I need to take a few deep breaths after that last sprint because that was just a warm-up. I'm not sure how we're going to get through all of this but I'll repeat what I mentioned last time. There's Eli. You have the material in your printed notes and whatever is in the printed notes Well, it's almost all from the book, just notes that I've taken from the book, plus a few of my own comments that I've added to it. And everything that's in the printed notes, plus the first hour lecture, plus the reading material for this week, is fair game for the quiz. So, we're ready to dive into the God who is there. First two sections, first ten chapters. Some of these I think we can say will be a little more important to us than others, but he is trying to cover a lot of ground here. So let's start with the idea that he says in the title of chapter one that the gulf is fixed, that we're seeing a changing concept of truth from objective truth to subjectivity. And he refers frequently to what he calls the methodology, which is the manner of how we approach truth and knowing. I think we'd probably call that epistemology, but that's the general idea. How do we know what we know? He mentions that people are affected by the drift without even realizing it. I think that's what we would call the frog in the pot syndrome. that the environment has changed and it may become very dangerous, but we might not have realized the changes taking place. He says it this way. So this change in the concept of the way we come to knowledge and truth is the most crucial problem, as I understand it, facing Christianity today. And so here's where he puts the lines of demarcation. It happened a little earlier in Europe than it did in America. He says we crossed the line of despair in Europe in 1890 and in America in 1935. Now it's interesting as we think about the life of Schaeffer. Where did he spend half of his life? The second half of his life. The second half? Yeah. In Europe. Yeah, Europe and Switzerland. It's been speculated or suggested that maybe one of the reasons why in some sense he seems somewhat prophetic to us here in America is that he was already seeing, he was a few decades ahead you might say, in terms of seeing the effect of the humanistic worldview in Europe. So maybe that's part of what explains his ability to see where it's going here. So, He says, in America, the crucial years of change were from 1913 to 1940. And during these relatively few years, the whole way of thinking underwent a revolution. It's a remarkable thing to realize. Now, if you read through the chapters, you had to go down quite a few chapters to get to the point where he explains why he says 1913. Not to spoil it for you, but I've gone ahead and included it here in this section. The 1913 was the Armory Show in New York when modern art was first brought to America. I won't break in too much, but I went ahead and looked up the 1913 Armory Show and I saw some of the art that was there. Partly because I'm 110 years down the road. Some of it didn't shock me, but there were a few that certainly stood out. I know what Schaefer means there. And the background article too, where I found the 1913 show, did talk about how revolutionary it was to art at that time. It was really something. And besides the shock, there was probably a sense of, I want to say excitement, maybe falsely placed. But again, remember the context is that things are new. We're seeing progress and we have this expectation of progress. The newness of things probably was very attractive at that time even though in some ways it may have been kind of shocking. Were any of Duchamp's works shown at that expo? I think the nude Descending the Stairs was in there. I might be wrong. I'm curious enough to go find out who he's talking about when he has it in the book. I'd have to double check on that. Well, the one that Duchamp had about, like, I don't know the exact title, but it was like the virgin on her wedding night losing her virginity, in essence. Maybe I'm giving a little bit too much. But the whole thing was designed just to get people thinking, what is that like? And looking at it, there's nothing to do with that in the work. It's psychotic. That's what Schaefer said, that it was a trap, in a way. Here, look at this. But it's not really, but you're identifying your proclivity by going to look. Right. Well, what he's going to end up saying about modern art more generally, and this crossing the line into despair, is the loss of communication. So, you know, going back to some of what we mentioned last week about form and freedom, if you want to communicate something through language or through art or through music, part of the way that you communicate it is through the form. If you're literally just throwing paint on a canvas, then there's not enough form there to communicate much of anything. So we're seeing this very, what turns out to be a very sudden change in all aspects of the culture. And this is how it's showing up in art. He says, the essential presupposition of objective truth is what changed during this time, both in the area of being and the area of morality. And he says very simply that absolutes imply antithesis. So again and again, he's coming back to the importance, the necessity of antithesis. He says this, the floodwaters of secular thought and liberal theology overwhelmed the church because the leaders did not understand the importance of combating a false set of presuppositions. They did not understand what was happening at the time and consequently did not know how to respond to it. And again, we overlay this with his upbringing in the Northern Presbyterian Church. And what is he hearing when he goes to church as a teenager? Social gospel, not the preaching of the Bible, not an assumption that the Bible is true, but some kind of, I guess you could call it an early form of therapy that was coming from the pulpits. He makes the argument that after crossing the line of despair that classical apologetics is no longer an effective method because you can no longer assume that the person that you're arguing with understands that there's something called objective truth. He says, historic Christianity stands on the basis of antithesis. Without it, historic Christianity is meaningless. The basic antithesis is that God objectively exists in contrast, in antithesis, to his not existing. And that kind of makes sense. And where does scripture establish that antithesis? How far do we have to read before we find that antithesis? That's almost like your humanistic trap. I like trap questions, and this one doesn't count against you if you get it wrong, so take advantage of it. Well, I go back to where I flubbed up last week, where I told you humanism started with the line of despair when it really started with Eve. Yeah. Well, let's start reading Scripture. I think I can remember the first little part of it. In the beginning, God... created the heavens and the earth. So in the first verse of the first book of the Bible, we have the thesis that there is a God and that he created and that he is distinct from his creation. With the first verse of scripture, we can destroy any idea of pantheism. God is not the universe. The universe is not God. It is distinct from God. It is a creation of God. And he is the God who is theirs, Schaefer would say. So this is an interesting statement that he refers to, that even at this time when we're going through this transition, crossing the line of despair, he says, above the line, we have a romantic notion of absolutes, and below the line, we have relativism. And here by romantic, what Schaeffer is saying is that even at this point, before we crossed the line, when we still affirmed absolutes, we didn't have a good reason for it. In other words, we could say that it was probably inevitable that we would cross the line of despair because even though we had a belief in absolutes, we had already lost the basis for it. So I don't think he says this anywhere, but it seems to me if we connect the dots that he's really saying that before we crossed the line of despair, we were already operating in some kind of mysticism. So here's how he argues that the shift has progressed, that it starts in philosophy, it proceeds to art, and here he means the visual arts, and then to music, and then to the general culture, which would include literature, and then lastly to theology. And then he also describes three directions in the shift geographically, meaning spreading from one place to another, and then vertically down through society from the upper ranks, the intelligentsia, down through the ranks of society. and then progressively through the various disciplines. I mentioned to Leland when we talked before class started about a writer named Theodore Dalrymple, that's actually his pen name. His writing is interesting to read because he describes, as a physician, working with those who are prisoners, primarily, those who you might say are kind of at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, how they are suffering from the effects of the belief system that trickled down to them from the upper crust of society, that they're the ones who are suffering from it. even though that was not their worldview. Since you said bottom, did you read Life at the Bottom? Yeah, Life at the Bottom is one of the books I'm referring to. Another one is Our Culture, What's Left of It. I've read both of those. I haven't gotten any others. So he's not a Christian, but he's a very good observer as a physician of what we would call the depravity of mankind. and especially what we might call the flight from personal responsibility, that the people who are suffering the worst don't seem to know how to take any responsibility for the choices that they're making. Yeah, if you live in the world of academia, you don't have to live with the consequences of your stupid ideas. Somebody else is going to end up suffering for it while you live in a nice house and drive a nice car. So, anything else? So the academia, you disseminate this, this trickles down from music to general culture, where do we put Where do we put science, academia, like that? Where do we put that on the scale, like science? That's a good question. I'm not sure. What do you think? I don't know. Maybe general culture? It kind of filters through the educational system, through the science and research, technology. I don't know. It's hard to really put music above science and art above science, you know? And I always have seen philosophy kind of at odds with science on many points. So let's ask the general question, do a little deconstruction here. We're talking about crossing the line of despair from objective truth to subjective truth. What part of science operates on subjective truth? In other words, what part of science would we say has crossed the line into relativism? That materialistic, closed system, impersonal type of science that he talks about. Here's my thought on this. First of all, if we talk about the hard sciences, there still has to be some objectivity in the hard sciences, otherwise we can't do science. We can't say 2 plus 2 equals whatever we want it to. It's always going to equal 4, or else the building falls down, the bridge falls down, and so forth. So there has to be some objectivity, but the presuppositions that that science operates on, naturalistic science, or what he calls modern, modern science, having rejected anything supernatural, it's still trying to operate on the basis of objective reality, even though it doesn't really have a basis for doing that. So I mean like physics and chemistry, you have to have objectivity there, but when you get into something like paleontology, then you start Even geology. Yeah, so we would call those hard sciences. And yet, it's the case, as you're pointing out, that how we interpret the facts, what he would call the brute facts, is going to depend on the worldview that we bring to it. Now we can go really fishy if we want to go off into the soft sciences like social sciences. Before class this afternoon, I was reading out of a book that talks about the history of eugenics in America. And Margaret Sanger liked to appeal to the scientists who are doing eugenic research as if this is some really hard concrete science, but it's not. That's a fallacy to try to apply that same kind of standard to it. It's not quite the same as physics. So I think when you get off into the social sciences you're probably going to see a lot more influence of this subjective kind of belief because now what you believe a priori is going to have a great deal to do with what kind of questions you ask and what kind of answers you get and how you interpret those and how you use them. So... That sounds like... Well, I did actually take a look at the guy who was there while we were chatting. But because of what you just said, that places it all the way back in philosophy. Epistemology, how we know what we know. Objective, it gets into objectivity. So it goes all the way back. Yeah, I'm thinking it would be pretty high upstream as far as that goes necessarily. Philosophy or your outlook on even doing science. He made the point in one of his later books, it was maybe even in here too, he says several times over the course of that On the basis of the philosophy of modern man, we could not have science. Correct. They're building on that previous foundation prior to the Renaissance. It's borrowed capital. Yeah. I think Van Til would put it that way. Yeah. That you're having to borrow the capital of Christianity to be able to do science. Yeah. Yeah. That's a good question. Thanks for asking that question because I don't think he really particularly addresses that anywhere. even though he doesn't. So it's a half a step down from philosophy or a half a step above it, one of the two? Yeah, somewhere back in there somewhere, pretty far up the chain is probably where I'd put it. And I won't ask you that, by the way. Schaeffer puts it this way with regard to theology coming last. He says, what the new theology is now saying has already been previously said in each of the other disciplines. So he puts theology at the end of the train. We have to think of relativism as a new language. And this is, again, a recurring theme, that you have the use of the same words in conversation or in discourse, but we have to realize that once we have crossed the line of despair, the words mean something entirely different. And in fact, the words can mean just about anything. We could argue that communication essentially becomes impossible below the line because how can you argue if there's no objectivity that words have objective meaning? We're all just speaking gibberish. So it really is a very intractable problem. I think we have to think in those kinds of categories to understand how to do apologetics in these days. I'm finding it increasingly necessary in even everyday kind of conversations to go back to definitions of words and make sure that when we use the same words, we mean the same thing. He describes rationalism or humanism, he's using these interchangeably, as what he calls the unifying factor below the line. And that just means man as the integration point, man as the measure of all things. He says that rationalistic philosophy failed, and that antithesis was consequently abandoned along with the truth. Now think about this next statement. And this is why I say, reading Schaeffer and listening to Schaeffer, sometimes you feel like he just said it yesterday. Think about how true this is today. Today the world is small and it is very possible to have a monolithic culture spreading rapidly and influencing great sections of mankind. Now he said that more than 40 years ago. How true is that today? It's join my social media group. Yeah, and you know, it's interesting. We have these kinds of technology where we have Leland in Southern California. We've got Eli in New York City. The rest of us are sitting here in a classroom in Colorado Springs. We're all together on a Zoom call, speaking together about these things at the same time. Maybe not quite, but pretty close to the speed of light, you might say. And there would be nothing unusual if there were somebody in some other far-flung part of the world that was part of this same conversation. Think about how fast things can travel today, information can travel today versus even 40 years ago. Because it's hard to remember that 40 years ago there was no internet. There were no- I can be aggrandized by all these little Twitter groupies that follow me. Well, Twitter and Facebook is where we create our own little false realities. We can become the star of our own show. That's what social media is about. There's no wonder that there's an explosion of narcissism in our day. But it hyphens the endorphin pleasure. Like, like. It's addictive. You get a little dopamine hit every time you get a like. The people who designed those systems know that. They're designed to be addictive, just like cigarettes were designed to be addictive. If I have a bad family experience or a bad marriage, I can run and hide in social media and get what I don't get in my home. It's a world of your own creation. And that takes us into the whole area of virtual reality and artificial intelligence. which is where things seem to be going, and that's all, frankly, very disturbing, that we're trying to move as far away from the reality of God's creation as we can, and literally create an entirely new universe, call it a metaverse, where we can make it literally anything we want it to be, and we can be literally anything we want to be. I think that ties in very tightly with this whole trend that Schaefer's describing. All right, here's something for you students to think about. True education means thinking by associating across the various disciplines and not just being highly qualified in one field as a technician might be. Now, what's one of the criticisms of Schaefer? He's too general. He's a generalist. And if you want to be an academic, what does it require? Specialization. You have to be specialized. In fact, You know, it's axiomatic that the further you go in grad school, the more specialized you become until you essentially become one of a kind. That's the nature of grad school as we do it today. It doesn't broaden your education as you go further along. It narrows it. And so it's a little easier, I suppose, for those who are in academia to look at Schaefer and say, You don't know enough about each of these fields that you're talking about. But it wasn't his goal to be an expert in everything, but to be a generalist and to be able to make connections between these things. I think Calvin was a good example of being broad. Who's that? Calvin. Oh, John Calvin? OK. He knew all types of literature, Virgil, Zeno, church fathers, languages. We even have an expression that we still use occasionally, I think, the idea of the renaissance man who knows a whole lot about a whole lot of different things. Or even another term called polymath, someone who's got expertise in many different areas. But those are pretty rare cases. The idea of the university itself is to of the universe. The unity and the diversity put together. Many different fields of study all in one place. So that's the nature of how education has changed over the years, that it's made us specialists. It's scary when there's an epidemiologist sitting in an office in Washington, D.C. telling the whole nation to stay at home and not go to work and to wear a mask and do various things like that. That might, might, put that in air quotes, that might be good advice from an epidemiological standpoint, but it's probably really bad advice from a lot of other angles. So that's part of the danger of specialization. Okay, other thoughts on that? I can't totally discount the value of specializations and PHDs because it gives a lot of people the opportunity to drill down on It's one of those things where you say that there are advantages and disadvantages and we have to be careful that we don't emphasize the advantages so much that we forget that there are things There are limitations. The more specialized you are in any field, the more you have tunnel vision that's easy for you to see what's right in front of you, what you put your attention on. But those things that are outside in your peripheral vision, you may think they're not there, or they're just not important. The other side of that coin, though, is I have spoken to my wife and said to her that she's a high school math teacher. And she was one that said to me that she was encouraged to go work on a doctorate. She said no, because by the time you get to doctorate, you've specialized too close. You can't do anything else. But I did tell her that after speaking with some of her co-workers, that they were a little more than technicians. Because what they did was they knew how to operate a classroom. But if there was a topic outside of their technical specialty, They couldn't carry on a conversation. What's the joke about education? I'm not sure which one, but... The one that says those who can do and those who can't teach? Oh, okay. That one? Gotcha. Maybe as a teacher I shouldn't be saying that. I can relate quickly an anecdote, and we'll come back to this probably a little later in the class when we start talking about Schaeffer's apologetic method, but part of what I've seen in my experience in working with people at different levels of an organization, some with maybe no more than a high school education, but many college educated, intelligent people, But here's what I was saying, and I made this comment in the presentation I did on Olinsky, I guess it was about a year ago now, that he ran into this problem back in the 50s. He's trying to recruit and train activists. That was his thing. Saul Olinsky? Saul Olinsky, yeah. OK. And he was frustrated because he found that among the people there were plenty of people who were interested in getting active for one cause or another, but he had a hard time finding those who were leaders. That they might have knowledge in a certain area, know how to handle a certain situation in relation to activism, the kind of things that you bump into, but when something different happens, something outside their experience, they didn't know how to handle it. And it's the kind of thing that I've seen in industry that you have people who have worked in a certain industry for many, many years. They are experts in what they do. But if you take them outside that industry and put them in something that's very similar, it's very difficult for them to transfer their knowledge and their skills into something that's a slightly different context. And I think that reveals, and that's kind of what Alinsky was describing going back to the middle of the 20th century. And I think that exposes what I would call a pretty serious flaw in the educational system. Because we need to be able to think both inductively and deductively, and take our particular experience and be able to take it someplace else and apply it. So anyway, that gets into the philosophy of education. As far as this is concerned, I think the point still stands that our education tends to emphasize specialization rather than a broader approach to education and being able to see across disciplines. And that was what Schaefer was particularly good at doing. Now our tyrannical society is trying to dumb us down. Well, there's no doubt about that, not just in terms of our ability to think, but in terms of what we know. And I'm inclined to say that the iPhone is part of the reason that we're lazier now about what we know because if we can just look up, if we can just ask Alexa and Alexa gives us the answer, then we don't really need to know anything as long as our iPhone is charged. It's my extension of my cerebral cortex. Yeah. That's got some scary implications too because there are those who think we should all just put our minds in the great metaverse. So you have kind of that collective electronic conscience. All right, shall we move on? I've got 15 minutes to cover the next nine chapters. Sweet. Think I can do that? Yeah. I don't either. So let's think in terms of kind of picking up on some of the key ideas. Maybe the lesson here from me will do a little better job next time of doing that sorting process ahead of time rather than throwing everything against the wall. In chapter two he starts getting into philosophy and he mentions Hegel. And what was it about Hegel that he says contributed to our problem? Hegel took away the antithesis and replaced it with the synthesis. Okay, so the normal construction of... A does not equal non-A, or A used to be A does not equal non-A, but now we are reasoning Yeah, and so what laws of logic are violated by that kind of an approach? The law of non-contradiction. So first we have the law of non-contradiction, right? A is not non-A. So when we talk about thesis and antithesis, that's our starting point, we're starting out with two things that are opposites. And when we say they're opposites, we mean there is no There's no interaction between the two. You can have some combination of both. It's one or the other. It's a binary situation, if you want to think about it like that. It's either one or it's zero, and we don't have a third option. And Hegel came along and said, let's make a third option, and let's call it synthesis. And so I think it's not only a violation of the law of non-contradiction, but a violation of the law of the excluded middle. There's no middle ground between the thesis and the antithesis, but it seems that Hegel made it possible for us to at least, in some sense, try to carve out a middle ground and put a flag down there and say, okay, here's the middle ground between these two, and now this is the new starting point for the next iteration. And so Hegel's philosophy was a methodology that relied on the iteration, thesis, antithesis, then synthesis, and then you set up a new contrast of thesis, antithesis, and continue on. It's really a new religion. It is in a sense. I would argue that it's very similar to what we do in the scientific fields. But not exact. If we try to make logical sense out of this, we can't because it violates the laws of logic. But in some sense, maybe it makes a little bit of intuitive sense. But yeah, it's hard for me to argue with your point that this ends up being a new religion. You just have to believe it. So Schaefer says, with the coming of Hegel, this idea of antithesis or cause and effect changed and that by our era, Hegelian synthesis dominates on both sides of the Iron Curtain. So all positions are relativized. The truth, and I think we'd have to put air quotes around it now, the truth is sought in the synthesis. And then Kierkegaard came along, and what did he help us do? Where we couldn't bring the synthesis into play, we can leap of stasis, of a false sense of stasis. So he says that Kierkegaard was kind of the next step in the process of creating this idea of a leap of faith, both in the secular field and in the theological field. Interestingly, by the late 19th century, we're starting to see deliberate efforts to make a separation or distinction between faith and reason. So I'm citing there a book written by Draper called The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, published in 1874. And there was someone else who came a little later, later in the 19th century, doing the same kind of thing. And so by the time we get to the 20th century, we now have this idea in our mind that you have faith on one side, and you have science on the other, and ne'er the twain shall meet. And that obviously goes against the history of science itself. Because we would argue, as presuppositionalists, that you can't even start the scientific process without biblical presuppositions. So this is, I suspect, in the flow of philosophy, an attempt to try to make faith and reason, or faith and science, hostile to each other. So we're having this divorce of faith from reason, and then it kind of explains where we are today, because we see this constant conflict, or what looks like a dichotomy between faith and science. faith in science or faith in reason as if they're separate things rather than part of the same thing. Because in the Christian worldview those are part and parcel of it. So Schaeffer says there's no longer a unified field of knowledge. There's now a dichotomy between the rational and the non-rational. And he says the philosophies of today can be called in all seriousness anti-philosophies. And he goes on to describe some of the different existential schools of philosophy, Swiss, French, and German. If you've had a little history of philosophy, then these will probably sound familiar. Jaspers talked about the final experience for Sartre was about authentication or the will to power. Camus, as I mentioned last time, says the only question we really have left to answer is the question of suicide. And then for Heidegger, it was all about angst, that feeling of dread, something I've been feeling a lot of more recently. Maybe I'm an existentialist after all. And he talks about some other kinds of philosophies that have kind of come and gone, attempts to try to explain things that really don't work. The problem with evolutionary humanism is that it really doesn't have a basis for assuming that man is going to get better. But as we talked about a little earlier, that social Darwinism has had a very profound influence on our thinking in the late 19th and early 20th century, helping to give rise to movements like eugenics. I'm kind of curious about your statement that there's no basis. Apparently, they think there is a basis for expecting that man. Old bones, bro. Old bones they dig up in the dirt. Well, just honestly talking conservatism or liberalism with perfectibility of man in his social setting or his economic setting. Eugenics I suppose is, I think that's kind of warp science, but I'll throw that in there too. I think so. If you dink with the DNA enough, you're going to come up with the Superman. So I wonder if Schaefer is saying that they have no real basis, but maybe they think they do. Yes, that's what he's saying. Obviously they're operating on the basis that they expect man to get better. Because that's what evolution is. That things get better randomly over time. That the direction is up. Somehow. Somehow. That's the key idea. But when he says something like that, he's saying that in their belief system there's no basis for assuming that man is going to get better, even though he's evolving. And we could say it this way, how do we even define what does it mean for him to get better? Right? So those are really kind of beliefs in and of themselves. He says that part of the problem with all forms of existential experience is that there's no way to communicate them. That if you ask an existentialist about his experience, then you've missed the point. Because it's something that's so personal, it can't be communicated in words. When you mentioned your own ex, I was going to ask what your You know, it's not like if you have an emotion that you can attach to an event or a circumstance, then I don't think that fits in the category. The idea of angst, you know, like anxiety, it's just like this free-floating fear. You don't know why you have it. But, you know, you can't deny your feelings, so... Well, there can be no such thing as an existential psychologist. Well, that does create some problems. You know, you're trying to be logically consistent, Leland, and I thought we agreed that we were not going to make any appeals to logic. So let me tie this together down at the bottom of page six, because I do think this helps us think about Schaefer and his apologetic. He would say that man is made to experience the world that God has created. He says it like this, God has created a real external world. It is not an extension of his essence. That real external world exists. God has also created man as a real personal being and he possesses manishness from which he can never escape. So people can have a true experience of the world that God created. And that is generally the starting point that he takes in his apologetic. So we're starting to get an idea of where he's gonna go with his apologetic, appealing to the reality that we all have contact with, looking for the point of tension, where the belief system of the individual is starting to clash with the reality of the world that he lives in. Thoughts or questions on that section? The next chapter has to do with art. I can tell you honestly that art is not my thing. This is where I wish I could call a friend named John and say, John come and tell us about art because this is not my thing. So I won't say much about that. You can read the notes that I have there. One of the ideas was that a school of art called Dada was invented during the 20th century. And it was the idea of a chance concept. We're introducing the idea of chance into the artwork. And if we have a few minutes at the end, we'll look a little more about what the implication of that is. Here's what Schaefer says. These paintings, these poems, and these demonstrations, which we've been talking about, are the expression of men who are struggling with their appalling lostness. These men are dying as they live. And then he says, yet where is our compassion for them? So again and again, he comes back to the need for us to have compassion towards those who are suffering this kind of lostness. The next chapter, the topic of music, is one that I could say a little more about, having a musical background. He says that Debussy was the doorway to despair. And here's where I might say, eh, if I had to vote, I would probably pick Schoenberg, because it was Schoenberg who invented what's called the 12-tone scale, or atonality. And the effect that that had was to take down what we call the tonal structure of music. so that it became more and more like noise. It destroyed the melodies and the harmonies, the kinds of tunes that you might hum or whistle. Now it starts to sound more and more chaotic. So I can say from my own background in music that yes, you can definitely see the progression that he's describing as it works its way through the field of music. I see you're right. Did he write Claire de Lune? Yes. Claire de Lune. That's a beautiful piece of music. I can't see them. Yeah, I'm with you like that. I mean he was a French impressionist as composers are classified. I thought much of the music that he wrote was actually very beautiful. It was tonal, melodies, harmonies, those kinds of things. But I think the reason that Schaefer picks on him a little bit is maybe because of where he was trying to go with the imagery of his music. Things like, I think WC and those impressionists were like, they would call them tone poems. And they would just kind of weave things in through there and make it feel a certain way. But it still was very tonal. You can go back through the Romantic era of the 19th century music and see how you're trading some of the structure of the classical era with more freedom and more expression, more pathos, through the Romantic era of the 19th century and then that begins to transition from the late 19th into the 20th century into what's called contemporary music and then you start getting into atonality and the form of prior generations of music is really starting to break down. And here's where Cage is probably, we'll say he's the best example, he doesn't talk about Cage in this chapter, but he does a little later, where basically Cage is trying to write music that's based on total randomness. And it's just noise, it's awful. We can mention jazz because I like to have my feet in the classical and the romantic and maybe the baroque areas where there's much more structure to the music. I don't like jazz because it just sounds too chaotic to me. It's designed to be improvisational. That's the word that I've used there in your notes. So the way I'm describing it is melodies and harmonies that conform to fewer constraints. You know, somebody plays a solo in a piece of music and they can play it differently each time or you can have different performers who play different notes when they play the same solo. You have that kind of freedom of improvisation in jazz that you don't have in classical music. In Baroque you did still better form said Baroque, it was improvisational. In some parts. I think the continual part is where you have the ability for more improvisation. A lot of space. But still within the structure of the music. Anyway, I could talk about music a lot more easily and how music has been affected by this kind of philosophy because that's just a field I'm more comfortable with. Classical music. Yeah, and in our worldview classes, when John was teaching those classes, he was teaching it from the standpoint of art. So we saw a little bit of what we're seeing here in those discussions. Okay. Wow. It turns out I'm out of time. Can you believe that? It's hard to run out of time. Yes, that's the tyranny of teaching. OK, so here's where we're going to have to stop. And I'm sorry that we didn't have more time to cover more material. But the notes that I have there are more than just a few words for the most part. So you can scan through that. And again, I do have a few comments that I've thrown in here and there. But mostly, it's just pulling some of the notes that I made from reading the text. Did we lose the prompt? We lost the pop, man. Eli, are you there? It looks like Leland just froze up. Oh, okay. No, it's just freezing up. He's coming back. Your internet connection is unstable. Yeah, I'm getting an error message here. So, we have to draw this to a close. Last questions or comments before we finish. If you haven't finished reading the text, go ahead and do that. first two sections, which includes the first ten chapters, and then take a look at the notes. And if you have that in hand and feel pretty comfortable with that, you'll be fine on the quiz Friday. And what I'm planning to do this week is to post the quiz at eight in the morning. Will that work well enough for everyone? Do we need to adjust that at all? Yeah, but remember you still only have 60 minutes once you start. So I got that constraint. I had a little bit of an issue on my side as far as the scoring is concerned, but I've adjusted your grades accordingly. So, you know, everybody did above 90% on the quiz. And then I know what I need to do next time as far as the point system is concerned with the bonus questions. If you have any questions during the course of the week, feel free to contact me by phone or email. I'll wish you well for the rest of your week in the meantime. Leland, would you mind praying as we close tonight? Great. We're so thankful to have a man in the church as I am of Christ Jesus. And that's what dear Dr. Schaefer was, a man that we could not copy, but emulate the pattern of his life, his hospitality, his love for men, his hunger for the word, his apologetics that were just, I want to say, just down home part of him. and really real and not a put-on. It expressed love for humanity and the desire to see the Savior saved and bring salvation to the world. And so thank you for that. Help us to learn, help us to follow in the footsteps of people who give us an example like that. And thank you for our professor, feeding him, keep helping him, plan the lessons and do well, and help us to learn well. And guide each of us safely home to our place where we stay. Bless us with a good night's sleep in Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Amen. Thanks. Good night, everybody.