text:
WOODY WEDNESDAY Cafe Society Woody Allen's latest is an unfocused, wistful glance at both old glamour and the afterlife. Alissa Wilkinson/ July 14, 2016
Café Society – Official Movie Review
Woody Allen's latest is an unfocused, wistful glance at both old glamour and the afterlife.
Alissa Wilkinson/ July 14, 2016
Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart in 'Cafe Society'
Woody Allen has come under concentrated fire in the time since his (very bad) last movie, An Irrational Man. I don't want to ignore or downplay the allegations of abuse brought against him by some of his children. (If you're baffled, here's a New York Times article from the Cannes Film Festival.)
But I believe works of art are both generated by and stand apart from their creators, and this year's Allen film is Cafe Society. Allen is the very definition of prolific; by my reckoning, he's made a movie every year, since I've been born. The last truly great one was 2013's Blue Jasmine.
So what is there to say about Cafe Society? It stars Kristen Stewart—and if you're still scoffing at Stewart post-Twilight, the time to stop has long since past. Stewart is a critical and audience darling for a reason: she can do anything, from art film to mainstream movies, and in Cafe Society she works wonders with a pretty thin script. She lives and breathes, and everyone else on screen—including Jesse Eisenberg, the film's ostensible protagonist—seems shot in monochrome by comparison.
In some ways Cafe Society is a movie about nothing, a paean to Old Hollywood glamour that has the unfortunate luck to come out the same year as a much better film about the same thing, the Coen brothers' delightful Hail, Caesar! There is a love triangle between Bobby (Eisenberg) and Vonnie (Stewart), who's also having an affair with Bobby's uncle/big-time Hollywood agent (Steve Carell). That's just the start of the story, and after the fallout, it continues apace.
But the best scenes in the film belong to the cast of Bobby's New York Jewish family members, and one scene in which his parents discuss the afterlife is just about worth the price of admission. Judaism doesn't have an afterlife; Bobby's gangster brother Ben (Corey Stoll), faced with the electric chair, converts to Christianity for its promise of an afterlife, to the consternation of his family.
Maybe the buoyancy of those scenes in particular distracted me from whatever Allen's point is, if he had one at all. But he's an old man these days, and he's been contemplating his mortality for a long time. So maybe I'm not crazy: I think Cafe Society is really a bittersweet contemplation of the idea of an afterlife—a peculation supported by the fact that most of the film, shot by Vittorio Storaro, is bathed in a glow that's both nostalgic and downright heavenly. The movie is about the choices we make, and how they limit what happens in the future.
And what's the afterlife, if not that?
Alissa Wilkinson is Christianity Today's critic at large and an assistant professor of English and humanities at The King's College in New York City. She is co-author, with Robert Joustra, of How to Survive the Apocalypse: Zombies, Cylons, Faith, and Politics at the End of the World. She tweets @alissamarie.
Sign up for the CT Entertainment Newsletter
You're reading a capsule review from the CT Entertainment newsletter, a weekly launching pad for your own pop culture exploration from CT's critic-at-large, Alissa Wilkinson.
For more like this, sign up now to receive a cheat sheet for populating your to-watch list directly in your inbox.
Blake Lively in 'Cafe Society'
Café Society Official International Trailer #1 (2016) – Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart Movie HD
Review: 'Café Society' is minor, enjoyable Woody Allen
Bill Goodykoontz, Gannett4:24 p.m. EDT July 28, 2016
(Photo: Amazon Studios)
WOODY WEDNESDAY "CAFÉ SOCIETY" AND "LIFE, ANIMATED" REVIEWS Woody Allen's newest film, and a documentary about how a boy with autism connected with Disney movies. By Anthony Lane
August 3, 2016 – 12:46 am
"CAFÉ SOCIETY" AND "LIFE, ANIMATED" REVIEWS Woody Allen's newest film, and a documentary about how a boy with autism connected with Disney movies. By Anthony Lane Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart in Woody Allen's new movie.ILLUSTRATION BY BEN KIRCHNER The new Woody Allen film, "Café Society," is set in the nineteen-thirties—you know, that far-off land […]
WOODY WEDNESDAY 'Cafe Society' review: Kristen Stewart, Jesse Eisenberg enliven otherwise dull nostalgia by Michael PhillipsContact Reporter Chicago Tribune July 7, 2016
'Cafe Society' review: Kristen Stewart, Jesse Eisenberg enliven otherwise dull nostalgia by Michael PhillipsContact Reporter Chicago Tribune July 7, 2016 There's not much to "Cafe Society," but for a while now Woody Allen has been getting by with not much happening at the keyboard. Thanks to the warm, glowing light lavished on the film by cinematographer Vittorio […]
WOODY WEDNESDAY 'Café Society': Designing 1930s Hollywood for Woody Allen The new film, with Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart, is full of lavish set designs By DON STEINBERG Updated July 6, 2016
CAFE SOCIETY – Red Carpet – EV – Cannes 2016 'Café Society': Designing 1930s Hollywood for Woody Allen The new film, with Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart, is full of lavish set designs By DON STEINBERG Updated July 6, 2016 7:11 p.m. ET 3 COMMENTS Re-creating opulent 1930s Hollywood and post-Prohibition New York for Woody […]
WOODY WEDNESDAY 'Cafe Society': Cannes Review 5:09 AM PDT 5/11/2016 by Todd McCarthy
Woody Allen on Retiring and Childhood Memories / Cannes 2016 Café Society Published on Jun 4, 2016 Short clip from an interview with Woody Allen in occasion of the world premiere of his film "Café Society" at the Cannes film festival 2016. 'Cafe Society': Cannes Review 5:09 AM PDT 5/11/2016 by Todd McCarthy Woody Allen's […]
WOODY WEDNESDAY Review of Cafe Society Woody Allen's latest movie
New cast interview Café Society in Cannes Published on May 24, 2016 Subscribe on my Channel :* Cannes Film Review: 'Café Society' Owen Gleiberman Chief Film Critic @OwenGleiberman Editions: Subscribe Today! Film TV Digital Contenders Video Dirt Jobs More Sign In Home Film Reviews Cannes Film Review: 'Café Society' Owen Gleiberman Chief Film Critic @OwenGleiberman […]
"Woody Wednesday" ECCLESIASTES AND WOODY ALLEN'S FILMS: SOLOMON "WOULD GOT ALONG WELL WITH WOODY!" (Part 34 MIDNIGHT IN PARIS Picasso and Solomon both had an obsession with the issue of their impending death!!) )
Both Solomon in Ecclesiastes and Picasso in his painting had an obsession with the issue of their impending death!!! Picasso in the movie MIDNIGHT IN PARIS Pablo Picasso: Self-portrait Facing Death (1972) Does anyone not know the name Picasso? Based on sales of his works at auctions, he holds the title of top ranked […]
"Woody Wednesday" ECCLESIASTES AND WOODY ALLEN'S FILMS: SOLOMON "WOULD GOT ALONG WELL WITH WOODY!" (Part 33 MIDNIGHT IN PARIS Picasso painted his worldview but he couldn't stand the loss of humanness!!! )
Picasso was a genius as a painter but he deliberately painted his secular worldview of fragmentation on his canvas but he could not live with the loss of humanness and he reverted back at crucial points and painted those he loved with all his genius and with all their humanness!!! Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates) and […]
"Woody Wednesday" ECCLESIASTES AND WOODY ALLEN'S FILMS: SOLOMON "WOULD GOT ALONG WELL WITH WOODY!" (Part 32 MIDNIGHT IN PARIS Just like Solomon in Ecclesiastes Picasso's women mostly considered suicide or accepted nihilism )
Just like Solomon in Ecclesiastes Picasso's women mostly considered suicide or accepted nihilism and Woody Allen alludes to this in MIDNIGHT IN PARIS when Adriana tells her own story: GIL PENDER: No, you do! How long have you been dating Picasso?My God, did I just say that?Pardon?I don't mean to…I didn't meanto pry…. Were you born in […]
"Woody Wednesday" ECCLESIASTES AND WOODY ALLEN'S FILMS: SOLOMON "WOULD GOT ALONG WELL WITH WOODY!" (Part 31 MIDNIGHT IN PARIS Picasso just like Solomon in Ecclesiastes slept with many women but ended his life bitter against all women )
_ Just like Solomon Picasso slept with many women. Solomon actually slept with over 1000 women ( Eccl 2:8, I Kings 11:3), and both men ended their lives bitter against all women. Pablo Picasso: Midnight in Paris Woody Allen made it known that his pessimistic view on life started at a young age when he […]
"Woody Wednesday" ECCLESIASTES AND WOODY ALLEN'S FILMS: SOLOMON "WOULD GOT ALONG WELL WITH WOODY!" (Part 30 MIDNIGHT IN PARIS Ernest Hemingway 18th part Summing up Hemingway's life )
_ Summing up Hemingway is not as hard as I thought it was going to be. Hemingway was nihilistic in that he understood the problem of modern man UNDER THE SUN without God in the picture just like Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. MICHAEL NICHOLSON in the article below does a great job of […]
RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO'S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 93 Gerard 't Hooft, Dutch theoretical physicist, "Well, such beliefs I think I related to religions of the past and I don't think that notions such as 'afterlife' has any…scientific basis. Not in terms of modern science. So I can only say no.""
Arif Ahmed, Haroon Ahmed,Sir David Attenborough, Mark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael Bate, Sir Patrick Bateson,Patricia Churchland, Aaron Ciechanover, Noam Chomsky,Alan Dershowitz, Hubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan Feuchtwang, David Friend, Riccardo Giacconi, Ivar Giaever , Roy Glauber, Rebecca Goldstein, David J. Gross, Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Stephen F Gudeman, Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Theodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison, Hermann Hauser, Roald Hoffmann, Bruce Hood, Herbert Huppert, Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve Jones, Shelly Kagan, Michio Kaku, Stuart Kauffman, Lawrence Krauss, Harry Kroto, George Lakoff, Elizabeth Loftus, Alan Macfarlane, Peter Millican, Marvin Minsky, Leonard Mlodinow, Yujin Nagasawa, Alva Noe, Douglas Osheroff, Jonathan Parry, Saul Perlmutter, Herman Philipse, Carolyn Porco, Robert M. Price, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees, Alison Richard, Oliver Sacks, John Searle, Marcus du Sautoy, Simon Schaffer, J. L. Schellenberg, Lee Silver, Peter Singer, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ronald de Sousa, Victor Stenger, John Sulston, Barry Supple, Leonard Susskind, Raymond Tallis, Neil deGrasse Tyson, C.J. van Rijsbergen, Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, Frank Wilczek, Steven Weinberg, and Lewis Wolpert,
Gerard 't Hooft
July 5, 1946 (age 69)
Den Helder, Netherlands
Doctoral advisor
Martinus J. G. Veltman
Herman Verlinde
Quantum Field Theory,Quantum Gravity
Heineman Prize (1979)
Wolf Prize (1981)
Lorentz Medal (1986)
Spinoza Prize (1995)
Franklin Medal (1995)
Nobel Prize in Physics (1999)
Lomonosov Gold Medal (2010)
This is a Dutch name; the family name is 't Hooft, not Hooft.
Gerardus (Gerard) 't Hooft (Dutch: [ˌɣeːrɑrt ət ˈɦoːft]; born July 5, 1946) is a Dutch theoretical physicist and professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He shared the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics with his thesis advisor Martinus J. G. Veltman "for elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions".
His work concentrates on gauge theory, black holes, quantum gravity and fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. His contributions to physics include a proof that gauge theories arerenormalizable, dimensional regularization, and the holographic principle.
Personal life[edit]
He is married to Albertha Schik (Betteke) and has two daughters, Saskia and Ellen. Saskia has translated one of her father's popular speculative books Planetenbiljart into English. The book's English title is Playing with Planets and was launched in Singapore in November 2008.
Gerard 't Hooft was born in Den Helder on July 5, 1946, but grew up in The Hague, the seat of government of the Netherlands. He was the middle child of a family of three. He comes from a family of scholars. His grandmother was a sister of Nobel prize laureate Frits Zernike, and was married to Pieter Nicolaas van Kampen, who was a well-known professor of zoology atLeiden University. His uncle Nico van Kampen was an (emeritus) professor of theoretical physics at Utrecht University, and while his mother did not opt for a scientific career because of her gender,[1] she did marry a maritime engineer.[1] Following his family's footsteps, he showed interest in science at an early age. When his primary school teacher asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up, he boldly declared, "a man who knows everything."[1]
After primary school Gerard attended the Dalton Lyceum, a school that applied the ideas of the Dalton Plan, an educational method that suited him well. He easily passed his science and mathematics courses, but struggled with his language courses. Nonetheless, he passed his classes in English, French, German, classical Greek and Latin. At the age of sixteen he earned a silver medal in the second Dutch Math Olympiad. [1]
Gerard 't Hooft at Harvard
After obtaining his doctorate 't Hooft went to CERN in Geneva, where he had a fellowship. He further refined his methods for Yang–Mills theories with Veltman (who went back to Geneva). In this time he became interested in the possibility that the strong interaction could be described as a massless Yang–Mills theory, i.e. one of a type that he had just proved to be renormalizable and hence be susceptible to detailed calculation and comparison with experiment. According to his calculations, this type of theory possessed just the right kind of scaling properties (asymptotic freedom) that this theory should have according to deep inelastic scattering experiments. This was contrary to popular perception of Yang–Mills theories at the time, that like gravitation and electrodynamics, their intensity should decrease with increasing distance between the interacting particles; such conventional behaviour with distance was unable to explain the results of deep inelastic scattering, whereas 't Hooft's calculations could. When he mentioned his results at a small conference at Marseilles in 1972, Kurt Symanzik urged him to publish this result.[1] He did not, and the result was eventually rediscovered and published by Hugh David Politzer, David Gross, and Frank Wilczek in 1973, which led to them earning the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.[4][5]
In 1974, 't Hooft returned to Utrecht where he became assistant professor. In 1976, he was invited for a guest position at Stanford and a position at Harvard as Morris Loeb lecturer. His eldest daughter, Saskia Anne, was born in Boston, while his second daughter, Ellen Marga, was born in 1978 after he returned to Utrecht, where he was made full professor.[1] On July 1, 2011 he was appointed Distinguished professor by Utrecht University.[6]
Honors[edit]
In 1999 't Hooft shared the Nobel prize in Physics with his thesis adviser Veltman for "elucidating the quantum structure of the electroweak interactions in physics".[7] Before that time his work had already been recognized by other notable awards. In 1981, he was awarded the Wolf Prize,[8] possibly the most prestigious prize in physics after the Nobel prize. Five years later he received the Lorentz Medal, awarded every four years in recognition of the most important contributions in theoretical physics.[9] In 1995, he was one of the first recipients of the Spinozapremie, the highest award available to scientists in the Netherlands.[10] In the same year he was also honoured with a Franklin Medal.[11]
Since his Nobel Prize, 't Hooft has received a slew of awards, honorary doctorates and honorary professorships.[12] He was knighted commander in the Order of the Netherlands Lion, and officer in the French Legion of Honor. The asteroid 9491 Thooft has been named in his honor,[13] and he has written a constitution for its future inhabitants.[14]
He is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) since 1982,[15] where he was made academy professor in 2003.[16] He is also a foreign member of many other science academies, including the French Académie des Sciences, the American National Academy of Sciences and American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Britain and Ireland based Institute of Physics.[12]
Dutch physicists
Members of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Members of the United States National Academy of Sciences
Nobel laureates in Physics
Dutch Nobel laureates
Utrecht University alumni
Utrecht University faculty
Wolf Prize in Physics laureates
Commanders of the Order of the Netherlands Lion
Officiers of the Légion d'honneur
Lorentz Medal winners
People from Den Helder
People from Utrecht (city)
Members of the French Academy of Sciences
Spinoza Prize winners
Theoretical physicists
People associated with CERN
In the first video below in the 18th clip in this series are his words and my response is below them.
Below is the letter in which I respond to his quote:
Gerardus 't Hooft, Spinoza Instituut, TD Utrecht
Dear Dr. Hooft,
Since I wrote you last I was very sad on April 30th to learn of the passing of the great scientist Harry Kroto. Not only was Harry Kroto a Nobel Prize winning chemist but judging from comments of his close friends, Kroto was an even better man personally.
Tim Logan, chair of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Florida State: "What always brought out the best in Harry was his wife, Margaret. Margaret and Harry were always together, until the end of Harry's life. She served as his business manager, scheduling his many speaking engagements around the world, organizing the travel, and supporting him in many, many ways. What I found so remarkable is that even after 57 years together, they were so obviously in love. Harry would include photos and sketches he made of her in his lectures, and he always acknowledged her as his moral compass."
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY I WAS PROMPTED ORIGINALLY TO WRITE YOU? It was because Harry Kroto took the time in 2014 to correspond with me. After I wrote him in the spring and summer of 2014 he emailed me twice and then sent me a letter in November of 2014. In that letter he referred me to a film series Renowned Academics talk about God that featured your comments.
I saw your interviews that were featured on Harry Kroto's website VEGA and I even noticed that he was so proud of those interviews that he played clips of them at some of the BEYOND BELIEF CONFERENCES (he actually spoke there in 2006, 2007 and 2008 and all those speeches are on You Tube). You may be familiar with the VEGA website and it includes lots of videos from Nobel Prize Winners.
I have always been fascinated by brilliant individuals and recently I had the opportunity to come across a very interesting article by Michael Polanyi, LIFE TRANSCENDING PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY, in the magazine CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING NEWS, August 21, 1967, and I also got hold of a 1968 talk by Francis Schaeffer based on this article. ISN'T IT AMAZING THAT JUST LIKE KROTO'S FAMILY POLANYI HAD TO FLEE EUROPE BECAUSE OF HITLER'S INSANE GRUDGE AGAINST THE JEWS!!!!I know you don't believe in God or the Devil but if anyone was demon-possessed it had to be Hitler.
Polanyi's son John actually won the 1986 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. This article by Michael Polanyi concerns Francis Crick and James Watson and their discovery of DNA in 1953. Polanyi noted:
Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of in
animate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry. Further controlling principles of life may be represented as a hierarchy of boundary conditions extending, in the case of man, to consciousness and responsibility.
I am sending you this two CD's of this talk because I thought you may find it very interesting. It includes references to not only James D. Watson, and Francis Crick but also Maurice Wilkins, Erwin Schrodinger, J.S. Haldane (his son was the famous J.B.S. Haldane), Peter Medawar, and Barry Commoner.
Let me get to the main reason that I am writing you today and it is to respond to your quote in the You Tube series RENOWNED ACADEMICS TALK ABOUT GOD. Here is your quote from that series:
"Gerardus `t Hooft – Science Video Interview". 2004. Retrieved 25 April 2012. "When asked by the interviewer about his belief in an afterlife, Hooft replied, "Well, such beliefs I think I related to religions of the past and I don't think that notions such as 'afterlife' has any…scientific basis. Not in terms of modern science. So I can only say no.""
Let me respond with a simple approach and that is to ask you if Hitler got off without facing judgment?
I have done a lot of blog posts in the past about War heroes from Arkansas. Now there seems to be an opportunity to write again on this subject. On June 6, 2014 on the news I saw a story about one of those who fought on D Day 70 years on June 6, 1944 and it was 92-year-old Denman Wolfe who is a Fayetteville, Arkansas resident who landed on Omaha beach as an army ranger. Wolfe says he jumped from the boat into rough water that was over his head. Wolfe said,"Cross the beach as best as you could, you couldn't stop to think about nothing, you had to move on through…The Germans were up on the hill, mowing us down with machine guns and their 88 artillery. So, people just falling all around you."
"I'm proud to have been a ranger, yes I really am," expressed Wolfe. He says the real heroes are the soldiers that lost their lives on D-day.
Albert Camus asserted,"A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon the world." Sounds like a good description of Hitler. Denman Wolfe and his friends were sent to bring Hitler and his friends to justice, and about a year later the Nuremberg Trials were held. Both Hitler and Himmler noted that Christianity's notion of charity should be "replaced by the ethic of strength over weakness." If God doesn't exist then on what basis could we say that Hitler was wrong and why did Wolfe risk his life for others when there was no afterlife to reward good and punish evil? Agnostic Professor Arthur Allen Leff (1935–1981) of Yale Law School put it this way, "As things stand now, everything is up for grabs. Nevertheless, Napalming babies is bad, and starving the poor is wicked. Buying and selling each other is depraved and there is in the world such a thing as evil. [All together now:] Sez who? God help us." Likewise, Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881) observed in his novel THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV, "if there is no God, all things are permissible."
Judge Roy Moore noted:
Both the British and American prosecutors were expressing something well understood in the law at that time – the law of man and nations is subject to the laws of God and the laws of nature. Sir William Blackstone in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in 1765 explained the law of nature in this way, "This law of nature, being co-eval [co-existent] with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. …"
Norman Geisler in a debate with Paul Kurtz in 1986 on the JOHN ANKERBERG SHOW asserted:
This great country began with these great words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,… among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." There are at least three great principles in there: a Creator, man was created, and certain moral absolutes.
I wanted to write you today for two reasons. First, I wanted to demonstrate to you how weak a philosophy humanism is through an illustration given in a Woody Allen movie. Second, I wanted to point out some scientific evidence that caused Antony Flew to switch from an atheist (as you are now) to a theist. Twenty years I had the opportunity to correspond with two individuals that were regarded as two of the most famous atheists of the 20th Century, Antony Flew and Carl Sagan. (I have enclosed some of those letters between us.) I had read the books and seen the films of the Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer and he had discussed the works of both of these men. I sent both of these gentlemen philosophical arguments from Schaeffer in these letters and in the first letter I sent a cassette tape of my pastor's sermon IS THE BIBLE TRUE? You may have noticed in the news a few years ago that Antony Flew actually became a theist in 2004 and remained one until his death in 2010. Carl Sagan remained a skeptic until his dying day in 1996.
You will notice in the enclosed letter from June 1, 1994 that Dr. Flew commented, "Thank you for sending me the IS THE BIBLE TRUE? tape to which I have just listened with great interest and, I trust, profit." It would be a great honor for me if you would take time and drop me a note and let me know what your reaction is to this same message.
Carl Sagan said that he missed his parents terribly and he wished he could believe in the afterlife but he was not convinced because of the lack of proof. I had the opportunity to correspond back and forth with Carl Sagan. I presented him evidence that the Bible was true and there was an afterlife, but he would not accept the evidence.
Today I want to take another approach to the issue of the afterlife and that is the pure and simple fact that without an enforcement factor people can do what they want in this life and get away with it. This is a big glaring weakness in the Humanist Manifestos that have been published so far. All three of them do not recognize the existence of God who is our final judge. (I am not claiming that this is evidence that points to an afterlife, but this post will demonstrate that atheists many times have not thought through the full ramifications of their philosophy of life.)
I had the unique opportunity to discuss this very issue with Robert Lester Mondale and his wife Rosemary on April 14, 1996 at his cabin in Fredricktown, Missouri , and my visit was very enjoyable and informative. Mr. Mondale had the distinction of being the only person to sign all three of the Humanist Manifestos in 1933, 1973 and 2003. I asked him which signers of Humanist Manifesto Number One did he know well and he said that Raymond B. Bragg, and Edwin H. Wilson and him were known as "the three young radicals of the group." Harold P. Marley used to have a cabin near his and they used to take long walks together, but Marley's wife got a job in Hot Springs, Arkansas and they moved down there.
Roy Wood Sellars was a popular professor of philosophy that he knew. I asked if he knew John Dewey and he said he did not, but Dewey did contact him one time to ask him some questions about an article he had written, but Mondale could not recall anything else about that.
Mondale told me some stories about his neighbors and we got to talking about some of his church members when he was an Unitarian pastor. Once during the 1930's he was told by one of his wealthier Jewish members that he shouldn't continue to be critical of the Nazis. This member had just come back from Germany and according to him Hitler had done a great job of getting the economy moving and things were good.
Of course, just a few years later after World War II was over Mondale discovered on a second hand basis what exactly had happened over there when he visited with a Lutheran pastor friend who had just returned from Germany. This Lutheran preacher was one of the first to be allowed in after the liberation of the concentration camps in 1945, and he told Mondale what level of devastation and destruction of innocent lives went on inside these camps. As Mondale listened to his friend he could feel his own face turning pale.
I asked, "If those Nazis escaped to Brazil or Argentina and lived out their lives in peace would they face judgment after they died?"
Mondale responded, "I don't think there is anything after death."
I told Mr. Mondale that there is sense in me that says justice will be given eventually and God will judge those Nazis even if they evade punishment here on earth. I did point out that in Ecclesiastes 4:1 Solomon did note that without God in the picture the scales may not be balanced in this life and power could reign, but at the same time the Bible teaches that all must face the ultimate Judge.
Then I asked him if he got to watch the O.J. Simpson trial and he said that he did and he thought that the prosecution had plenty of evidence too. Again I asked Mr. Mondale the same question concerning O.J. and he responded, "I don't think there is a God that will intervene and I don't believe in the afterlife."
Dan Guinn posted on his blog at http://www.francisschaefferstudies.org concerning the Nazis and evolution: As Schaeffer points out, "…these ideas helped produce an even more far-reaching yet logical conclusion: the Nazi movement in Germany. Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945), leader of the Gestapo, stated that the law of nature must take its course in the survival of the fittest. The result was the gas chambers. Hitler stated numerous times that Christianity and its notion of charity should be "replaced by the ethic of strength over weakness." Surely many factors were involved in the rise of National Socialism in Germany. For example, the Christian consensus had largely been lost by the undermining from a rationalistic philosophy and a romantic pantheism on the secular side, and a liberal theology (which was an adoption of rationalism in theological terminology) in the universities and many of the churches. Thus biblical Christianity was no longer giving the consensus for German society. After World War I came political and economic chaos and a flood of moral permissiveness in Germany. Thus, many factors created the situation. But in that setting the theory of the survival of the fittest sanctioned what occurred. "
Francis Schaeffer notes that this idea ties into today when we are actually talking about making infanticide legal in some academic settings. Look at what these three humanist scholars have written:
Peter Singer, who recently was seated in an endowed chair at Princeton's Center for Human Values, said, "Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."
In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, "If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have."
In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel laureate, was quoted in the Pacific News Service as saying "… no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live."
Woody Allen's 1989 movie, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS , was on this very subject of the Nazis that Lester Mondale and I discussed on that day in 1996 at Mondale's cabin in Missouri. In this film, Allen attacks his own atheistic view of morality. Martin Landau plays a Jewish eye doctor named Judah Rosenthal raised by a religious father who always told him, "The eyes of God are always upon you." However, Judah later concludes that God doesn't exist. He has his mistress (played in the film by Anjelica Huston) murdered because she continually threatened to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. She also attempted to break up Judah's respectable marriage by going public with their two-year affair. Judah struggles with his conscience throughout the remainder of the movie and continues to be haunted by his father's words: "The eyes of God are always upon you." This is a very scary phrase to a young boy, Judah observes. He often wondered how penetrating God's eyes are.
Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his religious father had with Judah 's unbelieving Aunt May at the dinner table many years ago:
"Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazis, and they got away with it because might makes right," says aunt May
Sol replies, "May, how did they get away with it?"
Judah asks, "If a man kills, then what?"
Sol responds to his son, "Then in one way or another he will be punished."
Aunt May comments, "I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free."
Judah 's final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, "home free."
Woody Allen has exposed a weakness in his own humanistic view that God is not necessary as a basis for good ethics. There must be an enforcement factor in order to convince Judah not to resort to murder. Otherwise, it is fully to Judah 's advantage to remove this troublesome woman from his life. CAN A MATERIALIST OR A HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN AN AFTERLIFE GIVE JUDAH ONE REASON WHY HE SHOULDN'T HAVE HIS MISTRESS KILLED?
The Bible tells us, "{God} has also set eternity in the hearts of men…" (Ecclesiastes 3:11 NIV). The secularist calls this an illusion, but the Bible tells us that the idea that we will survive the grave was planted in everyone's heart by God Himself. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that God has instilled a conscience in everyone that points each of them to Him and tells them what is right and wrong (also Romans 2:14 -15).
It's no wonder, then, that one of Allen's fellow humanists would comment, "Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just 'mere opinion' but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, 'I think Hitler was wrong.' Hitler WAS wrong." (Gloria Leitner, "A Perspective on Belief," THE HUMANIST, May/June 1997, pp. 38-39)
Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn't long before she received criticism. Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, "Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?" (THE HUMANIST, September/October 1997, p. 2)
On the April 13, 2014 episode of THE GOOD WIFE called "The Materialist," Alicia in a custody case asks the father Professor Mercer some questions about his own academic publications. She reads from his book that he is a "materialist and he believes that "free-will is just an illusion," and we are all just products of the physical world and that includes our thoughts and emotions and there is no basis for calling anything right or wrong. Sounds like to me the good professor would agree wholeheartedly with the humanist Abigail Ann Martin's assertion concerning Hitler's morality too! Jean-Paul Sartre noted, "No finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point."
Christians agree with Judah 's father that "The eyes of God are always upon us." Proverbs 5:21 asserts, "For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and He ponders all his paths." Revelation 20:12 states, "…And the dead were judged (sentenced) by what they had done (their whole way of feeling and acting, their aims and endeavors) in accordance with what was recorded in the books" (Amplified Version). The Bible is revealed truth from God. It is the basis for our morality. Judah inherited the Jewish ethical values of the Ten Commandments from his father, but, through years of life as a skeptic, his standards had been lowered. Finally, we discover that Judah 's secular version of morality does not resemble his father's biblically-based morality.
Woody Allen's CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS forces unbelievers to grapple with the logical conclusions of a purely secular morality, and the secularist has no basis for asserting that Judah is wrong.
Larry King actually mentioned on his show, LARRY KING LIVE, that Chuck Colson had discussed the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS with him. Colson asked King if life was just a Darwinian struggle where the ruthless come out on top. Colson continued, "When we do wrong, is that our only choice? Either live tormented by guilt, or else kill our conscience and live like beasts?" (BREAKPOINT COMMENTARY, "Finding Common Ground," September 14, 1993)
Josef Mengele tortured and murdered many Jews and then lived the rest of his long life out in South America in peace. Will he ever face judgment for his actions?
The ironic thing is that at the end of our visit I that pointed out to Mr. Mondale that Paul Kurtz had said in light of the horrible events in World War II that Kurtz witnessed himself in the death camps (Kurtz entered a death camp as an U.S. Soldier to liberate it) that it was obvious that Humanist Manifesto I was way too optimistic and it was necessary to come up with another one. I thought that might encourage Mr. Mondale to comment further on our earlier conversion concerning evil deeds, but he just said, "That doesn't surprise me that Kurtz would say something like that."
I noticed in Wikipedia:
The second Humanist Manifesto was written in 1973 by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, and was intended to update the previous one. It begins with a statement that the excesses of Nazism and world war had made the first seem "far too optimistic", and indicated a more hardheaded and realistic approach in its seventeen-point statement, which was much longer and more elaborate than the previous version. Nevertheless, much of the unbridled optimism of the first remained, with hopes stated that war would become obsolete and poverty would be eliminated.
This is Lester Mondale's obituary from the American Humanist Association:
R. Lester Mondale of Fredricktown, Missouri died on August 19, 2003, he was ninety-nine years old. Mondale was the last living signer of Humanist Manifesto I (he was the youngest to sign in 1933). He was also the only person to sign all three manifestos.
An AHA member perhaps since the organization's founding, he received the AHA's Humanist Pioneer award in 1973 and the Humanist Founder award in 2001. Mondale became a Unitarian minister after being raised a Methodist.
He was very active with the American Humanist Association, the American Ethical Union and served as president of the Fellowship of Religious Humanists in the 60's and 70's. Humanists Vice President Sarah Oelberg says that Mondale's death marks "truly the end of an era" and AHA Director of Planned Giving Bette Chambers calls him "a great man, a great Humanist."
Lester is survived by his wife, Rosemary, and four daughters: Karen Mondale of St. Louis, Missouri; Julia Jensen of St. Cloud, Minnesota; Tarrie Swenstad of Odin, Minnesota; and Ellen Mondale of Bethesda, Maryland. Also surviving him are his three brothers: Walter Mondale, former vice president of the United States, Pete Mondale, and Morton Mondale. Lester Mondale was also a proud grandparent of seven and a great-grandparent.
The Mondale siblings: Lester, Walter, Mort, Pete, and Clifford and Eleanor Archer (adopted sister); credit: University of Minnesota Law Library Archives
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1
Uploaded by camdiscussion on Sep 23, 2007
Part 1 of 3: 'What Does Judah Believe?'
A discussion of Woody Allen's 1989 movie, perhaps his finest.
By Anton Scamvougeras.
http://camdiscussion.blogspot.com/
antons@mail.ubc.ca
Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicle, of Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem, 2. Hezekiah's Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism), 4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites, 6.Shishak Smiting His Captives, 7. Moabite Stone, 8. Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, 9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets. 10. Cyrus Cylinder, 11. Puru "The lot of Yahali" 9th Century B.C.E., 12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription, 13. The Pilate Inscription, 14. Caiaphas Ossuary, 14 B Pontius Pilate Part 2, 14c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible's accuracy through archaeology.,
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Atheists Confronted | Tagged .Alexander Vilenkin, Aaron Ciechanover, Alan Dershowitz, Alan Guth, Alan Macfarlane, Alison Richard, Alva Noe, Arif Ahmed, Barry Supple, Bart Ehrman, Brian Greene, Brian Harrison, Bruce Hood, C.J. van Rijsbergen, Carolyn Porco, David Friend, David J. Gross, Douglas Osheroff, Elizabeth Loftus, Frank Wilczek, Gareth Stedman Jones, George Lakoff, Haroon Ahmed, Harry Kroto, Herbert Huppert, Herman Philipse, Hermann Hauser, Horace Barlow, Hubert Dreyfus, Ivar Giaever, J. L. Schellenberg, John Searle, John Sulston, Jonathan Haidt, Jonathan Parry, Lawrence Krauss, Lee Silver, Leonard Mlodinow, Leonard Susskind, Lewis Wolpert, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees, Marcus du Sautoy, Mark Balaguer, Marvin Minsky, Michael Bate, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Noam Chomsky, Oliver Sacks, Patricia Churchland, Peter Millican, Peter Singer, Raymond Tallis, Rebecca Goldstein, Riccardo Giacconi, Roald Hoffmann, Robert M. Price, Ronald de Sousa, Roy Glauber, Saul Perlmutter, Shelly Kagan, Simon Schaffer, Sir David Attenborough, Sir John Walker, Sir Patrick Bateson, Stephan Feuchtwang, Stephen F Gudeman, Steve Jones, Steven Weinberg, Stuart Kauffman, Susan Greenfield, Theodor W. Hänsch, Victor Stenger, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Yujin Nagasawa | Comments (0)
"Truth Tuesday" Liberals at Ark Times can not stand up to Scott Klusendorf's pro-life arguments (Part 3) Blogger "AngryOldWoman" says "If you are against abortion don't have one"
Anti Abortion Pro-Life Training Video by Scott Klusendorf Part 3 of 4
Francis Schaeffer: "Whatever Happened to the Human Race" (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE
Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis
This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices once considered unthinkable are now acceptable – abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. The destruction of human life, young and old, is being sanctioned on an ever-increasing scale by the medical profession, by the courts, by parents and by silent Christians. The five episodes in this series examine the sanctity of life as a social, moral and spiritual issue which the Christian must not ignore. The conclusion presents the Christian alternative as the only real solution to man's problems.
I have gone back and forth with Ark Times liberal bloggers on the issue of abortion, but I am going to try something new. I am going to respond with logical and rational reasons the pro-life view is true. All of this material is from a paper by Scott Klusendorf called FIVE BAD WAYS TO ARGUE ABOUT ABORTION .
On 2-8-13 on the Ark Times blog the person using the username "AngryOldWoman" stated, "If you are against one (abortion) don't have it."
Scott Klusendorf responded to this kind of thinking by stating:
As a guest on the television show Politically Incorrect, former super-model Kathy Ireland gave a carefully reasoned scientific and philosophic defense of the pro-life position. The show's host, Bill Maher, ignored her evidence completely and shot back with (paraphrase) "Kathy, that's just your view."
What's wrong with this response? Maher was confusing a moral claim with a preference claim. But there is a difference between disliking something (say, for example, a particular flavor of ice cream) and thinking it is morally wrong. Put simply, when pro-life advocates say that abortion is morally wrong, they are not saying they personally dislike abortion or would prefer that people not have one. Rather, they are saying that elective abortion is objectively wrong for everyone, regardless of how one feels about it. This is why the popular bumper sticker "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" misses the point entirely. It confuses the two types of claims. (Try this: "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave!")
Now it may be the case that pro-life advocates like Kathy Ireland are mistaken about their claim. Perhaps their evidence that abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless child is weak and inconclusive. But instead of proving this with facts and arguments, abortion advocates like Bill Maher ignore the evidence altogether. "Well, that's just your view." This not only relativizes the pro-lifers claim, it is intellectually lazy. It attempts to dismiss evidence rather than refute it.
Imagine if I were to say, "There is a pink elephant in the corner of the room just beneath the window."7 How should you respond to my claim? Perhaps I'm mistaken (and chances are I would be), but it would do no good to say, "That's just your view." The problem is I was not offering an opinion, I was claiming to be right. To refute me, you must show that my claim is false. The correct response is to say, "Your evidence is lousy. We looked in the corner and there is no elephant."
But again, Maher did not do that. At no point did he challenge her facts and arguments. What he said in effect was "Go away Kathy. You have your views and I have mine." This was very condescending because he did not even entertain the possibility that she had good evidence for her claim. Nor did he acknowledge the type of claim she was making.
To sum up, Maher was confusing a preference claim with a distinctly moral one. Preference claims cannot be evaluated as true or false because they are matters of personal taste. You cannot reasonably argue that vanilla ice cream is objectively better than chocolate. But moral claims are different. They can be evaluated as true or false based on the evidence. They do not say, "This is better tasting," they say, "This is right". Kathy Ireland's claim was, Abortion is wrong because it takes the life of a defenseless child, and I think I'm right. Maher's glib response did nothing to refute this. In fact, one could stop Maher dead in his tracks by saying, "Bill, it's just your view that it's just my view."
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part T "Abortion is a dirty business" (includes video "Truth and History" and editorial cartoon)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part S "Who gave the unborn the inalienable right to life?" (includes video "Slaughter of the Innocents" and an editorial cartoon)
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (0)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part R "What's wrong with Roe v. Wade decision?" (includes video "Truth and History" and editorial cartoon)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part Q "Three Ark Times bloggers take pro-life postion" (includes film DEATH BY SOMEONE'S CHOICE) (editorial cartoon)
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is […]
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part P "Freedom of speech lives on Ark Times Blog" (includes the video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part O "Without God in the picture there can not be lasting meaning to our lives" (includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, President Obama, Prolife | Edit |Comments (0)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part N "A discussion of the Woody Allen Movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS"(includes film DEATH BY SOMEONE'S CHOICE)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part M "Old Testament prophecy fulfilled?"Part 3(includes film DEATH BY SOMEONE'S CHOICE)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part L "On what basis do you say murder is wrong?"Part 2 (includes the film THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part K "On what basis do you say murder is wrong?"Part 1 (includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part J "Can atheists find lasting meaning to their lives?" (includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part I "Old Testament Bible Prophecy" includes the film TRUTH AND HISTORY and article " Jane Roe became pro-life"
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit |Comments (0)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part H "Are humans special?" includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) Reagan: " To diminish the value of one category of human life is to diminish us all"
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part G "How do moral nonabsolutists come up with what is right?" includes the film "ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE")
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part F "Carl Sagan's views on how God should try and contact us" includes film "The Basis for Human Dignity"
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E "Moral absolutes and abortion" Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part D "If you can't afford a child can you abort?"Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 4 includes the film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part C "Abortion" (Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 3 includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part B "Gendercide" (Francis Schaeffer Quotes Part 2 includes the film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE) (editorial cartoon)
Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part A "The Pro-life Issue" (Francis Schaeffer Quotes Part 1 includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)
Ark Times blogger gets abortion for selfish reasons, Schaeffer points out that abortion is being performed for own hedonistic happiness reasons today" (includes film ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)(Editorial cartoon included)
Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog reprinted a story of a 38 year old later telling her story. She got an abortion when she was 23 for just selfish reasons. The lady identified herself as a Christian. As a response to this I posted the following on 2-8-13 on the Arkansas Times Blog: You […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Max Brantley, Prolife |Edit | Comments (0)
Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 7) "Poverty not good reason for abortion, why not give up for adoption?"
Dr Richard Land discusses abortion and slavery – 10/14/2004 – part 3 The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop "Whatever happened to the human race?" Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Prolife | Tagged Elwood Ark Times Blogger, MountainGirl Ark Times Blogger | Edit | Comments (0)
Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 6) For many pro-abortionists " …the problem is not determining when actual human life begins, but when the value of that life begins to out weigh other considerations"
The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop "Whatever happened to the human race?" Francis Schaeffer pictured above._________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer's book "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | TaggedVanessa | Edit | Comments (1)
Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 5) "Slavery issue compared to rights of unborn child"
The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop "Whatever happened to the human race?" Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue of abortion. I asked over and over again for one liberal blogger […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Current Events, Francis Schaeffer, Max Brantley, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 4) "How do pro-lifers react to the movie THE CIDER HOUSE RULES?"
Francis Schaeffer pictured above._________ The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop "Whatever happened to the human race?" Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue of abortion. I asked over and over again […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Current Events, Prolife | Tagged the outlier| Edit | Comments (0)
Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 3) "What should be the punishment for abortion doctors?"
The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop "Whatever happened to the human race?" On 1-24-13 I took on the child abuse argument put forth by Ark Times Blogger "Deathbyinches," and the day before I pointed out that because the unborn baby has all the genetic code […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Current Events, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife |Tagged Carl Sagan | Edit | Comments (0)
Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 2) "The pro-abortion child abuse argument destroyed here"
PHOTO BY STATON BREIDENTHAL from Pro-life march in Little Rock on 1-20-13. Tim Tebow on pro-life super bowl commercial. Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue of abortion. Here is another encounter below. On January 22, 2013 (on the 40th anniversary of the […]
Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 1)
Ark Times blogger asks "…you do know there is a slight difference between fetal tissue and babies, don't you? Don't you?" jh53
The Arkansas Times blogger going by the username "Sound Policy" asserted, "…you do know there is a slight difference between fetal tissue and babies, don't you? Don't you?" My response was taken from the material below: Science Matters: Former supermodel Kathy Ireland tells Mike Huckabee about how she became pro-life after reading what the science books […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Current Events, Prolife | Taggedbongioanni., harvard university medical school, kevin r henke, mike huckabee, supermodel kathy ireland | Edit | Comments (0)
Ark Times blogger has identified correct issue concerning abortion (part 3)
I wrote a response to an article on abortion on the Arkansas Times Blog and it generated more hate than enlightenment from the liberals on the blog. However, there was a few thoughtful responses. One is from spunkrat who really did identify the real issue. WHEN DOES A HUMAN LIFE BEGIN? _______________________________________ Posted by spunkrat […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
Pro-abortion Ark Times article refuted here (Part 2)
Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom. The Arkansas Times article, "Putting the fetus first: Pro-lifers keep up attack on access, but pro-choice advocates fend off the end to abortion right" by Leslie Newell Peacock is very lengthy but I want to deal with all of it in this new series. click to enlarge ROSE MIMMS: […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Jason Tolbert, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
Pro-abortion Ark Times article refuted here (Part 1)jh52
The Arkansas Times article, "Putting the fetus first: Pro-lifers keep up attack on access, but pro-choice advocates fend off the end to abortion right" by Leslie Newell Peacock is very lengthy but I want to deal with all of it in this new series. click to enlarge ROSE MIMMS: Arkansas Right to Life director unswayed by […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Comments (0)
MUSIC MONDAY Glen Campbell
Glen Campbell's Greatest Hits Compilation – Complete Set
MUSIC MONDAY Washed Out: 'I wish I could have a 9 to 5 life' Ernest Greene's debut album confirms his place at the forefront of the chillwave scene. So why is he so worried?
_ Washed Out – Life Of Leisure (Full Album) | HD Washed Out: 'I wish I could have a 9 to 5 life' Ernest Greene's debut album confirms his place at the forefront of the chillwave scene. So why is he so worried? Ernest Greene, aka Washed Out: 'At no point was I actively […]
MUSIC MONDAY Washed Out's Ernest Greene Finds Fulfillment in 9-to-5 Grind, 'Portlandia' Fame Laura Ferreiro Live Nation•August 27, 2014
__ Washed Out – Within and Without (Full Album) Washed Out's Ernest Greene Finds Fulfillment in 9-to-5 Grind, 'Portlandia' Fame Laura Ferreiro Live Nation•August 27, 2014 On Monday, Sept. 1 at 7:45 p.m. PT/10:45 p.m. ET, Yahoo Live will live stream Washed Out's concert from First Avenue in Minneapolis. Tune in HERE to watch! Anyone […]
MUSIC MONDAY Washed out
__ Washed Out – Feel it all around Washed Out From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Ernest Greene" redirects here. For the member of the Little Rock Nine, see Ernest Green. This article is about the musician. For the film, see Washed Out (film). Washed Out Washed Out performing in October 2009 Background information Birth name […]
MUSIC MONDAY Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix were good friends!!
Jimi Hendrix & Cream – Sunshine Of Your Love Jimi Hendrix & Eric Clapton Jimi Hendrix & Mick Jagger Jimi Hendrix & Keith Richards Jimi Hendrix & Brian Jones Jimi Hendrix & Janis Joplin Jimi Hendrix with Cream & Pink Floyd Even "Legends" want to meet a "Legend" Jimi Hendrix: 'You never told me he […]
MUSIC MONDAY Last interview of Jimi Hendrix
JIMI HENDRIX : FINAL INTERVIEW . Uploaded on Feb 5, 2011 Jimi Hendrix being interviewed in England just seven days before his death . September 11th 1970 Hear Jimi Hendrix's Final Interview from September 11, 1970 Posted 02/24/2015 by Damian Fanelli On September 11, 1970, NME's Keith Allston interviewed Jimi Hendrix in England. The interview […]
MUSIC MONDAY Chas Chandler mentored Jimi Hendrix!!!
Chas Chandler mentored Jimi Hendrix!!! The History of Jimi Hendrix and Chas Chandler's Split By Dave Swanson December 2, 2015 10:24 AM Read More: The History of Jimi Hendrix and Chas Chandler's Split | http://ultimateclassicrock.com/chas-chandler-leaves-jimi-hendrix/?trackback=tsmclip SHARE TWEET EMAIL EMAIL REDDIT Express, Hulton Archive, Getty Images After leaving the Animals in mid 1966, bassist Chas Chandler […]
MUSIC MONDAY Dan Peek's life plus OPEN LETTER TO PAUL MCCARTNEY about Dan Peek
Dan Peek -All Things Are Possible Dan Peek Testimony America – Lonely People Dan Peek From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Dan Peek Peek performs on the AVRO show TopPop in 1972. Background information Birth name Daniel Milton Peek Born November 1, 1950 Panama City, Florida Died July 24, 2011 (aged 60) Farmington, Missouri Genres Folk […]
MUSIC MONDAY Chuck Girard
______ Chuck Girard Band "Sometimes Alleluia" 1979 Published on Apr 24, 2015 Recently unearthed video of Chuck Girard Band performing the song "Sometimes Alleluia" from Chuck's 1977 album, "Chuck Girard". Performance is at Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, CA circa 1979. Personnel: Jon Linn, electric guit., Larry Myers, rhythm guit, , Terry Clark, keyboards, Jay Truax, […]
MUSIC MONDAY Calvin Harris – Feel So Close
OPEN LETTER TO WOODY ALLEN on the movie "Café Society"
Kat Edmonson lives the NYC dream
OPEN LETTER TO WOODY ALLEN DATED 8-28-16 seen below:
The last time I wrote you about the film IRRATIONAL MAN and today I want to give my thoughts on the film CAFE SOCIETY.I was able to catch it in Chicago in July and again I caught it in Vegas where it is presently running. Bobby Dorfman (Jesse Eisenberg), Marty (Ken Stott), and his mother, Rose (Jeannie Berlin), Phil Stern (Steve Carell), and Vonnie (Kristen Stewart), are all splendid in their roles.Bobby and Vonnie both turn out to be the same kind of superficial people they earlier ridiculed. Ironically, a song in the movie, I ONLY HAVE EYES FOR YOU, which according to Billboard magazine, was a #2 hit for Ben Selvin in 1934, is really the story of both Bobby and Vonnie's lives. Though they marry other people they keep longing for one another.Now for the more serious themes in the movie which surround Bobby's Uncle Ben who kills several people and the discussion of an afterlife. As a result of the murders Ben is caught and executed, but one of Ben's last victims was Leonard's neighbor because he was rude to Leonard and Ben's sister. The atheist Leonard says, "BLOOD SIN IS ON OUR HANDS!" This reminds me of the agnostic Judah in CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS who also exclaims, "I believe in God because the world would be a cesspool without God." Judah is haunted by his father's words, "God will punish the wicked and God sees everything."Here we see Romans 1:18-20 (Amplified Bible) playing out:
18 For [God does not overlook sin and] the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their wickedness suppress and stifle the truth, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them. 20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense.
In other words both Judah in the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS and Leonard from CAFE SOCIETY deep down know when the sin of murder has been committed and that is actually a sin before the eyes of a holy God. WHY DO THESE SAME PLOT TWISTS KEEP COMING UP IN WOODY ALLEN FILMS?
Let me provide a suggestion from Greg Koukl's chapter "Taking the Roof Off" from the book TACTICS:
When I was a young Christian, I read Francis Schaeffer's The God Who Is There. Schaeffer argues that Christians have a powerful ally in the war of ideas: reality. Whenever someone tries to deny the truth, reality ultimately betrays him… Although culture shifts, human nature remains the same. Ideas change, but reality does not….
Every person who rejects the truth of "the God who is there" is caught between the way he says the world is and the way the world actually is. This dissonance, what Schaeffer called the "point of tension," is what makes Taking the Roof Off so effective. Any person who denies the truth of God's world lives in contradiction. He says one thing, yet deep down he knows the truth….
Regardless of our ideological impulses [e.g., postmodernism], deep inside each of us is a common-sense realist. Those who are not are either dead, in an institution, or sleeping in cardboard boxes under the freeway. Knowing this gives us a tremendous advantage. The key to dealing with moral relativism, for example, is realizing that for all the adamant affirmations, no one really believes it, and for a good reason: If you start with relativism, reality does not make sense.
In other words, Leonard and Judah both are firmly committed to the idea of moral relativism, but as Romans 1 tells us that God has revealed to every created person they know they are guilty of murder when they commit it. They will have to face a holy God. Why else would these atheists admit they have sinned? WE ARE NOT JUST MACHINES RESULTING FROM CHANCE AND THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.
At the end of CAFE SOCIETY a twist in the film occurs when Ben converts from Judaism to Christianity because Christians believe in an afterlife and the Jewish religion does not. This troubles Ben's mother Rose tremendously and she comments, "Too bad the Jewish religion doesn't have an afterlife because they would get more customers." Actually at the time of Christ the liberal Jews did deny the afterlife and their leaders were called Sadducees. That was the main difference between them and the Pharisees and that is why they were so SAD YOU SEE!!!!
Rose did not know what the Bible said about the afterlife and evidently she did not take the Bible seriously when it said the 10 plagues hit Egypt or the other assertions that are made. These guys really existed and these are true historical events. Take for instance Caiaphas who is the most famous Jewish High Priest who served from 18 A.D. to 36 A.D and here is an excerpt from the website CREATION MOMENTS:
John 11:49-50 "And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." A remarkable discovery in Israel is shedding new light on life on Bible times. The discovery is also allowing scientists and the rest of us to get to know an important New Testament character.
Israeli archaeologists believe they may have discovered the bones of the high priest Caiaphas. If these bones do indeed belong to Caiaphas, it would be the first discovery of the remains of any major figure mentioned in the New Testament. The discovery was made accidentally in 1990 as workers were widening the road through the Peace Forest.
Researchers didn't want to release their announcement until they had satisfied themselves that such a momentous announcement was justified. The burial cave has three mentions of the name "Caiaphas." An ossuary, or bone box, within the cave was inscribed, "Joseph, son of Caiaphas." Other records identify the "Caiaphas" who condemned Jesus as Joseph, son of Caiaphas. A coin found in the cave was minted between 37 and 44 A.D. The ossuary contained the bones of six people. There were two infants, a child, a youth, an adult female and a male about 60 years old, believed to have been Caiaphas himself.
It was from political expediency that Caiaphas said it would be better for one man to die for the people than for the entire nation to perish. He was unknowingly prophetic. Jesus Christ did die to save us from the eternal consequences of our sin.
One day I hope the Woody Allen movie watcher will discover the answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted.
The family gathers at a Seder dinner.
Pictures from CAFE SOCIETY
There is a early scene in the movie when Anna Camp (seen below) plays a Jewish girl that is a first time prostitute and Bobby Dorfman (Jesse Eisenberg) says just take the money and let's not do it. She suggests that they just take their clothes off and get under the cover and just do it, but Jesse responds that would be too MECHANICAL. That is one of my points concerning the films CAFE SOCIETY and CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS and that is we are either a product of SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST or we were created in God's image and put on this earth for a purpose. Does love exist or are we just animals and love does not exist?
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Milton Friedman on Immigration Part 1
Milton Friedman – Illegal Immigration – PT 1
Milton Friedman stated , "you can't have free immigration and a welfare state." Below Dan Mitchell links back to this quote in one of his earlier posts:
A Plan for Open Borders that Anti-Amnesty Folks Can Support
August 18, 2016 by Dan Mitchell
As a general rule, I like immigration and I don't like redistribution.
As such, I share the late Milton Friedman's concern about the risks of having a welfare state combined with open borders. And based on many conversations all over the country, I think that's a big reason why many people oppose amnesty (augmented by Republican partisans who fear, probably with some validity, that changing the political landscape of America is the real reason Senator Schumer is a big advocate of amnesty).
So how can we reap the benefits of immigration without the risk of a bigger welfare state?
In part, we should have programsdesigned to attract people with skills and education.
I'm a big advocate and defender, for instance, of the EB-5 program that gives a preference for foreigners who invest in America's economy and create jobs.
And if you peruse Mark Perry's chart, we must be doing something right. Look at all these immigrant groups that are boosting per-capita income for the United States (including people from Lebanon, home of the Princess of the Levant).
I've always thought far more Americans would be sympathetic to immigration if they could be convinced that people were coming to America for the right reasons – i.e., to earn money rather than mooch off taxpayers.
With that in mind, Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University has aBloomberg column about Denmark that cites the great work of Nima Sanandajiabout how Americans of Nordic descent have much higher incomes than the people remaining in Nordic nations. Tyler's entire article is worth reading, but I want to focus on a quasi-open-borders proposal that he puts forth in his conclusion.
For all the anti-immigrant sentiment that is circulating at the moment, would it hurt the U.S. to have fully open borders with Denmark? It would boost American gross domestic product and probably also improve American education. History teaches that serious assimilation problems would be unlikely, especially since many Danes already speak English. Open borders wouldn't attract Danes who want to live off welfare because the benefits are so generous at home. How's this for a simple rule: Open borders for the residents of any democratic country with more generous transfer payments than Uncle Sam's.
I can't think of any reasonable objection to this idea. Everything Tyler says makes sense. People like "Lazy Robert" won't be lining up to get plane tickets to America. Instead, we'll get the young and aspirational Danes.
For what it's worth, I even think he understates the case since the type of people who would migrate to America wouldn't just boost GDP. They almost surely would do something arguably more important, which is to boost per-capita GDP.
Just think of all the productive entrepreneurs who would take the opportunity to escape over-taxed Denmark and come to the United States. Along with ambitious and skilled people from nations such as Italy, France, and Sweden (though our welfare state is very expensive, so I admit I'm just guessing at nations which would be eligible based on Tyler's rule about "more generous transfer payments").
By the way, Denmark apparently has learned a lesson about the risks of being a welfare magnet.
A story from Spiegel Online has the details.
Denmark's strict immigration laws have saved the country billions in benefits, a government report has claimed. …The extremely strict laws have dramatically reduced the flow of people into Denmark in recent years, and many government figures are delighted with the outcome. "Now that we can see that it does matter who comes into the country, I have no scruples in further restricting those who one can suspect will be a burden on Denmark," the center-right liberal integration minister, Søren Pind, told the Jyllands Postennewspaper. Pind was talking after the ministry's report — initiated by the right-wing populist Danish People's Party (DPP) — came to the conclusion that by tightening immigration laws, Denmark has saved €6.7 billion ($10 billion) over the last 10 years, money which otherwise would supposedly have been spent on social benefits or housing. According to the figures, migrants from non-Western countries who did manage to come to Denmark have cost the state €2.3 billion, while those from the West have actually contributed €295 million to government coffers.
Sounds like Danish lawmakers don't want to add even more passengers to the nation's already-overburdened "party boat."
And who can blame them. The nation already has a crippling problem of too many people depending on government.
P.S. If you want to enjoy some immigration-related humor, we have a video about Americans migrating to Peru and a story about American leftists escaping to Canada.
P.P.S. For those interested in the issue of birthright citizenship (a.k.a. anchor babies), I've shared some interesting analysis from Will Wilkinson and George Will.
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Security from CRADLE TO GRAVE never quite works out!!!
Security from CRADLE TO GRAVE never quite works out!!! Free to Choose Part 4: From Cradle to Grave Featuring Milton Friedman The Entitlement Disaster that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Are Ignoring July 8, 2016 by Dan Mitchell I'm like a broken record when it comes to entitlement spending. I've explained, ad nauseam, that programs such […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute | Edit | Comments (0)
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Milton Friedman and Dan Mitchell on the Post Office!!!
Milton Friedman and Dan Mitchell on the Post Office!!! Ep. 10 – How to Stay Free [3/7]. Milton Friedman's Free to Choose (1980) Pat Brennan became something of a celebrity in 1978 because she was delivering mail in competition with the United States Post Office. With her husband she set up business in a basement […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman | Edit |Comments (0)
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Hong Kong and the Miracle of Compounding Long-Run Growth March 11, 2016 by Dan Mitchell (with Milton Fri
Testing Milton Friedman: Free Markets – Full Video Hong Kong and the Miracle of Compounding Long-Run Growth March 11, 2016 by Dan Mitchell Hong Kong is a truly remarkable jurisdiction. Can you name, after all, another government in the world that brags about how little it spends on redistribution programs andhow few people are dependent on […]
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY America's Government School System: Never Have so Many Paid so Much to Achieve so Little March 20, 2015 by Dan Mitchell (with Milton Friedman video)
Friedman & Sowell: Should Our School System Be Privatized? America's Government School System: Never Have so Many Paid so Much to Achieve so Little March 20, 2015 by Dan Mitchell No other nation in the world spends as much on education as the United States. According to our leftist friends, who prefer to measure inputs rather […]
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY What if the NFL Was Run Like the Government School System? October 4, 2011 by Dan Mitchell (with video from Milton Friedman)
Friedman & Sowell: Should Our School System Be Privatized? What if the NFL Was Run Like the Government School System? October 4, 2011 by Dan Mitchell Regular readers know that the two things that get me most excited are the Georgia Bulldogs and the fight against a bloated public sector that is ineffective in the best […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman,Vouchers | Edit | Comments (0)
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Excellent Washington Post Editorial (Yes, Really) on School Choice September 3, 2013 by Dan Mitchell (with Milton Friedman video)
_ Friedman & Sowell: Should Our School System Be Privatized? Excellent Washington Post Editorial (Yes, Really) on School Choice September 3, 2013 by Dan Mitchell School choice should be a slam-dunk issue. There's very powerful evidence that we can provide superior education for lower cost if we shift away from monopoly government schools to a system […]
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY More Great Moments in Federal Government Incompetence April 2, 2016 by Dan Mitchell (with video from Milton Friedman)
The War on Work Testing Milton Friedman: Government Control – Full Video More Great Moments in Federal Government Incompetence April 2, 2016 by Dan Mitchell I used to think the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was the worst federal bureaucracy. After all, these are the pinheads who are infamous for bone-headed initiatives, such as: The EEOC making […]
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY The Left's Inequality Fixation Is Economically Foolish and Politically Impotent April 22, 2015 by Dan Mitchell (with videos from Milton Friedman)
Dr. Walter Williams Highlights from – Testing Milton Friedman Milton Friedman PBS Free to Choose 1980 Vol 8 of 10 Who Protects the Worker The Left's Inequality Fixation Is Economically Foolish and Politically Impotent April 22, 2015 by Dan Mitchell I don't understand the left's myopic fixation on income inequality. If they genuinely care about the […]
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Walter Williams, Freedom Fighter March 23, 2011 by Dan Mitchell (with videos featuring Walter Williams and Milton Friedman)
Dr. Walter Williams Highlights from – Testing Milton Friedman Milton Friedman PBS Free to Choose 1980 Vol 8 of 10 Who Protects the Worker Walter E Williams – A Discussion About Fairness & Redistribution Testing Milton Friedman: Equality of Opportunity – Full Video Walter Williams, Freedom Fighter March 23, 2011 by Dan Mitchell I've been fortunate […]
FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Three Cheers for Profits and Free Markets April 7, 2015 by Dan Mitchell (with input from Milton Friedman)
__ Milton Friedman – The Four Ways to Spend Money What establishments are you most unsatisfied with? Probably government organizations like Dept of Motor Vehicles or Public Schools because there is no profit motive and they are not careful in the way they spend our money. Three Cheers for Profits and Free Markets April 7, 2015 […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Comments (0)
FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 126 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part D (Featured artists are Elena and Olivia Ceballos )
I was sad when I learned of Will Provine's death. He was a very engaging speaker on the subject of Darwinism and I think he correctly realized what the full ramifications are when accepting evolution. This is the fourth post I have done on Dr. Provine and the previous ones are these links, 1st, 2nd and 3rd. In the article below I read these words:
In a 1994 debate with Phillip Johnson, a leading figure in the intelligent design movement, the late evolutionary biologist William Provine insisted: "No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly."
Darwinism, the Meaninglessness of Life, and of Death
Richard Weikart April 8, 2016 4:31 AM | Permalinkhttp://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/darwinism_the_m102757.html&layout=button_count&show_faces=true&width=300&action=like&font=trebuchet+ms&colorscheme=light&height=21
In a video on YouTube, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne states that science has demonstrated that
the universe and life are pointless….Pointless in the sense that there is no externally imposed purpose or point in the universe. As atheists this is something that is manifestly true to us. We make our own meaning and purpose.
He went on:
Evolution is the greatest killer of belief that has ever happened on this planet because it showed that some of the best evidence for God, which was the design of animals and plants that so wonderfully matched their environment could be the result of this naturalistic, blind materialistic process of natural selection.
Coyne is by no means alone in claiming Darwinism, with its insistence that all organisms have arisen through chance events (mutations) without plan or purpose, leads logically to the position that human life has no meaning or purpose. In my book The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life, I provide many examples of evolutionary biologists and other intellectuals who argue Darwinism sweeps away the benighted notion that human life has meaning.
However, as I also explain in detail in my new book, many Darwinists are unable to really live in accord with their own philosophy. For instance, Coyne has stated that evolution "says that there is no special purpose for your life, because it is a naturalistic philosophy. We have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo." But, in a different blog post, Coyne waxed indignant at those who have blamed mass shootings, such as those at Columbine, on Darwinism. (Coyne will likely be enraged that I explain Eric Harris's Darwinian motivations in The Death of Humanity.) But why does Coyne care about these people, whose lives — according to his philosophy — have no meaning or purpose? He evidently recognizes that the lives of those teenagers gunned down at Columbine did have some point or purpose after all, greater than squirrels or armadillos.
Duke University philosophy professor Alex Rosenberg shows the same inconsistency. He co-authored an article in 2003, "Darwin's Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life," in which he dismissed morality as an illusion. However, Rosenberg assured us that we have nothing to fear, because nihilism has no effect on our behavior, since "Most of us just couldn't persistently be mean, even if we tried." Rosenberg needs to take some of my history courses — or just read the news — if he doesn't think many people could be mean to each other.
In a 2013 debate with William Lane Craig, Rosenberg objected to some of Craig's arguments as "morally offensive," because some of his relatives were murdered in the Holocaust. But if life is meaningless and morality is an illusion, why does it matter if Hitler killed millions? That would be just another meaningless event in the meaningless flow of history. Rosenberg apparently knows better.
Despite what they may say, many Darwinists are fully aware that human lives have meaning and purpose, no matter how loudly they deny it.
Dr. Weikart is professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, and Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture; his new book, The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life, has just been released.
Photo credit: ESO/H. Dahle [CC BY 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
Woody Allen on Ingmar Bergman and the death.
Woody Allen et Marshall McLuhan : « If life were only like this! »
What Makes Life Worth Living? – Answered by Woody Allen.
Diane Keaton et Woody Allen
What Makes Life Worth Living?
Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100
Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION
Woody Allen – Sleeper (final scene)
I have spent alot of time talking about Woody Allen films on this blog and looking at his worldview. He has a hopeless, meaningless, nihilistic worldview that believes we are going to turn to dust and there is no afterlife. Even though he has this view he has taken the opportunity to look at the weaknesses of his own secular view. I salute him for doing that. That is why I have returned to his work over and over and presented my own Christian worldview as an alternative.
My interest in Woody Allen is so great that I have a "Woody Wednesday" on my blog www.thedailyhatch.org every week. Also I have done over 30 posts on the historical characters mentioned in his film "Midnight in Paris." (Salvador Dali, Ernest Hemingway,T.S.Elliot, Cole Porter,Paul Gauguin, Luis Bunuel, and Pablo Picassowere just a few of the characters.) Francis Schaeffer also discussed Woody Allen several times in his writings on modern culture. Here is a section that again mentions the nihilistic conclusions that Schaeffer says that Woody Allen has come to and Schaeffer salutes Allen for being consistent with his Godless worldview unlike many of the optimistic humanists that I have encountered.
Materialistic Humanism: The World-View of Our Era
What has produced the inhumanity we have been considering in the previous chapters is that society in the West has adopted a world-view which says that all reality is made up only of matter. This view is sometimes referred to as philosophic materialism, because it holds that only matter exists; sometimes it is called naturalism, because it says that no supernatural exists. Humanism which begins from man alone and makes man the measure of all things usually is materialistic in its philosophy. Whatever the label, this is the underlying world-view of our society today. In this view the universe did not get here because it was created by a "supernatural" God. Rather, the universe has existed forever in some form, and its present form just happened as a result of chance events way back in time.
Society in the West has largely rested on the base that God exists and that the Bible is true. In all sorts of ways this view affected the society. The materialistic or naturalistic or humanistic world-view almost always takes a superior attitude toward Christianity. Those who hold such a view have argued that Christianity is unscientific, that it cannot be proved, that it belongs simply to the realm of "faith." Christianity, they say, rests only on faith, while humanism rests on facts.
Professor Edmund R. Leach of Cambridge University expressed this view clearly:
Our idea of God is a product of history. What I now believe about the supernatural is derived from what I was taught by my parents, and what they taught me was derived from what they were taught, and so on. But such beliefs are justified by faith alone, never by reason, and the true believer is expected to go on reaffirming his faith in the same verbal formula even if the passage of history and the growth of scientific knowledge should have turned the words into plain nonsense.78
So some humanists act as if they have a great advantage over Christians. They act as if the advance of science and technology and a better understanding of history (through such concepts as the evolutionary theory) have all made the idea of God and Creation quite ridiculous.
This superior attitude, however, is strange because one of the most striking developments in the last half-century is the growth of a profound pessimism among both the well-educated and less-educated people. The thinkers in our society have been admitting for a long time that they have no final answers at all.
Take Woody Allen, for example. Most people know his as a comedian, but he has thought through where mankind stands after the "religious answers" have been abandoned. In an article in Esquire (May 1977), he says that man is left with:
… alienation, loneliness [and] emptiness verging on madness…. The fundamental thing behind all motivation and all activity is the constant struggle against annihilation and against death. It's absolutely stupefying in its terror, and it renders anyone's accomplishments meaningless. As Camus wrote, it's not only that he (the individual) dies, or that man (as a whole) dies, but that you struggle to do a work of art that will last and then you realize that the universe itself is not going to exist after a period of time. Until those issues are resolved within each person – religiously or psychologically or existentially – the social and political issues will never be resolved, except in a slapdash way.
Allen sums up his view in his film Annie Hall with these words: "Life is divided into the horrible and the miserable."
Many would like to dismiss this sort of statement as coming from one who is merely a pessimist by temperament, one who sees life without the benefit of a sense of humor. Woody Allen does not allow us that luxury. He speaks as a human being who has simply looked life in the face and has the courage to say what he sees. If there is no personal God, nothing beyond what our eyes can see and our hands can touch, then Woody Allen is right: life is both meaningless and terrifying. As the famous artist Paul Gauguin wrote on his last painting shortly before he tried to commit suicide: "Whence come we? What are we? Whither do we go?" The answers are nowhere, nothing, and nowhere.
The humanist H. J. Blackham has expressed this with a dramatic illustration:
On humanist assumptions, life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does not is a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance and ends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, one after the other they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere….It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all. The objection merely points out objectively that such a situation is a model of futility.79
One does not have to be highly educated to understand this. It follows directly from the starting point of the humanists' position, namely, that everything is just matter. That is, that which has existed forever and ever is only some form of matter or energy, and everything in our world now is this and only this in a more or less complex form. Thus, Jacob Bronowski says in The Identity of Man (1965): "Man is a part of nature, in the same sense that a stone is, or a cactus, or a camel." In this view, men and women are by chance more complex, but not unique.
Within this world-view there is no room for believing that a human being has any final distinct value above that of an animal or of nonliving matter. People are merely a different arrangement of molecules. There are two points, therefore, that need to be made about the humanist world-view. First, the superior attitude toward Christianity – as if Christianity had all the problems and humanism had all the answers – is quite unjustified. The humanists of the Enlightenment two centuries ago thought they were going to find all the answers, but as time has passed, this optimistic hope has been proved wrong. It is their own descendants, those who share their materialistic world-view, who have been saying louder and louder as the years have passed, "There are no final answers."
Second, this humanist world-view has also brought us to the present devaluation of human life – not technology and not overcrowding, although these have played a part. And this same world-view has given us no limits to prevent us from sliding into an even worse devaluation of human life in the future.
So it is naive and irresponsible to imagine that this world-view will reverse the direction in the future. A well-meaning commitment to "do what is right" will not be sufficient. Without a firm set of principles that flows out of a world-view that gives adequate reason for a unique value to all human life, there cannot be and will not be any substantial resistance to the present evil brought on by the low view of human life we have been considering in previous chapters. It was the materialistic world-view that brought in the inhumanity; it must be a different world-view that drives it out.
An emotional uneasiness about abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and the abuse of genetic knowledge is not enough. To stand against the present devaluation of human life, a significant percentage of people within our society must adopt and live by a world-view which not only hopes or intends to give a basis for human dignity but which really does. The radical movements of the sixties were right to hope for a better world; they were right to protest against the shallowness and falseness of our plastic society. But their radicalness lasted only during the life span of the adolescence of their members. Although these movements claimed to be radical, they lacked a sufficient root. Their world-view was incapable of giving life to the aspirations of its adherents. Why? Because it, too – like the society they were condemning – had no sufficient base. So protests are not enough. Having the right ideals is not enough. Even those with a very short memory, those who can look back only to the sixties, can see that there must be more than that. A truly radical alternative has to be found.
But where? And how?
God and Carpeting: The Theology of Woody Allen by David Mishkin of Jews for Jesus
This is an archived article. It originally appeared on March 1, 1993. Some information may be outdated.
A red-haired boy sits next to his mother in the psychiatrist's office. She is describing her son's problems and expressing her disappointment in him. Why is he always depressed? Why can't he be like other boys his age? The doctor turns to the boy and asks why he is depressed. In a hopeless daze the boy replies, "The universe is expanding, and if the universe is everything…and if it's expanding…someday it will break apart and that's the end of everything…what's the point?"
His mother leans over, slaps the kid and scolds: "What is that your business!"
This scene from Annie Hall typifies Woody Allen's quest for understanding! Allen touches on various topics and themes in all his cinematic works, but three subjects continually resurface: the existence of God, the fear of death and the nature of morality. These are all Jewish questions or at least theological issues. Woody Allen is a seeker who wants answers to the Ultimate Questions. His movie characters differ, yet they are all, in some way, asking these questions he wants answered. They are all "Woody Allens" wrestling with the same issues. He explains:
Maybe it's because I'm depressed so often that I'm drawn to writers like Kafka, Dostoevski and to a filmmaker like Bergman. I think I have all the symptoms and problems that their characters are occupied with: an obsession with death, an obsession with God or the lack of God, the question of why we are here. Almost all of my work is autobiographical—exaggerated but true.1
But Woody Allen does not allow himself to dwell too long on these universal problems. The mother's response to her red-haired son's angst is typical of the comedic lid the filmmaker presses over his depressing outlook to close the issue. True, Woody Allen has made his mark by asking big questions. But it is the absence of satisfactory answers to those questions that causes much of the angst—and humor—we see on the screen. Off screen we see little difference.
Allen's (authorized) biography, published in 1991, sheds some light on his life and times. Woody Allen, whose given name was Allan Konigsberg, was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. Allen describes his Jewish family and neighborhood as being from "the heart of the old world, their values are God and carpeting."2 While he did not embrace the religion of his youth, his Jewishness is ever present in his characters, plots and dialogue. Jewish thought is intrinsic to his life and work.
One can see this in the 1977 film Annie Hall, where Allen's character, Alvy, is put in contrast to his Midwestern, gentile girlfriend. In one scene he is visiting Annie's parents. Her grandmother stares at him, picturing him as a stereotypical Chasidic Jew with side locks, black hat and a long coat. The screen splits as Alvy imagines his family on the right and hers on the left. Her parents ask what his parents will be doing for "the holidays":
"We fast, to atone for our sins," his mother explains.
Annie's mother is confused. "What sins? I don't understand."
Alvy's father responds with a shrug: "To tell you the truth, neither do we."
Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the mind.3
Allen suggests that the greatest thinkers in history died knowing no more than he does now.
In Crimes and Misdemeanors Woody Allen tackles the issue of morality on a much more serious level. Wealthy ophthalmologist Judah Rosenthal has been having an extramarital affair for two years. When he attempts to end his illicit relationship, his mistress threatens to tell his wife. When backed into an impossible corner and offered an easy way out, Judah finds himself thinking the unthinkable.
Judah's moral confusion is presented against a backdrop of the religion of his youth. Though he has long since rejected the Jewish religion, he is continually confronted with memories that activate his conscience. He remembers the words of his childhood rabbi:
"The eyes of God are on us always."
Judah later speaks with another rabbi, a contemporary of his. The rabbi remarks on their contrasting worldviews:
"You see it [the world] as harsh and empty of values and pitiless. And I couldn't go on living if I didn't feel with all my heart a moral structure with real meaning and forgiveness and some kind of higher power and a reason to live. Otherwise there is no basis to know how to live."
These words are ultimately pushed aside, as Judah succumbs to the simple solution of hiring a hit-man to murder his demanding lady in waiting. After the crime, Judah experiences gut-wrenching guilt. Judah Rosenthal finds the case for morality so strong that after the murder he blurts out:
"Without God, life is a cesspool!"
His conscience pushes him to great despair as, again, he examines the situation from a past vantage point. He envisions a Passover seder from his childhood. The conversation becomes a family debate over the importance of the celebration. Some of the relatives don't believe in God and consider the ritual a foolish waste of time. The head of the extended family stoutly defends his faith, saying, "If necessary, I will always choose God over truth."
Perhaps this is why Judah rejected his religion—he could not see faith as anything other than some sort of noble delusion for those who refuse to accept life's ugly truths. As Judah continues to dwell on his crime, he has another vision in which his rabbi friend challenges him with the question: "You don't think God sees?"
"God is a luxury I can't afford," Judah replies. There is a final ring to the statement as Judah decides to put the entire incident behind him.
Judah almost turns himself in; however, the price is too high and so he chooses denial, the most common escape. "In reality," he says in the last scene, "we rationalize, we deny or else we couldn't go on living."
Another character, Professor Levy, speaks on morality in one of the film's subplots. Levy is an aging philosopher much admired by the character played by Woody Allen, a filmmaker. The filmmaker is planning a documentary based on Levy's life, and we first see the professor on videotape, discussing the paradox of the ancient Israelites:
"They created a God who cares but who also demands that you behave morally. This God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, who is beloved to him.…After 5,000 years we have not succeeded to create a really and entirely loving image of God."
Levy eventually commits suicide. Despite his great learning, his final note discloses nothing more than the obvious: "I've gone out the window."
Professor Levy's suicide leaves Allen's character stunned. Still, his humor ameliorates the situation as the filmmaker protests,
"When I grew up in Brooklyn, nobody committed suicide; everyone was too unhappy."
The final comment on Levy's suicide is a surprising departure from Allen's security blanket of humor:
"No matter how elaborate a philosophical system you work out, in the end it's gotta be incomplete."
Remember, all of the dialogue is written by Woody Allen. Though his own character supplies comic relief to this dark film, his conclusions are just as bleak. Everyone is guilty of something whether it's considered a crime or a misdemeanor.
Yet, Allen's theological questions rarely address the nature of that guilt. The word "sin" is reserved for the grossest offenses—the ones that make the evening news—or would, if they were discovered. Judah Rosenthal's crime is easily recognizable as sin, while various other infidelities and compromises are mere misdemeanors.
Sin against God is not something Allen appears to take seriously in any of his films. When evangelist Billy Graham was a guest on one of Allen's 1960s television specials, the comedian was asked (not by Graham) to name his greatest sin. He responded:
"I once had impure thoughts about Art Linkletter."24
However, when he distances himself from the personal nature of sin and looks to crimes or sins against humanity, Allen speaks with a passion.
In Hannah and Her Sisters the viewer is introduced to the character of Frederick, an angry, isolated artist who is disgusted with the conditions of the world. Of Auschwitz, Frederick remarks to his girlfriend:
"The real question is: 'Given what people are, why doesn't it happen more often?' Of course, it does, in subtler forms.…"
In Allen's theology, all have fallen short to a greater or lesser degree, but ironically, his view of human imperfection never appears in the same discussion as his thoughts about God.
He does admit to being disconnected with the universe:
"I am two with nature."25
But he doesn't mention a connection with a personal God because he doesn't see a correlation between human failures and the question of connectedness to God.
While Allen is a unique thinker, he seems to be pedestrian when it comes to wrestling with problems of immorality and even inhumanity. While he calls the existence of God into question, he does not deal with our responsibility in acknowledging God if he does exist.
It is simple to analyze sin on a human level. The more people get hurt, the bigger the sin. But the biblical perspective is quite different: Any and all sin causes separation from God. One cannot view such a cosmic separation as large or small based on degrees of sin. Ironically, one of Allen's short stories underscores the foolishness of comparison degrees of sin:
"Astronomers talk of an inhabited planet named Quelm, so distant from earth that a man traveling at the speed of light would take six million years to get there, although they are planning a new express route that will cut two hours off the trip."26
The biblical perspective of separation from God is similar. Having "better morals" than the drug pusher, the rapist or the ax murderer makes a big difference—in our society. We should all strive to be the best people we can be, if only to improve the overall quality of life. But in terms of a relationship with God, doing the best one can is like being two hours closer to Quelm. God is so removed from any unrighteousness that the difference between "a little unrighteous" and a lot is irrelevant.
The question his films and essays never ask is: Could being alienated from God be the root cause of our alienation from one another…and even our alienation from our own selves?
"It's hard to get your heart and your head to agree in life. In my case they're not even friendly."27
Woody Allen has a unique way of expressing the uneasy terms on which many people find their heads and their hearts. Perhaps that is why he has received 14 Academy Award nominations. Allen will shoot a scene as many as twenty times, hoping to capture the actors and scenery perfectly. His biographer says "he doesn't like to go to the next thing until what he's working on is perfect—a process that guarantees self-defeat."28
Is filmmaking Woody Allen's escape from the world at large? His biographer notes, "He assigns himself mental tasks throughout the day with the intent that not a moment will pass without his mind being occupied and therefore insulated from the dilemma of eschatology."29
It is a continual process—writing takes his mind off of the ultimate questions, yet the characters he creates are always obsessed with those very same questions. Allen determines their fate, occasionally handing out a happy ending. And he seems painfully aware that he will have little to say about the ending of his own script.
There is much to be appreciated and enjoyed in Woody Allen's humor, but it also seems as if he uses jokes to avoid taking the possibility of God's existence very seriously. Maybe Woody Allen is afraid to find that God doesn't exist, or on the other hand maybe he's afraid to find that he does. In either case, he seems to need to add a comic edge to questions about God to prove that he is not wholehearted in his hope for answers.
Will Woody Allen tackle the problem of his own halfhearted search for God in a serious way in some future film or essay? Maybe, but if the Bible can be believed, it's an issue that God has already dealt with. The prophet Jeremiah quotes the Creator as saying: "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." (Jer. 29:13).
Eric Lax, Woody Allen, (New York: Knopf Publishing, 1991), p. 179.
Ibid., p. 166.
Manhattan, 1979.
Lax, p. 141.
Stardust Memories, 1980.
Sleeper, 1973.
Hannah and Her Sisters, 1986.
Woody Allen, "My Speech to the Graduates," Side Effects, (New York: Random House Publ., 1980), p. 82.
Sleeper.
Woody Allen, "Death (A Play)," Without Feathers, (New York: Random House Publ., 1975), p. 106.
Woody Allen, "My Philosophy," Getting Even, (New York: Warner Books, 1971), p. 25.
Allen, "Early Essays," Without Feathers, p. 108.
Allen, "Selections From the Allen Notebook," Without Feathers, p. 10.
Allen, "My Apology," Side Effects, p. 54.
Stardust Memories.
Allen, "My Speech to the Graduates," Side Effects, p. 82.
Allen, "Selections From the Allen Notebook," Without Feathers, p. 8.
Allen, "Examining Psychic Phenomena," Without Feathers, p. 11.
Lax, p. 41.
Love and Death, 1975.
Ibid., p. 39.
Allen, "Fabulous Tales and Mythical Beasts," Without Feathers, p. 194.
Crimes and Misdemeanors, 1989.
Artists of the Day: Elena and Olivia Ceballos
By Chris McDonnell | 01/03/2014 10:41 pm | 22
Elena and Olivia Ceballos are 19-year-old twin sisters from Georgia who work as visual development artists at Big Ideas Entertainment on the Veggie Talesfranchise. Their development as artists is as intertwined as the name they use online—Elioli—which is the first three letters of each of their names combined. The sisters work individually and together on projects; perhaps they have carried their collaborative habits into their professional work since they both are employed by the same company.
The sisters are notably prolific, even considering their advantage of being two people. Their constant output gives the impression that they are dedicated to self-improvement and studying the techniques of their art form.
You can see more work from Elena and Olivia on their Tumblr and EliOliArt.com, where you can travel back in time and see work such as the drawing below by then-16-year-old Olivia, already showing burgeoning skills beyond her years:
PARTNER MESSAGE
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/wp-content/themes/cb/ads/ad-970×450.php
Read More:Elena Ceballos Elioli Olivia Ceballos
More in Artist of the Day
GO TO ARTIST OF THE DAY »
Artist of the Day: Jose Mendez
Artist of the Day: Emory Allen
Artist of the Day: Amanda Baeza
Artist of the Day: Andy Gottschalk
Artist of the Day: Karo Akpokiere
Artist of the Day: Kevin Hong
Chris McDonnell More Articles
Chris McDonnell is the editor of Cartoon Brew's Artist of the Day feature. A founding member of the Meathaus comics/art collective, he has created animation for shows such as Yo Gabba Gabba and Tim and Eric Awesome Show Great Job! His books includeSasquatch's Big Hairy Drawing Book and Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
John MacArthur on fulfilled prophecy from the Bible Part 2
I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too. I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry King's Show. One of two most popular posts I […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Tagged Bible Prophecy, john macarthur | Edit | Comments (0)
John MacArthur: Fulfilled prophecy in the Bible? (Ezekiel 26-28 and the story of Tyre, video clips)
Prophecy–The Biblical Prophesy About Tyre.mp4 Uploaded by TruthIsLife7 on Dec 5, 2010 A short summary of the prophecy about Tyre and it's precise fulfillment. Go to this link and watch the whole series for the amazing fulfillment from secular sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt4mDZUefo ________________ John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology | Edit | Comments (1)
John MacArthur on the Bible and Science (Part 2)
John MacArthur on the Bible and Science (Part 2) I have posted many of the sermons by John MacArthur. He is a great bible teacher and this sermon below is another great message. His series on the Book of Proverbs was outstanding too. I also have posted several of the visits MacArthur made to Larry […]
Adrian Rogers: "Why I believe the Bible is true"
Adrian Rogers – How you can be certain the Bible is the word of God Great article by Adrian Rogers. What evidence is there that the Bible is in fact God's Word? I want to give you five reasons to affirm the Bible is the Word of God. First, I believe the Bible is the […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Biblical Archaeology | Edit | Comments (0)
The Old Testament is Filled with Fulfilled Prophecy by Jim Wallace
Is there any evidence the Bible is true? Articles By PleaseConvinceMe Apologetics Radio The Old Testament is Filled with Fulfilled Prophecy Jim Wallace A Simple Litmus Test There are many ways to verify the reliability of scripture from both internal evidences of transmission and agreement, to external confirmation through archeology and science. But perhaps the […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Biblical Archaeology, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Evidence for the Bible
Here is some very convincing evidence that points to the view that the Bible is historically accurate. Archaeological and External Evidence for the Bible Archeology consistently confirms the Bible! Archaeology and the Old Testament Ebla tablets—discovered in 1970s in Northern Syria. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Atheists Confronted, Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)
WOODY WEDNESDAY "Cafe Society" Video Movie Review
RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO'S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 92 Colin Blakemore, neurobiologist, University of London, "I believe that I am the sum total of all the causal influences on me at the moment"
Colin Blakemore
Sir Colin Blakemore
FRS FMedSci
Blakemore photographed in London in 2012
1 June 1944 (age 70)
Stratford-upon-Avon,Warwickshire, England
Neurobiology, Ophthalmology
Duke University and National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School
School of Advanced Study,University of London
Corpus Christi College,University of Cambridge
Robert Bing Prize (Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences), Prix du Docteur Robert Netter (Académie Nationale de Médecine, France), Cairns Memorial Medal, Michael Faraday Prize (Royal Society), Osler Medal (University of Oxford), Ellison-Cliffe Medal, Alcon Research Institute Award, Charter Award (Society of Biology, Baly Gold Medal (Royal College of Physicians), Edinburgh Medal, Science Educator Award (Society for Neuroscience), Harveian Oration(Royal College of Physicians),Ferrier Award (Royal Society),Friendship Award (People's Republic of China), Ralph W. Gerard Award (Society for Neuroscience)
Sir Colin Brian Blakemore, FRS, FMedSci (born 1 June 1944[1]), is a British neurobiologist, specialising in vision and the development of the brain, who is Professor of Neuroscience and Philosophy in theSchool of Advanced Study, University of London and Emeritus Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Oxford. He was formerly Chief Executive of the British Medical Research Council (MRC).[2][3][4] He is best known to the public as a communicator of science but also as the target of a long-running animal rights campaign. According to The Observer, he has been both "one of the most powerful scientists in theUK" and "a hate figure for the animal rights movement".[5]
British neuroscientists
Harkness Fellows
British humanists
People from Stratford-upon-Avon
Alumni of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
Academics of the University of Warwick
People educated at King Henry VIII School, Coventry
Statutory Professors of the University of Oxford
Fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford
Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
Presidents of the British Science Association
Knights Bachelor
In the first video below in the 5th clip in this series are his words and my response is below them.
Below is my response to Dr. Blakemore's quote:
Professor Colin Blakemore, Institute of Philosophy, University of London,
Dear Professor Blakemore,
In the You Tube video "A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)," you asserted::
"I believe that I am the sum total of all the causal influences on me at the moment and that is not a trivial issue. If it [weren't] true we would have to abandon everything that we believe about the causal universe, about one event causing another, by all events having antecedent causes. And say that human beings are set aside from the rest of the physical world and yet we know we're made up of the bits and stuff that the rest of the world is made up of. All the molecules in you were once upon a time were in a star somewhere and they've ended up in you by chance. So why not believe that we could also give an account of how those molecules working inside them produce their actions and produce this curious impression that we have of the sense of self and choice as if there's this kind of helmsmen inside there really deciding absolutely what they're going to do irrespective of what the world tells them."
You are a humanist and a proponent of determinism. First, does your view of secular humanism and science have a way to come up with optimism and values while embracing the materialistic naturalistic view? Second, you are a defender of DETERMINISM in your statement above.
Let me start with your views on humanism. I know that you are active in the BRITISH HUMANIST ASSOCIATION. H. J. Blackham was the founder of the BRITISH HUMANIST ASSOCIATION and he asserted:
"On humanist assumptions, life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does not is a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance and ends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, one after the other they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere….It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all. The objection merely points out objectively that such a situation is a model of futility"( H. J. Blackham, et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).
On John Ankerberg's show in 1986 there was a debate between Dr. Paul Kurtz, and Dr. Norman Geisler and when part of the above quote was read, Dr. Kurtz responded:
I think you may be quoting Blackham out of context because I've heard Blackham speak, and read much of what he said, but Blackham has argued continuously that life is full of meaning;
Harold J. Blackham (1903-2009)
Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984)
With that in mind I wanted to ask you what does the BRITISH HUMANIST ASSOCIATION have to offer in the area of meaning and values? Francis Schaeffer two months before he died said if he was talking to a gentleman he was sitting next to on an airplane about Christ he wouldn't start off quoting Bible verses. Schaeffer asserted:
I would go back rather to their dilemma if they hold the modern worldview of the final reality only being energy, etc., I would start with that. I would begin as I stress in the book THE GOD WHO IS THERE about their own [humanist] prophets who really show where their view goes. For instance, Jacques Monod, Nobel Prize winner from France, in his book NECESSITY AND CHANCE said there is no way to tell the OUGHT from the IS. In other words, you live in a totally silent universe.
The men like Monod and Sartre or whoever the man might know that is his [humanist] prophet and they point out quite properly and conclusively what life is like, not just that there is no meaningfulness in life but everyone according to modern man is just living out some kind of game plan. It may be knocking 1/10th of a second off a downhill ski run or making one more million dollars. But all you are doing is making a game plan within the mix of a meaningless situation. WOODY ALLEN exploits this very strongly in his films. He really lives it. I feel for that man, and he has expressed it so thoroughly in ANNIE HALL and MANHATTAN and so on.
According to the Humanist worldview Jacques Monod the universe is silent about values and therefore his good friend Woody Allendemonstrated this very fact so well in his 1989 movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. In other words, if we can't get our values from the Bible then the answer is MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!!!!
I CHALLENGE YOU TO TAKE 90 MINUTES AND WATCH THE MOVIE "CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS" AND THEN ANSWER THE QUESTION: "What reason is there that Judah should not have his mistress eliminated if there is no God and afterlife of judgment and rewards?"
King Solomon closed the Book of Ecclesiastes (Richard Dawkins' favorite Book of the Bible) with these words, "The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with[d] every secret thing, whether good or evil." With that in mind I have enclosed a short booklet called THIS WAS YOUR LIFE!
Now to the second point concerning DETERMINISM. I just finished reading the online addition of the book Darwin, Francis ed. 1892. Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters [abridged edition]. London: John Murray. There are several points that Charles Darwin makes in this book that were very wise, honest, logical, shocking and some that were not so wise. The Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer once said of Darwin's writings, "Darwin in his autobiography and in his letters showed that all through his life he never really came to a quietness concerning the possibility that chance really explained the situation of the biological world. You will find there is much material on this [from Darwin] extended over many many years that constantly he was wrestling with this problem."
This quote at the beginning of this letter from you made me think of you when I read the book Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters because of what Darwin said the phrase MAN MUST DO HIS DUTY. I am going to quote some of Charles Darwin's own words and then include the comments of Francis Schaeffer on those words. I have also enclosed a CD with two messages from Adrian Rogers and Bill Elliff concerning Darwinism.
I am sure you will excuse my writing at length, when I tell you that I have long been much out of health, and am now staying away from my home for rest.It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide…….Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect;but man can do his duty."
What he is saying is that at this point I have no answer. You find Darwin already in a modern hell. On his own position ruling out an answer but yet not being able to live without an answer. What he (Darwin) is saying is that at this point I have no answer, but the interesting thing is he puts a semicolon after that and then says, "but man can do his duty." Darwin understands, he is a brilliant man, what he has said undercuts all duty and all morals. So he adds as a faith sentence, "but man can do his duty." It doesn't fit really, but he adds it because he sees that he must say this because otherwise what happens to man? You can switch on further down the road and Darwin would be appalled to see where his own position has been taken, through Freud and Deterministic psychology. Modern Man has a dilemma because the word "duty" doesn't have a meaning anymore. (Determinism: The doctrine that human action is not free, but results from such causes as psychological and chemical makeup which render free-will an illusion.)
You will remember the thing I have quoted to you about Richard Speck and the psychologists who would stand in the evolutionary stream of Freud. Let me read to you from Newsweek September 25, 1967, a review of the book by Marvin Ziporyn BORN TO RAISE HELL interestingly enough printed by Groth Press, which is this psychologist's analysis of Richard Speck in Chicago who killed these nurses in Chicago. It runs like this:
Ziporyn who lost his post at Chicago for publishing his work with Speck, diagnosed his patient as a man unable to control himself as a result of his own medical and emotional past. You weren't any more responsible for what you did than a man is responsible for sneezing. he said to Speck at one point. That is Zoporyn's biggest problem which is convincing Speck there is no difference in a sneeze and eight murders. Ziporyn admits he is a strict determinist and he is an adherent to Freud's dictum that biology is destiny. He advocates rehabilitation. Determinists strive to change or regulate conditions rather than men but to avoid such tragedies as Richard Speck the scope of change it requires staggers the imagination.
The bigger dilemma is that man disappears. Who is hurt? The eight nurses are hurt, including their pain, terror and their sexual violation and it becomes nothing, zero in this type of analysis. Society has a terrible problem because there is no right and wrong in society, and that will deal with Darwin's words "but man can do his duty" because those who take Darwin's theory and extend it have eradicated the possibility of the word "duty." …Darwin I think senses this but he doesn't know how to handle it.
In Chapter 7, "THE MAN WITHOUT THE BIBLE," of the book DEATH IN THE CITY, Schaeffer writes concerning Richard Speck and "Determinism":
This view raises three serious questions. First of all, what about the nurses who were killed, some of them in a very violent fashion? These must then be written off. With this kind of explanation they become zero. Second, what about society? Society and the problems of ordering it also are written off. In such a situation, order in society is merely like a big machine dealing on a machine level with little machines. Third, what about Speck himself? The psychologist's explanation does the most harm to him, for as a man he disappears. He simply becomes a flow of consciousness. He, too, becomes a zero.
In our generation there is a constant tendency to explain sin lightly and think that such an explanation is more humanitarian. But it is not. It decreases the importance and significance of man. Consequently, we can be glad for the sake of man that the Bible's explanation is so emphatic.
Paul repeats it in verse 25: "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature [that which has been created] rather than the Creator." This is the second of the three repetitions.
Paul was thinking of the gods of silver and stone and also the worship of the universe or any part of it. He says men have made such gods rather than worshipping the living God. Even on the basis of what they know themselves to be, they should have known better. Isaiah said 700 years before, 'Aren't you silly to make gods that are less than yourself. You must carry them; they don't carry you. Now isn't it silly to make an integration point that is less than you yourself are.' Paul used precisely the same argument on Mars Hill. Men who refuse to bow before God take the facts concerning the universe and man, push these facts through their own presuppositional grid, fail to carry their thinking to a reasonable conclusion, and so are faced with an overwhelming lie. Idols of stone are obvious lies because they are less than man, but so are non-Christian presuppositions such as the idea of the total uniformity of natural cause and effect in a closed system, the final explanation of the impersonal plus time plus chance, which ultimately makes man only a machine.
Below is the larger biblical passage of scripture that Schaeffer was referring to in Chapter 7, "THE MAN WITHOUT THE BIBLE," of the book DEATH IN THE CITY:
Romans 1:18-32New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 becausethat which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Why is determinism dangerous? Francis Schaeffer in his book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? tells why it is dangerous:
Modern determinists have not presented only abstract theories. Rather, there have been two practical results. First, and most important, as their ideas about what people are have been increasingly accepted, people consciously or unconsciously have opened themselves to being treated as machines and treating other people as machines. Second, each theory of determinism has carried with it a method of manipulation. So even though many — even most — people may reject the concept that man is totally a product of psychological, sociological, or chemical conditioning, manipulation by these methods is still very much a live possibility. In fact, these techniques are all at the disposal of of authoritation states, and they are in some degree already being used.
Paul Chopan has rightly noted:
Naturalism takes for granted the following tenets:
Nature is all there is.
All reality is comprised of or rooted in matter.
There is no supernatural—no Creator, no miracles, no souls,
no angels, no life after death.
Science becomes the only (or best) means of knowledge.
What is the answer to the problem of DETERMINISM? It is found in the Biblical view that the Bible is true and there was a place named THE GARDEN OF EDEN and the fact that God did create this world and it was not created by impersonal chance plus time.
Francis A. Schaeffer on Human Free Will, THE GOD WHO IS THERE, (DOWNERS GROVE, IL: INTERVARSITY PRESS, 1968), P 131.
The historic Christian position is that man's dilemma has a moral cause. God, being nondetermined, created man as a nondetermined person. This is a difficult idea for anyone thinking in twentieth-century terms because most twentieth-century thinking sees man as determined. He is determined either by chemical factors, as the Marquis de Sade held and Francis Crick is trying to prove, or by psychological factors, as Freud and others have suggested, or by sociological factors, such as B.F. Skinner holds. In these cases, or as a result of a fusion of them, man is considered to be programmed. If this is the case, then man is not the tremendous thing the Bible says he is, made in the image of God as a personality who can make a free first choice. Because God created a true universe outside of himself (or as an extension of his essence), there is a true history which exists, man as created in God's image is therefore a significant man in a significant history, who can choose to obey the commandments of God and love him, or revolt against him.
THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS DID MAN HAVE A CHOICE AND IS MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS CHOICES?
REMEMBER THAT GREAT PASSAGE FROM ROMANS CHAPTER ONE THAT I QUOTED EARLIER IN THIS LETTER AND DARWIN'S WORDS IN THE APRIL 2, 1873 LETTER TO Doedes, N. D.?
Darwin noted, "It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide……"
Franicis Schaeffer observed:
So he sees here exactly the same that I would labor and what Paul gives in Romans chapter one, and that is first this tremendous universe [and it's form] and the second thing, the mannishness of man and the concept of this arising from chance is very difficult for him to come to accept… You will notice that he divides it into the same exact two points that Paul does in Romans chapter one into and that Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) will in the problem of existence, the external universe, and man and his consciousness. Paul points out there are these two steps that man is confronted with, what I would call two things in the real world. The universe and it's form and I usually quote Jean Paul Sartre here, and Sartre says the basic philosophic problem is that something is there rather than nothing is there and I then I add at the point the very thing that Darwin feels and that is it isn't a bare universe that is out there, it is an universe in a specific form. I always bring in Einstein and the uniformity of the form of the universe and that it is constructed as a well formulated word puzzle or you have Carl Gustav Jung who says two things cut across a man's will that he can not truly be autonomous, the external world and what Carl Gustav Jung would call his "collected unconsciousness." It is the thing that churns up out of man, the mannishness of man. Darwin understood way back here this is a real problem. So he says "the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe," part one, the real world, the external universe, and part two "with our conscious selves arose through chance" and then he goes on and says this is not "an argument of real value."
Now Darwin says when I look back and when I look at nature I came to the conclusion that man can not be just a fly! But now Darwin has moved from being a younger man to an older man and he has allowed his presuppositions to enter in to block his logic. These things at the end of his life he had no intellectual answer for. To block them out in favor of his theory. Remember the letter of his that said he had lost all aesthetic senses when he had got older and he had become a clod himself. Now interesting he says just the same thing, but not in relation to the arts, namely music, pictures, etc, but to nature itself. Darwin said, "But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind…" So now you see that Darwin's presuppositions have not only robbed him of the beauty of man's creation in art, but now the universe. He can't look at it now and see the beauty. The reason he can't see the beauty is for a very, very , very simple reason: THE BEAUTY DRIVES HIM TO DISTRACTION. THIS IS WHERE MODERN MAN IS AND IT IS HELL. The art is hell because it reminds him of man and how great man is, and where does it fit in his system? It doesn't. When he looks at nature and it's beauty he is driven to the same distraction and so consequently you find what has built up inside him is a real death, not only the beauty of the artistic but the beauty of nature. He has no answer in his logic and he is left in tension. He dies and has become less than human because these two great things (such as any kind of art and the beauty of nature) that would make him human stand against his theory.
Can you still look at God's beautiful creation and say that it just appears to be the work of an intellect? If so then you like Darwin can say, "I am like a man who has become colour-blind."
IF WE ARE LEFT WITH JUST THE MACHINE THEN WHAT IS THE FINAL CONCLUSION IF THERE WAS NO PERSONAL GOD THAT CREATED US? I sent you a CD that starts off with the song DUST IN THE WIND by Kerry Livgren of the group KANSAS which was a hit song in 1978 when it rose to #6 on the charts because so many people connected with the message of the song. It included these words, "All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don't hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won't another minute buy."
Jacques Monod (1910-1976), Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1965)
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS was written and directed by Woody Allen
Judah has his mistress eliminated through his brother's underworld connections
Colin Blakemore pictured below:
Charles Darwin pictured below:
Richard Speck
Ladies Richard Speck murdered below:
Kerry Livgren, author of the song DUST IN THE WIND seen below:
The group KANSAS BELOW:
"Truth Tuesday" Liberals at Ark Times can not stand up to Scott Klusendorf's pro-life arguments (Part 2) Prochoice bloggers are basically saying "If you are not a woman then shut up about abortion"
The people using the usernames DeathByInches, Venessa and Jennifer Coates Johnson all basically said on 2-8-13 "If you are not a woman then shut up about abortion." Here is the exact quote from "DeathByInches": "Saline! You're points are always about 20 degrees off center. Do you really think it's a smart idea to print out the ramblings of a MAN'S thoughts and opinion on abortion….which happens 100% of the time to WOMEN, not MEN?"
Men are told, "You can't get pregnant, so leave the abortion issue to women." Besides its obvious sexism, the statement is seriously flawed for several reasons. First, arguments do not have genders, people do.30 Since many pro-life women use the same arguments offered by pro-life men, it behooves the abortion advocate to answer these arguments without fallaciously attacking a person's gender.
Second, to be consistent with their own reasoning, abortion advocates would have to concede that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case legalizing abortion, was bad law. After all, nine men decided it. They must also call for the dismissal of all male lawyers working for Planned Parenthood and the ACLU on abortion related issues. Since abortion advocates are unwilling to do this, we can restate their argument as follows: "No man can speak on abortion—unless he agrees with us." Once again, this is a classic case of intolerance.
Third, lesbians and post-menopausal women cannot naturally get pregnant; must they be silent on the issue? Think of the bizarre rules we could derive from this argument: "Since only generals understand battle, only they should discuss the morality of war." Or, "Because female sportscasters have never experienced a groin injury, they have no right to broadcast football games on national television."
Again, abortion advocates must offer arguments to support their position. Attacking people personally, even if those attacks are true, will not make their case or refute ours.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, President Obama, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
"Sanctity of Life Saturday" Abortion supporters lying in order to further their clause? Window to the Womb (includes video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)
It is truly sad to me that liberals will lie in order to attack good Christian people like state senator Jason Rapert of Conway, Arkansas because he headed a group of pro-life senators that got a pro-life bill through the Arkansas State Senate the last week of January in 2013. I have gone back and […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Max Brantley, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)
By Everette