< Back Deborah Rutherford Contributor Hi. I am Deborah Rutherford, a Christian wife, passionate about Jesus and her family. I am currently a writer, makeup artist, and sometimes singer. You can find me on my blog at www.deborahrutherford.com. The Sacred Pause of Autumn Embracing the Sacred Season of Summer: Who Will You Be at the End of Summer The Dance of Autumn Prayer for Resting in God's Timing, Ways, and Rhythm

< Back Pando and Me “Pando is Pando because Pando isn’t ‘Pando’ anymore!” David Cowles The largest living organism on Planet Earth is not a Sea Mammal or a Dinosaur or Nessie; it’s a tree. A single tree. One organism. And it’s not a Redwood or a Cedar but an Aspen, a Quaking Aspen as it turns out. Where is this mega-biome located? Utah. Where are they hiding it? In plain sight. In fact you could be standing in the midst of Pando right now. To you, it would look like a forest, and so it would be. But all those tree trunks that surround you, blocking your way are ‘stems’ (parts) of one, single tree. Pando is triploid, meaning that its cells contain three copies of each chromosome rather than two. As a result, Pando cannot reproduce sexually; instead it clones itself, over and over. Today, it consists of 40,000 trunks, supported by a single, vast root system covering an area the size of 100 American football fields. Pando is at least 15,000 years old. Its individual trunks, however, have a Life Expectancy of just a few hundred years. This is the Ship of Theseus Hot Link writ large; not one of Pando’s OG trunks is alive today, and yet Pando is still very much Pando. Materially, we are dealing with an organism that is completely different now from what it was in its early years. What has been preserved is the DNA, the computer code that runs it; as a result, the pattern of relationships we call Being Pando is conserved over however many generations: Pando is Pando because Pando isn’t ‘Pando’ anymore! Let’s go back to the beginning. Out of some undetermined past shrouded in biology’s mythical mists, an aspen-zygote has been conceived. Call it ‘Alfie’. On schedule, Alfie undergoes mitosis leaving us with ‘Brian’ and ‘Charlie’. How are they related? And what happened to Alfie? You can say that neither Brian nor Charlie is Alfie; or you can say that both Brian and Charlie are Alfie. But please don’t say that Brian is Alfie but not Charlie, or Charlie but not Brian, because Brian and Charlie are interchangeable products of Alfie’s mitosis. Alfie doesn’t play favorites; like you, it loves all its children exactly the same. So are trees sentient, intelligent, self-aware, conscious? Interestingly, debate over this goes back millennia. It seems, for example, that the ancient Greeks and the Celts, at least, believed that trees displayed intentionality and self-awareness. This idea would have been a lot less popular in the latter half of the 19th century CE. However, the pendulum has swung back. There is little doubt now that trees and forests display some mental processes. Communication occurs, family members are recognized. In the allocation and exchange of resources (minerals, water), special care is taken to provide for the young, the sick, the unthriving, the elderly, and even the deceased. Unlike some members of another species I could name, trees naturally engage in eleemosynary behavior. Is this the product of natural selection or is it evidence that trees follow some sort of ethical code? If so, how does that code come to be? Does it emerge democratically or is it hard wired by a transcendent agency? Smart as it may be, Pando can’t read the Bible. But there is a school of thought that considers Written Torah (the first 5 books of the Old Testament) to be a codification of pre-existent Oral Torah , ( aka Natural Law). In this way, Torah is accessible to all sentient beings, including Pando: “signatures of all things I am here to read.” (Joyce) Natural Law is woven into the fabric of being itself. It’s what gives it its shape. In Written Torah , there are 2 verses that, taken together, constitute what’s known as the Great Commandment . According to some schools these 2 mitzvoth summarize the other 611. One, as cited by Jesus, is to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” As, not like! Unlike standard prescriptions to ‘behave charitably’, the Great Commandment eliminates the ontological distinction between the donor and the donee. This is not ‘charity’; it is ‘mutuality’. You give to your neighbor, if you do, for only one reason – because your neighbor is you – and you don’t get any extra credit for doing right by yourself. So Pando does seem to follow some sort of ethical code, but it is not easy imagining what sort of ideation might accompany that process. Is Pando ‘conscious’? If so, where does that consciousness reside? Externally (in the noosphere), in the organism-entire, in the individual trunks, or in each of the constituent cells? The form of our questions betrays us. We have assumed that consciousness is an either/or affair: there is only one Pando-consciousness and it occurs at only one particular biological level. But what if it’s not? What if it’s an and/both affair? What if Pando-consciousness can and does occur at several different levels of biology simultaneously? Now if you were 5 years old, you’d know exactly what question to ask next. But you’re not so I’ll help you: “Are, for example, cellular-conscious and organism-conscious Pando aware of one another? Do they impact one another? Do they communicate (share info)?” If human physiology is the paradigm of a Hamiltonian central bank, the plant kingdom relies on blockchain. Imagine the Billboard: “Blockchain. Endorsed by the Plant Kingdom: It’s the only brain we trust .” Wow! I could-a-been a Mad Man! Lacking a centralized nervous system, decision making by plants is necessarily ‘distributed’ throughout the organism. And it’s not only plants. Animals too can process data on a decentralized network. In an octopus, for example, independent mental structures are located in each of the individual tenacles; they communicate and coordinate across a network. So far, we have been unable to isolate a particular structure that enables consciousness (an if and only if ). What does the human brain have in common with a bacterium that allows us to use the word conscious in both contexts? What would it mean to say that an adult human and a bacterium are both ‘conscious’? Would a bacterium’s experience of consciousness have anything in common with a human’s experience? What would it mean to have something in common…or to have nothing in common at all? Two entities that have nothing in common do not exist in the same universe. So there will be an element of commonality. That element may be precisely the phenomenon we want to call ‘consciousness’; but how to isolate it? …Oh…I get it…you were waiting for an answer? Sorry, I’m two Nobels short for that. All of which brings us back to that “certain unnamed animal species” we met earlier. Am I Pando ? (Or at least Pando-like ?) Am I one of the 8 billion living trunks (persons) or am I one aspect of a single organism (species)? Do I automatically do unto myself what I do unto others? If so, then morality is not a choice; it is a fact of life. What if reality itself is recursive? What if we live in a universe with a curved or folded (vs. flat) topology? In such a universe the Law of Karma is fundamental: it’s not about a reaction to an action. Karma is an embedded element in every action per se ; it is prerequisite to the constitution of an event. Every action bridges the gap between one settled state-of-affairs and another. But in bridging that gap, a twist in structure means that bridge also acts on itself, modifying itself as it performs its bridging function . So, Newton had it wrong. Every action (active voice) does not entail an equal and opposite reaction (passive voice). Rather action and reaction are two interchangeable aspects of a single event ( middle voice ). We have a lot to learn, working alongside our Quaking Aspen! David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at dtc@gc3incorporated.com . Return to Yuletide 2024 Share Previous Next

The purpose of this essay is not to resolve, or even rehash, the Problem of Evil, but rather to situate the Problem of Evil in the context of an even broader problem that I call, ‘the Problem of Good’. < Back The Problem of Good David Cowles May 29, 2022 The purpose of this essay is not to resolve, or even rehash, the Problem of Evil, but rather to situate the Problem of Evil in the context of an even broader problem that I call, ‘the Problem of Good’. You’re familiar with the famous Problem of Evil. It’s an argument often advanced by non-believers against the existence of God. It runs something like this: “God is omniscient, omnipotent and all good. So, any world that includes God should be perfect. After all, God knows everything, does everything, and always acts out of perfectly benevolent intentions.” But when we take a close look at our world, it certainly does not appear to be perfect – not even close! “Wars, famines, and natural disasters fill our TV screens every evening. Humans routinely commit unspeakable acts of cruelty, directed at fellow humans, animals and even nature itself. Moreover, everyone ages, most eventually get sick and become infirm, and all die, often horribly. In such a world, surely there can be no room for God.” Theologians have confronted this reasoning for centuries, but they have not always done a very convincing job of answering it. The Book of Job, for example, is a long meditation on the Problem of Evil. Job records a number of proposed solutions to the Problem of Evil, but it finds fault with each one…and yet, Job never offers a solution of its own (see The Riddle of Job , also in this issue). Philosophers haven’t done much better. According to G. W. Leibniz, for example, the world we live in is the best of all possible worlds. Hard to see how! Finally, Carl Jung, Rabbi Harold Kushner, and others reject the basic premises of the argument. They assert that God can be ‘God’ without necessarily being omniscient, omnipotent, or benevolent, as these terms are normally understood. For Jung, God is neither omniscient nor benevolent. For Kushner, God is not omnipotent. The purpose of this essay is not to resolve, or even rehash, the Problem of Evil, but rather to situate the Problem of Evil in the context of an even broader problem that I call, ‘the Problem of Good.’ ****** As hard as it is to explain the phenomenon of Evil, it is much more difficult to account for the phenomenon of Good. In fact, the Problem of Evil turns out to be just a special case, and a degenerate one at that, of the much broader Problem of Good. Good and evil. We speak of them as though they were symmetrical opposites, perfect antonyms. But they are not! Good is the quality by which we recognize and measure all that is of ‘value’ in our world; whereas Evil, as Saint Augustine pointed out, is simply the absence of Good. Beauty is not merely the absence of ugliness; but ugliness is certainly the absence of beauty. Truth is not merely the absence of falsehood, but falsehood is certainly the absence of truth. Justice is not merely the absence of injustice; but injustice is certainly the absence of justice. And so, symmetry is broken! What is it we mean when we call an event ‘evil?’ We might mean that… the event is less ‘good’ than it could have been, or the event is less ‘good’ than possible alternative events, the event is on balance ‘less good than bad,’ the event is ‘pure evil,’ or Evil per se (e.g., Satan) A purely evil event is not possible (see above); nor can Evil by itself ever constitute an event. Evil is not something, but the ‘lack’ of something (i.e., the Good). So, while ‘a lack’ may play an important role in the development of an event, it can never be an ‘event’ per se. Yet, every day, we experience events that seem more evil than good…or at least less good than they might have been. Three assumptions underlie the so-called ‘Problem of Evil:’ Evil is an objective characteristic of certain events, not just the subjective reaction of an observer. At least most of the time, we can recognize evil when we see it. We can identify and label events as relatively ‘evil’ with an acceptable degree of accuracy. Most proposed solutions to the Problem of Evil begin with a denial of one or more of these assumptions: “You can’t say that an event is ‘evil’ if it might be better than any possible alternative.” “While an event might appear to be evil, it may be part of a larger complex of events (a ‘divine plan,’ for example) that will ultimately result in the greatest possible good.” Evil will always have its apologists. But non-believers are understandably unimpressed with this argument: “I can easily identify as ‘evil’ events for which better alternatives exist: the Holocaust, for example. If I can’t label events like the Holocaust as ‘evil’ then I have given in to radical moral skepticism, the ‘null point’ of all philosophy. “If we have to tolerate objectively evil events in order to get to ‘the greatest possible good,’ then maybe it isn’t the greatest possible good after all. The greatest possible good should be a good we can get to without tolerating evil along the way.” So Evil objectively characterizes certain events, and we can recognize it when we see it. But how? How do we recognize a lack? By comparing it to its opposite, real or imagined. And what is the opposite of Evil but Good? If Evil objectively characterizes certain events, or aspects of certain events, then the same must be said of Good. We must be able to recognize Good when we see it; but how? Good is not something we see directly when we experience events. What we see are its manifestations: Beauty, Truth, Justice, etc. We don’t even perceive these qualities directly. We perceive them only in the patterns formed by the concrete qualities that the event embodies. A painting, for example, is ‘good’ if it is ‘beautiful’ and it is beautiful if its lines, shapes, and colors form patterns that possess a certain indefinable, but nonetheless objective, aesthetic quality. A proposition is ‘good’ if it is ‘true’ and it is true if it is consistent with other true propositions and if it accounts for relevant details of experience. A law is ‘good’ if it is ‘just’ and it is just if it treats folks both according to their merits and with compassion. Two paintings side-by-side on a museum wall may well include the same hues and shapes, but one may be beautiful and the other not. Essential Beauty is a function of the pattern of hues and shapes, not the hues and shapes themselves. Two propositions may include the exact same words, but one proposition may be true and the other not; it depends on the pattern formed by those words. Two laws may include the same elements, but one may apply those elements justly and the other not; it depends on how those elements work together to achieve ‘good?’ Again, it is all about the pattern. So, in determining whether a painting is good, we need to apply certain aesthetic criteria; in determining whether a proposition is good, we need to apply certain logical and experimental criteria; in determining whether a law is good, we need to apply certain ethical criteria. But where do these criteria (values) come from? Where do they ‘reside?’ Not in or among the concrete elements that make up the painting, the proposition, or the law! For something to qualify as a ‘value’ with respect to certain ‘elements,’ it must transcend those elements. If we use a different yardstick to measure different entities, those measurements are suspect. If we vary our unit of distance each time we measure, then our measurements are meaningless. Although values transcend the entities, they qualify – they are not values if they don’t - they are by no means strangers to those entities. A value that is wholly transcendent is no better than a wholly immanent value. Values only function as values if they are shared by both the judge and the judged. For this reason, legal systems that achieve at least a degree of buy-in from all elements of society are often the most successful. Again, let’s be clear: justice is just per se; it doesn’t need anyone to buy-in. However, when it comes time to apply that value to specific situations, buy-in is extremely helpful. A corner of the universe without values that are both transcendent and immanent (shared) is a corner of the universe that does not exist. Everything we do, we do, guided by our values. Values play three distinct roles with respect to events: They provide the initial impetus that sets an event in motion. They constitute the concrete, initial aim of that event. They form the objective criteria (yardstick) by which that event must ultimately be judged (or measured). Every event is subject to evaluation according to these ‘objective criteria’ precisely because every event shapes itself in response to those criteria. Therefore, values are both wholly immanent (as goals) and entirely transcendent (as measures). How is that possible? On the surface, it isn’t! According to the standard ‘secular’ model, the universe is a self-contained, self-explanatory phenomenon – a flat, ontologically democratic world where entities (events) are just facts…and nothing more. Events may refer to one another (e.g., cause and effect) but they cannot rely on anything that transcends them, anything beyond their collective selves because the model stipulates that there is nothing beyond their collective selves. Ludwig Wittgenstein famously wrote, “No statement of facts can ever be, or imply, a judgment of absolute value…(because) all the facts described would, as it were, stand on the same level.” In Twilight of the Gods, Nietzsche wrote, “…There exists nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, condemn the whole… But nothing exists apart from the whole!” According to these two models, human beings do whatever they do, for whatever reasons they do, and who are we to judge? Sound familiar? But if we believe that values are objectively real, we can’t settle for this sort of secular agnosticism. The Problem of Evil asks how an imperfect world can be reconciled with the existence of a perfect God. Instead, I pose the Problem of Good: in an ontologically flat (vs. hierarchical) universe (Nietzsche’s ‘universe’ for example), how can there be any objective values? And if there aren’t any objective values, how can there be any experience of Good? Specifically, how would we know whether something was ‘good’ or not, and how would we recognize the ‘good’ in an unfolding event? I am reminded of my grammar school days. A flat universe is the cosmological equivalent of letting students grade themselves without any need to justify those grades and without any accountability for the grades themselves, for the accuracy of those grades, or for the quality of the work being graded. For a pre-teen boy in the 1950s, this was Shangri-La. But unfortunately, that’s not how things worked in Sister Mary Francis’s 5th grade classroom. Neither is it the way things work in the universe! An event consists of three groups of elements: concrete elements (qualities) inherited from the event’s actual world (i.e., from other events), an element of novelty that every event must inject into the process of concrescence (no novelty, no event), and the transcendent elements (values) that motivate and guide the event from stem to stern and that ultimately characterize the entity’s ‘objective immortality.’ To the extent that events consist of concrete physical (i.e., historical) elements, they are temporal; to the extent that events consist of values, they are eternal. There are no ‘events’ without ‘values;’ therefore, Good is the eternal aspect of everything that exists. Corollary: to the extent that an event is ‘good,’ it is eternal, and to the extent that an event is eternal, it is good! Can we detour to Genesis for just one moment? “Then God said, ‘Let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good…evening came, and morning followed – the first day.’” (Gen. 1: 3 – 5) The authors of Genesis waste no time! Just two verses into the very first book of the Old Testament, and they are already making it clear that ‘Good’ is the prerequisite of ‘Be.’ God makes no mistakes. Even so, he checks his work, and it is not until ‘God saw that the light was good’ that the ‘first day’ was ‘in the can.’ According to 20th century British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, every potential event can be expressed in the form of a ‘proposition.’ Values are what turn propositions into events. We are often reminded that ‘change is the only constant’ in our world. That is true as applied to the material and historical elements of that world; it is not true of values. Values are not subject to change, period. If values could change, how could we call them ‘values?’ And how could they function as standards of judgment? That said, the concrete application of these values to temporal events will vary from judge to judge and from event to event. But each one of those events should be judged using the same set of uber-values as the criterion. So, where are we? We rejected the idea that ‘Good’ can somehow emerge spontaneously from a set of events which, in aggregate and by themselves, must initially be assumed to be value neutral. To be is to be an event, or at least to be an element in an event. All events are characterized by a particular selection, emphasis and arrangement of values, applied to a unique ‘actual world.’ How can values that transcend our temporal world still play a necessary role in that world? So far as I can see, there is one and only one possible solution to this paradox: there must be an event that consists solely of values without any physical or historical contribution. Because, by definition, there is no physical or historical contribution to this event, the event cannot not occur in spacetime. It must occur ‘beyond’ spacetime. Because it occurs outside spacetime, it avoids the limitations normally imposed on emerging events by spacetime itself. This ‘special event’ has no physical or historical elements, yet it is eminently ‘real;’ therefore, it must participate in at least one other emerging event. And because it is outside spacetime, and is in the actual world of at least one other emerging event, it must then be in the actual world of every such event, past, present, and future. Therefore, this ‘special event’ is both immanent and transcendent: Immanent, because it lies in the actual world of every other event and because it motivates and guides each such event. Transcendent, because it is universal and eternal. Therefore, it is the one common event by which all other events may be measured and judged. Every other entity, by definition, must include selected ‘concrete’ elements as well as values and must have the potential to arrange those elements into patterns that are beautiful, truthful, just, ethical, loving, aware, etc. The values that constitute the ‘special event’ form a pattern to which all other patterns are called to confirm. Composed entirely of values that exist outside spacetime, but participate in the constitution of every event inside spacetime. If all this sounds strange and esoteric, it isn’t! In fact, it is totally ordinary and mundane. There already is a perfectly common word that we use whenever we refer to this ‘special event:’ That word is God. Some folks who have followed us this far may leave here. The introduction of ‘God’ into the conversation may be a bridge too far for them. But I would ask those folks to be patient and reflective. The logic of our argument is difficult to escape. Like it or not, there doesn’t seem to be any other way to account for the world as we experience it. Apparently, there is a God after all! So, let’s sum up. What have we demonstrated? We have shown that… The ‘Problem of Evil’ assumes that there are objective values and that those values may (actually, must) be relied on whenever we evaluate an event. We recognize Evil as the absence of those qualities we call ‘good.’ These qualities are the objective values that, by their presence or absence, allow us to recognize Good and Evil in our world. Those same objective values are found in every entity at its origin. Those values influence (but do not determine) the evolution of those events. They constitute the standard by which all events will (must) ultimately be judged. These objective values are both immanent and transcendent. For values to be immanent, they must be embodied in an actual event. For values to be transcendent, that event must occur outside of space and time. The event must be a-temporal, i.e., eternal. There can be but one such event – an event consisting entirely of values and constituted outside of time; we call this entity “God”. And now, if we accept these premises, we know that such an entity must, in fact, exist. So, have we proven the existence of God, the holy grail of philosophy for millennia? Not quite! What I hope we have done is define a very narrow set of conditions one must accept in order to deny God’s existence: Either Good and Evil do not exist (ontological nihilism); or Good and Evil do exist, but they do no not objectively characterize events (ethical nihilism); or Good and Evil do exist, and they do objectively characterize events, but we cannot recognize Good and Evil with anything close to an acceptable degree of accuracy (epistemological nihilism). So, it’s perfectly logical to deny the existence of God, but if you do so, you must be prepared to accept ethical nihilism, ontological nihilism (which could include solipsism), or epistemological nihilism. These are Macbeth’s three witches, Wagner’s three norns, the ‘null points’ of philosophy. So, it turns out that the Problem of Evil backfires! Based on its core assumptions, it morphs into the Problem of Good. In this new form, it strongly supports the very thesis it was designed to debunk, namely that God exists. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com. Share Previous Next Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Click here. Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, September Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

Annie D. Stutley lives and writes in New Orleans, La. She edits several small publications and contributes to various print and online magazines, most notably "Mississippi Magazine" and Worklight. Her blog, "That Time You," was ranked in the Top 100 Blogs by FeedSpot. To read more of her work, go to her website, or follow her at @anniedstutley or Annie D. Stutley-writer on Facebook. < Back Annie D. Stutley Contributor, Editorial Board Annie D. Stutley lives and writes in New Orleans, La. She edits several small publications and contributes to various print and online magazines, most noticeably Mississippi Magazine and Worklight . Her blog, " That Time You, " was ranked in the Top 100 Blogs by FeedSpot. To read more of her work, go to her website , or follow her at @anniedstutley or Annie D. Stutley-writer on Facebook. Never Skip Over the Miracle Burying Biscuit (to Cole Porter) -- a Childhood in a Single Tale How to Summer All Year The Resurrection Promises More than Heaven The Porta Potty Perspective That Time You Told a Sunrise Lie The Leading Player of Memories That Time You Were Not Exceptionally Divine That Time You Saw Dead People The Unexpected Sophistication of B Movies Messengers Among Us Yesterday, the Very Tomorrow

< Back Prayer for Restoration Hadassah Treu "I long to see the nearing restoration..." I need you in the ruins of my heart, In all the wounded, desolated places, Where darkness comes in as a flood, I need your tender, healing grace. Restore the ruins of my life Search out all the cracks and gaps, Invade them, filling them with light, Erase all paths to pain, all maps. I long to see the nearing restoration, To see it coming like the rising sun To hear it calling every ruin to alteration, Preparing them for the life to come. When all the broken becomes a space, Completely ruled by love and grace. Amen. Hadassah Treu is an international Christian author, blogger, and poet, and the Encouraging Blogger Award Winner of 2020. She is passionate about encouraging people in their journey to faith and a deeper walk with God. Hadassah is a contributing author to several faith-based platforms and devotional and poetry anthologies. She has been featured on (In)courage, Living by Design Ministries, Thoughts About God, Today’s Christian Living (Turning Point), and other popular sites. You can connect with Hadassah at www.onthewaybg.com. Return to our Summer 2023 Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Theory of Everything David Cowles Aug 30, 2022 “Only six verses long, this Christology contains the elements of a complete Theology, and, beyond that, of a complete Cosmology.” St. Paul's Letter to the Colossians (the congregation at Colossae, east of Ephesus in Asia Minor) includes an ancient, Christological hymn (1: 15-20), possibly the earliest liturgical Christology to be found in Scripture. Only six verses long, this Christology contains the elements of a complete Theology, and, beyond that, a complete Cosmology: "He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, for in him all things were created… All things were created through him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together… He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead . For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile all things for him…" Let’s break this down: He (Christ) is the (visible) image of the invisible God . God is invisible, but Christ is Imago Dei. He is before all things, he is the beginning, the firstborn of all creation and the firstborn from the dead. Christ is universal and eternal; therefore, Christ is in the 'actual world' of every event and every event is in the ‘actual world’ of Christ. Therefore, elsewhere, Christ is referred to as the Alpha and the Omega. All things were created in him, through him, and for him . Christ is the locus of whatever is (i.e., whatever is now, was once, or may come to be in the future). Christ is the efficient cause (origin) of whatever is . Christ is the final cause (destiny) of whatever is . In him all things hold together. Christ is the order ( logos ) of creation. Whatever is , in so far as it is , participates in Christ and Christ in it. Therefore, all events share at least one element in common (Christ) and participate in at least one common event (Christ). Because, and only because, all events share at least one element in common (Christ) and participate in at least one common entity (Christ), whatever is enjoys the Solidarity needed to form Kosmos . In him all the fullness was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile all things for him. Christ is not just the sensible image of an insensible God; Christ is God (“all the fullness was pleased to dwell in him”). Solidarity presumes the ultimate reconciliation of all things. The reconciliation of all things is a necessary pre-condition for “God to be all in all” (I Cor. 15: 28). Now if Christ , God , and Creation are not your cup of tea…no problem! Use whatever words you like – just make sure that they do the same job that Colossians does with its choice of vocabulary: Colossians provides a cosmological model that seeks to account – successfully in my view – for our experience of the cosmos. Of course, it won’t tell us whether the Boston Celtics will win another NBA championship, but it does tell us most everything else that is important to us. Beginning with Einstein, physics and philosophy have been searching for a GUT (a grand unified theory) or a TOE (a theory of everything) to account for cosmos as we experience it. With all due respect to Hawking & Co., Paul of Tarsus gave us just such a TOE roughly 2000 years ago. Image: Philippe de Champaigne , Saint Paul (c. 1650) Thoughts While Shaving is the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine ( ATM) . To never miss another Thought, choose the subscribe option below. Also, follow us on any one of our social media channels for the latest news from ATM. Thanks for reading! Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

Rabbi Dr. Jon Kelsen is Dean at YCT, where he has previously taught Talmud and Pedagogy. Prior to this, Rabbi Kelsen was Rosh Kollel of the Drisha Kollel as well as an adjunct faculty member at the Pardes Institute. He received ordination from Rabbis Daniel Landes and Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg, and received his doctorate in Education and Jewish Studies at New York University as a Wexner Graduate Fellow. < Back Rabbi Dr. Jon Kelsen Contributor Rabbi Dr. Jon Kelsen is Dean at YCT, where he has previously taught Talmud and Pedagogy. Prior to this, Rabbi Kelsen was Rosh Kollel of the Drisha Kollel as well as an adjunct faculty member at the Pardes Institute. He received ordination from Rabbis Daniel Landes and Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg, and received his doctorate in Education and Jewish Studies at New York University as a Wexner Graduate Fellow. Parshat Emor: Making it All Count

< Back Job vs. James, Rex “God is good because he’s good, not just because he’s God.” David Cowles Recently, we posted King James on TWS ( Thoughts While Shaving ), highlighting the Stuart king’s ‘different’ theological and political ideas. As we saw, James was an ultra-nominalist who rejected the idea that God does what he does because it is ‘good’; rather, James believed that things are ‘good’ simply because God does them. Similarly, laws are ‘just’ simply because a king proclaims them, regardless of their content. Just as James’ political philosophy deviates from today’s consensus, so his theology conflicts with much of Judeo-Christian tradition. In King James , we challenged James’ theology with a verse from Chapter One of Genesis : “Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good.” This idea that God acts according to an objective standard (Good) runs throughout Scripture, but it is the primary subject of the Book of Job . Job presents an ancient narrative shared by many Middle Eastern cultures (think Iliad ), bookended by a prologue/epilogue probably added by a Commentator at a later date. However, these literary bookends help situate the epic in an overtly theological context. According to the prologue, God tries to act unjustly, but according to the Epilog, he can’t ! Sorry, King James, that’s ‘game, set, match’; correct? Yes… but let’s dig deeper: Like any fresh-faced 6th grader on the first day of middle school, God is challenged by a more worldly classmate (Satan) to do something ‘naughty’: Be bad for once! I dare you! As we know from The Christmas Story , no tween can resist a ‘double dog dare’ and God is no exception. God accepts Satan’s challenge, and they agree on the terms. Unfortunately, God being God and Satan being Satan, the stakes are quite a bit higher than they normally would be for a school yard prank. God agrees to ‘break into’ the world and inflict unimaginable physical, emotional, and spiritual torture on his BFF, Job; and he does just that! No, it’s not a good look for God. (But remember, there’s a deeper purpose to this story.) When the body of the Job poem begins, we find our hero, sitting in a pile of ashes outside his home, skin covered in boils, taunted by passers-by, scorned by his wife and the rest of his family, all his possessions ‘confiscated’. Satan bets God that Job will not withstand this torture: he will turn his back on his best friend, he will curse God. God, perhaps a bit naively - it is the first day of school after all – believes that Job will remain loyal to him through thick and thin. In fact, Job splits the difference. He does remain loyal to God, but he’s not happy about it and, if you happen to walk past his ash heap, Job will let you know just how unhappy he is. And then Job has a stroke – no, not that kind of stroke - a stroke of genius! Job believes that God is behaving unjustly (Job’s right, of course). What would you do today if someone treated you unjustly? You’d take them to court, wouldn’t you? Well, Job had the same idea more than 2,500 years before you. But how do you sue God? How do you summon him to court? What court has jurisdiction, and what judge has the power to compel God to respect the legal process and accept the verdict? It’s a heavy lift, but Job is up for it. He invokes an ancient legal formula then current throughout the Middle East; it includes a lengthy and detailed oath of innocence. For a year and a day, God has ignored Job’s complaints, however justified; now he can’t! You see, God has a Covenant with his people. Under the terms of this Covenant, God acknowledges that the law is binding on all, creator and creature alike. God has renounced any claim of ‘executive privilege’. God will comply with Job’s subpoena, but he’s not happy about it: What a pain in the neck this Job is! (God did not say “neck”.) God appears, but he appears in a whirlwind. Keeping up his bad boy persona, God hopes to bully Job into dropping his action: “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations.” Job is unflappable: no justice, no peace! But how is it that Job dares to challenge God like this, right to his ‘face’? First, Job has faith in himself; he knows he’s right. Second, Job has faith in God; he respects ‘right’ and he won’t violate the terms of his Covenant. Third, Job has faith in his relationship with God, in the primal love that bound them together for decades; he will not forget me. Job believes: God will obey my summons, he will uphold the law; therefore, I will be found ‘not guilty’ , and he won’t smite me for my impertinence! Job has followed proper legal procedure. He can state his case, having faith that the verdict will be just; but there are complications. According to legal norms, God is judge and jury, the sole and final arbiter of all disputes. But God is also the defendant in this suit. Today, we would cry, “Conflict of interest!” Not Job! Job has faith that God can and will build an impervious firewall between ‘God-the-defendant’ and ‘God-the-judge’. Put this in the perspective of today’s Realpolitik . A President of the United States has been impeached by the House of Representatives and now must be tried – but not in the Senate. Under this alternative constitution , only the President has the power to remove someone from office. So, in this hypothetical example, the House would present its case to the President and the President would decide whether or not to remove himself from office. Imagine the outcry! I can ‘hear’ you rolling your eyes! You’re thinking, “I guess we all know how this is going to turn out!” You’re right, ‘the fix is in’ as we used to say, but not in the way you might think. In any event, Job is perfectly happy with these legal arrangements: "I would speak to Shaddai ; it is an argument with El that I desire… I will accuse him of his ways to his face…only he can be my salvation.” “Would that I knew how to find him, that I might come to his dwelling! I would set out my case before him…he himself would heed me!” “I know that my redeemer lives; the respondent will testify on earth…while in the flesh I’ll see Eloah… For even now my witness is in the heavens. The one who knows the truth is on high.” Job maintains his faith in God, right up to the end… Up to the end, not necessarily through the end. Let’s continue… Much to everyone’s surprise (except Job’s), God complies with Job’s subpoena. Whirlwind notwithstanding, God shows up. Implicitly, if not explicitly, he acknowledges the jurisdiction of the court. But as deep as Job’s faith was, so is his disappointment. God appears, but he ‘takes the 5th’; he doesn’t respond to any of Job’s allegations. He won’t debate the origin and destiny of the universe with an insignificant speck; and he won’t stand still for a lecture on right and wrong from a mere human. To be fair to God, to get a sense of his understandable frustration, imagine trying to explain to an ant why it’s not a good idea for it to walk through a puddle of molasses. Try it! See how far you get. On the other hand, to be fair to Job, he’s had to sit through two long-winded speeches intended to scare him and convince him of his worthlessness. This is God being ‘fatherly’, but certainly not in a fatherly way. In fact, God behaves more like the ham actors Shakespeare always complains about: “a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage…” (Macbeth) God doesn’t engage Job on any of the issues. Instead, he storms and blusters and, by implication at least, threatens, and in the end, he appears to win after all. He has worn Job down; our hero, unconvinced, nonetheless concedes: “As a hearing by the ear I have heard you. And now my eye has seen you. That is why I am fed up; I take pity on ‘dust and ashes’ (i.e., humanity).” Pause here for a moment. Put yourself in Job’s sandals. A long and virtuous life, an unshakable faith, all for naught. Job has accomplished the unimaginable. He has summoned God and God has appeared, but only to turn his back on Job. He has demanded that God account for his actions, and after a fashion at least, God has complied. Yet, Job is left with nothing: no justification, no apology, no restitution, no admission of responsibility. He is truly “dust and ashes”. Whatever Job and his hangers-on might have imagined, they certainly did not expect God to turn out to be an empty windbag. That was not even on the menu of possible outcomes. Job has given up; he has lost. He’s not even going to wait for the judge to deliver the verdict. No matter! The judge will deliver the verdict anyway, per proper legal procedure. Is anyone besides me old enough to remember the O.J. Simpson trial? The trial lasted 8 months, but the jury only deliberated for 4 hours before handing Judge Ito their unanimous verdict. It was a stunner…but no more so than the verdict in Job v. God : Decision for the plaintiff! Job wins after all. He’s entitled to restitution plus liberal damages. God complies with the findings of the court… because God is good. This is the message of Job . In a word, King James was wrong. God is good because he’s good , not just because he’s God . Image: From Job, The King James Version. Here’s what Loyal Books has to say: “ The Book of Job is one of the books of the Hebrew Bible. It relates the story of Job, his trials at the hands of Satan, his theological discussions with friends on the origins and nature of his suffering, his challenge to God, and finally a response from God. The Book itself comprises a didactic poem set in a prose framing device and has been called ‘the most profound and literary work of the entire Old Testament’. The Book itself and its numerous exegeses are attempts to address the problem of evil.” David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . Previous Next

< Back After Parmenides What to "Western philosophy is the history of our effort to understand the silence of Parmenides, or to break it." David Cowles What doesn’t belong and why? Philosophy, Science, Literature, or Social Studies? Philosophy, of course. In the other disciplines, new information and new interpretive schema are constantly emerging, endlessly enriching their subject matter. Not so, philosophy! In fact, here the reverse is true. Arguably, philosophy’s greatest achievements lie in its distant past. Parmenides of Elea is generally regarded as the Father of Western Philosophy. Of course, he had precursors (e.g. Thales, Pythagoras, Anaximander), but our knowledge of their teachings is sketchy at best. From what we do know, it seems as though these OGs were narrower in their focus than Parmenides – somewhat like philosophers today. Indisputably, Parmenides was the dominant intellectual influence in the 5th century BCE, the golden age of Greece. He did not win that honor by default. He lived in ‘interesting times’, sharing the intellectual stage with political leaders, Leonides and Pericles, playwrights, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, and Aristophanes, and fellow philosophers, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Zeno. We can say this much for sure: the oldest substantially intact work of systematic philosophy in the Western World is Parmenides’ ontological poem, On Nature . Happily, the Father of Western Philosophy did not pussy foot around; he asked the big questions: What is reality, really? How is it that appearances appear? How are what-is and what-seems-to-be related? Can you honestly say that we’ve moved beyond these issues 2500 years later? 20th century philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, wrote that Western philosophy is a series of footnotes on Plato. Whitehead was half right. Western philosophy can be read as footnotes on Plato but only if Plato is read as footnotes on Parmenides. Parmenides divided his poem into three sections: First, a short prologue; then Aletheia (Truth); finally, Doxa (Appearances). The prologue sets the poem in a narrative context and makes it clear (to me if not to all) that no account of the World can be complete without accounting for its dual aspects of Aletheia and Doxa . Aletheia models the world as noumenal, Doxa as phenomenal; and regarding the relationship between the two…silence, uncomfortable, enigmatic silence. Western philosophy is the history of our effort to understand that silence, or to break it. First, there are those who deny the silence: “Parmenides must have spelled out his ideas; we’ve just lost that portion of the manuscript.” Then, there are those who have graciously offered to ‘correct’ Parmenides’ oversight. i.e. to fill in the blanks . Present company excepted, few have been willing to take Parmenides’ silence at face value in an effort to understand it. There are roughly 20 intact fragments of On Nature , each independently preserved by ‘a trusted source’, such as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Cicero, Simplicius, Clement, and Eusebius – just to drop a few names. From these fragments, it is possible to reconstruct a coherent text. It is ludicrous to assume that Parmenides’ curators somehow failed to retain the one fragment of text that would have explained the entire work and unlocked its hidden meaning. So we can turn our attention to Parmenides’ editors – well meaning folk who have volunteered to add what Parmenides obviously meant to say to what he actually did say. Thanks but no thanks! However, in their zeal to correct Parmenides’ oversights, these philosophers left a trail of breathtaking ideas that constitute what we study when we study Western Philosophy. 20th century philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, wrote that Western philosophy is a series of footnotes on Plato. Whitehead was half right. Western philosophy can be read as footnotes on Plato but only if Plato is read as footnotes on Parmenides. No doubt, Socrates’ disciple is Parmenides’ best known editor and commentator; but he was far from the first and possibly not the most important. In fact, Plato’s grasp of pre-Socratic philosophy was ‘incomplete’…at best. I could say more…but I don’t wish to appear impolite. Three 5th century philosophers should primarily be credited with continuing Parmenides’ great project: Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Zeno. All three played at ‘fill-in-the-blanks’ but in their defense, what else is a neo to do? On the plus side, their emendations preserved the spirit of Parmenides’ work. I’m not sure that he would have endorsed all their formulations but I think he would have recognized them as valid extensions of his own thought. Speaking of which, in Fragment #1, the goddess tells our pilgrim, “It is right that you should learn all things, both the steadfast heart of persuasive truth and the beliefs of mortals…how things that seem had to have genuine existence, permeating all things completely.” For the ‘persuasive truth’ we turn to Fragment #8: “…What-is is ungenerated and imperishable, whole…and complete. Nor was it once nor will it be since it is now all together, one, continuous…Thus coming to be is extinguished and perishing not to be heard of. Nor is it divisible since it is all alike.” But regarding ‘the beliefs of mortals’, Fragment #8 continues: “To come to be and to perish, to be and not to be, to change place (motion), and to exchange bright color.” This is the realm of Doxa . If order is your thing, you’d have loved the Big Bang. That is the moment when order in the Universe was at its maximum. Not so surprising when you consider that all energy was concentrated in a singularity – at a dimensionless point or perhaps in a Planck-sized Space. If only my desk were so well ordered. Entropy (S) is how we measure disorder. S was at its cosmic minimum at Big Bang and it will be at its cosmic maximum at Heat Death. Knowing this, you might be less surprised when I share my view that European philosophy reached its pinnacle in the 5th century BCE… before Socrates, Plato or Aristotle. This was the century of Parmenides, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Zeno. Not to mention Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, and Aristophanes… or Leonides and Pericles. Who says there’s no such thing as a Golden Age? Someone sharing my view of Intellectual History might think that Hebrew theology peaked with Torah and Christian theology with the writings of John and Paul. It is certainly possible to understand the balance of the Old Testament as ‘commentary on Torah ’ and all of Christian theology as ‘commentary on the New Testament’. So, why not treat the corpus of Western philosophy as commentary on the pre-Socratics? (20th century British philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, said that all Western philosophy was commentary on Plato; but he was wrong. Plato himself was a commentator on the pre-Socratics…and not an especially good one.) Each of the major pre-Socratics contributed a unique perspective to the burgeoning science of cosmology. Heraclitus, for example, is known for Panta Re (“everything flows”). Anaxagoras is known especially for his trademarked meme, Pan in Panti Hot Link (‘everything in everything’). Anaxagoras’ universe begins as the undifferentiated entirety - pure energy in the Big Bang model. Nous (mind/soul) injects a quantum of rotation which propagates throughout the whole. This circularity could be understood as the first flicker of recursion, a precursor of consciousness. Gradually, this rotation triggers a wave of centrifugal force. The undifferentiated mass begins to separate, like attracts like, and soon sub-regions emerge, each with its own signature mix of properties. “Signatures of all things I am here to read.” (Joyce) Eventually, these sub-regions will become what we know as ‘events’, i.e. actual entities. Anaxagoras’ genesis is different from that of other philosophers. Each actual entity retains a trace of every element buried in the original mass. Entities are distinguished, not by their elements, which are the same in every case, but by the signature variation in the concentration of those elements in each entity. If Parmenides was the apostle of stability and Heraclitus the prophet of change, Anaxagoras was the oracle of solidarity. He understood that a stronger bond among entities was needed to preserve the integrity of a universe in flux. When it comes to Universe, the problem is not so much explaining its diversity as it is accounting for its ultimate unity. Anaxagoras achieves the requisite solidarity in two ways. First, as noted above, everything interpenetrates and shares elements with everything else. In fact, every entity contains the ‘seeds’ of all entities. Theoretically, if the entire universe were reduced to a single organism (cell), genesis could begin again with barely a pause for a methane rich breath. This model is remarkably close to the modern science of genetics. The RNA/DNA molecule may have synthesized only once on Planet Earth. It is likely that every cell contains genetic material descended from that original DNA molecule. But DNA is as inefficient as it is powerful. Likely, it is so powerful because it is so inefficient! The genome of a common fern is 50 times longer than the human genome. On the other hand, some bacterial genomes are 5,000 times shorter than human DNA. But size does not matter! Less than 2% of our genes code for proteins (the primary function of DNA) anyway and less than 20% are ‘expressed’ in any one organism (cell). However, unused genetic material is not useless; it can always be accessed if environmental changes favor a different combination of phenomenal traits. Tens of thousands of years of evolution can be by-passed by visiting ‘the stacks’ in the vast and ancient ‘library’ of your DNA. As climate change gets real, we may be glad for our airconditioned library. Second, Anaxagoras’ universe is scale agnostic. Patterns repeat up and down the ladder, from the infinitesimal to the infinite. We are mesmerized by scale. The vastness of it! There are c. 60 orders of magnitude from Planck scale to Uni verse. But Anaxagoras shows that scale is a local phenomenon only. From a global perspective it just endlessly repeats, and it is impossible to distinguish any one stage from any other. Scale is a relative measure, not an absolute one. So Anaxagoras could be known as ‘Father Fractal’. In an Anaxagorean universe every macro pattern is made up of congruent micro patterns. Each macro pattern is in turn a micro pattern in an even larger macro. And, of course, every micro pattern is a macro with respect to other micros. Pan in Panti. Every entity includes the ‘seeds’ of every other entity and is in turn included as a ‘seed’ in each of those other entities. As with our DNA model, the entire entity is encoded in the seed. Every entity is a pattern which reflects the patterns of the micro entities that constitute it and is reflected in the pattern of the macro entities it constitutes. This odd cosmic topology is not found only in Anaxagoras. Are you familiar with the New Testament? Part of the genius of early Christianity is the doctrine of Incarnation – the idea that God, Being per se , locus and creator of Universe, is incarnate as a quantum being (Jesus Christ) in that Universe. That’s solidarity! Pan in Panti . But this topology is not limited to the Incarnation per se . Every day, it is repeated in the celebration of Eucharist. Jesus, human and divine, body and soul, under the appearance of bread and wine, is consumed by the communicant who is immediately ‘uploaded’ into Jesus’ mystical body. Pan in Panti . In Romans (8: 26), Paul tells us that when we pray (to God), it is actually the Holy Spirit (God) who searches our hearts and intercedes for us ‘with inexpressible groanings’. In First Corinthians (15: 24-29), he tells us that all creation flows up to Christ who hands it on to the Father ‘so that God may be all in all’. Pan in Panti . In the so-called Age of Reason, Leibniz resurrected Anaxagoras for his Monadology . Briefly, Leibniz’ universe consists of monads, each one reflecting all others: Pan in Panti . Finally, in the 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead created what may be the last great philosophical system of our era. Process and Reality is full of ideas that would have felt at home in 5th century BCE Greece: The universe consists solely of one class of ‘things’: Actual Entities ( aka Events). Each actual entity configures the common Multiplicity of past events into its own unique Actual World. Each actual entity executes judgment on that actual world (‘the gods of Egypt’ - Exodus 12: 12) as it ‘prehends’ all other actual entities (or to use Whitehead’s terminology, ‘as it feels them’) and acts to bring the elements closer to an ideal pattern. In Whitehead’s model, every ‘trajectory’ connects God’s Primordial Nature (conceptual values) with God’s Consequent Nature (concrete entities). As with his contemporary, Robert Frost , Whitehead’s ‘roads diverge’…but end up at the same destination. Whitehead’s model sets up a kind of universal reflexivity. Every event is ‘in God’ and God is in every event; therefore, every event is in every event. Every event is even an element of itself. How’s that for recursion? With this topology, how is it the Universe does not just seize-up at birth? For that answer, we needed to wait for Jacques Derrida in the latter half of the 20th century. Every event includes itself as an element. A’ є A. But A’ is not strictly speaking equal to A. A and A’ are separated by what Derrida called differance , an infinitesimal difference. Differance is the origin of process, Proust’s uneven cobblestones. Every event consists of the same members, uniquely configured. The cosmos, then, is God’s Kaleidoscope . A limited number of elements generate innumerable unique patterns…and we have a pre-Socratic to thank for this insight. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at dtc@gc3incorporated.com . Return to Groundhog Issue 2025 Previous Next

< Back Offense Taken! David Cowles There is nothing more self-satisfying or self-aggrandizing than ‘taking offense’. When I was growing up, we were taught, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me." It was a tough sell even back then…but today, OMG! Names, and not even names but pronouns, have become the crypto currency of offense and resentment. There is nothing more self-satisfying or self-aggrandizing than ‘taking offense’. (Let’s face it, we all love to feel superior.) It allows you to assume the high moral ground and to depersonalize your ‘offender’. To paraphrase the iconic words of Martin Buber, "taking offense’ transforms every potential I-Thou relationship into a semi-permanent I-it relationship." I-it is the paradigmatic ‘pronoun-pair’ of depersonalization. It lies at the heart of racism, sexism, colonialism, imperialism, classism, ageism, and all forms of economic exploitation. It is ironic that those most likely to ‘take offense’ are those who imagine themselves most opposed to these hateful ‘isms’. Previous Next

< Back Ulysses – a Guide to Reading Scripture David Cowles May 8, 2024 “Most of us study events and notice patterns, Joyce studied patterns and noticed events.” When I was but a tike, it was commonplace to study the Bible’s two testaments as mirror images of one another. Happily, like much of ‘50s culture, this practice has fallen by the wayside. But resuscitate it, if only for a moment, not for its theology but for its physics. As Roman Catholics, we were taught that the Old Testament (OT) reflected the New Testament (NT). Events in NT matter – a lot; events in OT exist primarily as signs, prophesies, forerunners, ‘types’ of events to come (NT). We were not encouraged to consider the equally attractive (or unattractive) possibility that the New Testament might be a reflection of the Old. And yet that most certainly is the case! The Gospel of Matthew in particular takes great pains to demonstrate exactly how NT events fulfilled OT prophecies. The key, of course, is who’s had a bit too much to drink and who’s driving the car. Critics of Christianity have suggested that the synoptic gospels are a mostly fabricated attempt to show that Jesus of Nazareth possessed the characteristics of the Messiah as spelled out in the Old Testament. There is no doubt that OT Jews were concerned with the coming of a Messiah. Less certain are the characteristics of this Messiah and whether Jesus of Nazareth ticked all the boxes. It is likely that at least some of the events reported in the synoptic gospels are historical, but it is certain that the NT reporting of those events (e.g. in Matthew) is selective and explicitly intended to draw a connection with the so-called ‘prophecies’ (OT). The question is, how much is history and how much is spin? And then, of course, there are the brave few who deny any significant cross fertilization between the two anthologies . They attribute alleged correspondences to a combination of coincidence (dubious) and the overactive imaginations of commentators (undoubted). So, I’ve offered three theories of how the two testaments might relate: →, ø, ←. Could there be others? For example, what if patterns in OT and NT resonate just because certain patterns are found more or less everywhere, more or less all the time? In such a world, everything is prophesy and everything fulfills prophecy. The World is massively self-referential. There is a semantic web that ties all events together. Everything signifies; everything is signified. Everything is a sign “we are here to read” (Joyce), fulfilling past prophecies and prophesying things to come. In Ulysses , James Joyce set out to show how the archetypal patterns of Western Civilization can resonate with the events of a single day in Dublin. Specifically, he highlighted the parallels between the events of June 16, 1904 and Odysseus’ pan-Aegean cruise recounted by Homer. There is no suggestion that events in 1904 CE were ‘caused’ by events in 994 BCE, or vice versa. They are reflections of one another, and reflection is not vectored – it’s reciprocal…by definition. Time’s iron clad tyranny is overthrown. It is as true to say that B → A as it is to say that A → B, which is to say it’s not very true at all. A neither causes B nor is caused by it. A is a pattern, B is a pattern, and perhaps not surprisingly, the two patterns exhibit far greater congruence than mere ‘coincidence’ could possibly explain. More surprisingly, the two patterns exhibit greater congruence than even ‘causation’ can predict. Causality is not conformity. An effect only occasionally resembles its cause. Correlation is an entirely unique mode of connection among events. But the World is not bi-polar. It’s more than just 20th century Dublin and 10th century (BCE) Ithaca. In Dublin life, Joyce detects incipient harmonies with various cultures, enshrined in different media. While events in Ireland reprise events in the Aegean, they also reflect other patterns, e.g. Roman Catholic Liturgy (the ‘Mass’) and Shakespeare’s Hamlet . History, liturgy, poetry, fact and fiction, co-exist for Joyce in a cosmic ouroboros ∞. Pattern is substructure. Tangible events, performances, etc. are ‘accidents’; they are epiphenomenal. Joyce is agnostic when it comes to time, place, or medium. Pattern is everything. Most of us study events and notice patterns, Joyce studied patterns and noticed events. Read Ulysses . For about 2 weeks after, your world will be enchanted. Every bird’s song, every street’s sign will have been curated specifically for you. A name in a newspaper headline connects to a 4th century theologian. Everything is everywhere all at once, until it isn’t. A mystical experience induced by literature! We only know what we can see. The final editors of the Old Testament (500 – 200 BCE) reflected on the world as they lived it. Likewise, the New Testament authors (50 – 100 CE). What is remarkable is the congruence between events in 1st century CE and events that occurred 500 to 2000 years earlier. Consider the scope. Our story begins in Mesopotamia c. 2000 BCE, moves to Canaan, then on to sunny Egypt, back to Canaan, off to Babylon…and home again. At every stop, OT Jews had to defend their faith against the polytheistic and pagan tribes of the Middle East; NT Jews (including proto-Christians) were locked in a struggle with Greco-Roman culture. And yet, patterns endure, linking a dimly remembered past to a vaguely imagined future and giving laser-like clarity to both. Pattern is the annihilation of time. It brings everything into focus, it’s what’s left over. It’s what endures after history has done its worst; it’s where the past, the present, and the future sit around a barrel fire singing Kumbaya. Folks asked Jesus for a sign. Pattern is ‘the sign’, the triumph of order over entropy. Signs point to patterns, but pattern is the sign pointing to the Kingdom of God. Keep the conversation going. 1. Click here to comment on this TWS. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back The Last Atheist David Cowles Mar 4, 2025 “The hypnotic effect of science, reinforced by technology and economic growth, is starting to wear off. The patient is waking up!” Once upon a time not so very long ago, almost everyone believed in God. I mean how could you not? Look at the stars, look at the earth, look at the abundance and variety of life around you; it all can’t just happen to be this way, it can’t just happen to be at all. There has to be a God; it wouldn’t be ‘sane’ to think otherwise. Unfortunately, conviction is such matters often translates into intolerance. Prior to 1500, all serious metaphysical exploration was required to acknowledge God’s (or gods’) role. Then we became Enlightened . Over the last 500 years we have pushed out, way out, the frontiers of knowledge. Now we can account for most phenomena by linking one phenomenon to another. Over these same 500 years, we have built a new cosmic map based on these ‘explanatory’ connections. We’ve sketched out a new mappa mundi ; we’ve stitched together a new logos . With each new ‘phenomenon explained’, our felt need for divine agency diminished. While we’re not home yet, we feel we can, Moses like, see ahead to the Promised Land: in this case a TOE – a Theory of Everything, a theory of everything that does not include God. We are, after all, ourselves already on the edge of omniscience. Unlike Nietzsche, we have not killed God; more like Sartre, we have rendered God superfluous. But per Occam’s Razor, superfluity = nullity; so we are ‘Nietzscheans’ after all, albeit a kinder, gentler version. If we are not ‘there yet’, we are close to the moment when we will be able to say, “Almost no one believes in God anymore and ‘only a crazy person’ could believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic version of things. As for me and my tribe (Joshua) we’ll put our faith in science; it’s the only map we need.” Natural processes have replaced Divine intentions in our cosmic etiology. The phenomenal patterns that had beguiled our ‘unenlightened’ minds into a belief in God are now having precisely the opposite effect: they have convinced us that we no longer need even to entertain the God Hypothesis . The number of people identifying their religious preference as ‘atheist, agnostic or none’ has increased exponentially over the past 50 years. Even among those identifying with a particular religion, the ranks of those actively participating in faith based activities (e.g. liturgy) is thinning out, rapidly. Not too long ago, a book titled The Last Catholic in America was on the best seller list. It seemed reasonable to assume that ‘the superstition of religion’ might finally be a thing of the past for homo sapiens . In the next century, Karl, when people want opiates, they’ll get them at a pharmacy or a ‘head shop’ rather than a church. From this vantage, the Intellectual History of the West writes itself: Prior to 1500, folks ‘proved’ the necessary existence of God by appealing to the evidence of design in the World. After 1500, folks began to ‘prove’ that God was non-existent, or at least superfluous, by appealing to the exact same evidence, i.e. design. It’s all very neat and tidy, isn’t it? If only it made sense! In fact, our so-called TOE is the paradigmatic Rube Goldberg contraption. Like Ptolemy’s cosmology prior to Galileo, our logos depends on a menagerie of outlandish improbabilities. By some estimates, we have identified as many as 90 totally unexplained and apparently independent (unrelated) physical properties and mathematical constants where a deviation of less than 1% from inferred or measured values would preclude the existence of a cosmos . Now ‘only a crazy person’ could think that the current model holds. The hypnotic effect of science, reinforced by technology and economic growth, is starting to wear off. The patient is waking up! Our heartfelt conviction that an explanation of ‘the World’ can be found in that World alone is wearing thin – we are experiencing yet another crisis of faith, 500 years on! This is not a revitalized attempt to prove the existence of God by appealing to the Argument from Design; it is an effort to suggest that evidence that design is immanent in the world does not preclude a transcendent explanation. The twin mysteries of Being and Consciousness, which seemed on the verge of solution a half century ago, now seem intractable. We need a new approach, a new intellectual paradigm, a new Galileo. It’s time to take our all-terrain vehicle off-road . There is some evidence that the birth pangs of this new paradigm may be underway. A belief in God no longer automatically spells the immediate end of an academic career. Plus, a recently released study by the highly respected Pew Research suggests that the decline in religious affiliation may have leveled off: In 2000, 28% of respondents identified as ‘none’; that number rose to 31% in 2020. Now it has reverted to 28%. Over the same period, 64% identified as ‘Christian’, declining to 60%, reverting to 63%. This is not a recommendation to buy Vatican City municipal bonds. A renewed tolerance for the Transcendent does not necessarily translate into a resurgence of previously popular faiths. In fact, that will only happen, in my view, if those faiths find a way to connect their pre-Renaissance creeds with post-Enlightenment paradigms. Just as likely, new forms of spirituality will rise up and infiltrate, co-opt, or replace existing institutional religions. There are early signs that this may be happening as well. Since 2007, the number of respondents professing a non-Christian religious affiliation has almost doubled; on the other hand, less than 1% now identify as Episcopalian, the traditional religious affiliation of America’s ruling class. I make no predictions. Right now, it’s a ‘jump ball’. However, I do believe that we’ve entered an era characterized by an increasing tolerance for metaphysical speculation…and that alone is a good thing! Keep the conversation going. 1. Click here to comment on this TWS. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.