a letter dated August 11, 1918 to Miss Rinder when Russell was 46]

It is so with all who spend their lives in the quest of something elusive, and yet omnipresent, and at once subtle and infinite. One seeks it in music, and the sea, and sunsets; at times I have seemed very near it in crowds when I have been feeling strongly what they were feeling; one seeks it in love above all. But if one lets oneself imagine one has found it, some cruel irony is sure to come and show one that it is not really found.
The outcome is that one is a ghost, floating through the world without any real contact. Even when one feels nearest to other people, something in one seems obstinately to belong to God and to refuse to enter into any earthly communion—at least that is how I should express it if I thought there was a God. It is odd isn’t it? I care passionately for this world, and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There must be something more important, one feels, though I don’t believe there is. I am haunted—some ghost, from some extra-mundane region, seems always trying to tell me something that I am to repeat to the world, but I cannot understand the message. 

There was evidence during Bertrand Russell’s own life that indicated that the Bible was true and could be trusted.

Here is some below:

TRUTH AND HISTORY (chapter 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?, under footnotes #97 and #98) written by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop

A common assumption among liberal scholars is that because the Gospels are theologically motivated writings–which they are–they cannot also be historically accurate. In other words, because Luke, say (when he wrote the Book of Luke and the Book of Acts), was convinced of the deity of Christ, this influenced his work to the point where it ceased to be reliable as a historical account. The assumption that a writing cannot be both historical and theological is false.

The experience of the famous classical archaeologist Sir William Ramsay illustrates this well. When he began his pioneer work of exploration in Asia Minor, he accepted the view then current among the Tubingen scholars of his day that the Book of Acts was written long after the events in Paul’s life and was therefore historically inaccurate. However, his travels and discoveries increasingly forced upon his mind a totally different picture, and he became convinced that Acts was minutely accurate in many details which could be checked.

 

Image result for bertrand russell

Bertrand Russell pictured above and Francis Schaeffer below:

Image result for francis schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer noted in his book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? (p. 182 in Vol 5 of Complete Works) in the chapter The Breakdown in Philosophy and Science:

In his lecture at Acapulco, George Wald finished with only one final value. It was the same one with which English philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was left. For Wald and Russell and for many other modern thinkers, the final value is the biological continuity of the human race. If this is the only final value, one is left wondering why this then has importance. 

Now having traveled from the pride of man in the High Renaissance and the Enlightenment down to the present despair, we can understand where modern people are. They have no place for a personal God. But equally they have no place for man as man, or for love, or for freedom, or for significance. This brings a crucial problem. Beginning only from man himself, people affirm that man is only a machine. But those who hold this position cannot live like machines! If they could, there would have been no tensions in their intellectual position or in their lives. But even people who believe they are machines cannot live like machines, and thus they must “leap upstairs” against their reason and try to find something which gives meaning to life, even though to do so they have to deny their reason. 

Francis Schaeffer in another place worded it like this:

The universe was created by an infinite personal God and He brought it into existence by spoken word and made man in His own image. When man tries to reduce [philosophically in a materialistic point of view] himself to less than this [less than being made in the image of God] he will always fail and he will always be willing to make these impossible leaps into the area of nonreason even though they don’t give an answer simply because that isn’t what he is. He himself testifies that this infinite personal God, the God of the Old and New Testament is there. 

We all know deep down that God exists and even atheists have to grapple with that knowledge.

Solomon wisely noted in Ecclesiastes 3:11 “God has planted eternity in the heart of men…” (Living Bible). No wonder Bertrand Russell wrote in his autobiography, “It is odd, isn’t it? I feel passionately for this world and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There must be something more important, one feels, though I don’t believe there is. I am haunted. Some ghosts, for some extra mundane regions, seem always trying to tell me something that I am to repeat to the world, but I cannot understand that message.”

Take a look at this 7th episode from Schaeffer’s series “HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? The Age of Nonreason”:

How Should We Then Live – Episode Seven – 07 – Portuguese Subtitles

_

Instead of making a leap into the area of nonreason the better choice would be to investigate the claims that the Bible is a historically accurate book and that God created the universe and reached out to humankind with the Bible.

Schaeffer then points to the historical accuracy of the Bible in Chapter 5 of the book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?

The Bible and Archaeology – Is the Bible from God? (Kyle Butt 42 min)

You want some evidence that indicates that the Bible is true? Here is a good place to start and that is taking a closer look at the archaeology of the Old Testament times. Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicleof Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism)4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites6.Shishak Smiting His Captives7. Moabite Stone8Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets10. Cyrus Cylinder11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription13. The Pilate Inscription14. Caiaphas Ossuary14 B Pontius Pilate Part 214c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.

____

 

Related posts:

 

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Pausing to take a look at the life of HARRY KROTO Part C (Kroto’s admiration of Bertrand Russell examined)

Today we look at the 3rd letter in the Kroto correspondence and his admiration of Bertrand Russell. (Below The Nobel chemistry laureates Harold Kroto, Robert Curl and Richard Smalley) It is with sadness that I write this post having learned of the death of Sir Harold Kroto on April 30, 2016 at the age of […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 52 The views of Hegel and Bertrand Russell influenced Gareth Stedman Jones of Cambridge!!

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of Dr. Harry Kroto:   Gareth Stedman […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!!

Top 10 Woody Allen Movies __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were  atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 (More On) Woody Allen’s Atheism As I wrote in a previous post, I like Woody Allen. I have long admired his […]

John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were two atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!!

______ Top 10 Woody Allen Movies PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 01 PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 02 __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were two atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 4)

THE MORAL ARGUMENT     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 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 3)

Great debate Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript and audio (Part 2)

Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of UK/BBC copyright. Pardon the hissy audio. It was recorded 51 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript and audio (Part 1)

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 4)

THE MORAL ARGUMENT     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 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 3)

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE The Beatles and James Joyce (Featured artist is Jethro Tull guitarist Jeffrey Hammond)

__

__

“Goo goo ga joob” Where did this phrase in the song I AM THE WALRUS come from?  In the blog post, “I Am the Walrus,” I read these words, “Some people speculate that Lennon got these lines from James Joyce’s long poem, Finnegans Wake.”

Like Edgar Allan Poe,  James Joyce was in the grips of alcoholism for most of his life and in this same song Lennon sang, “Seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe.” Poe died in 1949 as a drunk. As a drunk he probably got kicked around the street as others tried to rob him of whatever belongings he had. Alcoholism and being addicted to drugs are very similar and in the song I AM THE WALRUS we have many references to drugs. When I think of both James Joyce and Edgar Allan Poe the Bible passage that comes to mind is Proverbs 23:29-35.

29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?

30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.

31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.

33 Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.

34 Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast.

35 They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.  I am going to take a close look at the song I AM THE WALRUS and the drug references in it and then relate it some of the verses from Proverbs 23.

“I am the Walrus”

The Beatles

Produced By: George Martin
Written By: John Lennon & Paul McCartney

[Verse 1]
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly
I’m crying

[Verse 2]
Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come
Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday
Man, you’ve been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long

[Chorus]
I am the egg man, they are the egg men
I am the walrus, goo goo g’joob

[Verse 3]
Mister City, policeman sitting
Pretty little policemen in a row

See how they fly like Lucy in the Sky, see how they run
I’m crying, I’m crying
I’m crying, I’m crying

[Verse 4]
Yellow matter custard, dripping from a dead dog’s eye
Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess
Boy, you’ve been a naughty girl you let your knickers down

[Chorus]

[Verse 5]
Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun
If the sun don’t come, you get a tan
From standing in the English rain

[Chorus]

[Verse 6]
Expert textpert choking smokers
Don’t you think the joker laughs at you?

See how they smile like pigs in a sty
See how they snide
I’m crying

[Verse 7]
Semolina pilchard, climbing up the Eiffel Tower
Elementary penguin singing Hare Krishna
Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe

[Outro]
I am the egg man, they are the egg men
I am the walrus, goo goo good job g’goo goo good job
Goo goo g’joob g’goo goo g’joob g’goo

Everybody’s got one, everybody’s got one (Repeat until end)

I Am the Walrus

by The Beatles

“See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly / I’m crying”

Quick ThoughtIn an interview with Playboy magazine, John Lennon said that this line and the one before it were inspired by two different acid trips.

Deep Thought”The first line was written on one acid trip one weekend. The second line was written on the next acid trip the next weekend, and it was filled in after I met Yoko.” Just as The Beatles were the defining music group of the 1960s, acid (LCD) was the defining drug. The drug induces an altered state of perception in its users, causing distortions in physical, sensory, visual, audio, and thought processes. People sometimes feel colors and hear shapes, becoming almost synesthetic. Fixed objects seem to move or ripple, looking around causes sights to blur or leave a trail (tracers), and dull objects sparkle and shine. Some users claim to have intense religious experiences while tripping on acid. Others say that they enter other dimensions or relive their own birth.

LSD was invented accidentally by a Swedish chemist looking for a blood stimulant. It has since been used experimentally in psychotherapy to bring out repressed memories. The drug has also been used by doctors to elevate patients to a new level of self-awareness, allowing them to recognize problems that they previously denied, such as alcoholism. Although LSD was at first legal for use, it has now been banned in the US and other countries. Of course, that didn’t stop The Beatles and many other young people in the sixties and seventies from experimenting with the drug for recreational purposes. The Beatles openly admit that many of their songs were written at least in part while under the influence of LSD.

“Goo goo ga joob”

Quick ThoughtSome people speculate that Lennon got these lines from James Joyce’s long poem, Finnegans Wake, while others see them as pure gibberish.

Deep Thought James Joyce was a modernist Irish writer who was famous for his works A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Ulysses, andDubliners. Some Joyce/Beatles fans have suggested (rather dubiously in our view) that “goo goo ga job” comes from part 557.7 of Finnegans Wake:
Here’s the excerpt from Finnegans Wake… watch out for that famous “googoo goosth” or you’ll miss it:

cramp for Hemself and Co, Esquara, or them four hoarsemen on
their apolkaloops, Norreys, Soothbys, Yates and Welks, and,
galorybit of the sanes in hevel, there was a crick up the stirkiss
and when she ruz the cankle to see, galohery, downand she went
on her knees to blessersef that were knogging together like milk-
juggles as if it was the wrake of the hapspurus or old Kong
Gander O’Toole of the Mountains or his googoo goosth she
seein, sliving off over the sawdust lobby out ofthe backroom, wan
ter, that was everywans in turruns, in his honeymoon trim, holding
up his fingerhals, with the clookey in his fisstball, tocher of davy’s,
tocher of ivileagh, for her to whisht, you sowbelly, and the
whites of his pious eyebulbs swering her to silence and coort;

In our view, the odds that John Lennon actually intended his line as a shout-out to these two obscure words in the middle of this one very long sentence in the middle of a very long and challenging experimental novel are somewhere between slim and none. But it would be kinda cool, if true!

“See how they fly like Lucy in the Sky”

Quick ThoughtThis is, of course, a nod to another Beatles hit, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” from the groundbreaking album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, released a few months before “I Am the Walrus” in 1967.

Deep Thought”Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” is among the most famous of all Beatles songs. Although many fans claim that it is a song about acid (the initials spell out LSD), Lennon told an interviewer that the song is actually inspired by a drawing his son Julian brought home from grammar school:

LENNON: “My son Julian came in one day with a picture he painted about a school friend of his named Lucy. He had sketched in some stars in the sky and called it ‘Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.’ Simple.”

INTERVIEWER: “The other images in the song weren’t drug-inspired?”

LENNON: “The images were from ‘Alice in Wonderland.’ It was Alice in the boat. She is buying an egg and it turns into Humpty Dumpty. The woman serving in the shop turns into a sheep and the next minute they are rowing in a rowing boat somewhere and I was visualizing that. There was also the image of the female who would someday come save me—a ‘girl with kaleidoscope eyes’ who would come out of the sky. It turned out to be Yoko, though I hadn’t met Yoko yet. So maybe it should be ‘Yoko in the Sky with Diamonds.'”

The two Lewis Carroll classics (Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass) were John Lennon’s favorite books of all time. It’s really not surprising that imagery from both books pops up constantly in his songs. Both “I Am the Walrus” and “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” draw heavily from Carroll’s writings. Even more interesting is that Lennon repeats the Humpty Dumpty/Eggman imagery in both songs. Drug-inspired or not, it certainly seems that Lewis Carroll was very much on Lennon’s mind when he penned these lyrics.

The real Lucy who inspired the song, Lucy Richardson, came out to the press 40 years after the song was written explaining that she was, in fact, the girl behind the immortal ballad. Evidently, Julian Lennon had a crush on her in grammar school and actually dedicated several art pieces to her, including the famous picture of the girl surrounded by a starry sky.

“Semolina Pilchard”

Quick ThoughtThis is a reference to Detective Sergeant Norman Pilcher, head of the Scotland Yard Drugs Unit. He was the most-feared drug agent in Britain in the 1960s and had an obsessive craving for the spotlight. Arresting a Beatle on pot charges is a quick way to get your name in many, many newspapers.

Deep ThoughtSergeant Norman Pilcher was the head of one of Britain’s police drug squads in the late sixties. Pilcher wanted to be famous, so he hatched a plan to go after the members of the Beatles one by one. He started with the man he suspected did the most drugs, John Lennon. Lennon and Yoko Ono were tipped off that John was on Pilcher’s hit list, but it was too late. Their flat was stormed by officer/canine units. They were arrested for possession of cannabis resin and obstructing the search warrant. John was told that Yoko, who was pregnant, would be let off the hook if he pleaded guilty. So he did so and they were released. Tragically, Yoko had to be immediately rushed to the hospital, where she had a miscarriage. John later told the press that the whole thing was set up by Pilcher as a media ploy for good photo ops. The news stations were at the flat before the police even got there! When John pleaded guilty, Pilcher told him, ”Well, we’ve got it now. So it’s nothing personal …” The picture on the back of the jacket of the album Unfinished Music No. 2 — Life with the Lions is of John and Yoko as they were being dragged out of the police station. Lennon also explained that Jimi Hendrix, who’d owned the same flat before them, had left piles of drugs when he moved out. John had tried to clean up the drugs when he found out about the raid. Apparently, he wasn’t quite thorough enough, hence the incriminating resin.

“Seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe”

Quick ThoughtEdgar Allan Poe was a very famous American writer of short stories and poetry who lived during the 1800s. He was well-known for his dark, penetratingly creepy tales.

Deep ThoughtPoe was a brilliant, if dark, guy. His stories and poems—including“The Raven,” “The Tell-Tale Heart,” and “The Fall of the House of Usher”—are short yet incredibly powerful, probing universal human flaws like insecurity, fear, and pride.

(Adrian Rogers pictured below)

Adrian Rogers in his sermon THE BATTLE OF THE BOTTLE notes the following:

There is the sorrow factor. There’s also the contention factor. Verse 29 says, “Who has contention?” Now, the word contention means warfare, disagreement, strife, enmity. Anybody who has done any counseling, or anybody who has lived in this world of ours, knows that voice that comes out of the mouth of the bottle. Strife comes from the bottle.  Arguments come from the bottle. Violence comes from the bottle. Murder comes from the bottle. As a matter of fact, Time Magazine reported that one-half of all murders are alcohol related, one half of all murders are alcohol related. Eighty percent according to statisticians, eighty percent of all crime is alcohol involved, eighty percent of all crime.

A former ambassador and congressman, Claire Booth Luce, writing on crime in U.S. News and World Report said this, “Assuming that the present growth rate of crime, alcoholism, drug taking, and commercial sex persist in 1996, America by then will be the most drunken, drug-soaked, sex-ridden, and criminal society on earth.” And yet we’re spending $600 million a year telling people, “Just drink it, drink it, drink it.”

There is the contention factor, then there’s the foolishness factor. Look again in verse 29. “Who hath babbling?” What does this babbling refer to?  Have you ever listened to a drunk talk? Wouldn’t it be good if you could just video tape people and make them watch themselves later on? Wouldn’t they be ashamed of their babbling?  Shakespeare said, “What fools men are to put that in their mouths that which will steal their brains away.” The foolishness factor, nothing else, just the sheer foolishness of it.

But there’s the mutilation and death factor. Look in verse 29. “Who hath wounds without a cause?” Now, pay attention. This year in America, 200,000 Americans will die as the direct result of beverage alcohol.  Did that register? Did that register? Two hundred thousand will have wounds without a cause, 200,000.  Now you think for a moment. We talk about the atomic bomb, and we have those people who are trying to ban the bomb and the anti-nuclear movement and so forth.  We dropped those bombs on Nagasaki. We dropped those bombs or that bomb on Hiroshima. In Hiroshima, 80,000 died; 80,000 Japanese died in Hiroshima. Nagasaki, 35,000 died. Well, I want to tell you, we have the equivalent of two Hiroshimas and one Nagasaki every year in America, every year. I mean, we’re still talking about what that bomb did. I’m telling you every year in America and the bomb that’s dropped on us, we still promote it. We still laugh about it. We still drink it. It’s still featured on television.

Now, listen, people demonstrate against the Vietnam War. They said, “Well, we lost so many American boys.”  In 9 years, do you know how many boys we lost? Fifty seven thousand boys, tragic indeed, in nine years, and every one of them precious to God and precious to us. But I want to tell you at the same period of time when 57,000 lost their lives in Vietnam, 2 million lost their lives here at home from King Alcohol. Where is Jane Fonda when we really need her? Huh?  Where is Ralph Nader? I’d love to see Ralph Nader get on the alcohol kick, wouldn’t you? Huh? Where are these people? I mean, I’m talking about 2 million people in nine years whose lives are snuffed out. Who has wounds without cause? This year 50,000 will die in traffic-related automobile accidents, about fifty thousand fatalities.  One-half of those will be alcohol-related.

Now, dear friend, if there was something else that were doing this, there’d be telethons and talkathons and radiothons and there would be societies against it. Politicians would run on a platform to do something against it, but we don’t do anything about it, no. Because we’re deceived thereby. “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Did you know that this week, as in every week, 400 Americans will die, 400 Americans will die because of alcohol, this week.  Now, that’s about as many as can fly on a 747, a great big airplane. Suppose every week in America a 747 went down with four hundred people on it. Do you think somebody would organize to do something about it? I mean, every week a 747, there goes another one, and 400 more, 400 more killed. We don’t do a thing about it.  We don’t do a thing about it. I mean, I want to tell you, the liquor people have sold us a bill of goods, haven’t they?

I want to tell you, the breweries, they are racking it in; they are bringing it in. There is the destruction factor, rules without a cause. I’ll tell you there’s another factor when we’re talking about the misery of the bottle, it’s the mental anguish factor. Verse 29 speaks of redness of eyes. He’s talking there about weeping. He’s talking there about anguish. He’s talking there about sorrow – unmitigated horror and sorrow come. These people are doing this to have a good time. Friend, when I have a good time I want to know about it the next day. I don’t want to have red eyes. The Bible says, “The blessing of the Lord, it maketh full and bringeth no sorrow with it.” May I give you a loose translation? I can have a good time being a Christian without a hangover. “The blessing of the Lord, it maketh full and addeth no sorrow with it.” Red eyes, white liver, dark brown breath, a yellow streak, a blue outlook.

There is the sorrow factor, the mental anguish factor, then there’s the health factor.  Look again if you will in verses 31 and 32 of this chapter. “Look not thou upon the wine; when it is red it giveth its color in the cup, when it moves itself aright.” Look in verse 32, “At the last it biteth like a serpent and stings like an adder.” Now, what’s so bad about the serpent’s bite? He’s just got little teeth. What’s so bad about it? It’s what’s in the serpent’s bite, which is what? Poison, poison. Have you ever thought about the word intoxicated? Have you ever thought about that word?  Do you know what toxic is? Do you know what toxic means? What? What is toxic? Poison!  So if a man is intoxicated, he is what? Poisoned.  You see, what people are doing is poisoning themselves. When a man is drunk he is poisoning himself. Have you ever thought why a man throws up when he gets drunk?

Because it’s poison, he’s got more sense in his stomach than he has in his head.  His stomach says, “Hey, that’s poison, that’s poison.” He’s poisoning himself. I mean, we’re selling poison. It’s a narcotic. It affects the liver. It affects the heart. It affects the mind. It affects the muscles.  It affects the digestion. People are literally poisoning themselves, and it is a major health factor in the United States.

Now, there are people who tell us alcoholism is a disease. No, it’s a sickness, not a disease. So, what’s the difference? Friend, we’re not in the habit of putting diseases in the bottles and advertising them and selling them across the counter and so forth.  No, man, he’s sick, he is very sick, but dear friend, don’t call it a disease. It’s not like diphtheria.  It’s not like polio. It’s not like some other kind of a disease. No, no, no, no, it is a sickness but it is a self-inflicted sickness that a person has poisoned himself, he has poisoned himself.  “It bites like a serpent, it stings like an adder” – there’s the misery factor and yet, we’re told to drink it.

There’s the health factor. There’s the immorality factor. Look if you will in verse 33. “Thine eyes shall behold strange women.” Now, what does he mean by strange women?  Does it mean she’s funny looking?  No, no, no, no, look in verse 27. “For a whore is a deep ditch and a strange women is a narrow pit.” He’s talking about immorality. When a person drinks, restraint is taken away. Somebody made this little couplet, this little poem, Audrey Nash, I believe: Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker. Do you know what he meant by that? If you want to seduce a woman, use liquor. We all know that liquor removes restraint. Do you know what the brewer will say? The brewer and the beer barren and the distiller will say, “Now look, we don’t cause people to steal. We don’t cause people to kill. We don’t cause people to be reckless. We don’t cause people to commit immorality.  We don’t cause that, alcohol doesn’t cause that, that was already in them.” I couldn’t agree more.

But you see, God has given something called restraint that is built into us. It is the alcohol that removes that restraint. It is the alcohol that removes and blurs the distinction between that which is right and that which is wrong and numbs that part of the brain and the conscience so that people will do that.  But they ought to have restraints against them, to not do it, so they will kill and rape and maim and murder and steal and lie. The immorality factor. God only knows the homes that have been broken because of the immorality that has been brought about by someone whose inhibitions have been broken down through this thing called liquor.

(Francis Schaeffer below)

Francis Schaeffer while discussing THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES and Solomon’s view of life UNDER THE SUN noted that alcohol does not bring satisfaction to people and he uses Ernest Hemingway as an example:

In Ecclesiastes 1:8 he drives this home when he states, “All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor is the ear filled with hearing.” Solomon is stating here the fact that there is no final satisfaction because you don’t get to the end of the thing. THERE IS NO FINAL SATISFACTION. This is related to Leonardo da Vinci’s similar search for universals and then meaning in life. 

In Ecclesiastes 5:11 Solomon again pursues this theme, When good things increase, those who consume them increase. So what is the advantage to their owners except to look on?”  Doesn’t that sound modern? It is as modern as this evening. Solomon here is stating the fact there is no reaching completion in anything and this is the reason there is no final satisfaction. There is simply no place to stop. It is impossible when laying up wealth for oneself when to stop. It is impossible to have the satisfaction of completion. What do you do and the answer is to get drunk and this was not thought of in the RUBAIYAT OF OMAR KAHAYYAM:

Ecclesiastes 2:1-3

I said to myself, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure. So enjoy yourself.” And behold, it too was futility. I said of laughter, “It is madness,” and of pleasure, “What does it accomplish?” I explored with my mind how to stimulate my body with wine while my mind was guiding me wisely, and how to take hold of folly, until I could see what good there is for the sons of men to do under heaven the few years of their lives.

The Daughter of the Vine:

You know, my Friends, with what a brave Carouse
I made a Second Marriage in my house;
Divorced old barren Reason from my Bed,
And took the Daughter of the Vine to Spouse.

from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (Translation by Edward Fitzgerald)

A perfectly good philosophy coming out of Islam, but Solomon is not the first man that thought of it nor the last. In light of what has been presented by Solomon is the solution just to get intoxicated and black the think out? So many people have taken to alcohol and the dope which so often follows in our day. This approach is incomplete, temporary and immature. Papa Hemingway can find the champagne of Paris sufficient for a time, but one he left his youth he never found it sufficient again. He had a lifetime spent looking back to Paris and that champagne and never finding it enough. It is no solution and Solomon says so too.

(Francis Schaeffer below)

___________

APRIL 14, 2010

James Joyce in Sgt Pepper Album Cover

James Joyce is hiding in the Beatles’ Sgt Pepper album cover!

Whose is the face hiding below Bob Dylan?

It’s James Joyce! Apparently, in the original test photos for the shoot captured the images at different angles, and you can see his whole face (bottom right).

Thanks to The Lennon Prophecy and The Sgt Pepper Album Cover Shoot Dissected for the images and the discovery.

__________

_

Image result for beatles

The Beatles – In my Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eCh3y5VROMPamela Dennisse Serrano

Published on Feb 25, 2011

Image result for beatles

Here Comes The Sun – The Beatles Tribute

Not sung by George but good nonetheless!!

Francis Schaeffer’s favorite album was SGT. PEPPER”S and he said of the album “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.”  (at the 14 minute point in episode 7 of HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? ) 

Image result for francis schaeffer how should we then live

How Should We Then Live – Episode Seven – 07 – Portuguese Subtitles

Francis Schaeffer

Image result for francis schaeffer

_

_

Image result for beatles

The Beatles – Revolution

TheBeatlesVEVO

Published on Oct 20, 2015

Image result for beatles

The Beatles – Hey Jude

TheBeatlesVEVO

Published on Dec 7, 2015   SUBSCRIBE 1.3M The Beatles 1 Video Collection is out now. Available on: http://www.thebeatles.com/

Image result for beatles

The Beatles – Free As A Bird

TheBeatlesVEVO

Published on Apr 5, 2016   SUBSCRIBE 1.3M The Beatles Now Streaming. Listen to the Come Together Playlist here: http://smarturl.it/BeatlesCT Download Anthology: http://smarturl.it/AnthologyBeatles Buy Anthology: http://smarturl.it/AnthologyPhys

Image result for beatles

_

Featured artist is Jeffrey Hammond

Jethro Tull – Nothing is Easy – Berkeley 1971

How Much Is That Doggy In The Window? – Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond (Jethro Till)

JETHRO TULL: “THICK AS A BRICK INTERVIEW” with Ian Anderson, Martin Barre, Jeffrey Hammond, (2004)

Jethro Tull guitarist Jeffrey Hammond

PUBLISHED: 00:00 17 October 2017

PHOTOGRAPHY: GLYNN WARD

Jeffrey with his picture of the front at Looe in Cornwall

Jeffrey with his picture of the front at Looe in Cornwall

Lancashire rock star Jeffrey Hammond is back home and about to reveal his hidden talent for art. But first, he spoke exclusively to Barbara Waite

Pleasure Beach Ramp is titled Shellfish Jeans: Evolution in Revolution

Pleasure Beach Ramp is titled Shellfish Jeans: Evolution in Revolution

For a man who has played the world’s biggest venues as bass guitarist with 1970s prog rock giants Jethro Tull, Jeffrey Hammond is a surprisingly private man. In his second career as an artist he has studiously avoided the limelight and only close friends and relatives have ever seen his paintings – until now.

Lancashire Life was given an exclusive interview and the chance to see his works ahead of his first ever exhibition, to be held on the Fylde this month. It fulfils a promise to his late partner Tess who wanted him to share his distinctive paintings with a wider audience.

It is another important milestone in Jeffrey’s life. Born is Blackpool, he has come back to Lancashire where he grew up in a boarding house run by his parents in the shadow of the famous Tower.

He lived the rock star life from 1971-1975 and it all started with a chance encounter at Blackpool Grammar School. A fellow student, Ian Anderson, who had never spoken to him before said: ‘You look like a musician? What do you play?’ It was the start of a friendship that survives to this day.

The Lowry Centre is titled The bridge across communities

The Lowry Centre is titled The bridge across communities

Ian and another student John Evans wanted to form a group and invited Jeffrey to go with them to see Johnny Breeze and the Atlantics at their local youth club. Watching as the bass player was being mobbed by girls, Jeffrey agreed to be the be group’s bass guitarist despite having no musical training. So it was music, not art, that became the consuming passion during his last years at school.

The group – then known as The Blades – practised in the front room of at John’s mother’s home. ‘We made a horrible racket but in time we progressed from the youth club to doing gigs at workingmen’s clubs in Fleetwood and throughout the Fylde eventually going further afield to Nottingham, Newcastle and Manchester,’ said Jeffrey.

With the repetition of the repertoire the early excitement waned for Jeffrey and he re-took Art A level and joined an art foundation course at Blackpool Tech while his friends kept playing and moved to London.

His tutor suggested he do a painting course, so to apply for college he had to produce a work as part of his portfolio. His picture of a midwife holding a newly-born baby was, in his words, ‘not good’ and, even after it was improved a bit by his tutor, it was still rejected. That meant he could stay in Blackpool. ‘I was thrilled to bits that I would be able stay.’

This view of Bowness is actually titled Queuing for relaxation

This view of Bowness is actually titled Queuing for relaxation

From an early age, Jeffrey knew he wanted to express himself but had no real idea how to go about it. Luck was on his side and he took up a place at Central St Martins College in London when one of the students dropped out.

Still feeling unsure about the move, he was persuaded by his tutor to go but ‘felt like a fish out of water’ for almost all of the three-year course. ‘The other 19 student already felt themselves to be artists, but I had no sense of direction and learned mostly from a fellow student who is still a good friend to this day.

‘It was not an auspicious start to a career, but during the last six months I felt I was getting somewhere – had found the “something” I was looking for. But what to do next?’

Fate intervened again. After failing an interview to get on a Royal Academy course and with Ian and John’s band – now called Jethro Tull – started taking off, they asked him to house-sit and do some decorating – painting of a different kind – while they toured in America.

On their return he was told: ‘You’re joining the band.’ So within a couple of months he found himself working on the hit album Aqualung and touring Scandinavia. ‘I thought I might last a month, but they were all good musicians and helped me through.’

Adopting the name Hammond-Hammond as a joke – adding in his mother’s surname before she married – he started wearing a black and white striped suit and played a matching guitar – his trademark look and a feature of staged performances of the album, Thick as a Brick.

‘It was fabulously exciting touring the world and I enjoyed it for five years, but inside I knew I wanted to paint – to learn to paint.And that’s what I have been doing all these years. Learning.

‘That stage of my life ended abruptly. I just blurted it out at a business meeting that I was leaving with no previous intention of saying it. It wasn’t the best way to handle it, but the band accepted my decision and moved on.’

By this time Jeffrey had married Mahmaz, an Iranian princess distantly related to the Shah of Persia, and the best friend of Ian Anderson’s wife. Together they set up home in Gloucestershire in a beautiful house with land which Jeffrey developed over the happy years they spent there.

He started painting, though his first attempt at a watercolour of the local view was abandoned. Initially, 90 per cent of his time was spent on the 11 acres of gardens but gradually art took the lion’s share of his time.

The couple travelled extensively, to Iran, Europe and America all documented in Jeffrey’s detailed paintings to give a narrative to their trips.

‘It took me a long while to get used to the slower pace of life after the hectic days of the band. Getting close to nature helped, but I wanted to centre myself and I knew I had to begin the long struggle to learn to paint something meaningful.

‘I started with still life where you have absolute control over everything. I was in the very fortunate position of not having to sell my works so I could develop my ideas exactly how I wanted to. I was very privileged.

‘I had to work hard to achieve the painting style I now have. I didn’t have natural talent and I wanted – still want – each painting to be a challenge, to seize a special moment, to tell a story.

Mahmaz, who came to this country to study at boarding school, was interested in the arts, but more theatre and literature and from their base they were ideally place to visit the RSC in Stratford, theatre in Malvern and Bristol, and Welsh National Opera in Cardiff.

Her untimely death and their son’s decision to move to London forced Jeffrey into another big decision. The house they’d both loved was too big for one – it was time to uproot and start again. ‘It was a huge wrench to leave, but I knew I had to do it.’

He had missed living by the seaside, so travelled from Bognor Regis around the coast right up to Anglesey to try and find a home that felt right, but without success. That is until he returned to the Fylde coast he had loved as a boy, setting up home near to his mother.

Painting in his studio, Jeffrey uses photographs of subjects he has taken which suggest a storyline to him. ‘The photographs are essentially an aide-memoire being unable to paint on the spot for the months it takes me to complete each painting.

‘At a certain point the real painting takes over and I no longer look at the photographs, as the picture is well on the way to becoming an autonomous entity and happily has a life of its own.

‘Each picture I paint demands a fresh approach. It is a matter of instinct and feeling to try to achieve what I want, technical aspects being subservient to that. I don’t take myself too seriously, but I do take painting seriously and hope some of the intended humour is seen.’ A good example of that is the fact he often paints himself in the crowd. Look closely and you might spot him.

‘To use a musical analogy I have been trying to write symphonies or operas rather than three-minute songs; a desire to have the space and time to give to a full narrative,’ he added.

While the painting has been an ever-present in his life there have been reminders of the rock stars days. Seven years ago group leader Ian Anderson travelled to Blackpool to unveil a plaque presented by the Performing Rights Society for Music, commemorating the debut gig of his first band The Blades.

Jeffrey, joined by early fans, attended the ceremony as the plaque was unveiled at Holy Family Church Hall, Links Road, North Shore – life coming full circle.

It was a poignant evening for Jeffrey who had found happiness with a new partner Tess, and his assured paintings show an impressive mastery that he would have hardly imagined during those early music days.

She pressed Jeffrey to organise a public showing of his work as she felt people should see his paintings, but unfortunately she died before the exhibition was organised.

It is her legacy that a small selection of his work is now going on show at the Fylde Gallery in Lytham Booths from November 3 for four weeks. He’s called it ‘All the world’s a stage’ a quote from Shakespeare’s As You Like It. He is certainly a man who has played many parts in his time.

Tull factfile

Ian Anderson, flautist and songwriter, lives in the south of England and is still recording and touring under his own name.

John Evan (correct), keyboards, had his own construction company after he left the band and now lives in Australia.

Barrie Barlow, drummer, worked with Robert Plant and Jimmy page after the band broke up and is still involved in music.

Jeffrey played on Aqualung (1971),Thick as a Brick and Living in the Past (1972), A Passion Play (1973), War Child (1974), Minstrel in the Gallery (1975)

Jeffrey Hammond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia     For those of a similar name, see Jeffery Hammond and Jeff Hammond (disambiguation).

This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (June 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Jeffrey Hammond Hammond
  Jeffrey Hammond in concert with Jethro Tull, 1973
Background information
Birth nameJeffrey Hammond
Born30 July 1946 (age 71)
Blackpool, Lancashire, England
OriginBlackpool, England
GenresProgressive rockFolk rockHard rock
Occupation(s)Musician
InstrumentsBass guitar
Years active1971–75, 1987–88, 1994
Associated actsJethro Tull

Jeffrey Hammond (born 30 July 1946) sometimes credited as Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond, is an artist, musician, and former bass guitar player for the progressive rock band Jethro Tull.[1]

Hammond adopted the name “Hammond-Hammond” as a joke, since both his father’s name and mother’s maiden name were the same.[2] He also joked in interviews that his mother defiantly chose to keep her maiden name, just like Eleanor Roosevelt.

Contents

 [hide

Musician with Jethro Tull[edit]

One of several band members from Blackpool, England, he met band leader Ian Anderson in school when he was 17 years old, eventually joining a band with Anderson and future Jethro Tull members John Evan and Barriemore Barlow. After leaving Grammar School, he opted to study painting rather than continue with music, but he was convinced to join Jethro Tull in January 1971. Before joining the band as a performer, Hammond appears to have spent much time with the band in the background. Ian Anderson wrote songs about his friend’s idiosyncrasies, of which the best known are “A Song for Jeffrey” (This Was), “Jeffrey Goes to Leicester Square” (Stand Up) and “For Michael Collins, Jeffrey and Me” (Benefit). Introducing the first song, in the days before Hammond joined the band, Anderson would portray him in slightly condescending terms as someone with emotional problems who lost his way easily, as described in the first line of the song. His eventual appearance as a band member, therefore, was something of a surprise.[citation needed] Hammond is also namechecked in the lyrics of the Benefit track, “Inside”.

Hammond is credited with creating the “claghorn”, a hybrid instrument. He took the mouthpiece and bell from a toy saxophone and attached them to the body of a flute. The result can be heard on the track “Dharma for One” on the album This Was.

During the time of Tull’s dramatic stage costumes, Jeffrey started wearing a black and white striped suit and played a matching bass guitar, and this became his trademark and a feature of Tull’s Thick as a Brick stage performance. Hammond narrated the surreal piece “The Story of the Hare Who Lost His Spectacles” on the album A Passion Play, and the related short film. He also received credit, along with Anderson and John Evan, for writing the piece.

Hammond burned the suit in December 1975 upon his departure from the band.[3] According to Ian Anderson’s sleevenotes for the 2002 reissue of Tull’s Minstrel in the Gallery, Hammond “returned to his first love, painting, and put down his bass guitar, never to play again.”[4] Hammond’s replacement as bass player was John Glascock, a professional musician.

Later appearances[edit]

He made one last attempt to re-join Jethro Tull in the mid-80’s, as told by Ian Anderson during Alan Freeman’s Friday Rock Show in March 1988, while providing comments for the broadcast of Tull’s show at Hammersmith Odeon which Capital Radio was airing. According to Anderson, “Jeffrey was almost about to re-join the band”, but despite one audition being made with the band, the bass player declared himself unable to play the rather difficult music of Jethro Tull and decided to give up.

Hammond attended Jethro Tull’s 25th anniversary reunion party in 1994. He participated in an interview, along with Ian Anderson and Martin Barre, that was featured as a bonus track on the 1997 reissue of Thick as a Brick.

Discography[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ Nollen, Scott Allen (2002). Jethro Tull: A history of the band, 1968–2001. McFarland. pp. 82–. ISBN 978-0-7864-1101-6. Retrieved 18 June 2011.
  1. Jump up^ Rees, David. Minstrels in the Gallery, 1998, ISBN 0-946719-22-5, p. 40.
  1. Jump up^ Rees, p. 70.
  1. Jump up^ Official biography of Jeffrey Hammond on Jethro Tull website: JethroTull.com

External links[edit]

[hide] v   t   e Jethro Tull
Ian Anderson Florian Opahle David Goodier John O’Hara Scott Hammond Clive Bunker Glenn Cornick Mick Abrahams Tony Iommi Martin Barre John Evan Jeffrey Hammond Barriemore Barlow John Glascock David (Dee) Palmer Dave Pegg Mark Craney Eddie Jobson Peter-John Vettese Gerry Conway Paul Burgess Doane Perry Don Airey Maartin Allcock Andrew Giddings Dave Mattacks Jonathan Noyce
Studio albums This Was Stand Up Benefit Aqualung Thick as a Brick A Passion Play War Child Minstrel in the Gallery Too Old to Rock ‘n’ Roll: Too Young to Die! Songs from the Wood Heavy Horses Stormwatch A The Broadsword and the Beast Under Wraps Crest of a Knave Rock Island Catfish Rising Roots to Branches J-Tull Dot Com The Jethro Tull Christmas Album
Live albums Bursting Out Live at Hammersmith ’84 A Little Light Music Jethro Tull in Concert Living with the Past Nothing Is Easy: Live at the Isle of Wight 1970 Aqualung Live Live at Montreux 2003 Live at Madison Square Garden 1978 Live at Carnegie Hall 1970
Compilations Living in the Past M.U. – The Best of Jethro Tull Repeat – The Best of Jethro Tull – Vol II Original Masters 20 Years of Jethro Tull: Highlights Nightcap The Best of Jethro Tull – The Anniversary Collection Through the Years The Very Best Of The Best of Acoustic Jethro Tull The Essential
Boxed sets 20 Years of Jethro Tull 25th Anniversary Box Set
Videos Slipstream 20 Years of Jethro Tull 25th Anniversary Video Living with the Past A New Day Yesterday Nothing Is Easy: Live a

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS PART 149 AAA Bertrand Russell’s perfect faith in an uniformity of natural causes in a closed system

Image result for bertrand russell
1135 × 600Images may be subject to copyrightLearn More

I recently read the book “i don’t have enough faith to be an atheist,” by Norman Geisler. I think of the title of that book when I think about what Francis Schaeffer said about the nature of Bertrand Russell’s faith discussed later in this blog post.RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 149 HH Sir Bertrand Russell (SHORT)Image result for bertrand russellOn November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.Harry KrotoImage result for harry krotoI have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:Arif Ahmed, Sir David AttenboroughMark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael BatePatricia ChurchlandAaron CiechanoverNoam Chomsky,Alan DershowitzHubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan FeuchtwangDavid Friend,  Riccardo GiacconiIvar Giaever , Roy GlauberRebecca GoldsteinDavid J. Gross,  Brian Greene, Susan GreenfieldStephen F Gudeman,  Alan Guth, Jonathan HaidtTheodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison,  Hermann HauserRoald Hoffmann,  Bruce HoodHerbert Huppert,  Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve JonesShelly KaganMichio Kaku,  Stuart Kauffman,  Lawrence KraussHarry Kroto, George LakoffElizabeth Loftus,  Alan MacfarlanePeter MillicanMarvin MinskyLeonard Mlodinow,  Yujin NagasawaAlva NoeDouglas Osheroff,  Jonathan Parry,  Saul PerlmutterHerman Philipse,  Carolyn PorcoRobert M. PriceLisa RandallLord Martin Rees,  Oliver Sacks, John SearleMarcus du SautoySimon SchafferJ. L. Schellenberg,   Lee Silver Peter Singer,  Walter Sinnott-ArmstrongRonald de Sousa, Victor StengerBarry Supple,   Leonard Susskind, Raymond TallisNeil deGrasse Tyson,  .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John WalkerFrank WilczekSteven Weinberg, and  Lewis Wolpert,In  the first video below in the 14th clip in this series are his words and I will be responding to them in the next few weeks since Sir Bertrand Russell is probably the most quoted skeptic of our time, unless it was someone like Carl Sagan or Antony Flew.  

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)

__

Quote from Bertrand Russell:

Q: Why are you not a Christian?Russell: Because I see no evidence whatever for any of the Christian dogmas. I’ve examined all the stock arguments in favor of the existence of God, and none of them seem to me to be logically valid.Q: Do you think there’s a practical reason for having a religious belief, for many people?Russell: Well, there can’t be a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. That’s quite… at least, I rule it out as impossible. Either the thing is true, or it isn’t. If it is true, you should believe it, and if it isn’t, you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment. But you can’t… it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful, and not because you think it’s true._

Image result for francis schaeffer
630 × 372Images may be subject to copyrightLearn More

Francis Schaeffer noted concerning the IMPLICIT FAITH of Bertrand Russell:I was lecturing at the University of St. Andrews one night and someone put forth the question, “If Christianity is so clear and reasonable then why doesn’t Bertrand Russell then become a Christian? Is it because he hasn’t discovered theology?”It wasn’t a matter of studying theology that was involved but rather that he had too much faith. I was surrounded by humanists and you could hear the gasps. Bertrand Russell and faith; Isn’t this the man of reason? I pointed out that this is a man of high orthodoxy who will hold his IMPLICIT FAITH on the basis of his presuppositions no matter how many times he has to zig and zag because it doesn’t conform to the facts.You must understand what the term IMPLICIT FAITH  means. In the old Roman Catholic Church when someone who became a Roman Catholic they had to promise implicit faith. That meant that you not only had to believe everything that Roman Catholic Church taught then but also everything it would teach in the future. It seems to me this is the kind of faith that these people have in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system and they have accepted it no matter what it leads them into. I think that these men are men of a high level of IMPLICIT FAITH in their own set of presuppositions. Paul said (in Romans Chapter One) they won’t carry it to it’s logical conclusion even though they hold a great deal of the truth and they have revolted and they have set up a series of universals in themselves which they won’t transgress no matter if they conform to the facts or not.Here below is the Romans passage that Schaeffer is referring to and verse 19 refers to what Schaeffer calls “the mannishness of man” and verse 20 refers to Schaeffer’s other point which is “the universe and it’s form.”Romans 1:18-20 Amplified Bible :18 For 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. 19 For 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. 20 For 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].We can actually see the two points makes playing themselves out in Bertrand Russell’s own life.

Image result for bertrand russell
1135 × 600Images may be subject to copyrightLearn More

[From a letter dated August 11, 1918 to Miss Rinder when Russell was 46]It is so with all who spend their lives in the quest of something elusive, and yet omnipresent, and at once subtle and infinite. One seeks it in music, and the sea, and sunsets; at times I have seemed very near it in crowds when I have been feeling strongly what they were feeling; one seeks it in love above all. But if one lets oneself imagine one has found it, some cruel irony is sure to come and show one that it is not really found.
The outcome is that one is a ghost, floating through the world without any real contact. Even when one feels nearest to other people, something in one seems obstinately to belong to God and to refuse to enter into any earthly communion—at least that is how I should express it if I thought there was a God. It is odd isn’t it? I care passionately for this world, and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There must be something more important, one feels, though I don’t believe there is. I am haunted—some ghost, from some extra-mundane region, seems always trying to tell me something that I am to repeat to the world, but I cannot understand the message. There was evidence during Bertrand Russell’s own life that indicated that the Bible was true and could be trusted.Archaeology Verifies the Bible as God’s Word Sir William RamsayDefends the New TestamentChapter 2Sir William Ramsay, an atheist and the son of atheists, tried to disprove the Bible. He was a wealthy person who had graduated from the prestigious University of Oxford. Like Albright, Ramsay studied under the famous liberal German historical school in the mid-nineteenth century. Esteemed for its scholarship, this school also taught that the New Testament was not a historical document. As an anti-Semitic move, this would totally eradicate the Nation of Israel from history.With this premise, Ramsay devoted his whole life to archaeology and determined that he would disprove the Bible.He set out for the Holy Land and decided to disprove the book of Acts. After 25 or more years (he had released book after book during this time), he was incredibly impressed by the accuracy of Luke in his writings finally declaring that ‘Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy’ . . . ‘this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians’ . . . ‘Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.’Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated by the fact that he names key historical figures in the correct time sequence as well as correct titles to government officials in various areas: Thessalonica, politarchs; Ephesus, temple wardens; Cyprus, proconsul; and Malta, the first man of the island. The two books, the Gospel of Luke and book of Acts, that Luke has authored remain accurate documents of history. Ramsay stated, “This author [Luke] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”Finally, in one of his books Ramsay shocked the entire intellectual world by declaring himself to be a Christian. Numerous other archaeologists have had similar experiences. Having set out to show the Bible false, they themselves have been proven false and, as a consequence, have accepted Christ as Lord.In an outstanding academic career, Ramsay was honored with doctorates from nine universities and eventually knighted for his contributions to modern scholarship. Several of his works on New Testament history are considered classics. When confronted with the evidence of years of travel and study, Sir William Ramsay learned what many others before him and since have been forced to acknowledge: When we objectively examine the evidence for the Bible’s accuracy and veracity, the only conclusion we can reach is that the Bible is true.Later Archaeologists Confirm Ramsay

 

New Testament Higher Criticism Archaeology Verifies the Bible
Luke 3:1 In Luke’s announcement of Jesus’ public ministry (Luke 3:1), he mentions, “Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene.” Scholars questioned Luke’s credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a ruler of Chalcis who ruled from 40-36 B.C. However, an inscription dating to be in the time of Tiberius, who ruled from 14-37 A.D., was found recording a temple dedication which names Lysanius as the “tetrarch of Abila” near Damascus. This matches well with Luke’s account.
Acts 18:12-17 In Acts 18:12-17, Paul was brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaea. At  Delphi an inscription of a letter from Emperor Claudius was discovered. In  it  he states,  “Lucius  Junios Gallio,  my  friend,  and the proconsul of Achaia . . .” Historians date the inscription to 52 A.D., which corresponds to the time of the apostle’s stay in 51.
Acts 19:22 and Romans 16:23

In Acts 19:22 and Romans 16:23, Erastus, a coworker of Paul, is named the Corinthian city treasurer.Archaeologists excavating a Corinthian theatre in 1928 discovered an inscription. It reads, “Erastus in return for his aedilship laid the pavement at his own expense.”The pavement was laid in 50 A.D. The designation of treasurer describes the work of a Corinthian aedile.Acts 28:7In Acts 28:7, Luke gives Plubius, the chief man on the island of Malta, the title, “first man of the island.”Scholars questioned this strange title and deemed it unhistorical.Inscriptions have recently been discovered on the island that indeed gives Plubius the title of “first man.” In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error.A.N. Sherwin-White states, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”Here is some below:

TRUTH AND HISTORY (chapter 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?, under footnotes #97 and #98) written by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop

A common assumption among liberal scholars is that because the Gospels are theologically motivated writings–which they are–they cannot also be historically accurate. In other words, because Luke, say (when he wrote the Book of Luke and the Book of Acts), was convinced of the deity of Christ, this influenced his work to the point where it ceased to be reliable as a historical account. The assumption that a writing cannot be both historical and theological is false.The experience of the famous classical archaeologist Sir William Ramsay illustrates this well. When he began his pioneer work of exploration in Asia Minor, he accepted the view then current among the Tubingen scholars of his day that the Book of Acts was written long after the events in Paul’s life and was therefore historically inaccurate. However, his travels and discoveries increasingly forced upon his mind a totally different picture, and he became convinced that Acts was minutely accurate in many details which could be checked.Related posts:

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Pausing to take a look at the life of HARRY KROTO Part C (Kroto’s admiration of Bertrand Russell examined)

Today we look at the 3rd letter in the Kroto correspondence and his admiration of Bertrand Russell. (Below The Nobel chemistry laureates Harold Kroto, Robert Curl and Richard Smalley) It is with sadness that I write this post having learned of the death of Sir Harold Kroto on April 30, 2016 at the age of […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 52 The views of Hegel and Bertrand Russell influenced Gareth Stedman Jones of Cambridge!!

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of Dr. Harry Kroto:   Gareth Stedman […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!!

Top 10 Woody Allen Movies __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were  atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 (More On) Woody Allen’s Atheism As I wrote in a previous post, I like Woody Allen. I have long admired his […]

John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were two atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!!

______ Top 10 Woody Allen Movies PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 01 PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 02 __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were two atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 4)

THE MORAL ARGUMENT     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 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 3)

Great debate Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript and audio (Part 2)

Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of UK/BBC copyright. Pardon the hissy audio. It was recorded 51 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript and audio (Part 1)

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 4)

THE MORAL ARGUMENT     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 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 3)

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 242 Christians should be interested in the arts (Feature on artist Willem de Kooning )

The Story of Francis and Edith Schaeffer and Swiss L’Abri

Francis Schaeffer: Art and the Bible

_

How Should We Then Live – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation

Book Summary of Art in the Bible by Francis Schaeffer

 

_

How Should We Then Live – Episode Seven – 07 – Portuguese Subtitles

_

Francis Schaeffer – How Should We Then Live – 03.The Renaissance

_

HowShouldweThenLive Episode 6

_

483 words Christians should be interested in the arts (includes quotes from SchaefferART AND THE BIBLE)

_______________

Art and the Bible

Written on October 3, 2010 by Lisa in Christian Art

One of my early influences as a Christian artist was Francis Schaeffer. His book, Art and the Bible, is excellent. Here is just a short excerpt from this book:

“Christianity is not just “dogmatically” true or “doctrinally” true. Rather, it is true to what is there, true in the whole area of the whole man in all of life.

The ancients were afraid that if they went to the end of the earth, they would fall off and be consumed by dragons. But once we understand that Christianity is true to what is there, including true to the ultimate environment — the infinite, personal God who is really there — then our minds are freed. We can pursue any question and can be sure that we will not fall off the end of the earth. Such an attitude will give our Christianity a strength that is often does not seem to have at the present time.

But there is another side to the Lordship of Christ, and this involves the total culture — including the area of creativity. Again, evangelical or biblical Christianity has been weak at this point. About all that we have produced is a very romantic Sunday school art.

We do not seem to understand that the arts too are supposed to be under the Lordship of Christ.

I have frequently quoted a statement from Francis Bacon, who was one of the first of the modern scientists and who believed in the uniformity of natural causes in an open system. He, along with other men like Copernicus and Galileo, believed that because the world had been created by a reasonable God, they could therefore pursue the truth concerning the universe by reason. There is much, of course, in Francis Bacon with which I would disagree, but one of the statements which I love to quote is this: “Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his dominion over nature. Both of these losses, however, can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by the arts and sciences.” How I wish that evangelical Christians in the United States and Britain and across the world had had this vision for the last fifty years!

The arts and the sciences do have a place in the Christian life — they are not peripheral. For a Christian, redeemed by the work of Christ and living within the norms of Scripture and under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the Lordship of Christ should include an interest in the arts. A Christian should use these arts to the glory of God — not just as tracts, but as things of beauty to the praise of God. And art work can be a doxology in itself.”

______________-

_________________________________________________________________

Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000 years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” episode 6 “The Scientific Age” episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” ,  episode 4 “The Reformation” episode 3 “The Renaissance”episode 2 “The Middle Ages,”, and  episode 1 “The Roman Age,” . My favorite episodes are number 7 and 8 since they deal with modern art and culture primarily.(Joe Carter rightly noted, “Schaeffer—who always claimed to be an evangelist and not a philosopher—was often criticized for the way his work oversimplified intellectual history and philosophy.” To those critics I say take a chill pill because Schaeffer was introducing millions into the fields of art and culture!!!! !!! More people need to read his works and blog about them because they show how people’s worldviews affect their lives!!!!)

There is evidence that points to the fact that the Bible is historically true as Schaeffer pointed out in episode 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE  HUMAN RACE? There is a basis then for faith in Christ alone for our eternal hope. This link shows how to do that.

 

Francis Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live? (Full-Length Documentary)

____________________

Francis Schaeffer with his son Franky pictured below. Francis and Edith (who passed away in 2013) opened L’ Abri in 1955 in Switzerland.

Featured artist is Willem de Kooning

Friday, 29 September, 2000, 06:03 GMT 07:03 UK

Sir Paul McCartney

Abstract art: Sir Paul started painting when he was 40

The first UK exhibition of Sir Paul McCartney’s art work has opened in Bristol.The 58-year-old singer has been painting since he was 40, but he has only exhibited his work once before, in Germany last year.Featuring a selection of the 500 canvasses he has painted, the exhibition, at the Arnolfini Gallery, coincides with the publication of a book on his art.Speaking on the eve of the exhibition’s opening, Sir Paul said he had always wanted to be an artist, and felt he had missed out on formal training in his teenage years.”I always liked drawing as a kid and I liked the idea of painting but I felt there was some sort of reason why I shouldn’t, because I hadn’t been trained, because I hadn’t been to art college, because I was just a working class person,” he said.Abstract art

Sir Paul recounted how a conversation with US artist Willem de Kooning prompted him to pick up palette and brushes.

Willem de Koonig

Willem de Kooning, abstract artist who inspired Sir Paul, died in 1997

While looking at one of the late painter’s works Sir Paul asked de Kooning: “At the risk of appearing gauche, what is it, Bill?”De Kooning, an abstract expressionist, replied: “I dunno, looks like a couch, huh?”

“I thought his painting looked like a purple mountain and he thought it looked like a couch, but the fact that he said that it didn’t matter what it was just freed me,” Sir Paul said.

Spat with Lennon

The exhibition coincides with the recent re-publication of an interview fellow Beatle John Lennon gave to Rolling Stone magazine in 1970.

Lennon attacks Sir Paul in the interview, but the musician pointed out that it came when the band members were going through their worst crisis.

John Lennon

John Lennon: Interview ‘hurt a lot at the time’ according to Sir Paul

“It hurt a lot at the time but we got back together as friends and he is on record as saying a lot of that slagging off he gave me was really just him crying for help,” Sir Paul said.“He could have been boozed out of his head, as he was during that period, he could have been crazed on this, that or the other substance.

“But we did get very friendly, and he did tell me that a lot of those things he said he didn’t mean.

“I was very lucky in as much as before he got killed we were able to tell each other we loved each other,” he added.

_______

Fea

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 1 HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? “The Roman Age” (Feature on artist Tracey Emin)

I want to make two points today. First, Greg Koukl has rightly noted that the nudity of a ten year old girl in the art of Robert Mapplethorpe is not defensible, and it demonstrates where our culture is  morally. It the same place morally where  Rome was 2000 years ago as Francis Schaeffer has demonstrated […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 1 0   Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min 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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

  Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE   Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

____________

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 241,André Malraux Featured artist is Jordan Casteel

______________

Malraux, Camus and Sartre- The Golden Age of French Intellectualism (Post WWII)

Published on Jul 20, 2012

(ORIGINAL) Documentary on the rise and downfall of French Intellectuals like André Malraux, Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre are portrayed in this very rare documentary. The friendships and conflicts are examined with the backdrop of Fascism, Stalinism and Nazism, through to the turbulent 1960s, the Castro/Che Cuban Revolution, Paris 1968, modern terrorism in the Middle East and Third-World rebellions.

____________________________________

Image result for francis schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer said on page 187 of volume 5 André Malraux of france argued that art will give us the hope of some meaning to life-not the content of the art, but simply the fact that art exists. In THE VOICES OF SILENCE (1953) Malraux showed that he understood very well that modern man is the man of no absolutes. Yet he offered art as a hope, a hope of nonreason.

Andre Malraux ~~ ~~

Quotations[edit]

Man is dead, after God”. Malraux, The Temptation of the West. (1926)

‘The artist is not the transcriber of the world, he is its rival.’ Malraux, L’Intemporel (3rd volume of The Metamorphosis of the Gods.)

‘In a world in which everything is subject to the passing of time, art alone is both subject to time and yet victorious over it’. Malraux in a television program about art, 1975.

“Art is an object lesson for the gods.” The Voices of Silence

“The art museum is one of the places that give us the highest idea of man.” The Voices of Silence

“Humanism does not consist in saying: ‘No animal could have done what I have done,’ but in declaring: ‘We have refused what the beast within us willed to do, and we seek to reclaim man wherever we find that which crushes him.’” The Voices of Silence

“The greatest mystery is not that we have been flung at random between this profusion of matter and the stars, but that within this prison we can draw from ourselves images powerful enough to deny our nothingness.” Les Noyers de l’Altenburg

André Malraux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
André Malraux
André Malraux, Pic, 22.jpg

André Malraux in 1974
Born 3 November 1901
Paris, France
Died 23 November 1976 (aged 75)
Créteil, France
Occupation Author, statesman
Citizenship French
Notable works La Condition Humaine (Man’s Fate) (1933)
Notable awards Prix Goncourt
Spouse Clara Goldschmidt, Josette Clotis, Marie-Madeleine Lioux
Children Florence, Pierre-Gauthier, Vincent

André Malraux DSO (French: [ɑ̃dʁe malʁo]; 3 November 1901 – 23 November 1976) was a French novelist, art theorist and Minister for Cultural Affairs. Malraux’s novel La Condition Humaine (Man’s Fate) (1933) won the Prix Goncourt. He was appointed by President Charles de Gaulle as Minister of Information (1945–1946) and subsequently as France’s first Minister of Cultural Affairs during de Gaulle’s presidency (1959–1969).

Early years[edit]

Malraux was born in Paris in 1901, the son of Fernand-Georges Malraux and Berthe Lamy (Malraux). His parents separated in 1905 and eventually divorced. There are suggestions that Malraux’s paternal grandfather committed suicide in 1909.[1]

Malraux was raised by his mother, maternal aunt Marie and maternal grandmother, Adrienne Lamy-Romagna, who had a grocery store in the small town of Bondy.[1][2] His father, a stockbroker, committed suicide in 1930 after the international crash of the stock market and onset of the Great Depression.[3] From his childhood, associates noticed that André had marked nervousness and motor and vocal tics. The recent biographer Olivier Todd, who published a book on Malraux in 2005, suggests that he had Tourette’s syndrome, although that has not been confirmed.[4] Either way, most critics have not seen this as a significant factor in Malraux’s life or literary works.

The young Malraux left formal education early, but he followed his curiosity through the booksellers and museums in Paris, and explored its rich libraries as well.

Marriage and family[edit]

In 1922, Malraux married Clara Goldschmidt. Malraux and his first wife separated in 1938 but didn’t divorce until 1947. His daughter from this marriage, Florence (b. 1933), married the filmmaker Alain Resnais.[5]

André Malraux in 1933

After the breakdown of his marriage with Clara, Malraux lived with journalist and novelist Josette Clotis, starting in 1933. Malraux and Josette had two sons: Pierre-Gauthier (1940–1961) and Vincent (1943–1961). During 1944, while Malraux was fighting in Alsace, Josette died, aged 34, when she slipped while boarding a train. His two sons died together in 1961 in an automobile accident.

In 1948, Malraux married a second time, to Marie-Madeleine Lioux, a concert pianist and the widow of his half-brother, Roland Malraux. They separated in 1966.

Subsequently, Malraux lived with Louise de Vilmorin in the Vilmorin family château at Verrières-le-Buisson, Essonne, a suburb southwest of Paris. Vilmorin was best known as a writer of delicate but mordant tales, often set in aristocratic or artistic milieu. Her most famous novel was Madame de…, published in 1951, which was adapted into the celebrated film The Earrings of Madame de… (1953), directed by Max Ophüls and starring Charles Boyer, Danielle Darrieux and Vittorio de Sica. Vilmorin’s other works included Juliette, La lettre dans un taxi, Les belles amours, Saintes-Unefois, and Intimités. Her letters to Jean Cocteau were published after the death of both correspondents. After Louise’s death, Malraux spent his final years with her relative, Sophie de Vilmorin.

Career[edit]

Early years[edit]

Malraux’s first published work, an article entitled “The Origins of Cubist Poetry”, appeared in the magazine Action in 1920. This was followed in 1921 by three semi-surrealist tales, one of which, “Paper Moons”, was illustrated by Fernand Léger. Malraux also frequented the Parisian artistic and literary milieus of the period, meeting figures such as Demetrios Galanis, Max Jacob, François Mauriac, Guy de Pourtalès, André Salmon, Jean Cocteau, Raymond Radiguet, Florent Fels, Pascal Pia, Marcel Arland, Edmond Jaloux, and Pierre Mac Orlan.[6]

Indochina[edit]

In 1923, aged 22, Malraux left for Cambodia with Clara.[7] There, together with Clara and a friend, Louis Chevasson, he undertook a small expedition into unexplored areas of the Cambodian jungle in search of lost Khmertemples, hoping to recover items that might be sold to art museums. On his return, he was arrested by French colonial authorities for removing a bas-relief from Banteay Srei (a somewhat ironic turn of events[citation needed] given that French authorities had themselves removed large numbers of statues and bas-reliefs from temples such as Angkor Wat). Malraux, who believed he had acted within the law as it then stood, contested the charges but was unsuccessful.[8]

Malraux’s experiences in Indochina led him to become highly critical of the French colonial authorities there. In 1925, with Paul Monin,[9] a progressive lawyer, he helped to organize the Young Annam League and founded a newspaper L’Indochine.[10]

On his return to France, Malraux published The Temptation of the West (1926). The work was in the form of an exchange of letters between a Westerner and an Asian, comparing aspects of the two cultures. This was followed by his first novel The Conquerors (1928), and then by The Royal Way (1930) which reflected some of his Cambodian experiences.[11] In 1933 Malraux published Man’s Fate (La Condition Humaine), a novel about the 1927 failed Communist rebellion in Shanghai. The work was awarded the 1933 Prix Goncourt.[12]

Spanish Civil War[edit]

During the 1930s, Malraux was active in the anti-fascist Popular Front in France. At the beginning of the Spanish Civil War he joined the Republican forces in Spain, serving in and helping to organize the small Spanish Republican Air Force.[13] (Curtis Cate, one of his biographers, claims that Malraux was slightly wounded twice during efforts to stop the Falangists‘ takeover of Madrid, but the historian Hugh Thomas claims otherwise.)

The French government sent aircraft to Republican forces in Spain, but they were obsolete by the standards of 1936. They were mainly Potez 540 bombers and Dewoitine D.372 fighters. The slow Potez 540 rarely survived three months of air missions, moving some 80 knots against enemy fighters flying at more than 250 knots. Few of the fighters proved to be airworthy, and they were delivered intentionally without guns or gunsights. (The Ministry of Defense of France had feared that modern types of planes would easily be captured by the Germans fighting for Francisco Franco, and the lesser models were a way of maintaining official “neutrality”.)[14] The planes were surpassed by more modern types introduced by the end of 1936 on both sides.

The Republic circulated photos of Malraux standing next to some Potez 540 bombers suggesting that France was on their side, at a time when France and the United Kingdom had declared official neutrality. But Malraux’s commitment to the Republicans was personal, like that of many other foreign volunteers, and there was never any suggestion that he was there at the behest of the French Government. Malraux himself was not a pilot, and never claimed to be one, but his leadership qualities seem to have been recognized because he was made Squadron Leader of the ‘España’ squadron. Acutely aware of the Republicans’ inferior armaments, of which outdated aircraft were just one example, he toured the United States to raise funds for the cause. In 1938 he published L’Espoir (Man’s Hope), a novel influenced by his Spanish war experiences.[15]

Malraux’s participation in major historical events such as the Spanish Civil War inevitably brought him determined adversaries as well as strong supporters, and the resulting polarization of opinion has colored, and rendered questionable, much that has been written about his life. Fellow combatants praised Malraux’s leadership and sense of camaraderie,[16] although Antony Beevor says he was criticized by the representative of the Comintern who described him as an “adventurer” for his high profile and demands on the Spanish Republican government. (This criticism is not surprising, however, since the Comintern regularly criticized anyone who did not toe the party line, and despite his support for the Republicans, Malraux was never a member of the Communist Party.)[17] Antony Beevor also claims that “Malraux stands out, not just because he was a mythomaniac in his claims of martial heroism – in Spain and later in the French Resistance – but because he cynically exploited the opportunity for intellectual heroism in the legend of the Spanish Republic.”[17]These statements are, however, very questionable since Malraux nowhere makes “claims of martial heroism”. In fact, he rarely wrote about his own military experience and when he did (e.g. in his Antimemoirs) placed very little emphasis on his own role.

As a general comment it is worth adding that Malraux’s participation in events such as the Spanish Civil War has tended to distract attention from his important literary achievement. Malraux saw himself first and foremost as a writer and thinker (and not “man of action” as biographers so often portray him) but his extremely eventful life – a far cry from the stereotype of the French intellectual confined to his study or a Left Bank café – has tended to obscure this fact. As a result, his literary works, including his important works on the theory of art, have received less attention than one might expect, especially in Anglophone countries.[18]

World War II[edit]

At the beginning of the Second World War, Malraux joined the French Army. He was captured in 1940 during the Battle of France but escaped and later joined the French Resistance.[19] In 1944, he was captured by the Gestapo.[20] He later commanded the tank unitBrigade Alsace-Lorraine in defence of Strasbourg and in the attack on Stuttgart.[21]

After the war, Malraux was awarded the Médaille de la Résistance and the Croix de guerre. The British awarded him the Distinguished Service Order, for his work with British liaison officers in Corrèze, Dordogne and Lot. After Dordogne was liberated, Malraux led a battalion of former resistance fighters to Alsace-Lorraine, where they fought alongside the First Army.[22]

During the war, he worked on his last novel, The Struggle with the Angel, the title drawn from the story of the Biblical Jacob. The manuscript was destroyed by the Gestapo after his capture in 1944. A surviving first section, titled The Walnut Trees of Altenburg, was published after the war.

After the war[edit]

U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Marie-Madeleine Lioux, André Malraux, U.S. First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, and U.S. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson at an unveiling of the Mona Lisa at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Mrs. Kennedy described Malraux as “the most fascinating man I’ve ever talked to”.[23]

Shortly after the war, General Charles de Gaulle appointed Malraux as his Minister for Information (1945–1946). Soon after, he completed his first book on art, The Psychology of Art, published in three volumes (1947–1949). The work was subsequently revised and republished in one volume as The Voices of Silence (Les Voix du Silence), the first part of which has been published separately as The Museum without Walls. Other important works on the theory of art were to follow. These included the three-volume Metamorphosis of the Gods and Precarious Man and Literature, the latter published posthumously in 1977.

When de Gaulle returned to the French presidency in 1958, Malraux became France’s first Minister of Cultural Affairs, a post he held from 1958 to 1969. Among many initiatives, he launched an innovative (and subsequently widely-imitated) program to clean the blackened facades of notable French buildings, revealing the natural stone underneath.[24] He also created a number of maisons de la culture in provincial cities and worked to preserve France’s national heritage.

In 1957, Malraux published the first volume of his trilogy on art entitled The Metamorphosis of the Gods. The second two volumes (not yet translated into English) were published shortly before he died. They are entitled L’Irréel andL’Intemporel and discuss artistic developments from the Renaissance to modern times. Malraux also initiated the series Arts of Mankind, an ambitious survey of world art that generated more than thirty large, illustrated volumes.

Malraux was an outspoken supporter of the Bangladesh liberation movement during the 1971 Pakistani Civil War and despite his age seriously considered joining the struggle.

During this post-war period, Malraux also published a series of semi-autobiographical works, the first entitled Antimémoires (1967). A later volume in the series, Lazarus, is a reflection on death occasioned by his experiences during a serious illness. La Tête d’obsidienne (1974) (translated as Picasso’s Mask) concerns Picasso, and visual art more generally.

Malraux died in Créteil, near Paris, on 23 November 1976. He was buried in the Verrières-le-Buisson (Essonne) cemetery. In recognition of his contributions to French culture, his ashes were moved to the Panthéon in Paris during 1996, on the twentieth anniversary of his passing.

Legacy and honours[edit]

André Malraux in 1974

There is now a large and steadily growing body of critical commentary on Malraux’s literary œuvre, including his very extensive writings on art. Unfortunately, some of his works, including the last two volumes of The Metamorphosis of the Gods (L’Irréel and L’Intemporel) are not yet available in English translation. Malraux’s works on the theory of art contain a revolutionary approach to art that challenges the Enlightenment tradition that treats art simply as a source of “aesthetic pleasure”. However, as French writer André Brincourt has commented, Malraux’s books on art have been “skimmed a lot but very little read”[25] (this is especially true in Anglophone countries) and the radical implications of his thinking are often missed. A particularly important aspect of Malraux’s thinking about art is his explanation of the capacity of art to transcend time. In contrast to the traditional notion that art endures because it is timeless (“eternal”), Malraux argues that art lives on through metamorphosis – a process of resuscitation (where the work had fallen into obscurity) and transformation in meaning.[26]

  • 1968, an international Malraux Society was founded in the United States. It produces the journal Revue André Malraux Review, Michel Lantelme, editor, at University of Oklahoma.[27]
  • Another international Malraux association, the Amitiés internationales André Malraux, is based in Paris.
  • A French-language website, Site littéraire André Malraux,[28] offers a valuable source of research and information about Malraux’s works and critical commentary.

Quotations[edit]

Man is dead, after God”. Malraux, The Temptation of the West. (1926)

‘The artist is not the transcriber of the world, he is its rival.’ Malraux, L’Intemporel (3rd volume of The Metamorphosis of the Gods.)

‘In a world in which everything is subject to the passing of time, art alone is both subject to time and yet victorious over it’. Malraux in a television program about art, 1975.

“Art is an object lesson for the gods.” The Voices of Silence

“The art museum is one of the places that give us the highest idea of man.” The Voices of Silence

“Humanism does not consist in saying: ‘No animal could have done what I have done,’ but in declaring: ‘We have refused what the beast within us willed to do, and we seek to reclaim man wherever we find that which crushes him.’” The Voices of Silence

“The greatest mystery is not that we have been flung at random between this profusion of matter and the stars, but that within this prison we can draw from ourselves images powerful enough to deny our nothingness.” Les Noyers de l’Altenburg

Bibliography[edit]

For a more complete bibliography, see Site littéraire André Malraux.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b “Biographie détaillée”, André Malraux Website, accessed 3 Sep 2010
  2. Jump up^ Cate, p. 4
  3. Jump up^ Cate, p. 153
  4. Jump up^ Katherine Knorr (31 May 2001). “Andre Malraux, the Great Pretender”. The New York Times.
  5. Jump up^ Cate, pp. 388–389
  6. Jump up^ Biographie détaillée. Malraux.org. Retrieved on 1 August 2014.
  7. Jump up^ Cate, pp. 53–58
  8. Jump up^ Hierarchies of value at Angkor Wat | Lindsay French. Academia.edu. Retrieved on 1 August 2014.
  9. Jump up^ Yves Le Jariel, L’ami oublié de Malraux en Indochine, Paul Monin (1890-1929)
  10. Jump up^ Cate, pp. 86–96
  11. Jump up^ Cate, p. 159
  12. Jump up^ Cate, pp. 170–181
  13. Jump up^ Cate, pp. 228–242
  14. Jump up^ Cate, p. 235
  15. Jump up^ John Sturrock (9 August 2001). “The Man from Nowhere”. The London Review of Books 23 (15).
  16. Jump up^ Derek Allan, Art and the Human Adventure, André Malraux’s Theory of Art (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2009). pp. 25–27.
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b Beevor, p. 140
  18. Jump up^ Derek Allan, “Art and the Human Adventure, André Malraux’s Theory of Art” (Rodopi, 2009)
  19. Jump up^ Cate, pp. 278–287
  20. Jump up^ Cate, pp. 328–332
  21. Jump up^ Cate, pp. 340–349
  22. Jump up^ “Recommendations for Honours and Awards (Army)—Malraux, Andre” (fee usually required to view full pdf of original recommendation). DocumentsOnline. The National Archives. Retrieved 23 September 2009.
  23. Jump up^ Scott, Janny (11 September 2011). “In Oral History, Jacqueline Kennedy Speaks Candidly After the Assassination”. The New York Times.
  24. Jump up^ Chilvers, Ian. Entry for AM in The Oxford Dictionary of Art (Oxford, 2004). Accessed on 6/28/11 at: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Andre_Malraux.aspx#4
  25. Jump up^ Derek Allan, Art and the Human Adventure: André Malraux’s Theory of Art, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2009, p. 21
  26. Jump up^ Derek Allan. Art and Time, Cambridge Scholars: 2013
  27. Jump up^ ”Revue André Malraux Review”. Revueandremalraux.com. Retrieved on 1 August 2014.
  28. Jump up^ Site littéraire André Malraux. Malraux.org. Retrieved on 1 August 2014.
This article incorporates information from the revision as of 2010-02-5 of the equivalent article on the French Wikipedia.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

__

Jordan Casteel Paints Her Community | Art21 “New York Close Up”

 

Featured artist is Jordan Casteel

Jordan Casteel

Jordan Casteel was born in 1989 in Denver, Colorado. She now lives and works in New York. Since graduating with an MFA from Yale University in 2014, Casteel has received acclaim for her painted portraits depicting black men.

Long committed to social justice, Casteel was working as a teacher in Colorado and painting in the evenings when she realized that she needed to devote herself more seriously to her art practice. In 2015, she moved to New York for a residency at The Studio Museum of Harlem. Inspired to address ideas of black masculinity, Casteel began painting portraits of the people closest to her—family members, friends, and boyfriends—to transform the negative representations of black men often seen in the larger culture. Casteel’s vivacious renditions feature a vibrant palette that signals an undeniable joy. The artist begins her portraits by taking up to two hundred photographs of her subjects, whom now she tends to meet on the streets of her adopted neighborhood of Harlem.

____

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 53 THE BEATLES (Part E, Stg. Pepper’s and John Lennon’s search in 1967 for truth was through drugs, money, laughter, etc & similar to King Solomon’s, LOTS OF PICTURES OF JOHN AND CYNTHIA) (Feature on artist Yoko Ono)

The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives  just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 52 THE BEATLES (Part D, There is evidence that the Beatles may have been exposed to Francis Schaeffer!!!) (Feature on artist Anna Margaret Rose Freeman )

______________   George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles:   I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 51 THE BEATLES (Part C, List of those on cover of Stg.Pepper’s ) (Feature on artist Raqib Shaw )

  The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles:   I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 50 THE BEATLES (Part B, The Psychedelic Music of the Beatles) (Feature on artist Peter Blake )

__________________   Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 49 THE BEATLES (Part A, The Meaning of Stg. Pepper’s Cover) (Feature on artist Mika Tajima)

_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 48 “BLOW UP” by Michelangelo Antonioni makes Philosophic Statement (Feature on artist Nancy Holt)

_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute  episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted,  ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 47 Woody Allen and Professor Levy and the death of “Optimistic Humanism” from the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS Plus Charles Darwin’s comments too!!! (Feature on artist Rodney Graham)

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 46 Friedrich Nietzsche (Featured artist is Thomas Schütte)

____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 45 Woody Allen “Reason is Dead” (Feature on artists Allora & Calzadilla )

Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ 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 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 44 The Book of Genesis (Featured artist is Trey McCarley )

___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]

 

_

______

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE “Two speeches from the Apostle Paul that apply to our society today!” Part 240 (Feature on artist Marc Quinn)

__

Paul, Apostle of Christ: Official Trailer | Now Playing

Published on Jan 30, 2018

SUBSCRIBE 15K
Paul, Apostle of Christ: Official Trailer In Theaters March 23 http://www.paulmovie.com Facebook: facebook.com/PaulMovie/ Twitter: twitter.com/paulmovie Instagram: instagram.com/paulmovie For Group Sales Visit: http://paulmovie.com/groups Paul, Apostle of Christ is the story of two men. Luke, as a friend and physician, risks his life every time he ventures into the city of Rome to visit Paul, who is held captive in Nero’s darkest, bleakest prison cell. Before Paul’s death sentence can be enacted, Luke resolves to write another book, one that details the beginnings of “The Way” and the birth of what will come to be known as the church. But Nero is determined to rid Rome of Christians, and does not flinch from executing them in the grisliest ways possible. Bound in chains, Paul’s struggle is internal. He has survived so much—floggings, shipwreck, starvation, stoning, hunger and thirst, cold and exposure—yet as he waits for his appointment with death, he is haunted by the shadows of his past misdeeds. Alone in the dark, he wonders if he has been forgotten . . . and if he has the strength to finish well. Two men struggle against a determined emperor and the frailties of the human spirit in order to bequeath the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world.
Image result for apostle paul movie 2018
1200 × 628Images may be subject to copyright

____

Image result for apostle paul

_______

Image result for francis schaeffer

In the 3rd video below the words of Paul are quoted from First Corinthians Chapter 15:1-24

1 Corinthians 15:1-24New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection

15 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast [a]the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you [b]as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but somehave fallen asleep; then He appeared to [c]James, then to all the apostles;and last of all, as [d]to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I amthe least of the apostles, [e]and not fit to be called an apostle, because Ipersecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified [f]against God that He raised [g]Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

The Order of Resurrection

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those whoare asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in [h]Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)

Uploaded on Oct 3, 2010

No description available.

_____________

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

The biblical message is truth and it demands a commitment to truth. It means that everything is not the result of the impersonal plus time plus chance, but that there is an infinite-personal God who is the Creator of the universe, the space-time continuum. We should not forget that this was what the founders of modern science built upon. It means the acceptance of Christ as Savior and Lord, and it means living under God’s revelation. Here there are morals, values, and meaning, including meaning for people, which are not just a result of statistical averages. This is neither a utilitarianism, nor a leap away from reason; it is the truth that gives a unity to all of knowledge and all of life. This second alternative means that individuals come to the place where they have this base, and they influence the consensus. Such Christians do not need to be a majority in order for this influence on society to occur.”

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode 10 – Final Choices

 

At the 22:56 mark in the above video Francis Schaeffer said:

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 wherethe 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.

__

The Bible and Archaeology – Is the Bible from God? (Kyle Butt 42 min)

You want some evidence that indicates that the Bible is true? Here is a good place to start and that is taking a closer look at the archaeology of the Old Testament times. Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicleof Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism)4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites6.Shishak Smiting His Captives7. Moabite Stone8Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets10. Cyrus Cylinder11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription13. The Pilate Inscription14. Caiaphas Ossuary14 B Pontius Pilate Part 214c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.

_

Artist Marc Quinn, whose frozen head of blood is part of the National Gallery of Australia’s HyperReal exhibition, has shared video footage about how the head is made.

“It’s like artwork on life support,” he says, as technicians pour 5.6 litres of blood inside the silicon mould of Quinn’s own head.

Play Video
Marc Quinn's frozen head of blood

Play Video

03:23

Marc Quinn’s frozen head of blood

Playing in 4 …Don’t Play

The National Gallery of Australia presents Marc Quinn’s self portrait as part of the ‘Hyper Real’ exhibition.

Once frozen, the mould is removed and the sculpture is carefully placed inside “a sophisticated deep freeze”.

“If you unplugged it the head would turn into a pool of blood.”

British artist Marc Quinn is one of 32 artists featured in HyperReal.
British artist Marc Quinn is one of 32 artists featured in HyperReal.Photo: Jamila Toderas

Titled Self the work appears in the National Gallery’s exhibition that charts the evolution of hyperrealism from its inception in the early 1970s. The jawdropping display includes artworks that speak to hyperrealism’s focus on ultra-realistic representations of the human form, while simultaneously challenging the perceived boundaries of the genre through video and digital art, virtual reality, and – significantly – Quinn’s extraordinary brand of bio-art.

Since 1991, Quinn has made these self portraits, there are five of them, working with plaster and fibreglass and finally the silicone to get the hollow sculpture which he fills with his blood, extracted over the course of a year, a pint every six weeks. They are frozen and encased in a purpose built glass case, it’s own little refrigeration unit like some bizarre cryogenic experiment.

Quinn said the idea for the Self series came about through a frustration with the idea that, at the time, art was about art, trapped in a “formalist eddy”.

“I was interested in making art that was about real life … and I thought I would start with myself,” he said.

Marc Quinn Self 2011
Marc Quinn Self 2011Photo: Prudence Cuming Associates

“You explore the world from yourself outwards, that’s the arc of all my work.”

At Cambridge University he studied Rembrandt’s self portraits during his art history course and “thought it would be quite interesting to make a contemporary version of that”.

“I was thinking how can I make something that is more real than something made of metal or steel and I was thinking of freezing stuff and it just kind of came to me one morning.”

Jaklyn Babington, NGA senior curator of contemporary art, said Quinn’s Self exists simultaneously within the past, present and future.

“Quinn’s material of choice is blood, and by sculpting with biological matter, he contributes to our understanding of hyperrealism in a unique way.

“The sculpture sits in a limbo – simultaneously alive and dead, real and simulated. It is one of the most uncanny works of recent contemporary practice.”

Marc QuinnMarc Quinn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Marc Quinn
Born Marc Quinn
8 January 1964 (age 54)
LondonEngland
Nationality British
Education Robinson College, Cambridge
Known for Contemporary Art, Young British Artists
Awards 2004 – 4th Plinth Commission for Trafalgar Square, London

Marc Quinn (born 8 January 1964) is a British contemporary visual artist whose work includes sculpture, installation and painting. Quinn explores ‘what it is to be human in the world today’ through subjects including the body, genetics, identity, environment and the media. His work has used materials that vary widely, from blood, bread and flowers, to marble and stainless steel. Quinn has been the subject of solo exhibitions at Sir John Soane’s MuseumTateNational Portrait GalleryFondation BeyelerFondazione Prada and South London Gallery.[1] The artist was a notable member of the Young British Artists movement, which included Sarah Lucas and Damien Hirst.

Quinn is internationally celebrated and was awarded the commission for the first edition of the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square in 2004, for which he exhibited Alison Lapper Pregnant.[2] Quinn’s notorious frozen self-portrait series made of his own blood, Self (1991-present) was subject to a retrospective at Fondation Beyelerin 2009. [3]

Quinn lives and works in London.

Life and career[edit]

‘Planet’ by Marc Quinn in Singapore

Quinn was born in London in 1964 to a French mother and a British father.[4] He studied history and history of art at Robinson CollegeCambridge. He spent his early years in Paris, where his father was a physicist working at the BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures). Quinn recalls an early fascination with the scientific instruments in his father’s laboratory, in particular atomic clocks.[5] He studied history and history of art at Robinson College, Cambridge.[6]

In the early 1990s, Quinn was the first artist to be represented by gallerist Jay Jopling. The artist had his first exhibition with Jopling in 1991, exhibiting Self (1991), a frozen self-portrait made out of nine pints of the artist’s blood.[7] In 1993 Jay Jopling founded White Cube at 44 Duke Street London. As well as Quinn, White Cube exhibited Lucian FreudGilbert & GeorgeAntony GormleyMona HatoumDamien HirstGary HumeRuna IslamJake & Dinos ChapmanTracey EminHarland MillerSam Taylor-WoodGavin Turk and Cerith Wyn Evans.[8]

During the 1990s, Quinn and several peers were identified for their radical approach to the making and experiencing of art. In 1992, the loosely affiliated group was called the ‘Young British Artists‘ by writer Michael Corris in Artforum, and included Cornelia ParkerSarah LucasDamien HirstRachel Whitereadand Tracey Emin.[9]

In 1995, Quinn was given a solo exhibition at Tate Britain where new sculptures were shown as part of the Art Now series.[10] In 1997 Quinn’s work Self(1991), was exhibited at the Royal Academy, London for the exhibition Sensation. Quinn’s Self, along with works by Sarah Lucas and Damien Hirst, were already distinguished amongst the British public. The exhibition received widespread media attention and had a record number of visitors for a contemporary art exhibition.[11] The exhibition then travelled to the Hamburger Bahnhof, Berlin, and to the Brooklyn Museum, New York.[12]

Quinn has exhibited exhibitions including Sonsbeek ’93, Arnhem (1993), Give and Take, Victoria and Albert Museum, London (2001), Statements 7, 50th Venice Biennale (2003) and Gwangju Biennale (2004).

Solo exhibitions include Tate Gallery, London (1995),[13] Kunstverein Hannover (1999), Fondazione Prada, Milan (2000),[14] Tate Liverpool (2002), Irish Museum of Modern Art, Dublin (2004), Groninger Museum, Groningen (2006) and MACRO, Rome (2006), DHC/ART Fondation pour l’art contemporain, Montréal (2007) and Fondation Beyeler, Basel (2009).

Art practice[edit]

Quinn’s sculpture, paintings and drawings often deal with the distanced relationship we have with our bodies, highlighting how the conflict between the “natural” and “cultural” has a grip on the contemporary psyche. In 1999, Quinn began a series of marble sculptures of amputees as a way of re-reading the aspirations of Greek and Roman statuary and their depictions of an idealised whole.

Works[edit]

“Self” (ongoing project)[edit]

“Self” is a frozen sculpture of the artist’s head made from 5 litres of his own blood, taken from his body over a period of five months, the first of which was made in 1991. Described by Quinn as a “frozen moment on lifesupport”, the work is carefully maintained in a refrigeration unit, reminding the viewer of the fragility of existence. Quinn makes a new version of Self every five years, each of which documents Quinn’s own aging and physical deterioration.

It was purchased by Charles Saatchi in 1991 for £13,000, who displayed it in the “Sensation” exhibit at the Royal Academy of Arts in 1997. There were rumors that the piece had melted, but Saatchi dispelled those rumors when he exhibited it at his new gallery in London in 2003.[15]

In April 2005 he sold it to Steven A. Cohen, the American hedge-fund manager of Point72 Asset Management (formerly S.A.C.), for $2.8 million.[16] Cohen displayed it at his hedge fund’s headquarters in StamfordConnecticut.[17] The National Portrait Gallery in London acquired Self 2006, purchased through The Art Fund, the Henry Moore Foundation, Terry and Jean de Gunzburg.

Garden (2000)[edit]

‘Eternal Spring – Sunflowers II’, sunflowers kept chilled in liquid silicone oil

His next important piece in terms of his public profile was the frozen garden he made for Miuccia Prada in 2000, installed at Fondazione Prada in MilanItaly. A whole garden full of plants which could never grow together kept in cryogenic suspension. In interview, Quinn explained how this worked, “When working with the frozen material, it’s like doing an experiment—different things come out of it. When you freeze something, it normally dries up. To avoid that, you have to stop the air from getting to the object. You can do this by casing it in silicone“.

Portrait of John E. Sulston (2001)[edit]

His portrait of John E. Sulston, who won the Nobel prize in 2002 for sequencing the human genome on the Human Genome Project,[18] is in the National Portrait Gallery. It consists of bacteria containing Sulston’s DNA in agar jelly. “The portrait was made by our standard methods for DNA cloning”, writes Sulston. “My DNA was broken randomly into segments, and treated so that they could be replicated in bacteria. The bacteria containing the DNA segments were spread out on agar jelly in the plate you see in the portrait.”[19]

Alison Lapper, The Fourth Plinth (2005–2007)[edit]

“Alison Lapper” Trafalgar Square, 2005-2007

Quinn has made a series of marble sculptures of people either born with limbs missing or who have had them amputated. This culminated in his 15-ton marble statue of Alison Lapper, a fellow artist born with no arms and severely shortened legs, which was displayed on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, London from September 2005 until October 2007.[20](The Fourth Plinth is used for rotating displays of sculpture.) In Disability Studies Quarterly, Ann Millett writes, “The work has been highly criticized for capitalizing on the shock value of disability, as well as lauded for its progressive social values. Alison Lapper Pregnant and the controversy surrounding it showcase disability issues at the forefront of current debates in contemporary art”.[21]

A large reproduction of the sculpture was used as a central element of the 2012 Summer Paralympics opening ceremony.[22][23]

Siren (2008)[edit]

‘Myth (Sphinx)’, Chatsworth House

Since 2006, Marc Quinn has made numerous studies of the supermodel Kate Moss. In April 2006, Sphinx, a sculpture of Kate Moss by Quinn was revealed.[24] The sculpture shows Moss in a yoga position with her ankles and arms wrapped behind her ears. This body of work culminated in an exhibition at the Mary Boone Gallery in New York in May 2007. The sculpture is on permanent display in Folketeatret in OsloNorway.[25][26]

In August 2008, Quinn unveiled another sculpture of Kate Moss in solid 18-carat gold called Siren, which was exhibited at the British Museum in London. The life-size sculpture was promoted as “the largest gold statue since ancient Egypt“.

The Toxic Sublime (2015)[edit]

In 2015 Marc Quinn opened an exhibition of new work at White Cube Bermondsey, entitled The Toxic Sublime. It featured new bodies of work that explore the ecological impact of man on nature. ‘The Toxic Sublimes’ are distorted, three dimensional seascapes. Alongside these paintings, a new series of sculptures, cast in stainless steel, including one measuring over 7.5 meters long, form part of a body of work titled ‘Frozen Waves’. The sculptures originate from the core of shells, eroded by the endless action of waves.

Recent work[edit]

An orchid sculpture by Marc Quinn on the Seilersee in Iserlohn

In May 2010, Quinn revealed a series of new sculptures at London’s White Cube gallery including The Ecstatic Autogenesis of Pamela based on film actress Pamela Anderson and Chelsea Charms based on pornography model Chelsea Charms.[27]

Quinn’s new models include “Catman” (Dennis Avner (who has been tattooed to look like a cat) and transsexualpeople such as Thomas BeatieBuck Angel, and Allanah Starr. Quinn’s portrait sculpture “Buck & Allanah” depicts the two nude, standing hand in hand, in a pose reminiscent of Adam and Eve. The sculpture of Thomas Beatie depicts him at full-term pregnancy, bowing his head and cradling his abdomen with two hands.

The exhibition also included a new series of flower paintings executed in reversed colour and two large-scale orchidsculptures in white painted bronze, installed in Hoxton Square, opposite the gallery.

In July 2015 Quinn opened a show titled The Toxic Sublime in the White Cube in Bermondsey, London.[28]

Collections[edit]

Quinn is represented in several museums across the world, including Tate Modern, in LondonNational Portrait Gallery, in LondonMusée National d’Art Moderne, in ParisStedelijk Museum, in AmsterdamAstrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art, in OsloBerardo Collection Museum, in LisbonMusée d’art contemporain de MontréalMuseum of Modern Art, in New York, and Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York.[29][30]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ “Solo Exhibitions”Marc Quinn studio official website.
  2. Jump up^ “Two sculptures take fourth plinth”BBC.
  3. Jump up^ “08. JUN 2009 – 19. JUL 2009, MARC QUINN, «SELFS» 1991–2006”Fondation Beyeler.
  4. Jump up^ Saphora, Smith (13 August 2015). “Marc Quinn: Evolving as an Artist and Social Chronicler”The New York Times.
  5. Jump up^ Elizabeth, Fullerton (5 December 2014). “Young British Artist Hits Middle Age: Catching up with Marc Quinn”ARTNews.
  6. Jump up^ “Marc Quinn (1964-)”British Council.
  7. Jump up^ “Marc Quinn, born 1964”Tate.
  8. Jump up^ “Exhibitions”White Cube.
  9. Jump up^ “Young British Artists (YBAS)”Tate.
  10. Jump up^ “Marc Quinn, born 1964”Tate.
  11. Jump up^ Vanessa, Thorpe (14 December 2008). “Record crowds for China art show”The Guardian.
  12. Jump up^ “Sensation”Damien Hirst official website.
  13. Jump up^ Tate. “Art Now: Marc Quinn: Emotional Detox – Exhibition at Tate Britain | Tate”Tate. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  14. Jump up^ “prada Foundation Marc Quinn Project”. 2000. Retrieved 5 July 2017.
  15. Jump up^ “Blood Sculpture ‘Melted'”. BBC News. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  16. Jump up^ Colin, Gleadell (10 May 2005). “Saatchi Sells Another Key Work in His Collection”ArtNews.
  17. Jump up^ Patrick, Radden Keefe (13 October 2014). “The Empire of Edge”The New Yorker.
  18. Jump up^ Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute website (7 October 2002). Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  19. Jump up^ Jones, Jonathan. (22 September 2001). John Sulston, Marc Quinn (2001)The Guardian. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  20. Jump up^ BBC report on Alison Lapper Pregnant
  21. Jump up^ Millett, Ann. (2008).“Sculpting Body Ideals: Alison Lapper Pregnant and the Public Display of Disability”Disability Studies Quarterly, 28(3). Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  22. Jump up^ Gordon Rayner (29 August 2012). “Paralympics 2012: a stirring journey to enlightenment”Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 1 September 2012.
  23. Jump up^ “Marc Quinn Alison Lapper Sculpture Thrills Paralympic Spectators”. ArtLyst. 30 August 2012. Retrieved 1 September 2012.
  24. Jump up^ BBC News. (13 April 2006). ‘Model Moss cast in bronze statue’. Retrieved 16 January 2010.
  25. Jump up^ “Theartnewspaper”
  26. Jump up^ http://theartnewspaper.com/articles/Collector-plans-sculpture-park-to-celebrate-women“%20/20923[permanent dead link]
  27. Jump up^ Marc Quinn: Just Don’t Call It a Freak Show“. The Guardian, 10 May 2010.
  28. Jump up^ Marc Quinn review – He sells sea shells, Article by Jonathan Jones, The Guardian, 13 July 2015
  29. Jump up^ Marc Quinn at Artcyclopedia
  30. Jump up^ Marc Quinn at ArtFacts.net

External links[edit]

 

_

_

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 53 THE BEATLES (Part E, Stg. Pepper’s and John Lennon’s search in 1967 for truth was through drugs, money, laughter, etc & similar to King Solomon’s, LOTS OF PICTURES OF JOHN AND CYNTHIA) (Feature on artist Yoko Ono)

The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives  just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 52 THE BEATLES (Part D, There is evidence that the Beatles may have been exposed to Francis Schaeffer!!!) (Feature on artist Anna Margaret Rose Freeman )

______________   George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles:   I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 51 THE BEATLES (Part C, List of those on cover of Stg.Pepper’s ) (Feature on artist Raqib Shaw )

  The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles:   I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 50 THE BEATLES (Part B, The Psychedelic Music of the Beatles) (Feature on artist Peter Blake )

__________________   Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 49 THE BEATLES (Part A, The Meaning of Stg. Pepper’s Cover) (Feature on artist Mika Tajima)

_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 48 “BLOW UP” by Michelangelo Antonioni makes Philosophic Statement (Feature on artist Nancy Holt)

_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute  episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted,  ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 47 Woody Allen and Professor Levy and the death of “Optimistic Humanism” from the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS Plus Charles Darwin’s comments too!!! (Feature on artist Rodney Graham)

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 46 Friedrich Nietzsche (Featured artist is Thomas Schütte)

____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 45 Woody Allen “Reason is Dead” (Feature on artists Allora & Calzadilla )

Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ 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 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 44 The Book of Genesis (Featured artist is Trey McCarley )

___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]

 

_

___

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 238 Kathleen Nott and David Hume FEATURED ARTIST IS WALTON FORD

_______________________________________

Image result for kathleen nott

Francis Schaeffer pictured below:

 

_________

 

Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” episode 6 “The Scientific Age” , episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” episode 4 “The Reformation” episode 3 “The Renaissance”episode 2 “The Middle Ages,”, and  episode 1 “The Roman Age,” . My favorite episodes are number 7 and 8 since they deal with modern art and culture primarily.(Joe Carter rightly noted,Schaefferwho always claimed to be an evangelist and not aphilosopher—was often criticized for the way his work oversimplifiedintellectual history and philosophy.” To those critics I say take a chill pillbecause Schaeffer was introducing millions into the fields of art andculture!!!! !!! More people need to read his works and blog about thembecause they show how people’s worldviews affect their lives!

J.I.PACKER WROTE OF SCHAEFFER, “His communicative style was not that of acautious academic who labors for exhaustive coverage and dispassionate objectivity. It was rather that of an impassioned thinker who paints his vision of eternal truth in bold strokes and stark contrasts.Yet it is a fact that MANY YOUNG THINKERS AND ARTISTS…HAVE FOUND SCHAEFFER’S ANALYSES A LIFELINE TO SANITY WITHOUT WHICH THEY COULD NOT HAVE GONE ON LIVING.”

Francis Schaeffer’s works  are the basis for a large portion of my blog posts andthey have stood the test of time. In fact, many people would say that many of the things he wrote in the 1960’s  were right on  in the sense he saw where ourwestern society was heading and he knew that abortion, infanticide and youthenthansia were  moral boundaries we would be crossing  in the coming decadesbecause of humanism and these are the discussions we are having now!)

There is evidence that points to the fact that the Bible is historically true asSchaeffer pointed out in episode 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? There is a basis then for faith in Christ alone for our eternal hope. This linkshows how to do that.

Francis Schaeffer in Art and the Bible noted, “Many modern artists, it seems to me, have forgotten the value that art has in itself. Much modern art is far too intellectual to be great art. Many modern artists seem not to see the distinction between man and non-man, and it is a part of the lostness of modern man that they no longer see value in the work of art as a work of art.” 

Many modern artists are left in this point of desperation that Schaeffer points out and it reminds me of the despair that Solomon speaks of in Ecclesiastes.  Christian scholar Ravi Zacharias has noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term ‘under the sun.’ What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system, and you are left with only this world of time plus chanceplus matter.” THIS IS EXACT POINT SCHAEFFER SAYS SECULAR ARTISTSARE PAINTING FROM TODAY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED ARE A RESULTOF MINDLESS CHANCE.

___________

Schaeffer asserted:

 

How do we know we know?

 

Take another example out of the history of this new approach in philosophy, that of David Hume (1711-1776). In 1732 he shocked the world with A Treatise of Human Nature. John Locke (1632-1704) had already denied the concept of “innate ideas” of right and wrong; that is, Locke denied that these ideas are inherent in the mind from birth. This had troubled many. Then Hume burst on the scene with a challenge which went further.

What was most startling was his progression beyond skepticism concerning God and other things of the “invisible world” to a skepticism about the visible world as well. Among other things, he questioned the concept of causality. That is, Hume challenged the notion that there is a reality in the external world which leads us to speak about one thing as being the cause of another. When we see a tree bending and swaying and its leaves falling to the ground and racing off across the field, we naturally speak of the wind as causing this phenomenon. Hume challenged this.
Following on from Locke, who said that all knowledge comes only from the senses, Hume argued that causality is not perceived by the senses. What we perceive are two events following closely upon each other. It was custom, he argued, which led us to speak in terms of causality, not any objective “force” working in the things themselves. Anyone can see where this thinking leads, and it was so understood at the time. If causality is not real, science becomes impossible – for what scientists are doing is tracing the path of cause and effect from one event to the next.
A modern British humanist, Kathleen Nott, has written perceptively about Hume in Objections to Humanism (1967): “Among great philosophers, Hume … hung his nose as far as any over the nihilistic abyss.”83 This is right. Hume was questioning the most basic elements of our experience. Yet he was trying to be consistent to his presuppositions (that is, his starting point). Where did this lead him? To a skepticism about knowledge itself. Hume wrote designedly against the Christian world-view which prevailed in England at the time. He wanted to dismantle the system of ideas which came out of the Bible, of a God before whom man was responsible, of people being more than matter, of a life after death which seemed to defy all natural law. Where he ended, though, was with uncertainty even about the ordinary things of life. As Kathleen Nott continues: “Hume’s philosophizing was indeed a radical skepticism, which left no convincing logical grounds for believing that anything natural, let alone supernatural, was there at all.”84
But there is something even more striking about Hume. Skepticism was the direction in which his philosophy led him; yet he was not able to live with it himself. He “hung his nose over the nihilistic abyss” – and we can picture him standing on the edge and peering over – but what then? Nott says he “withdrew it sharply when he saw the psychological risks involved.” Hume himself said in A Treatise of Human Nature (Volume I):
Should it be asked me whether I sincerely assent to this argument which I have been to such pains to inculcate, and whether I be really one of those skeptics who hold that all is uncertain … I … should reply … that neither I nor any other person was ever sincerely and constantly of that opinion … I dine, I play backgammon, I converse and am merry with my friends; and when, after 3 or 4 hours amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold and strained and ridiculous that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any further. Thus the skeptic still continues to reason and believe, though he asserts that he cannot defend his reason by reason; and by the same rule, he must assent to the principle concerning the existence of body, though he cannot pretend, by any argument of philosophy, to maintain its veracity.85
We believe there are only two basic alternatives in the search for the source of knowledge. One is that a person attempts to find the answers to all his questions alone. The other is that he seeks revealed truths from God. We shall come to the second later. Now we are looking at the former, and we are suggesting that this is the basic problem with which all humanistic systems must wrestle: the problem of knowledge.
We could go into many other details concerning the subsequent history of the ideas we have dealt with, including in particular Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and his own “Copernican revolution” in philosophy and also the developments surrounding Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) and linguistic philosophy in the twentieth century. We shall stop here, partly to keep the discussion of modern philosophy from becoming too technical, but mainly because the basic difficulties had already been expressed within a century of the birth of modern philosophy.
Starting with himself, a person cannot establish an adequate explanation for the amazing possibility that he can observe the world around him and be assured that his observations have a correspondence with reality. The problem is not just that a person cannot know everything. The need is not for exhaustive knowledge; the need is for a base for any knowledge at all. That is, even though we know we cannot exhaustively perceive even the smallest things in our experience, we want assurance that we have really perceived something – that is “perception” is not simply an “image” in our brain, a model or symbol of reality which we have projected out from ourselves. We want to know that we have had a real contact with reality. Even Hume had to admit that his philosophizing did not make sense, that it did not fit into his own experience of the world. On the humanist side this is the great tension – to have no reason for reason and yet at the same time to have to live continuously on the reality of reason.
At this point, someone is bound to ask, “But why is it necessary to have an `adequate explanation’ for knowledge?” Agreeing that Descartes, Hume, and others could find no theoretical base which tied in with their experience, isn’t it sufficient to just reason? Probably many of you have been wanting to ask this, as you have followed along. It is a good question, for the bulk of the world never bothers about the issues which Locke, Hume, and others like them raised. Most people simply live, going about their daily lives, never troubling themselves about reality and fantasy, the subject and the object, and so on. And we are not suggesting that their experience in itself is invalid, as if to imply that they are not perceiving and knowing the universe around them. They are. What we are saying is that – whether they know it or not – their experience is possible only because they are living in the universe the Bible describes, that is, in a universe which was created by God. Their internal faculty of knowing was made by God to correspond to the world and its form which He made and which surrounds them.
If, however, we attempt to bypass the question, “Why is it possible for man to have knowledge in this way?” we must then remember the other two great problems any system which starts only from man. Recall the illustration of the oil tanker and the rock. The rock is the problem of knowledge which we have been considering. That is the central problem. But there are two forms of pollution which flow from the broken ship of knowledge: first, the meaninglessness of all things and, second, the relativity of morals.

 

______

Obituary: Kathleen Nott

IN EXTREME old age (she lived to be 94), Kathleen Nott, by then severely handicapped by deafness and Parkinson’s disease, more than once complained to me that she had been underrated. In this she was right. As novelist, poet, critic and editor, she was a woman of formidable gifts, to which, in her prime, she brought a no less formidable determination and energy. If she failed to achieve the widespread popularity that such gifts deserved, it was undoubtedly because her poetry and novels were so often so cerebral and her critical writings so often so intolerant of the views of others.

I had always assumed that Kathleen Nott had come from the professional classes. I was therefore astonished when, only recently, after many years of friendship, I learned that her father had been a lithographic printer and that her mother had kept the Brixton boarding house that became the setting of her 1960 novel Private Fires.

Regarded by everyone in her youth as a bird of paradise in a family of sparrows, she moved effortlessly from state school to King’s College London, and then, on an open exhibition, to Somerville College, Oxford. Her original intention had been to read English, but she soon decided that that was not a sufficiently demanding academic discipline and instead opted for PPE.

It was at Oxford that she met Christopher Bailey, the distinguished “boffin” (as she would refer to him, after their divorce, half in admiration and half in derision) whom she would marry, with whom she would escape at the last minute from Holland when the Germans invaded, and whom, soon after the Second World War, she would accompany to Sweden – a country of which she would write brilliantly, albeit with a marked lack of love or enthusiasm, in her 1961 A Clean, Well-lighted Place.

It was in 1961 that she achieved her first major success with a contentious and strenuously argued work of philosophy, The Emperor’s New Clothes, in which, herself an atheist, she took issue with such fashionable Christian propagandists of the time as Graham Greene, T.S. Eliot and C.S. Lewis. She enjoyed all the ensuing controversy, dismissing those who disagreed with her as “nincompoops” (a favourite word of hers when she felt that people, however eminent, had slipped below her own rigorous intellectual standards).

For many years, from the 1950s onwards, Kathleen Nott was active in Pen, when that organisation was more concerned with literature and less concerned with human rights than it is today. She was therefore the obvious choice to edit for Pen the Unesco-sponsored Bulletin of Selected Books (later retitled Pen International), a publication designed to increase knowledge of literature written in languages of lesser currency. Unfortunately, during her 27-year editorship, sales remained disappointing, such was her intellectual approach to a task which she carried out with unfaltering dedication for a salary far smaller than her father would have earned as a printer.

In 1974 she was elected President of English Pen. But this office, which at first brought her so much pleasure, eventually brought her chagrin. In the following year Pen began its plans to host an international congress, and reluctantly the executive committee came to the conclusion that Nott lacked the ease and charm of personality essential in anyone whose task it would be to entertain a host of eminent and, in many cases, demanding writers from all over the world. Instead of being re-elected for a further year of office, she was therefore replaced by Stephen Spender. When attempting to enlist my support to oppose his election, she told me: “I am as good a poet as he is and a far better critic.” I had not the heart to tell her that, although that might indeed be true, she unfortunately lacked both his charisma and his popularity all over the world.

But if Kathleen Nott lacked those attributes, she was, until her last, increasingly depressing years as a semi-invalid in a nursing home, always stimulating and entertaining company when among friends. Over dinner at the University Women’s Club, she would regale me with scandalous anecdotes about other writers, in a voice so loud (like many deaf people she was unaware of its volume) that I was nervous of how much was being overheard. Her jokes were good, if often acerbic, and she had the rare ability to be as much amused by the jokes of others as by her own.

On her retirement from her Pen editorship, I wrote of her as “a poet sadly underrated by those swept hither and thither on choppy tides of fashion, a prose writer who combines vigour with self-discipline, and a philosopher with a rare gift for exegesis not only of her own ideas but of the ideas of others”. I meant every word of that tribute then, and I mean every word of it now.

Kathleen Cecilia Nott, writer: born London 11 February 1905; FRSL 1977; married 1929 Christopher Bailey (marriage dissolved); died Swindon, Wiltshire 20 February 1999.

 David Hume and “Radical Skepticism”
Generally regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English, David Hume (1711-1776) —
the last of the great triumvirate of “British empiricists” — was also noted as an historian and essayist. A
master stylist in any genre, Hume’s major philosophical works — A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740),
the Enquiries concerning Human Understanding (1748) and concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), as
well as the posthumously published Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) — remain widely and
deeply influential, despite their being denounced by many of his contemporaries as works of scepticism and
atheism.
Quotes by David Hume in which he cannot find any rational, scientific “proof” that the principle of “cause
and effect” exists. His “radical skepticim” demonstrates that for the philsophically consistent atheist,
science (which presupposes “cause and effect” and the uniformity of nature) cannot lead to any knowledge
about the nature of reality whatsoever:
It appears that, in single instances of the operation of bodies, we never can, by our utmost
scrutiny, discover any thing but one event following another, without being able to
comprehend any force or power by which the cause operates, or any connexion between it
and its supposed effect. The same difficulty occurs in contemplating the operations of mind
on body- where we observe the motion of the latter to follow upon the volition of the
former, but are not able to observe or conceive the tie which binds together the motion and
volition, or the energy by which the mind produces this effect. The authority of the will
over its own faculties and ideas is not a whit more comprehensible: So that, upon the whole,
there appears not, throughout all nature, any one instance of connexion which is conceivable
by us. All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never
can observe any tie between them. They seemed conjoined, but never connected. And as we
can have no idea of any thing which never appeared to our outward sense or inward
sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be that we have no idea of connexion or force
at all, and that these words are absolutely without meaning, when employed either in
philosophical reasonings or common life. (David Hume, 1737)
..all arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect; that
our knowledge of that relation is derived entirely from experience; and all our experimental
conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past. ….
Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact
beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. (Hume, 1737)
I shall venture to affirm, as a general proposition, which admits of no exception, that the
knowledge of this relation is not, in any instance, attained by reasonings a priori; but arises
entirely from experience, when we find that any particular objects are constantly conjoined
with each other. (Hume, 1737)
It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance
of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that
resemblance. Let the course of things be allowed hitherto ever so regular; that alone,
without some new argument or inference, proves not that, for the future, it will continue so.
(Hume, 1737)

I say then, that, even after we have experience of the operations of cause and effect, our
conclusions from that experience are not founded on (a priori) reasoning, or any process of
the understanding.(Hume, 1737)
______________________________________
Francis Schaeffer, in The God Who is There, argues that the more philosophically consistent atheists are
with their worldview, the less they will live in the real world. Conversely, the more they live in the real
world, the less philosophically consistent they will be.
Applying this principle to Hume, we find a “point of tension” between his philosophy and the way he lived
his life:
Should it be asked me whether I sincerely assent to this argument which I have been to
such pains to inculcate, whether I be really one of those skeptics who hold that everything
is uncertain, I should reply that neither I nor any other person was ever sincerely and
constantly of that opinion. I dine, I play backgammon, I converse and am merry with my
friends and when after three or four hours of amusement I would return to these
speculations, they appear so cold and strange and ridiculous that I cannot find in my heart
to enter into them any further. Thus the skeptic still continues to reason and believe
though he asserts he cannot defend his reason by reason. (Hume)
“Among great philosophers Hume, who hung his nose as far as any over the nihilistic abyss, withdrew it
sharply when he saw the psychological risks involved and he advised dilution of metaphysics by playing
backgammon and making merry with his friends. The conclusion of Hume’s philosophizing was indeed a
radical skepticism which left no convincing logical grounds for believing anything natural was there at all
and he saved his reason by refusing to take the implications of his philosophy to heart.”
Kathleen Nott – Objections to Humanism

_________________

Kathleen Nott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kathleen Cecilia Nott FRSL (11 February 1905 – 20 February 1999) was a British poet, novelist, critic, philosopher and editor.

Life[edit]

Kathleen Nott was born in Camberwell, London. Her father, Philip, was a lithographic printer, and her mother, Ellen, ran a boarding house in Brixton; Kathleen was their third daughter. She was educated at Mary Datchelor Girls’ School (now closed), London, before attending King’s College, London. She soon left King’s College on an Open Exhibition scholarship to Somerville College, Oxford. The scholarship was in English Literature, but on arriving at Oxford, Nott switched to Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) in which she took a IVth in 1929.[1]

It was at Oxford that she met Christopher Bailey, an electronics and computer engineer, whom she was to marry in 1929. During the 1930s, Nott was a social worker and psychologist in the East End of London, an experience which would inspire her first novel, Mile End(1938), which is set in the area. Bailey’s work took the couple to the Netherlands, from which they escaped when the German army invaded in 1940.

During the war, Nott and Bailey lived in Bournemouth, and afterwards they moved to Sweden. Their marriage was dissolved in the 1950s, They had no children.

It was her book The Emperor’s Clothes (1953), which drew Nott to the attention of a much wider audience. An atheist, Nott attacked what she described as the “neo-scholasticism” of such dominant religious literary figures as T.S. Eliot and C.S. Lewis.

In 1954, Nott began contributing book reviews to The Observer; much of her critical work would appear in that newspaper. Essays and reviews by Nott were also published by Encounter, Partisan Review, The Nation, The Listener, New Society, Commentary, The Timesand The Spectator. Nott’s last review for The Observer was published in 1986. She also wrote extensively for the humanist and rationalist movement, and many of her articles were published in the Rationalist Annual, Question, and Humanist. She also translated books and articles.

In the early 1970s, Nott moved to Horsham, where she lived with a friend. Later in the decade she moved in with one of her sisters in Thornton Heath.

Nott was a member of the University Women’s Club and the Society of Authors. In Who’s Who she listed her recreations as playing the piano and gardening.[2] She was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1977.

Nott suffered from deafness and Parkinson’s Disease in her later years. When she died, Nott was living at Wemyss Lodge Residential Home Swindon, Wiltshire.

Critical reception[edit]

Mile End (1938), Nott’s first novel, was reviewed by the Times Literary Supplement. The reviewer felt that there was “something a shade clinical, a trifle too scientifically tolerant or indulgent, in the view of humanity unfolded here”, and found Nott’s prose “sharply individual but perhaps a little too mannered in its intellectual precision.” Nevertheless, “she gives the impression of having entered with astonishing acuteness and subtlety of mind into the impulses of the Jewish temperament, the psychological sway of Jewish religious lore and messianic tradition, the alien intensities of the social and domestic mood of the ghetto.” The reviewer concluded that it was “an admirably balanced story, which gains in narrative force and even in warmth as it advances.” [3]

Nott’s debut collection of poetry, Landscapes and Departures (1947) received a positive review in the Times Literary Supplement. The reviewer said that although Nott was a “difficult poet”, her “quality as a writer is immediately obvious”, concluding that “In spite of the difficulty of her poems, Miss Nott deserves to be read. She has a rich, harsh and rather masculine talent, and every poem here is full of vigour.” [4]

PEN[edit]

Nott became involved in the writers’ organisation PEN in the 1950s, becoming editor (initially acting editor[5]) of the organisation’s journal, PEN Bulletin of Selected Books (later renamed PEN International), in 1960. She held the post until 1988.

She was briefly President of PEN in 1975,[6] staying on as a vice-president until the end of her life.

Humanism and rationalism[edit]

Nott was a committed humanist and rationalist, as signalled by the publication of her controversial The Emperor’s New Clothes (1953), Writing on the occasion of Nott’s death, a National Secular Society‘s former general secretary, Colin McCall, explained the significance of the book:

You need to realise the literary situation in post-war Britain to appreciate the importance of Kathleen Nott… This was a time when T.S. Eliot reigned supreme, not only as poet, but as critic; when Graham Greene, C.S. Lewis and Dorothy L. Sayers were, in their different ways, spreading dogmatic Christian orthodoxy; and when the Times Literary Supplement (January 22, 1954) said the acceptance of authority in matters of religious belief “is now once more an important constituent in European letters”. It was the philosophical inadequacies of this “constituent” that Kathleen Nott had exposed in The Emperor’s New Clothes[7]

Nott contributed chapters to H.J. Blackham‘s collection of essays, Objections to Humanism (1963) (a humanist response to Objections to Christianity from the same publishers), and The Humanist Outlook (1968), edited by A.J. Ayer. In “Is Rationalism Sterile?”, Nott wrote:

To be too analytical, to demand explanations, reasons, and logical or moral justifications can, we know, destroy human trust and therefore human relations… Safeguarding, the longing for final reassurance characterizes all of us, rationalists and religious alike, and the prestige of objective truth is only an intellectual parallel… It seems to me that the ‘theologians’ on either side of the rationalist-supernaturalist controversy have become mere case-makers, primarily out for proofs. (Natural enough, no doubt, but meanwhile the riches of feeling, religious or human, have been flung out with the bath-water.) It looks as if some kinds of argument, whatever they appear to be about, can indeed be largely sterile because they are not really aimed at finding a synthesis, a solution, at making peace. They belong to a side, they are covert polemic, and they aim at victory. With warfare of all kinds, truth is indeed the first victim.[8]

For Nott, rationalism “in the nineteenth-century dyed-in-the-wool sense of being almost wholly preoccupied with the question of the existence of God, and with rebutting any supernatural sanction for morality”, is “sterile” [9]

. However, “I do not think that humanists have to be rationalists in the old sense.”.[10]

In “Humanism and the Arts”, Nott said that “humanists of our time are not as strong as they should be on the meaning and value of art and the artist.” She also admitted that “as soon as I begin to write about Humanism or speak from a Humanist platform I find mysself in full retreat towards square nought. If someone does not ask me what or who is a humanist – I find I am asking myself – or the audience.” [11] Returning to the theme of Is Rationalism Sterile?”, not observes that:

Many humanists seem to be just non-Godists. All they seriously worry about is the mid-Victorian controversy and it is here that they seem irremovably stuck… the large mass of contemporary literature has made at least one thing clear: that on the subject of God’s existence and of the supernatural there is no longer any possibility of reasoned communication.[12]

Instead, Nott advocated that humanists should examine “the real possibilities of the real concrete human being.” [12] She continued:

The job for the humanist is to try and extract the human values of religion, to separate them out from the theological languages in which they disguise themselves.[13]

Nott was President of the Progressive League (1959-1961), and an honorary associate of the Rationalist Press Association, from 1979 until her death in 1999.[14]

Writings[edit]

Philosophy[edit]

  • The Emperor’s Clothes: an attack on the dogmatic orthodoxy of T.S. Eliot, Graham Greene, Dorothy Sayers, C.S. Lewis, and others. (1953). London: Heinemann.
  • A Soul in the Quad (1969)
  • Philosophy and Human Nature (1971)
  • The Good Want Power: an essay in the psychological possibilities of liberalism (1977)

Novels[edit]

  • Mile End (1938)
  • The Dry Deluge (1947)
  • Private Fires (1960)
  • An Elderly Retired Man (1963)

Poetry[edit]

  • Landscapes and Departures (1947)
  • Poems from the North (1956)
  • Creatures and Emblems (1960)
  • Elegies, and other poems (1981)

Criticism[edit]

  • A Clean, Well-Lighted Place: a private view of Sweden (1961)

Articles and book chapters[edit]

  • “Is rationalism sterile?” (1963) in Blackham, H.J. (ed.) Objections to Humanism. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1964, pp. 55–78.
  • “Mortal Statistics” (1964), Commentary, October. Available online (subscription required)
  • The Act of Creation by Arthur Koestler” [book review] (1964), Commentary, November. Available online (subscription required)
  • “Koestler and his critics” (1968), Encounter, Vol. 30 (2), pp. 76–81.
  • “Humanism and the Arts” (1968). in Ayer, A.J. (ed.) The Humanist Outlook, London: Pemberton/Barrie and Rockliff, pp. 177–185.
  • “Ideology and moral reality” (1985). New Humanist, Vol. 100 (4), Autumn, pp. 18–20.

Translations[edit]

  • Chauvet, Lucien (1948). North-Westerly Gale.
  • Bacchelli, Riccardo (1956). Son of Stalin.

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ Oxford University Calendar, 1932, p.283
  2. Jump up^ http://www.ukwhoswho.com
  3. Jump up^ “East End Jewry” [review of Mile End by Kathleen Nott] Times Literary Supplement, 3 December 1939, p.767.
  4. Jump up^ “An original poet” [Review of Landscapes and Departures by Kathleen Nott]. Times Literary Supplement, 24 May 1947, p.254.
  5. Jump up^ [1]
  6. Jump up^ http://www.englishpen.org/aboutenglishpen/pastpresidentsofenglishpen/
  7. Jump up^ McCall (1999)
  8. Jump up^ Nott (1963, p.68)
  9. Jump up^ Nott (1963, p.72)
  10. Jump up^ Nott (1963, p.78)
  11. Jump up^ Nott (1968, p.179).
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b Nott (1968, p.180)
  13. Jump up^ Nott (1968, p.182)
  14. Jump up^ Cooke (2003, p.322)

Bibliography[edit]

  • [Anon] (1999). Obituary of Kathleen Nott, The Times, 24 February.
  • Cooke, Bill (2003). The Blasphemy Depot: a hundred years of the Rationalist Press Association. London: RPA. ISBN 03010030025.
  • King, Francis. (1999). Obituary of Kathleen Nott, The Independent, 11 March
  • McCall, Colin (1999). “Kathleen Nott (1905-1999)” [“Down to Earth”]. The Freethinker, Vol. 119 (4), April, p. 10.
  • Paterson, Elizabeth (1999). “A voice against the tides of fashion” [Obituary of Kathleen Nott], The Guardian, 23 February, p. 16.

 

Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)

 Featured artist is Walton Ford

Walton Ford

Walton Ford was born in 1960 in Larchmont, New York. Ford graduated from the Rhode Island School of Design with the intention of becoming a filmmaker, but later adapted his talents as a storyteller to his unique style of large-scale watercolor. Blending depictions of natural history with political commentary, Ford’s meticulous paintings satirize the history of colonialism and the continuing impact of slavery and other forms of political oppression on today’s social and environmental landscape.

Each painting is as much a tutorial in flora and fauna as it is as a scathing indictment of the wrongs committed by nineteenth-century industrialists or—locating the work in the present—contemporary American consumer society. An enthusiast of the watercolors of John James Audubon, Ford celebrates the myth surrounding the renowned naturalist-painter while simultaneously repositioning him as an infamous anti-hero—who, in reality, killed more animals than he ever painted. Each of Ford’s animal portraits doubles as a complex, symbolic system, which the artist layers with clues, jokes, and erudite lessons in colonial literature and folktales.

Walton Ford is the recipient of several national awards and honors, including a fellowship from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts. Ford’s work has been featured at Bowdoin College Museum of Art, Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art, Whitney Museum of American Art at Champion, and Forum for Contemporary Art in St. Louis. After living in New York City for more than a decade, Walton Ford relocated his studio to Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Ford and his family reside in upstate New York.

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 1 0   Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min 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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

  Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE   Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 149 VV Professor commenting on Francis Schaeffer analysis of Bertrand Russell

 

Image result for bertrand russell

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:

…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975

and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.

Harry Kroto

__

 

Harold W. Kroto (left) receives the Nobel Prize in chemistry from Swedish King Carl XVI Gustaf in Stockholm, in 1996.

Soren Andersson/AP

Image result for harry kroto nobel prize

 

__

Image result for harry kroto

I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:

Arif Ahmed, Sir David AttenboroughMark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael BatePatricia ChurchlandAaron CiechanoverNoam Chomsky,Alan DershowitzHubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan FeuchtwangDavid Friend,  Riccardo GiacconiIvar Giaever , Roy GlauberRebecca GoldsteinDavid J. Gross,  Brian Greene, Susan GreenfieldStephen F Gudeman,  Alan Guth, Jonathan HaidtTheodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison,  Hermann HauserRoald Hoffmann,  Bruce HoodHerbert Huppert,  Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve JonesShelly KaganMichio Kaku,  Stuart Kauffman,  Lawrence KraussHarry Kroto, George LakoffElizabeth Loftus,  Alan MacfarlanePeter MillicanMarvin MinskyLeonard Mlodinow,  Yujin NagasawaAlva NoeDouglas Osheroff,  Jonathan Parry,  Saul PerlmutterHerman Philipse,  Carolyn PorcoRobert M. PriceLisa RandallLord Martin Rees,  Oliver Sacks, John SearleMarcus du SautoySimon SchafferJ. L. Schellenberg,   Lee Silver Peter Singer,  Walter Sinnott-ArmstrongRonald de Sousa, Victor StengerBarry Supple,   Leonard Susskind, Raymond TallisNeil deGrasse Tyson,  .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John WalkerFrank WilczekSteven Weinberg, and  Lewis Wolpert,

_

 

In  the first video below in the 14th clip in this series are his words and I will be responding to them in the next few weeks since Sir Bertrand Russell is probably the most quoted skeptic of our time, unless it was someone like Carl Sagan or Antony Flew.  

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)

__

Quote from Bertrand Russell:

Q: Why are you not a Christian?

Russell: Because I see no evidence whatever for any of the Christian dogmas. I’ve examined all the stock arguments in favor of the existence of God, and none of them seem to me to be logically valid.

Q: Do you think there’s a practical reason for having a religious belief, for many people?

Russell: Well, there can’t be a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. That’s quite… at least, I rule it out as impossible. Either the thing is true, or it isn’t. If it is true, you should believe it, and if it isn’t, you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment. But you can’t… it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful, and not because you think it’s true._

 

From WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?

The Unveiling of Truth
The famous Hindu writer and statesman Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan once wrote, “The altars erected to the unknown gods in the Graeco-Roman world were but an expression of man’s ignorance of the divine nature. The sense of failure in man’s quest for the unseen is symbolized by them. When asked to define the nature of God, the seer of the Upanishad sat silent, and when pressed to answer claimed that the Absolute is silence.”
By contrast, the Apostle Paul, speaking in the context of the very same altars to unknown gods in Athens, said, “…Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23). And again, writing to the Corinthians not far away, “However, as it is written: `No eye has seen, nor ear has heard, no mind has conceived …’ but God has revealed it to us …” (1 Corinthians 2:9,10). This claim is common to the whole Bible. God has not waited for us to stumble to Him in the dark (which would be impossible anyway), but has revealed Himself to us. The word revelation in Greek is apokalupsis which means literally “unveiling”; so God has “unveiled” to us the things we could not know because of our finiteness and sin.
This revelation or unveiling to finite and sinful people is the Bible as the written Word. This is the claim of the whole Bible. Moreover, through the Bible we learn of the life and teaching of the Second Person of the Trinity, who became man at a point in history and so became the Living Word of the Godhead: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).
In this claim the dilemma of all humanistic systems is overcome at a stroke. The infinite God has spoken. None of the many finite attempts to define truth, doomed to failure as we have seen, is necessary. God has communicated to man, the infinite to the finite. God has communicated, in addition, in words that are understandable to us. The One who made man capable of language in the first place has communicated to man in language. Also, God has communicated truth about both spiritual reality and physical reality, about both the nature of God and the nature of man, about both events in past history and events in the future. Where all humanistic systems of thought are unable to give an adequate explanation of things, the Bible as God’s statement is adequate.
It is equally important to note that the Bible’s answer does not have to be believed blindly. There are good and sufficient reasons for seeing that it is true. It is the key that fits into the lock of what we know best about ourselves and the universe around us.
To change the metaphor: Imagine a book which has been mutilated, leaving just one inch of printed matter on each page. Although it would obviously be impossible to piece together and understand the book’s story, few people would imagine that the printing which was left on those one-inch portions had come together by chance. However, if the torn pieces of each page were found in a trunk and were added in the right places, then the story could be read and would make sense.
So it is with Christianity. The ripped pages remaining in the book correspond to the universe and its form and to the mannishness of man. The parts of the pages discovered in the trunk correspond to the Scriptures, which are God’s propositional communication to mankind. Neither the universe nor personality can give the answer to the whole meaning of the created order. Yet both are important as a testimony in helping us know that the Scriptures, God’s communication to man, are what they claim to be. The question is whether the communication given by God completes and explains the portions we had before and especially whether it explains what was open to observation before (though without an explanation), that is, that the existence of the universe and its form and the mannishness of man are not just chance configurations of the printer’s scrambled type.
This illustration is important for several reasons. First, it emphasizes that Christians do not start out from themselves autonomously, as the humanists try to do. God gives the pages, and thus God gives the answers.
Second, it helps us see the proper place of man’s reason. Just as a scientist does not create the order in the universe but does recognize it, so reason does not create the answer but simply recognizes it. Of course this does not mean that reason will necessarily receive the answer. Each person has to choose to receive God’s truth. But God’s truth is clear. The individual must acknowledge that he (and mankind) is not autonomous, not the center of all things, and he must acknowledge that he has many times done what he knows to be wrong and thus needs the work of Christ for himself. Those who refuse to back down from the position of autonomy make it impossible for themselves to receive the truth, even though there are good and sufficient reasons for knowing that it is the truth.

_________________

Now to pages 119 to 123 of THE GOD WHO IS THERE in chapter 5 (How Do We Know It Is True?) of section three (How Historic Christianity Differs from the New Theology).

 

All men on their own level face a problem. Confronted with the existence and form of the external universe and the “mannishness” of man, how does it fit together, and what sense does it make?

(Then Schaeffer goes on and talks about propositional communication from the personal God before us, not only the things of the cosmos and history match up… a moral absolute and morals; the universal point of reference and the particulars, and the emotional and aesthetic realities of man as well.)

 

The Nature of Proof

In dealing with the question of proof which has been raised by the illustration of the book, I want to suggest that scientific proof, philosophical proof and religious proof follow the same rules. We may have any problem before us which we wish to solve; it may concern a chemical reaction or the meaning of man. After the question has been defined, in each case proof consists of two steps:

A. The theory must be non-contradictory and must give an answer to the phenomenon in question.

B. We must be able to live consistently with our theory.

…Then there is the negative consideration. After a careful definition has weeded out the trivial, the other possible answers that do not involve a mystical leap of faith are of the following nature:

  1. That the impersonal plus time plus chance have produced a personal man. But this theory is against all experience and thus usually the advocates of this theory end with a leap of faith, often hidden by connotation words.
  2. That man is not personal, but dead;that he is in reality a machine, and therefore personality is an illusion. This theory could fit the first criterion of being non-contradictory, but it will not fit the second, for man simply cannot life as though he were a machine. This may be observed as far back in the history of man as we have evidence–for example, from the art and artifacts of the caves or from man’s burial rites….Although man may say that he is no more than a machine, his whole life denies it.
  3. That in the future man will find another reasonable answer. Firstly, this could be said about any answer to anything and would bring all thought and science to an end. It must be seen to be an evasion and an especially weak reply if the person using it applies it only to this one question. Secondly, no one can live with this answer, for it simply is not possible to hold one’s breath and wait until some solution is found in the future. Continually the individual makes moral judgments which affect himself and others, and he must be using some working hypothesis from which to start. Thus, if a person offers this seriously as an alternative theory, he should be prepared to go into deep freeze and stop making judgments which touch on the problem of man. Bertrand Russell, for example, should have stopped making sociological decisions which involved others. This position is only possible if one stops the clock.
  4.  That the scientific theory of relativity may in the future prove to be a sufficient answer for human life. But the scientific theory of relativity cannot be applied to human life in this way. The scientific theory is constantly being tested, both as a theory and by measurement. Therefore it does not mean that “anything goes,” as it does when relativity is applied to human values. Moreover, in science the speed of light in a vacuum is considered an absolute standard. Therefore, scientific relativity does not imply that all scientific laws are in a constant state of flux. To use scientific relativity to buttress the concept of relativity in regard to human life and human values is completely invalid.

Image result for francis schaeffer

I mailed this above to a professor that I have a lot of respect for and asked a few questions and he gave me permission to post this response of his:

In my opinion, it appears as if Schaeffer has caught Russell in a logical contradiction. Schaeffer has been describing proper theories of truth, and then he looks at many secular responses to Christian belief and/or responses to life’s biggest questions and questions the logic of such statements in relation to points A and B and the preceding illustration in that chapter ofThe God Who is There. So, in point 3, Schaeffer is point out that we can’t wait forever until a more reasonable answer comes our way; rather, we must take the data we have and do the best with it that we can. I was once in a debate with an atheist who, despite 2,000 years of evidence to the contrary, said that he had a “feeling” that soon scholarship would prove that Jesus was not a real person. So, in essence, he is waiting to have the answer he wants presented to him, and thus ignores the evidence in front of him. Yet, if that way of living is really lived consistently (which Schaeffer says is necessary in point 2 under “The Nature of Proof”), then we could never have any answers to anything. Therefore, if that is true, Bertrand Russell can no longer make conclusions (Russell is used here, I think, as a sort of embodiment of the fallacy Schaeffer is describing in regards to religious thought being totally outdated) because, by his own criteria, he cannot know anything since one day someone might have a more reasonable conclusion. The only way Russell, again by his own criteria, is able to make any sort of truth statement is if he, as Schaeffer rightly points out, “stops the clock.”

 

It does appear as if Schaeffer is also saying that the right order of the “pages” can’t fully be known without the special revelation of God, which is really what allows Christians to speak truthfully about the abnormal world filled with abnormal men. You might consider reaching out to L’Abri Fellowship, Schaeffer’s ministry, and asking them the same question for a more sure-footed clarification. Here is their contact page: http://labri.org/contact.html.

 

I hope that this might help. Have a great day!

 

Blessings,

(End of Professor’s response )

 

——

 

 

 

Image result for bertrand russell

 

 

Image result for bertrand russell

Bertrand Russell pictured above and Francis Schaeffer below:

Image result for francis schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer noted in his book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? (p. 182 in Vol 5 of Complete Works) in the chapter The Breakdown in Philosophy and Science:

In his lecture at Acapulco, George Wald finished with only one final value. It was the same one with which English philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was left. For Wald and Russell and for many other modern thinkers, the final value is the biological continuity of the human race. If this is the only final value, one is left wondering why this then has importance. 

Now having traveled from the pride of man in the High Renaissance and the Enlightenment down to the present despair, we can understand where modern people are. They have no place for a personal God. But equally they have no place for man as man, or for love, or for freedom, or for significance. This brings a crucial problem. Beginning only from man himself, people affirm that man is only a machine. But those who hold this position cannot live like machines! If they could, there would have been no tensions in their intellectual position or in their lives. But even people who believe they are machines cannot live like machines, and thus they must “leap upstairs” against their reason and try to find something which gives meaning to life, even though to do so they have to deny their reason. 

Francis Schaeffer in another place worded it like this:

The universe was created by an infinite personal God and He brought it into existence by spoken word and made man in His own image. When man tries to reduce [philosophically in a materialistic point of view] himself to less than this [less than being made in the image of God] he will always fail and he will always be willing to make these impossible leaps into the area of nonreason even though they don’t give an answer simply because that isn’t what he is. He himself testifies that this infinite personal God, the God of the Old and New Testament is there. 

We all know deep down that God exists and even atheists have to grapple with that knowledge.

Solomon wisely noted in Ecclesiastes 3:11 “God has planted eternity in the heart of men…” (Living Bible). No wonder Bertrand Russell wrote in his autobiography, “It is odd, isn’t it? I feel passionately for this world and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There must be something more important, one feels, though I don’t believe there is. I am haunted. Some ghosts, for some extra mundane regions, seem always trying to tell me something that I am to repeat to the world, but I cannot understand that message.”

Take a look at this 7th episode from Schaeffer’s series “HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? The Age of Nonreason”:

How Should We Then Live – Episode Seven – 07 – Portuguese Subtitles

_

Instead of making a leap into the area of nonreason the better choice would be to investigate the claims that the Bible is a historically accurate book and that God created the universe and reached out to humankind with the Bible.

Schaeffer then points to the historical accuracy of the Bible in Chapter 5 of the book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?

The Bible and Archaeology – Is the Bible from God? (Kyle Butt 42 min)

You want some evidence that indicates that the Bible is true? Here is a good place to start and that is taking a closer look at the archaeology of the Old Testament times. Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicleof Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism)4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites6.Shishak Smiting His Captives7. Moabite Stone8Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets10. Cyrus Cylinder11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription13. The Pilate Inscription14. Caiaphas Ossuary14 B Pontius Pilate Part 214c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.

____

 

Related posts:

 

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Pausing to take a look at the life of HARRY KROTO Part C (Kroto’s admiration of Bertrand Russell examined)

Today we look at the 3rd letter in the Kroto correspondence and his admiration of Bertrand Russell. (Below The Nobel chemistry laureates Harold Kroto, Robert Curl and Richard Smalley) It is with sadness that I write this post having learned of the death of Sir Harold Kroto on April 30, 2016 at the age of […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 52 The views of Hegel and Bertrand Russell influenced Gareth Stedman Jones of Cambridge!!

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of Dr. Harry Kroto:   Gareth Stedman […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!!

Top 10 Woody Allen Movies __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were  atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 (More On) Woody Allen’s Atheism As I wrote in a previous post, I like Woody Allen. I have long admired his […]

John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were two atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!!

______ Top 10 Woody Allen Movies PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 01 PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 02 __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were two atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 4)

THE MORAL ARGUMENT     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 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 3)

Great debate Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript and audio (Part 2)

Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of UK/BBC copyright. Pardon the hissy audio. It was recorded 51 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript and audio (Part 1)

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 4)

THE MORAL ARGUMENT     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 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 3)

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 236 Francis Schaeffer Joan Baez sang “You may call him Jesus, but I call him Savior.” Joan was not calling him Savior in the way a Christian calls him Savior. (Feature on artist Pierre Huyghe)

_

The Story of Francis and Edith Schaeffer and Swiss L’Abri

Francis Schaeffer: Art and the Bible

_

How Should We Then Live – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation

Book Summary of Art in the Bible by Francis Schaeffer

 

_

How Should We Then Live – Episode Seven – 07 – Portuguese Subtitles

_

Francis Schaeffer – How Should We Then Live – 03.The Renaissance

_

HowShouldweThenLive Episode 6

_

Art and the Bible
by Francis Schaeffer

 

Art forms can be used for any type of message, from pure fantasy to detailed history. That a work of art is in the form of fantasy or epic or painting does not mean that there is no propositional content. just as one can have propositional statements in prose, there can be propositional statements in poetry, in painting, in virtually any art form.

Some years ago a theologian at Princeton commented that he did not mind saying the Creeds, providing that he could sing them. What he meant was that so long as he could make them a work of art, he didn’t feel that he had to worry about the content. But this is both poor theology and poor aesthetics….There is the same dilemma in art styles and forms. Think, for example, of T. S. Eliot’s form of poetry in The Waste Land.The fragmented form matches the vision of fragmented man. But it is intriguing that after T. S. Eliot became a Christian — for example, in The Journey of the Magi — he did not use quite this same form. Rather, he adapted it for the message he was now giving — a message with a Christian character. But he didn’t entirely give up the form; he didn’t go back to Tennyson. Rather, he adapted the form that he used in The Waste Land, changing it to fit the message that he was now giving. In other words, T. S. Eliot the Christian wrote somewhat differently than T. S. Eliot the “modern man.” Therefore, while we must use twentieth-century styles, we must not use them in such a way as to be dominated by the world-views out of which they have arisen. Christianity is a message with its own distinctive propositional content, not a set of “religious” truths in an upper story. The whole man is to be addressed, and this includes his mind as well as his emotions and his aesthetic sensitivity. Therefore, an art form or style that is no longer able to carry content cannot be used to give the Christian message. I am not saying that the style is in itself wrong, but that it has limitations. Totally fractured prose or poetry cannot be used to give the Christian message for the simple reason that it cannot carry intellectual content, and you canot preach Christianity without content. The biblical message, the good news, is a good news of content….

The problem is just as prevalent in folk music as it is in rock. Joan Baez sang so beautifully, “You may call him Jesus, but I call him Savior.” But as far as Joan Baez and most of her listeners were concerned, when she said, “I call him Savior,” she was not calling him Savior in the way a Christian calls him Savior. She could have been singing southern folk or country and western or a Hindu lyric just as well. So when we come along and say, “My purpose is to sing folk so that I will be understood,” we must find a way to make it clear that we are singing folk to convey a world-view and not just to sing folk.

Joan Baez – Virgin Mary (Had One Son)

The form in which a world-view is given can either weaken or strengthen the content, even if the viewer or reader does not in every case analyze this completely. In other words, depending upon the vehicle you use, something can come across that an audience does not notice and yet will be moving either in the direction of your world-view or away from your world-view. And as a Christian adopts and adapts various contemporary techniques, he must wrestle with the whole question, looking to the Holy Spirit for help to know when to invent, when to adopt, when to adapt, and when to not use a specific style at all. This is something each artist wrestles with for a lifetime, not something he settles once and for all. In conclusion, therefore, often we will use twentieth-century art forms, but we must be careful to keep them from distorting the world-view which is distinctively ours as Christians. In one way, styles are completely neutral. But in another way, they must not be used in an unthinking, naive way.

.

 

_________________________________________________________________

Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000 years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” episode 6 “The Scientific Age” episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” ,  episode 4 “The Reformation” episode 3 “The Renaissance”episode 2 “The Middle Ages,”, and  episode 1 “The Roman Age,” . My favorite episodes are number 7 and 8 since they deal with modern art and culture primarily.(Joe Carter rightly noted, “Schaeffer—who always claimed to be an evangelist and not a philosopher—was often criticized for the way his work oversimplified intellectual history and philosophy.” To those critics I say take a chill pill because Schaeffer was introducing millions into the fields of art and culture!!!! !!! More people need to read his works and blog about them because they show how people’s worldviews affect their lives!!!!)

There is evidence that points to the fact that the Bible is historically true as Schaeffer pointed out in episode 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE  HUMAN RACE? There is a basis then for faith in Christ alone for our eternal hope. This link shows how to do that.

 

Francis Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live? (Full-Length Documentary)

____________________

Francis Schaeffer with his son Franky pictured below. Francis and Edith (who passed away in 2013) opened L’ Abri in 1955 in Switzerland.

Pierre Huyghe | Art21 | Preview from Season 4 of “Art in the Twenty-First Century” (2007)

Featured artist is Pierre Huyghe

 

Pierre Huyghe was born in 1962 in Paris, France. He attended the École Nationale Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs, Paris (1982–85). Employing folly, leisure, adventure, and celebration in creating art, Huyghe’s films, installations, and public events range from a small-town parade to a puppet theater, from a model amusement park to an expedition to Antarctica.

By filming staged scenarios (such as a re-creation of the true-life bank robbery featured in the movie, Dog Day Afternoon), Huyghe probes the capacity of cinema to distort and ultimately shape memory. While blurring the traditional distinction between fiction and reality—and revealing the experience of fiction to be as palpable as anything in daily life—Huyghe’s playful work often addresses complex social topics, such as the yearning for utopia, the lure of spectacle in mass media, and the impact of Modernism on contemporary values and belief systems.

He has received many awards, including the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum’s Hugo Boss Prize (2002); the Special Award from the Jury of the Venice Biennial (2001); and a Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD) Fellowship (1999–2000). Huyghe has had solo exhibitions at Tate Modern, London, and ARC, Musée d’art Moderne de la Ville de Paris (2006); Carpenter Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2004); Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth (2004); Dia Center for the Arts, New York (2003); Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York (2003); Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago (2000); and Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris (2000). The Public Art Fund commissioned Huyghe to create “A Journey that Wasn’t” (2006), which included an expedition to Antarctica, a performance in Central Park, and a video installation at the Whitney Biennial in New York. Huyghe lives and works in Paris and New York.

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 1 HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? “The Roman Age” (Feature on artist Tracey Emin)

I want to make two points today. First, Greg Koukl has rightly noted that the nudity of a ten year old girl in the art of Robert Mapplethorpe is not defensible, and it demonstrates where our culture is  morally. It the same place morally where  Rome was 2000 years ago as Francis Schaeffer has demonstrated […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 1 0   Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min 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 […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

  Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE   Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)

____________