< Back Past, Present, Future David Cowles "So, it turns out that the universe did not have a lot of options when it came to structuring time." “The Past” does not exist – by definition. It consists of events that once happened or might have happened but are not happening now. “The Future” does not exist either – also by definition. It consists of events that will happen or may happen but have not yet happened and are not happening now. What exists is what is happening now, and neither the Past nor the Future is happening. That leaves “The Present”. According to post-modern deconstructionist, Jacques Derrida, the Present consists of all events (potential as well as actual) that are neither elements of the set of actual or possible past events nor elements of the set of actual or possible future events. Derrida follows the Via Negativa ; he defines the Present, not by what it is, but by what it is not. This scheme presupposes that every event is unique. No two events, however similar they may seem, can ever be the same event . Cosmic censorship will not allow an event to happen more than once. Among other things, this allows us to assign each unique event to a specified coordinate region. No two events can have the same coordinates. Otherwise, the world be irreparable chaotic: “…without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters.” (Genesis 1: 2) While innumerable events could occur in any specified coordinate region, only one event does occur in that region. Broadly speaking, there are three popular models of time: Linear Time (e.g., the relentless progression of birthdays), Static Time (all events occur simultaneously), and Cyclical Time ( aka Eternal Recurrence). Eternal Recurrence (Nietzsche, et al.) presents some of the same philosophical problems as Time Travel. In the latter case, ‘the past’ is never a settled matter of fact. Instead of living their lives in the Present, time travelers focus on adjusting the Past to create a different Present . Of course, it’s a fool’s game because any modification of a past event, no matter how slight, can have unanticipated, and possibly catastrophic, consequences. Or it can also have no perceptible consequence at all. Either way it is unpredictable and therefore uncontrollable. Time can amplify or dampen, but it can never just conserve or repeat. Now suppose a time traveler were to go all the way back to the primordial event, Big Bang, and prevent that event from occurring: no universe…and no nosey parker to modify it. A universe in which time travel is a possibility is a universe that does not exist because it is self-erasing. With Eternal Recurrence, the Past cannot be modified but past events can pop back-up anywhere in spacetime. Here, too, the past is never totally in our rearview mirror. Unless the universe is micro-determined, the reoccurrence of a past event does not necessarily ensure that the future will repeat as well…but neither does it preclude such a possibility. And since the possibility is not precluded, we must assume that that will happen at some point. Once that happens, the universe will just ‘seize up’ eliminating any notion of novelty or freedom. So, it turns out that the universe did not have a lot of options when it came to structuring time. Time cannot be recursive! Whether we alter the past to change the present or bring the past forward in order to relive it, time would no longer include a real future, and without a real future, time would not be time. Cain left Eden to earn a degree in urban planning. Abram left Ur to find the Promised Land. Moses left Egypt to create a just society. Generations of Americans went west in pursuit of liberty and/or luxury. None of these ‘heroes’ had any interest in changing the past, or in conserving it for that matter. They understood life as perpetual change, and they sought to harness that change in pursuit of novelty and progress. Time Travel and Eternal Recurrence take that away. Progress is no longer a hope, a dream, a goal, or a project; now our future is found in our past. We look to improve the present not by building a new future but by resuscitating or modifying a spent past. It’s the myth of a Golden Age. Now back to the real world. A world with a non-degenerate dimension of time. This world – the world - consists exclusively of unique events, both actual and potential: (1) whatever happened or might have happened (Past), (2) whatever will or might yet happen (Future), and (3) whatever did not happen and could not happen either in the past or in the future (Present). Present events, then, are not at all like past or future events. The present is the realm of pure potential; it is ever fresh. The Present inherits the past and anticipates the future; therefore, no event is ever either random or determined. There are no efficient or final causes at work in the Present. Whatever happens in the Present is a function of free will, acting on the past (without changing it) and projecting toward the future (without limiting it). The great 20th century physicist, Richard Feynman, took an alternate route but, like Robert Frost, he ended up at the same destination. He defined the Present, positively (rather than negatively ), as the sum of everything that might have happened in the past, whether it did or did not, and everything that might happen in the future, whether it does or does not. He called this method, Sum over Histories . Relative to the actual past, the Present may appear random; relative to the actual future, the Present may appear irrelevant. But relative to a Past that includes everything that might have been, whether or not it was, the Present precludes randomness; likewise, relative to a Future that includes everything that might yet come to be, whether or not it does, precludes any repetition. Either way, you can’t go home again. The Present, as you can see, is stranded on an ontological island. Parodying a Christmas special, the Present is the island of misfit events . Neti, neti – neither past nor future, that is the present. The Present is not an alternate Past or, for that matter, an alternate Future. Since the Present consists of only those events that could not have happened in the past and that cannot happen in the future, the Present is unique – perhaps the paradigmatic example of uniqueness since any overlap with non-present events is strictly prohibited – again, by definition. Traditional Western metaphysics, according to Derrida, defines the Present positively in terms of “what is”. Borrowing from Exodus , chapter 3, the Present “is what is”, it is the “eternal now”. Derrida correctly, in my view, and bravely, acknowledges that any such positive metaphysics must inevitably point to the existence of God, which he, of course, being a 20th century intellectual, denies. To resolve this dilemma, Derrida suggests we define the Present negatively , in terms of what it is not. The question of what it is, if anything, is left open. Present becomes an undefined term in his ontology. ‘God’ is odd man out. In any event, this post-modern Present is not the infinitesimal point posited by Newtonian physics and illustrated on the Real Number Line. It may yet turn out to be an infinitesimal point, or more likely a Planck unit, in which case the set of the present events would have no members (it would be a null set); but we don’t know that yet. It is something to be discovered, not assumed. Our initial hypothesis must be that the Present is a region like the Past and the Future. If the region turns out to be empty, so be it. But ‘region’ implies ‘extension’. If the present occupies a region on the timeline, then presumably, it must have extension along that line. But that would mean that the present was a combination of past and future elements; it would not be ‘Present’ at all, at least not in Derrida’s sense of the word. I see protestors gathering outside my first-floor window. They’re singing songs and carrying signs, mostly saying: Save the Present. Sidebar : if you look closely, you can see that on many of the signs, the word “Present” has overwritten the scratched-out remnants of “Planet." One superannuated hippie is carrying a sign on which “Present” appears to have overwritten “Whales." There is only one way to salvage a real Present: you must assume that ‘Present’ denotes an extensive region on the timeline which, experienced internally, is timeless. Viewed from the outside, the so-called Present appears to have duration (a form of extension); but not when viewed from the inside. The Present is a process, but ‘process’ does not necessarily imply ‘sequence’. We are used to process unfolding in time. But it doesn’t have to be that way. There is no ontologically compelling reason why process needs to be a function of sequence or vice versa . Example : I am listening to the 5th Brandenburg Concerto. It takes about 20 minutes to perform. That performance occupies a place in the spacetime continuum and, if necessary, the experience can be analyzed minute by minute. But as soon as that happens, the Concerto itself disappears. We are no longer ‘experiencing the Concerto’, we are no longer in the Present; now we are dissecting measures written down 300 years ago and/or anticipating the experience of hearing the Concerto performed at a later date. We have allowed the Present to dissolve into the Past/Future. Subjectively, we incorporate the Past and the Future into our experiential Present as Faith and as Hope, respectively. If Anaximander is right and Being occurs only when potential entities self-actualize by giving each other ‘reck’, then the Present is constituted simply as Love. 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 Memes About Animal Resistance Are Everywhere Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond "Nonhuman animals do, in fact, engage in resistance, even if their defiance is futile. The will to prefer life over death is a primary act of resistance, perhaps the only act of dissent available to animals who are subject to extreme forms of control." Memes galore centered on the “orca revolution” have inundated the online realm. They gleefully depict orcas launching attacks on boats in the Strait of Gibraltar and off the Shetland coast . One particularly ingenious image showcases an orca posed as a sickle crossed with a hammer. The cheeky caption reads, “ Eat the rich ,” a nod to the orcas’ penchant for sinking lavish yachts. A surfboard-snatching sea otter in Santa Cruz, California has also claimed the media spotlight. Headlines dub her an “ adorable outlaw ” “ at large .” Memes conjure her in a beret like the one donned by socialist revolutionary Ché Guevara. In one caption, she proclaims, “ Accept our existence or expect resistance … an otter world is possible.” My scholarship centers on animal-human relations through the prism of social justice. As I see it, public glee about wrecked surfboards and yachts hints at a certain flavor of schadenfreude . At a time marked by drastic socioeconomic disparities, white supremacy and environmental degradation, casting these marine mammals as revolutionaries seems like a projection of desires for social justice and habitable ecosystems. A glimpse into the work of some political scientists, philosophers and animal behavior researchers injects weightiness into this jocular public dialogue. The field of critical animal studies analyzes structures of oppression and power and considers pathways to dismantling them. These scholars’ insights challenge the prevailing view of nonhuman animals as passive victims. They also oppose the widespread assumption that nonhuman animals can’t be political actors. So while meme lovers project emotions and perspectives onto these particular wild animals, scholars of critical animal studies suggest that nonhuman animals do in fact engage in resistance. Nonhuman Animal Protest is Everywhere Are nonhuman animals in a constant state of defiance? I’d answer, undoubtedly, that the answer is yes. The entire architecture of animal agriculture attests to animals’ unyielding resistance against confinement and death. Cages, corrals, pens and tanks would not exist were it not for animals’ tireless revolt. Even when hung upside down on conveyor hangars, chickens furiously flap their wings and bite , scratch, peck and defecate on line workers at every stage of the process leading to their deaths. Until the end, hooked tuna resist, gasping and writhing fiercely on ships’ decks. Hooks, nets and snares would not be necessary if fish allowed themselves to be passively harvested . If they consented to repeated impregnation , female pigs and cows wouldn’t need to be tethered to “ rape racks ” to prevent them from struggling to get away. If they didn’t mind having their infants permanently taken from their sides , dairy cows wouldn’t need to be blinded with hoods so they don’t bite and kick as the calves are removed; they wouldn’t bellow for weeks after each instance. I contend that failure to recognize their bellowing as protest reflects “ anthropodenial ” – what ethologist Frans de Waal calls the rejection of obvious continuities between human and nonhuman animal behavior, cognition and emotion. The prevalent view of nonhuman animals remains that of René Descartes, the 17th-century philosopher who viewed animals’ actions as purely mechanical , like those of a machine. From this viewpoint, one might dismiss these nonhuman animals’ will to prevail as unintentional or merely instinctual. But political scientist Dinesh Wadiwel argues that “even if their defiance is futile, the will to prefer life over death is a primary act of resistance , perhaps the only act of dissent available to animals who are subject to extreme forms of control.” Creaturely Escape Artists Despite humans’ colossal efforts to repress them, nonhuman animals still manage to escape from slaughterhouses . They also break out of zoos , circuses, aquatic parks, stables and biomedical laboratories . Tilikum, a captive orca at Sea World, famously killed his trainer – an act at least one marine mammal behaviorist characterized as intentional . Philosopher Fahim Amir suggests that depression among captive animals is likewise a form of emotional rebellion against unbearable conditions, a revolt of the nerves . Dolphins engage in self-harm like thrashing against the tank’s walls or cease to eat and retain their breath until death . Sows whose body-sized cages impede them from turning around to make contact with their piglets repeatedly ram themselves into the metal struts, sometimes succumbing to their injuries . Critical animal studies scholars contend that all these actions arguably demonstrate nonhuman animals’ yearning for freedom and their aversion to inequity . As for the marine stars of summer 2023’s memes, fishing gear can entangle and harm orcas . Sea otters were hunted nearly to extinction for their fur . Marine habitats have been degraded by human activities including overfishing, oil spills, plastic, chemical and sonic pollution, and climate change. It’s easy to imagine they might be responding to human actions , including bodily harm and interference with their turf. What is Solidarity with Nonhuman Animals? Sharing memes that cheer on wild animals is one thing. But there are more substantive ways to demonstrate solidarity with animals. Legal scholars support nonhuman animals’ resistance by proposing that their current classification as property should be replaced with that of personhood or beingness . Nonhuman animals including songbirds, dolphins, elephants , horses, chimpanzees and bears increasingly appear as plaintiffs alleging their subjection to extinction, abuse and other injustices. Citizenship for nonhuman animals is another pathway to social and political inclusion. It would guarantee the right to appeal arbitrary restrictions of domesticated nonhuman animals’ autonomy. It would also mandate legal duties to protect them from harm. Everyday deeds can likewise convey solidarity. Boycotting industries that oppress nonhuman animals by becoming vegan is a powerful action. It is a form of political “counter-conduct,” a term philosopher Michel Foucault uses to describe practices that oppose dominant norms of power and control. Creating roadside memorials for nonhuman animals killed by motor vehicles encourages people to see them as beings whose lives and deaths matter , rather than mere “roadkill .” Political scientists recognize that human and nonhuman animals’ struggles against oppression are intertwined . At different moments, the same strategies leveraged against nonhuman animals have cast segments of the human species as “less than human” in order to exploit them. The category of the human is ever-shifting and ominously exclusive . I argue that no one is safe as long as there is a classification of “animality.” It confers susceptibility to extravagant forms of violence , legally and ethically condoned. Might an ‘Otter World’ Be Possible? I believe quips about the marine mammal rebellion reflect awareness that our human interests are entwined with those of nonhuman animals. The desire to achieve sustainable relationships with other species and the natural world feels palpable to me within the memes and media coverage. And it’s happening as human-caused activity makes our shared habitats increasingly unlivable. Solidarity with nonhuman animals is consistent with democratic principles – for instance, defending the right to well-being and opposing the use of force against innocent subjects . Philosopher Amir recommends extending the idea that there can be no freedom as long as there is still unfreedom beyond the species divide: “While we may not yet fully be able to picture what this may mean, there is no reason we should not begin to imagine it ”. This is a republish in its entirety through permission from The Conversation . Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond works at the intersection of critical animal studies, decolonial studies, and comparative race and slavery studies. Above all, she is interested in troubling the human/animal divide, anthropocentrism, and the entanglement of animalization with racialization. Her publications include the book chapters, "Dogs without Masters: Astray with Akbar and in André Alexis' Fifteen Dogs" (2022), "A Pale Shade of Violet: Animals and Race in Machado de Assis" (2022), “Haunting Pigs, Swimming Jaguars: Mourning, Animals, and Ayahuasca” (2020), and "Slave Barracks Aristocrats: Islam and the Orient in the Work of Gilberto Freyre" (2014). She has also authored articles such as "Of She-Wolves and Mad Cows: Animality, Anthropophagy, and the State of Exception in Cláudio Assis's Amarelo Manga" (2011) and “Akbar Stole My Heart: Coming Out as an Animalist” (2013), as well as the monograph, "White Negritude: Race, Writing, and Brazilian Cultural Identity" (2008), and the edited volume, "The Masters and the Slaves: Plantation Relations and Mestizaje in American Imaginaries" (2005). In addition to her scholarly publications, she has contributed to various media outlets, including The Advocate, The Conversation, CounterPunch, Ms. Magazine, Persianesque, the Folha de S. Paulo, and Truthout. Return to our Harvest Issue 2023 Previous Next

“The secret life of things is nothing less than the life of God.” < Back The Secret Life of Things David Cowles Oct 15, 2024 “The secret life of things is nothing less than the life of God.” What is a ‘thing’? According to the Nicene Creed , God is the creator of “all things , visible and invisible” and according to the Gospel of John , it is through logos (Christ) that “all things come to be”. Therefore, the concept of ‘thing’ must include objects, events, quanta, waves, thoughts, emotions…quite literally everything that is! Whenever you can say “this” or “that”, “this not that” or “that not this”, you have identified a ‘thing’. Now all things come to be by not being something else, for example, not being what is. Things come to be as negations of what is. Like a jet engine, they move forward by pushing back. Just as all children find their parents ‘wanting’, so every emerging thing judges what-is and finds it wanting. Wanting what? Beauty, Truth, Justice…in other words, Value, the Good, Harmony…Peace. “Lord, we don’t need (want) another mountain.” (Jackie DeShannon) To whatever extent the primal values (above) are not manifest in my Actual World, a vacuum, a ‘lack’ (Sartre), exists that cries out to be filled. It is its vision of what is coming to be that entices an emerging thing to negate what-is. In that sense, all things have a common origin, goal, purpose. So the emergent thing is not what-is, and it is also not what is coming to be. “Neti, neti”, not-this, not-that. The emergent thing is poised between what is actual, but not yet ideal, and what is ideal, but not yet actual. It is the vocation of the emerging thing to bridge that gap, i.e. to make what is actual ideal and to make what is ideal actual. That is why (and how) things come to be in the first place. That is what things are. If there were no vision, no lure, there would be no judgment, no lack, no negation and then there would quite literally be nothing. Nietzsche states it best: “…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!” Were that true, there would be nothing at all. Nietzsche didn’t realize it, but he was condemning the world to stasis , putting us on a road that could only lead to nihilism. Our pathological “common sense” view of the world is inclined to assign what-is to an irrevocably unchangeable “past” and what is coming to be to entirely uncertain and contingent “future”. But that model simply won’t work. Without a clear cut future to act as a lure, and a dynamic past to serve as a springboard, there is nothing to motivate or enable the emergence of any new ‘thing’. There cannot be a naked Present. Whatever ‘present’ is it must include a past to be ameliorated and a future to be realized. Accordingly, there must be some sense in which what was still is and what is coming to be already exists; otherwise, whence the vision? Every event has the same ultimate goal, but each event interprets that goal in the context of its Actual World, i.e. what-is for it. The emergent thing is how it is not what-is and how it is coming to be what is coming to be. How the emergent thing is different from what already is and from what is coming to be, how it bridges that gap, is what the emergent thing actually is. Not a noun, not a verb, but a process! The emergent thing did not choose the world out of which it arose, nor did it invent the ultimate end toward which all things are tending. But it chose to bridge that gap, and it chose a specific way to bridge that gap; that’s what makes it unique, that’s what makes it free, that’s what makes it present, that’s what makes it consequential. Free? How so if it is guided by a well-defined future? Free because it would be impossible to ‘choose’ anything other than that future. The future represents the Good to the present; every event is the process of choosing what is ‘good’ from the perspective of what is. That’s what an event is; anything other than that is not an event. Our knee jerk reaction to this is to say, “An event cannot be considered free unless it is free not to choose what is ‘good’.” That seems like a well-formed sentence that would have to be true. But the opposite is the case. It’s ill formed and never true! Every event transforms the antagonistic multiplicity of what-is into the harmonious unity of what is coming to be. Each emerging thing decides how to do it, decides freely with no constraint from what-is and no coercion from what is coming to be. This absolute freedom is what gives every thing its zest for being; it is what makes the creative advance fundamental. So the emerging thing is both one thing and three things. It is a single, absolutely unique entity, but it is also what it is not (i.e. what is), what it is coming to be (i.e. what is not yet) and the way (i.e. how) it is both what it is not and what it is not yet. It is itself as the negation of what is, it is itself as the anticipation of what is coming to be, and it is itself as the process by which what-is is transformed into what is coming to be. As not-what-is, the emerging thing consists entirely of values, the values that inspired its rejection of what-is in the first place. As what is coming to be, the emerging thing is entirely concrete. Its contribution to the future is specific. As how not-what-is comes to be what is coming be, the emerging thing is process. Returning to the Nicene Creed , we now see that the ontological doctrine of Trinity does not just apply the structure of Divinity, but also to the structure of everything that is. Each thing is one, single entity with three distinct personae (persons). Each ‘person’ is the thing itself, whole and entire. And yet the thing itself would not be what it is, in fact it would not be at all, without the co-presence of all three ‘persons’. Trinity is fundamental to the nature of God and to the nature of every other entity, event, in any possible world. So the secret life of things is nothing less than the life of God! To put it another way, everything participates in God’s Trinitarian nature. Of course, that is not to say that everything is God. Far from it! But everything is “God-like”; everything is Trinitarian, everything is made in God’s image and likeness. 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 ress, Literary Journal Spring 2023. Return to Harvest 2024 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

< Back The Theology of Science-Fiction Bob Kurland Can AI have soul ? Theological Objection : “Thinking is a function of man’s immortal soul. God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines. Hence no animal or machine can think." Rebuttal to Objection: “It appears to me that [The Theological Objection] implies a serious restriction of the omnipotence of the Almighty. It is admitted that there are certain things that He cannot do such as making one equal two, but should we not believe that He has freedom to confer a soul on an elephant if He sees fit? We might expect that He would only exercise this power in conjunction with a mutation which provided the elephant with an appropriately improved brain to minister to the needs of this soul.” Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence . INTRODUCTION Let's start off on a light note. A long time ago when computers were still new (yes, it was that long ago), when I was at my first academic assignment, the head of the division dealing with computers gave a talk on artificial intelligence for computers. One of the humanities faculty in the audience put a question after the talk " Would you want your daughter to marry one [i.e. a computer]?" Legend has it (I wasn't there) that he answered, " Yes, if she loved him. ” When we inquire about the souls of computers/robots we assume that computers/robots have a mind/self-awareness/consciousness. That some sort of programmed intelligence can be conscious (self-aware) is a hotly debated proposition. A book would be required (many have been written) to explore this notion. We don't want to write that book here, so let's suppose, as do science fiction (SF) authors, that consciousness is possible by some means or another for computers and robots and see what SF has to say about them having souls.* I WANT TO BE A COMPUTER WHEN I DIE As a transition to considering machine intelligence, let's examine how SF treats the transfer of human intelligence/personality into computers or robots. Note that one theoretical physicist, Frank Tipler, in his book, The Physics of Christianity , posits that heaven will consist of personalities transferred to software as the universe reaches its end in an " Omega Point " singularity. Since it is a black hole type singularity, time is slowed down and the intelligences transferred to software thus have essentially an eternity to enjoy their virtual life. Among the many SF stories that deal with transferred human intelligence, there is one that especially focuses on the question of soulhood, Deus X , by Norman Spinrad. Spinrad treats the question with respect, although his attitude to the Catholic Church is somewhat less than reverent (there is a female Pope, Mary I). Below is a summary of the plot, as given in McKee's excellent survey, The Gospel According to Science-Fiction : “...thousands of people exist in an artificial afterlife called 'Transcorporeal Immortality', having copied their consciousness onto a worldwide computer network called 'The Big Board'....Catholic theologian Fr. Philippe de Leone argue[s] that this creation of an artificial soul, which cannot have true self-awareness, dooms the actual soul that is copied to damnation. Pope Mary I, hoping to settle the controversy, orders Fr. DeLeone to have his soul copied upon his death, so that his consciousness can argue against its own autonomous existence from the other side.” Superficially, Pope Mary's plan seems to contain a paradox. If the downloaded Fr. de Leone changes "his" mind and says "yes, I am a real soul", how can we trust what an artificial soul might say? The solution to the paradox is that all of Fr. de Leone's beliefs have been downloaded to his program. If these beliefs are changed, it means that the entity in the computer has free will, and is thus autonomous and a real soul. In the story Fr. DeLeone's soul is "kidnapped" (how do you kidnap a program?) by a group of downloaded personalities that wants to convince the Church, via Fr. de Leone's download, that they have a real soul. As McKee points out in his synopsis, there is a reverse Turing Test applied here. Fr. de Leone does change his mind, the downloaded personalities declare him a deity ("Deus X") and a new controversy arises: Church officials declare how could this blasphemy come about. To still the controversy, Fr. de Leone sacrifices his downloaded personality (dies), Pope Mary declares him a saint and recognizes that the downloaded souls are "real". THE CHURCH AND AI--"GOOD NEWS FROM THE VATICAN" There are many SF works in which the Catholic Church plays a role. In some, the Church and its teachings are treated with respect; in most, not so much. As Gabriel McKee points out in The Gospel According to Science Fiction SF, arising as it does from the secular humanism of the Enlightenment, is critical of religious institutions. SF frequently argues that if organized religion is to be a positive force in the future of humankind, it must change drastically to meet the spiritual challenges of the future. (p. 183 ) One such drastic change is envisaged by Robert Silverberg in his story Good News from the Vatican . In his story there are robot priests and robot high Church officials. One such, a robot Cardinal, is elected Pope after a deadlock between two human cardinals. The story ends with the newly elected robot pontiff rising into the air from the balcony before the assembled masses in St. Peter's Square and, as he goes up " ...his shadow extends across the whole piazza. Higher and higher he goes until he is lost to sight." Does Silverberg, with a sense of irony--the shadow cast over the piazza, and the Pope lost from sight--predict the eclipse of humanity and human values? Or am I reading too much into this ending? A more sympathetic view of how the Church might interact with artificial intelligence is given in Jack McDevitt's fine story, " Gus "**. In this beautiful tale, the newly installed rector of a Catholic Seminary interacts with a computer simulation of St. Augustine of Hippo, purchased (the simulation, that is) to help students understand St. Augustine's teachings. The Rector, Msgr. Chesley, is at first greatly displeased with Gus's (the program's) dicta: "' The thing must have been programmed by Unitarians' Chesley threw over his shoulder. 'Get rid of i t'" ("Gus" in Cryptics , p. 373). The relationship between Chesley and Gus becomes warmer with time, as they discuss the problems of being a Catholic in today's world: “'Why did Augustine become a priest?' Chesley asked. 'I wanted,' Gus said, with the slightest stress on the first words, 'to get as close as I could to my Creator.' Thoughtfully, he added, 'I seem to have traveled far afield.' 'Sometimes I think,' Chesley said, 'the Creator hides himself too well.' 'Use his Church,' said Gus. 'That is why it is here.' 'It has changed.' “Of course it has changed. The world has changed.' 'The Church is supposed to be a rock.' 'Think of it rather as a refuge in a world that will not stand still.'" (op. cit., p. 382) Gus' sayings to the students become so unorthodox (he decries the doctrines/dogma of the infallibility of the Pope and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) that other faculty decided he should be downloaded to storage and traded in for a computer simulation of Thomas Aquinas (plus business software). Gus asks Msgr. Chesley to hear his Confession and then destroy him, so he can have peace: "'I require absolution, Matt.' Chesley pressed his right hand into his pocket. 'It would be sacrilege,' he whispered. 'And if I have a soul, Matt, if I too am required to face judgment,what then?' Chesley raised his right hand, slowly, and drew the sign of the cross in the thick air. 'I absolve you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' 'Thank you...There’s something else I need you to do, Matt. This existence holds nothing for me. But I am not sure what downloading might mean.' 'What are you asking?” 'I want to be free of all this. I want to be certain I do not spend a substantial fraction of eternity in the storeroom.' Chesley trembled. 'If in fact you have an immortal soul,' he said, 'you may be placing it in grave danger.' 'And yours as well. I have no choice but to ask. Let us rely on the mercy of the Almighty.' Tears squeezed into Chesley’s eyes. He drew his finger- tips across the hard casing of the IBM. 'What do I do? I’m not familiar with the equipment.' 'Have you got the right computer?' 'Yes.' 'Take it apart. Turn off the power first. All you have to do is get into it and destroy the hard disk.' 'Will you—feel anything?' 'Nothing physical touches me, Matt.' Chesley found the power switch...He found a hammer and a Phillips screwdriver. He used the screwdriver to take the top off the computer. A gray metal box lay within. He opened it and removed a gleaming black plastic disk. He embraced it, held it to his chest. Then he set it down, and reached for the hammer. In the morning, with appropriate ceremony, he buried it in consecrated soil." (op.cit., pp.388-389) Even though I am moved to tears when I read this, do I believe that a computer program will have a personality, a soul? Not likely***. DOES DATA HAVE A SOUL? For those who aren't Trekkies, Data is the android navigator in the second Star Trek series, Star Trek: the Next Generation . He aspires to humanity and sometimes reaches and even surpasses that state. However, there is a problem in asking whether Data has a soul. The question is never considered in any of the episodes, possibly because the word "soul" (in its theological, not musical sense) is anathema to writers and producers of popular entertainment. So, in the episode, " The Measure of a Man ", the question "Is Data a sentient being" is asked, rather than "Does Data have a soul". The question is addressed in a trial , to see if Data, as a "sentient being", has the right to refuse to be disassembled for study and refitting. Captain Picard acts in Data's behalf and Commander Riker, under duress, as the prosecutor. Riker attempts to demonstrate that Data is a machine by switching him off: [Riker is doing his duty in the courtroom] Commander William T. Riker : The Commander is a physical representation of a dream - an idea, conceived of by the mind of a man. Its purpose: to serve human needs and interests. It's a collection of neural nets and heuristic algorithms; its responses dictated by an elaborate software written by a man, its hardware built by a man. And now... and now a man will shut it off. [Riker switches off Data, who slumps forward like a lifeless puppet] Commander William T. Riker : Pinocchio is broken. Its strings have been cut. ( The Measure of a Man, Quotes ) [Captain Picard gives a stirring defense, arguing that the question of whether Data is conscious--self-aware--has not and can not be settled any more than whether one can be certain that another person is conscious except by external behavior. And finally the question of soulhood is addressed minimally:] " Captain Phillipa Louvois [The Judge] : It sits there looking at me; and I don't know what it is. This case has dealt with metaphysics - with questions best left to saints and philosophers. I am neither competent nor qualified to answer those. But I've got to make a ruling, to try to speak to the future. Is Data a machine? Yes. Is he the property of Starfleet? No. We have all been dancing around the basic issue: does Data have a soul? [emphasis added] I don't know that he has. I don't know that I have. But I have got to give him the freedom to explore that question himself. It is the ruling of this court that Lieutenant Commander Data has the freedom to choose." [notice the shift from "it" to "he"] ( ibid ) And so Data is left free, and the question of whether he has a soul, undetermined -- as in the Scottish verdict, "Not Proven”. AND SO? In his book, " Our Lady of the Artilects ," Andrew Gillsmith raises fundamental questions about these basic articles of faith: good versus evil, who (or what) can have a soul and what constitutes a soul. The book is ranked 2nd by readers in the Good Reads survey of Catholic science fiction, right after that classic, "A Canticle for Leibowitz." In a review of the book on Catholic Stand I’ve discussed how Gillsmith addresses these issues, so I’ll refer the reader to that article. As a concluding comment, I’ll quote the last paragraph of that review: Philosophers and scientists have debated whether it be possible to create artificial intelligence that is conscious and self-aware (See “ Can Computers Have a Soul, ” and Chapter 6, A Science Primer for the Faithful. ) I vote for no. Nevertheless, science-fiction (speculative fiction) has used this device (and will presumably continue to do so) for parables defining the human condition. That knowledge, per se, is not enough for us is the message. Although the two wings of faith and reason are supposed to carry us humans to the truth, reason by itself is not enough to answer questions such as “why are we here?” Instead of hobbits, orcs and elves, Andrew Gillsmith, has used synths and humans in a moving and captivating story to illustrate this human condition and to suggest what God has in mind for us. Bob Kurland is a retired physicist with a colorful and diverse background. Known for his wit and candor, Kurland embarked on a remarkable journey that spans academia, spirituality, and community service. After a distinguished academic career, including earning his Bachelor of Science "with honor" from Caltech in 1951 and obtaining his Master's and Ph.D. from Harvard in Physics and Chemical Physics respectively, Kurland delved into the world of theoretical science. His contributions to the field are perhaps best exemplified by his seminal work, the "Kurland-McGarvey equation," a groundbreaking achievement that continues to influence scientific discourse. In 1995, Kurland experienced a profound spiritual transformation, converting to Catholicism. This newfound faith became a cornerstone of his life, guiding his actions and imbuing his endeavors with a sense of purpose. He dedicated himself to serving others, volunteering at federal prisons and hospitals, embodying the principles of compassion and empathy. In addition to his scholarly pursuits and philanthropic efforts, Kurland is a talented musician, proficient in a variety of instruments including the bass clarinet, alto clarinet, clarinet, bass, and tenor bowed psaltery. He generously shares his musical gifts as a member of the parish instrumental group and local folk group, enriching the community with his passion for music. Though retired from the academic arena, Kurland's inquisitive spirit and unwavering dedication to knowledge continue to inspire those around him. With his characteristic blend of intellect, humor, and compassion, he leaves an indelible mark on both the scientific and spiritual realms. Click the cover image to return to Spring 2024. Previous Next

“We can say that God wills the events that constitute the world, even though God does not in any way cause those events to occur.” < Back God’s Will David Cowles Jun 1, 2023 “We can say that God wills the events that constitute the world, even though God does not in any way cause those events to occur.” In a recent issue of our blog, Thoughts While Shaving , we explored the Will of God . Today, I propose to take a deeper dive into the same subject…but from a different perspective. Following any catastrophe – a tsunami in the Pacific, a mass shooting at a shopping mall…or the death of a young child – you’re certain to hear a chorus of voices reassuring us that it is “God’s will, part of his unfathomable master plan.” Such reassurances ring hollow! – They ring hollow because they cannot possibly be true, unless one of the following is also true: There is no objective ‘evil.’ God wills ‘evil.’ at least under certain circumstances. God lacks the power to prevent ‘evil’ from occurring. Unattractive, but it gets worse. One doesn’t work. If values are not objective, then there is no reason for God to plan; there’s nothing for him to plan for. And if God plans anyway, there’s no standard we can use to evaluate that plan or any of its specific effects. We cannot even decipher the existence of a plan. Three doesn’t work either; and if God’s power is limited, then we cannot hold God responsible for events that may be beyond his control. Bummer! Two does work, but it comes with a price tag. Under what circumstances might a benevolent God will evil ? For centuries, philosophers, theologians and, to some extent, even scientists have wrestled with two basic conundrums: the very familiar ‘problem of evil’ and the very unfamiliar ‘problem of good.’ The Problem of Evil asks: how can it be that God is good and ‘the creator of heaven and earth’ while the universe God created is nonetheless riddled with evil? The Problem of Good, on the other hand, asks: if there is no God or if God is not all-good (which is the same thing), how is it that we experience and recognize objective good in our world? What makes subjective good objective good? More generally, where do values come from if not from a transcendent source in which they inherently exist? Psalm 16 refers to God as “my only good” and a medieval Irish poem asserts, “Naught is all else to me save that Thou art.” Even Friedrich Nietzsche understood that the world cannot be the source of its own objective values (and Ludwig Wittgenstein agreed with him). Nietzsche chose to reject the idea of objective value rather than accept the notion that reality might have a transcendent dimension. So, where does this leave us? I suggest that this apparently unresolvable nexus of problems is really the result of two fundamental errors: (1) a misunderstanding of the nature of creation and (2) an under-appreciation of the role of redemption. I propose that God is both the creator and the redeemer of this world and that this fact, properly understood, resolves all the apparent dilemmas regarding good and evil…and values generally. First, creation. For starters, let’s examine the Genesis account: “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth…God said, let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good.” (Gen 1: 1-4) Genesis does not say that God dreamed or imagined or fabricated the heavens and the earth; it says that God ‘created the heavens and the earth.’ When you create something, if that something is real, it takes on an existence independent of yourself. Otherwise, you’ve created nothing. A great work of art, on the other hand, always transcends its author, painter or composer, and you eventually come to realize that “your sons and your daughters are beyond your command.” (Bob Dylan) And this is exactly as it should be! If you create something that does not transcend you, that is not independent of you, that has no life of its own, then you have merely projected yourself into another space or another time or onto another medium. Sadly, this is how many people view life. They see works of art as mere reflections of the experiences (or prejudices) of the artists (Deconstruction). They see their children as extensions of themselves, a chance to make up for their own mistakes, a last desperate attempt to cheat death and grab onto some species of immortality. It follows that these same people see the created world as God’s sandbox where God can play to his heart’s content with his ‘action figures’…or in more modern terms, as God’s video game where he can freely program his avatars. But that is not creation and that is certainly not what we mean when we say, “God created the heavens and the earth.” Nor is it even remotely consistent with the rest of the Genesis account: “Thus, the heavens and the earth and all their array were completed. On the seventh day, God completed the work that he had been doing; he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken. God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it, he rested from all the work he had done in creation.” (Gen 2: 1 – 3) The creative process results in a real and independent world, but God does not abandon that world. He does not leave it entirely to its own devices. As we shall see later, he continues to play a role, albeit a non-deterministic role, in the unfolding of events. God created the world, and he infused that world with essential goodness (“God saw that it was good” – Genesis 1: 10), i.e., beauty, truth, justice. This is the solution to ‘the problem of good.’ But God also infused the world with existential freedom. Yes, events are informed by God’s values, but they are ‘created’ out of their own inherent freedom. This is the solution to ‘the problem of evil.’ In the words of Deuteronomy , God says: “I set before you life and death…therefore choose life.” (Deut. 30: 19) But the world does not always choose life…and neither do we. In fact, to be honest, we rarely make the best possible choices. Sure, we are influenced by our sense of right and wrong, and we do want to make the world a better place, but we are distracted by our various attachments. (These ‘harmful attachments’ are roughly summarized as the Seven Deadly Sins: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth. Scary words! But who among us has not fallen prey to every single one of these vices at one time or another?) When we are distracted from God’s values and begin to pursue other ends, we are guilty of idolatry – we are worshiping a false God. So, in fact, all ‘sin’ is one sin: idolatry , the worship of something that is not God, the substitution of worldly ‘pseudo-values’ for the real, transcendent values that come into the world through God. Therefore, the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) begins, “I am the Lord, your God…you shall not have other gods beside me.” (Ex. 20: 1 – 3) Likewise, the Great Commandment (Matt. 22: 35-40), “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” God is the world’s creator and the world’s redeemer, but he is not the world’s micromanager. He is “our father” but not a helicopter parent. So, what about redemption? While the concept of creation can be challenging, the concept of redemption (or salvation) can be downright difficult. To understand either, we need to understand some basic things about the nature of the world. First, the world consists of events and only events. It does not consist of subjects and objects, nouns and verbs, etc. These verbal categories are abstractions from actual events. They are categories imposed on our thought process by our language; and not all languages impose the same artificial categories. The Hopi language, for example, is more event centric. Likewise, ancient Indo-European (IE) languages often included a robust “middle voice’ (vs. our active and passive voices); the middle voice forms the foundation of an event-centric syntax. But today, most of us do not speak Hopi…or proto-IE. Because of our language, we imagine that the world consists of syntactic elements that somehow come together to form events, but the reverse is true: the world consists of events, and we abstract syntactic elements from those events. Second, events in the world not only incorporate God’s essential nature, eternal values, but they also incorporate God’s existential nature, radical freedom. Without such operative values, the world could not be ‘good’; but without that freedom, the world could not be ‘real.’ Third, because God is “the maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible” and because “through him all things were made” (Nicene Creed), God must be present to every event, and conversely, every event must be present to God. Fourth, every event arises in the context of its own ‘actual world,’ i.e. the unique constellation (nexus) of events out of which, and in response to which, the novel event emerges. Every event necessarily incorporates an inheritance from its actual world. Every event judges its actual world in light of the eternal values that inspire it. Guided by those values, every event seeks to transform (i.e. improve) the actual world it inherits. Transformation of the actual world is what an event is! Fifth, since God is present to every event and since every event is present to God, God is an element in the actual world of every event and every event is also an element in God’s actual world (i.e. the nexus of all other events). Like all unique events, God judges his actual world in light of the eternal values and seeks to improve that world accordingly. But, you may ask, “How can God improve his actual world without compromising its existential freedom?” Traditionally, philosophers have understood events either as the product of past events (mechanical determinism, e.g. cause and effect) or as the product of future events (teleological determinism, e.g. God’s will or plan). It is hard to believe that these models could have held sway for so many centuries. They do not even begin to account for the novelty or variety of the events we encounter in the course of everyday living. (The ‘truth value’ of an unverifiable proposition is the extent to which it resonates with our life experience. Neither mechanical determinism nor teleological determinism resonates very deeply.) We propose a different model: every novel event is shaped by the eternal values that inspire it, the actual world that informs it, and its own existential freedom. Only a non-linear, non-deterministic model like this can hope to account for novelty and variety on the scale we experience. So how does any of this help explain the role of redemption in the world? God is an event…an unusual event to be sure…but an event, nonetheless. (Remember: the world consists of events and only of events. Everything that is real is an ‘event’ and God is real. Therefore, God is an event.) God is present to every event, and every event is present to God. What we refer to as ‘time’ (or spacetime) is merely an artificial way of ordering the events that constitute the world. Since God is present to every event and every event is present to God, God cannot be ‘ordered’ with respect to any other event. In fact, because they are co-present with God, events ultimately cannot be ordered, even with respect to one another. God simply cannot be understood in terms of time…and therefore neither can the world. Like the values that constitute God’s essence, God must be a-temporal, i.e. eternal. Therefore, since all events are ‘present’ to the eternal God, the events that constitute God’s actual world must also be a-temporal, eternal. So, God is the context in which all other events arise (creation) and at the same time, those other events are the context (actual world) in which God operates (Incarnation/Eucharist/Parousia). Therefore, God embodies both the eternal values that inspire all events and the actual world that consists of those events. Now remember what we said earlier about events: “every novel event seeks to improve the actual world it inherits.” God is an event, and so God, too, seeks to improve his actual world; but how does ‘improving the actual world’ translate into ‘redeeming the actual world’…without compromising the existential freedom that characterizes that world? To understand this, we need to turn briefly to Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine). Augustine noted that because God is Being and God is Good, Being must be Good and if Being is Good, non-Being must be not-Good. Therefore, what is ‘not-Good,’ i.e. what is evil, must be a deprivation of Being, a hole in the ‘donut’ that is the world. Therefore, as God embodies his actual world, he seeks to harmonize that world with the eternal values and in so doing, he ‘redeems’ that portion of every event that is good, i.e. that is real. However, it turns out that that is 100% of the event itself, since the aspect of an event that is ‘not-good’ is ‘not-real’ and therefore not part of the event in the first place. When we think of a donut, we think of the torus and the hole; but when God thinks of a ‘donut’ (metaphorically), he thinks only of the torus. God is Being; there are no ‘holes’ in his world. Think of the nexus of events that constitutes the world as a stack of Swiss cheese slices. Every slice includes some cheese, but every slice also includes some holes. Some slices are almost all cheese, other slices are mostly holes; but in either case, we eat the slice and enjoy the flavor and the nourishment it offers. Mid-bite, we care nothing for wholes & holes . Likewise, every event is redeemed by and in God. So, God embodies every event (his actual world) and seeks to improve that actual world according to the eternal values. However, while other events might be distracted from the eternal values by secular ‘pseudo-values,’ the eternal values constitute God’s essence. So, God cannot be distracted, God cannot commit the sin of idolatry. God harmonizes the events that constitute his actual world according to the eternal values that constitute his essence. In that way, God acts to improve the actual world he inherits. Ultimately, the events that constitute the world come to instantiate perfectly the eternal values. That is what we call the ‘Kingdom of Heaven.’ But the Kingdom of Heaven is not passive! As we noted earlier, God is an element in the actual world of every other event, just as every other event is an element in the actual world of God. God’s ‘primordial nature’ consists of the eternal values, but God’s ‘ultimate nature’ includes the events in his actual world, harmonized according to his eternal values, into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom (God’s ultimate nature), therefore, is part of the actual world of every other event. Every event incorporates the Kingdom as part of what it inherits from its actual world. The role of the Kingdom in the evolution of an event is what we refer to as God’s “Providence.” So, the distractions of the world notwithstanding, every event enjoys inspiration via eternal values and guidance via the Kingdom of Heaven. This is what The Lord’s Prayer means when it says, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Thy will! The events that constitute the world, harmonized to instantiate the eternal values, are God’s will. In that sense, we can say that God wills the events that constitute the world, even though God does not in any way cause those events to occur. The events that come to constitute the world may occur in any way whatsoever, but once having occurred, they are harmonized with each other (peace) and with the eternal values (justice) so that they become ‘God’s will’ and so that “God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15: 28). 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 . Return to our Summer 2023 Table of Contents Share Previous Next Click here. 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! 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, Fall Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back Life is Football David Cowles Feb 6, 2024 ”Super Sunday (2024) is right around the corner! Enjoy the game, but enjoy it mindful that you are witnessing a cosmos unfold before you.” To what extent is Real Life (RL) like American Football? 100% - RL is American Football and vice versa! Football is "basic ontology," intricately choreographed. Football represents process but it also exemplifies that process . In this case, art is not mere representation; it is a monad reflecting every other monad and reflected by every other monad. Football begins with an objective, a Summum Bonum , that transcends the game itself. No, it’s not good sportsmanship - it’s points ! Everything that happens on a football field is motivated by a desire to "score points" (net points)—either by adding points to your team’s score or by denying points to your opponent. The score transcends the game itself. It converts 60 minutes of blood and guts into a sequence of 0’s and 1’s, which is then forever after… the game . In life, Summum Bonum is the Good. In football, the Good manifests as points; in other contexts, it manifests as Beauty, Truth, or Justice. A game of football consists of c. 120 "plays" – that’s it! Everything else (field, clock, refs, fans, etc.) exists merely to support those plays. Every play begins with a plan (diagram), formal or informal, to realize the Good (net points) in a specific context. Example: It’s 4 th and 14; Coach may call for a punt. So, every play has an initial aim (‘score points’) and a plan (‘diagram’) to realize that aim. But no play ever unfolds exactly as designed. Sometimes, the initial aim cannot even be recognized in the final product. Announcer: “I’m not quite sure what they were trying to accomplish there!” And this is a good thing! From the moment the ball is put in play (‘snapped’), every play evolves chaotically. It could not be otherwise. Almost any play, executed exactly as diagrammed, would fail. It would not be able to adapt to all the unexpected developments that occur during play. Every play has 22 primary actors (the players on the field), supported by a large supporting cast. Each primary actor is independent, making his own decisions. Ideally, the players will attempt to execute the play as designed, but when that design falls apart, as it will, we hope that those same players will act creatively to further the play’s overarching goal (net points). A good play is designed to ‘expect the unexpected’ ( Big Brother ). Every play is unrestrictedly recursive; it feeds on itself! As soon as the ball is snapped, things start to go sideways. A player is slow off the mark, misses a block, etc. Now all 22 primary actors, including that sleep-deprived lineman, must modify their rehearsed behavior to take account of the new reality on the ground. And then it’s over. The ref blows the whistle. Absent a penalty flag, the play is ‘in the books’. And now the entire game must adjust to the new reality. Exactly like real life, isn’t it? In fact, it is real life! So, next time a spouse (or other disgruntled loved one) yells, “Football, football, your whole life is football!” Remember that the proper response is “Exactly!” (Danger: Divorce Ahead!) Let’s trace. IRL, all events (‘actual entities’) begin as context-specific applications of universal values (Beauty, Truth, Justice aka the ‘Good’). Driven by those values, as we understand them and as we choose to apply them, ‘something happens’, i.e., an event (an actual entity) occurs. While every event has the Good as its goal, no event gets there directly. Every plan undergoes modification, often massive, before achieving its ‘measure of satisfaction’ (e.g., yards gained before the whistle blows). But once that whistle has blown, the event is objectively immortal. It cannot not now be altered, ever, forever. “It is what it is; deal with it!” And so we do! We cannot change an event once it has been ‘immortalized’ by the referee’s whistle (and a thumbs up from the review booth), but we can still modify its meaning, restrict its relevance, or manage its repercussions. We cannot undo what’s been done, but we can build around it. We can let it take us where we want to go. The QB (or OC) will call another play. The new play will still focus on the game’s Summum Bonum (net points), but it will also react to the outcome of the previous play. That’s football. RL also consists solely of actual entities (‘plays’). Each entity begins as a response, prompted by universal values, to a specific Actual World. From this initial appetition/reaction, the actual entity evolves holistically until it reaches "satisfaction," which in turn becomes its objective immortality. Super Sunday (2024) is right around the corner! Enjoy the game, but enjoy it mindful that you are witnessing a cosmos unfold before you. 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 Harvard/Stanford David Cowles Apr 22, 2025 “There’s a reason why lawyers often tell their clients not to testify in court; frequently, such witnesses end up hanging themselves.” You don’t have to be a MAGA Republican to realize that something is terribly wrong with the academic establishment in the United States. In ‘my day’ almost everyone aspired to be a college graduate. Not everyone succeeded but most at least paid homage to the goal. Not so today! When a 14 year old grandchild recently announced, “And I am not going to college,” barely an eyebrow was raised. Today, everyone knows that there are multiple paths to a fulfilling life and not all of those paths run through ivy. It was a bit eye-catching, however, when a major international defense contractor, Palantir Tech, announced that it was offering prospective employees a $100,000 signing bonus if they promised not to go to college. Stunning! Clearly, our universities have long since abandoned their mission of educating Americans to live meaningful, examined, and productive lives. Today, major universities have become gigantic money mills, insatiably fueled by confiscatory tuition, crippling student debt, misguided donations, and government grants. Case in point: over a decade ago we learned that now Senator Elizabeth Warren had been paid a $300,000 annual salary by Harvard University…to teach a single class. Who says teachers are underpaid? In lieu of fulfilling their educational mission, our institutions of higher learning are now focused on so-called ‘research’. Some of that research is no doubt meaningful and promises to deliver benefits in the medium-to-long term. Universities should be free to pursue their research without government interference. (Exception: when national security is involved.) The problem comes when they expect us to pay for that research without our having any control or any ownership interest in the results! The reaction of academia to the Trump administration’s efforts to rebalance this equation tells us everything we need to know. There’s a reason why lawyers often tell their clients not to testify in court; frequently, such witnesses end up hanging themselves. And so… Lawrence Summers , the former Treasury secretary and former president of Harvard, and ironically, ‘one of the good guys’: “Removal of Harvard’s 501(c)(3) status, which won’t happen because we are a nation of laws, would, if it did happen, devastate progress in medical and scientific research, the maintenance of American and Western values, opportunity for the next generation of Americans and an important magnet for the United States in the world.” Universities value their ‘academic freedom’ and rightly so but that does not mean that they are entitled to tax payer financing. Currently, the federal government subsidizes unregulated university activity in three ways: Direct grants Lost tax revenue on tax deductible donations The cost of publicly financed tuitions, aka Student Loans, that enable universities to squeeze more money out of their customers (students) than would be possible in a free market. This state-of-affairs is nothing short of a human rights violation…on two scores: The diversion of public funds for private purposes over which the government has no control is a form of taxation without representation. Didn’t we fight a war over that? Perhaps as much as 40% of income tax revenue comes from households with annual incomes less than $250,000. Using those receipts to bail out cash rich universities amounts to a massive income redistribution scheme that further benefits the already more fortunate. In terms Robin Hood would relate to, we are robbing the lower middle class and giving the proceeds to the upper middle class. Is it time to fire up The Hague? As troubling as all this is, the self-important arrogance and sense of entitlement displayed by spokespersons for university interests is even more dazzling. According to Larry Summers (above), the withdrawal of public financing from private institutions would… “ Devastate progress in medical and scientific research (Undermine) American and Western values (Compromise) opportunity for the next generation of Americans (Sacrifice) an important magnet for the United States in the world.” Really, Larry? That’s all? And BTW, re #4 , whatever happened to ‘Truth, Justice, and the American Way’? Guess that went out of vogue after the ‘50s. The icing on this cake came in a letter of support for Harvard University from the President and the Provost of its west coast academic rival, Stanford. “America’s universities are a source of great national strength, creating knowledge and driving innovation and economic growth… This strength has been built on government investment but not government control. The Supreme Court recognized this years ago when it articulated the essential freedoms of universities under the First Amendment as the ability to determine who gets to teach, what is taught, how it is taught, and who is admitted to study.” Wow! Would you send your child to be taught by these geniuses? Yes, universities are entitled to First Amendment protections. But did the Supreme Court also state that they are entitled to tax payer funding? I think not! I attended college in the turbulent ‘60s. Among my professors were men (sic) of genius and integrity like John Rawls, Willard van Orman Quine, Hilary Putnam, and H. Stuart Hughes. Today apparently, anyone can say anything, no matter how foolish, and be taken seriously, so long as they have the proper initials after their name. One more time: “America’s universities are a source of great national strength, creating knowledge and driving innovation and economic growth… This strength has been built on government investment but not government control.” Let’s unpack: First, if America’s universities really are a source of ‘great national strength, creating knowledge and driving innovation and economic growth’, then they should do just fine…without public financing. Second, “government investment but not government control” is a politically attractive way of saying, “free money, taken from the less fortunate and given to the more fortunate, with no strings attached”. Civics 101 : There is no such thing as ‘government investment’; there is only ‘taxpayer investment’ but that investment takes two forms: (1) actual taxes paid, (2) inflated prices driven up by government borrowing to fund deficit spending. The taxpayer pays twice and gets nothing back except a promissory note: “We’ll educate your children, provided they are in the most gifted 5% and can come up with at least $250,000 in non-deductible tuition.” How generous! Criticizing the American economic system is a favorite pastime of “writers and critics who prophesize with your pen” (Bob Dylan). But there is no injustice in that system greater than forced taxpayer funding of elite private institutions. Image: René Magritte’s 1929 oil painting The Treachery of Images is housed at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in Los Angeles. 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.

Rev. Dr. Anne-Louise Critchlow has been a teacher of English Literature, a church pastoral worker, and a chaplain in France, North Africa, Manchester, and Bristol (UK). She is married with four children and thirteen grandchildren. She now works southwest of England as a chaplain. < Back Rev. Dr. Anne-Louise Critchlow Contributor Rev. Dr. Anne-Louise Critchlow has been a teacher of English Literature, a church pastoral worker, and a chaplain in France, North Africa, Manchester, and Bristol (UK). She is married with four children and thirteen grandchildren. She now works southwest of England as a chaplain. Being a Faith Chaplain in a Secular World

< Back Causes of the Civil War “Chaos is not an absence of causality, as is generally supposed, but an excess.” David Cowles When I was a bit younger, it was almost guaranteed that any major high school exam covering American History would include the question, “What were the causes of the American Civil War?” In those days, if you wrote “Slavery” across your exam paper, handed it in and headed for the beach, you probably weren’t going to get college credit for your efforts. Today…? But the question is a good one for several reasons: It concerns something we still care about. It allows for weighted consideration of economy, technology, ideology and culture. It encourages the precocious student to reflect on the nature of causality per se , especially in the context of historical process. The American Civil War did not spring unheralded from the head of Medusa but neither did it evolve with billiard-like efficiency. Two hours into exam time, you think, “Everything caused the Civil War…and nothing caused it,” and now you’re on to something! Now you’ve earned that college credit. Marxists call this ‘over-determination’ – events are the intersections of multiple causal chains. Like peaks and troughs on the screen of an oscillator, some waves reinforce, others dampen, and some cancel. You are face to face with the ‘3 Body Problem’, dumbed down for us social science majors. On one hand, history is not magic. It does not rely on spells and incantations; nor does wishing make things so, not even “when you wish upon a star,” Pinocchio. On the other hand, spells and incantations need to be studied as phenomena in their own right and the wishes of various population groups can be a powerful historical force. Yup, it’s the 3 Body Problem, for sure. Everything interacts with everything else. We understand each interaction on its own, but we are flummoxed by the search for an overarching algorithm. For all our erudition, we are ultimately forced to conclude that anything could have happened…and been explained in terms of everything else. This leads to an odd cognitive state in which we can predict nothing…but explain everything. The eyes in back of my head see 20/20; my other eyes…not so much. The 2024 US Presidential election is a case in point. Long expected to be the ‘closest race ever’, it wasn’t close at all. But no one knew that 5 days before. Sure, some may have guessed right, but guessing is not knowing…even if you think it is. It’s impossible to know the future; that’s what makes it future . So no one knew ! No one, that is, except a certain woman in Iowa. She had been polling Iowans for decades and had a reputation for uncanny accuracy. Iowa was not even one of the so-called Battleground States . It was Trump +8% in 2016 and in 2020 and in most 2024 polls. Suddenly, on the weekend before the election, pollster Ann Selzer announced in the Des Moines Register that she had detected a major groundswell of support for Harris: Iowa was now Harris +3%. If that had happened in Iowa, TV networks would have been able to call the nationwide race for Harris by 10PM EST. Suffice to say, they didn’t! The Harris-Walz Wave turned out to be a trough. Iowa ended up Trump +13%. Selzer was off by a whopping 16%. How’s that for a margin of error? The first polls close in some states at 7PM EST. We were on the edge of our seats. If the Selzer Effect were real, it would be evident in the first returns from Indiana and Kentucky. Could one person be so right and everyone else so wrong? 7:05, 7:20, 7:35 – nothing unexpected in the data! No sign of any last minute migration from Trump to Harris…because there wasn’t one. But if there had been such a shift, would that have meant that Selzer was ‘right’? Not necessarily. A broken clock displays the exact time…twice a day; but referring to those moments, we don’t say ‘the clock was right’. A football co-captain calls, “Tails” and it is tails! But we don’t say that the captain ‘got it right’. Being right is more than just being correct. Right is anchored in reason. Why did you think what you thought and was that reasoning valid and/or supported by the relevant evidence? Back to Iowa. Had it gone Harris’ way, folks would have said that Selzer was right. But note, it’s the same Selzer. The outcome , unrelated to her work, just happened to be different. Now libraries are filling up with articles explaining Trump’s triumph; but no one was prepared to publish such a column on the Monday before. The fact is, we are always flying blind into an unknown and undetermined future; looking back, ‘it was always obvious all along’. But to whom? God? Or not even? Science has a name for this state of affairs; it’s called Kaos (chaos)! Chaos is not an absence of causality, as is generally supposed, but an excess . Our Civil War exam taker figured it out: if everything causes everything else then nothing causes anything! Anything overdetermined is everything undetermined, and by the exact same amount. Yet events do not seem entirely random either. They relate to one another but not in mutually reinforcing causal waves. But what’s the alternative? Short of pure mysticism, how else can we account for the regularities of experience? Every event is an expression of the entire Universe. It is a synthesis of what has been and what is coming to be. The event itself samples and weights everything that is and projects it forward into what is to become. Every event is a dissipative membrane, templating settled matters of fact with pure possibility. Events live in the space between what has passed away and what may yet come to pass. The event itself includes no past or future but the event swims in a sea of time. ‘Event’ then is what we mean by ‘Present’. As such every event must begin by executing judgment on the world it inherits (the past). To act as judge, our event must include elements of a different ontological order. We can only judge the contingent from the perspective of the necessary, the actual from the perspective of the ideal. This realization was Plato’s greatest gift to Western philosophy, and it is what connects Plato to Nietzsche , strange bedfellows indeed. A box of Cracker Jacks cannot execute judgment on a Beethoven symphony. Judgment must be from the transcendent perspective of eternal and universal values (e.g. Beauty, Truth, Justice). Only ‘what is not of this world’ can judge ‘what is of this world’. Jesus nailed it during his brief interview with Pontius Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world…the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the Truth.” (John 18: 36 – 37) Scripture doesn’t give Pilate his due. He was no slouch. He answered Jesus in his best Oxbridge accent: “What is truth?” thereby earning himself posthumous degrees emeritus from 3 Ivy League colleges. The creative advance is always fueled by the desire for Good. “I set before you life and death; therefore choose life.” (Deut. 30: 19) However, we live in an alienated, entropic, post-utopian world. Our goals are pure, but our pursuit of those goals may not be. We do not always follow through on our good intentions. Because of this, there’s often “a slip ‘twixt cup and lip.” In other words, we can’t get out of our own way. Accordingly, as we pursue our initial objective, we entertain new objectives along the way. We get distracted. “What I wish to do, I do not do; what I hate, I do.” (Romans 7: 19) Our beautiful sweater ends up more like a bundle of yarn. And so the academic discipline known as History is born. 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 Previous Next

< Back Jesus Meets Mister Spock Fr. Timothy Joyce, OSB, STL Science and Religion should assist each other in pursuing the truth. Science can be too closed to the life of the spirit, the mind, imagination, thought, and creativity. Religion can be closed to anything new that threatens its perception of reality. I am still surprised when I hear people express their belief that the Catholic Church is opposed to science. The story of Galileo Galilei (1564- 1642) is a shocking one to many people, who deduct that the church has always been and continues to be against science. There are, indeed, some Christians who oppose science but not the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II apologized for the church’s treatment of Galileo in 2000. Earlier than that, he spoke often of the importance of science. Did you know that it was a Catholic priest who uncovered the theory of the hot Big Bang story? The Church sponsors conferences on science and religion. The Vatican has its own observatory in the hills outside Rome. In our country, there has been a growing anti-intellectualism and an increasing suspicion or even rejection of science. We live in an age when people think they can make up their own facts. Truth is not important. Some people, including politicians, reject truths they do not like and make up their own facts. Subjective belief in making my own truth is openly expressed. This is sad for the fabric of our society. Maybe the Church has, in the past, demanded we accept too many doubtful truths, but today it upholds the truth and upholds science. Of course, you wouldn’t always know this if you listen to some local homilies and talks. The teaching of the Vatican is not gotten down to all our parishes. Science and Religion should assist each other in pursuing the truth. Science can be too closed to the life of the spirit, the mind, imagination, thought, and creativity. Religion can be closed to anything new that threatens its perception of reality. Science can document the what and the how of our universe, but Religion struggles to define the why of it all. Both may be tentative in some areas at times as new discoveries and insights develop. So, we need to keep studying, listening, learning. Saint Thomas Aquinas said that if we wish to know God, we should study the world. The Psalms already preached this, “The heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth the work of God’s hands.” (Ps. 19:2) And Saint Paul wrote to the Romans, “What can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world God’s eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.” (Romans, 1:19-20) Monastic Scribe XXVI: April 29, 2022 Thanks to science, we now know so much more about this world than we have ever known before. The vastness and intricacies of the cosmos just blows our mind. And all adds to the majesty and beauty of God. Our God is a great Mystery and calls us into a life beyond what we can imagine. But we have to adjust some of our old images. The universe was not created in six days, but has been evolving for almost fourteen billion years. The three tier universe which is the base of the world view in the Bible now cedes to vast, uncountable galaxies. All of this challenges us to reimagine, much more meaningfully, the beginning of humankind, Adam and Eve, original sin, the Creator God, the incarnational God of Jesus Christ, the life giving Holy Spirit, as well as pain, suffering and the problem of evil. There is nothing to fear here. Our faith, seeking understanding, is deeper and more ennobled than we could have imagined. A deeper faith leads to a deeper hope and a deeper love, as we are overcome with awe and beauty at God’s creation. Evolution is not a theory but the way that God, since the beginning, has been creating and continues to create. We are called to take part in that evolutionary creation. Evolution means God is a God of the future, a God of promises. We believe in this God, and therein is our hope, no matter how bad things seem in our world. Not just the earth, but the entire cosmos, is God’s creation and our concern. The “new cosmology” or simply “the new story” is the tale of an expanding universe, always in motion, growing, incalculably vast. A century ago, we thought our Milky Way was the only galaxy, but now we know there are billions of galaxies. Black holes and black energy are the latest mysteries of this story. And we are part of this story. Our bodies are made of the very stardust that is found in all creation. Quantum mechanics shows us how everything and everyone is connected. It shows us how we can touch each other from a distance. I am not a scientist and certainly not a mathematician. I don’t comprehend all the details, nor can I differentiate all the categories of subatomic matter. But I don’t have to understand the details. I rely on scientists to explain things. But my view (my philosophy) of the cosmos, which comes from religion, adds meaning to all of this. I have enjoyed reading Teilhard de Chardin, Thomas Berry, John Haught, Ilia Delio, Elizabeth Johnson, Laurie Brink and others to get a better picture of what Monastic Scribe XXVI: April 29, 2022, this beautiful cosmos is all about. I recommend these authors to you. I urge all my readers not to be afraid of science, but to embrace it and open your mind to a fuller comprehension of what God does for us. It will also give deeper incentive to work on climate change and care of the environment. We are creating with God, but often have been destroying creation. Is this new for you? Is it exciting for you? You can let me know at: joycet@glastonburyabbey.org. Republished with minimal edits and permission rom glastonburyabbey.org. Fr. Timothy Joyce, OSB, STL continues his regular blog, “ Monastic Scribe ”, where he reflects on "what I may have learned from all these years and what I am still trying to learn." Fr. Timothy notes, “I do not speak on behalf of Glastonbury Abbey, the Archdiocese of Boston or the Catholic Church, though I hope my faith is in harmony with all these. Any error in judgment should be credited to me and not anyone else.” Image: Leonard Nimoy as Spock, holding a model of the USS Enterprise , in a publicity photograph for Star Trek: The Original Series. Full caption and source here . Previous Next

< Back May Day David Cowles Apr 26, 2022 A survey of Western traditions suggests that May Day might once have been the most important day of the year. That’s right, May Day! This day links pagan fertility rites, mythology, cosmology, Christian theology, and Marxist ideology. Quite a feat! Or is it? May Day is coming! (Did I hear you say, “So what?") A survey of Western traditions suggests that May Day might once have been the most important day of the year. That’s right, May Day! This day links pagan fertility rites, mythology, cosmology, Christian theology, and Marxist ideology. Quite a feat! Or is it? It is a common concern with economic justice that ties these May Day traditions together. May Day is a celebration of natural law, a fundamental ordering principle in the universe that underlies astronomical phenomena, natural processes, cultural expression, and ethical behavior. Pagan May Day celebrations included many of the traditions we now associate with Christmas and Halloween. In pagan lore, the evenings of April 30 and October 31 are special times because that is when the spirit world comes closest to our physical world. On those two eves, it is as though a ‘portal’ opens that allows direct communication between the two realms. Many of the activities that we now associate with October 31 were once also associated with April 30: bonfires, wild merry-making, and trick-or-treating, for example. Robert Graves ( The White Goddess ) wrote: “Christmas was merry in the Middle Ages, but May Day was still merrier.” The symbol of May Day, pagan and Christian, is the maypole. Very roughly, maypoles are to May Day what Christmas trees are to Christmas. Trees are powerful symbols and important examples of the fertility of the earth and the maypole’s phallic shape connects human sexuality and reproduction with the more general fertility theme that trees represent. In Norse mythology, a single tree, Yggdrasil, structures the entire cosmos. The maypole symbolizes Yggdrasil, the mythological backbone of the world. In Tudor England, it was customary for people to spend May Day eve making love in the fields to promote the fertility of the land. Children conceived on such occasions were known as ‘merry-be-gots’. Beyond mythology, the Maypole also expresses an important astronomical concept. Early on, humans discovered that the periods of the earth’s rotation and revolution were trivial compared to a cycle known as the Precession of the Equinox. The maypole symbolizes axis mundi , the earth’s axis, whose ‘wobble’ defines this 26,000 year cycle. Along with fertility, mythology, and cosmology, ancient May Day traditions share themes related to social and economic justice. It is here, of course, that ancient May Day rites intersect with later-day Christian and Marxist celebrations. In 1891, the Second Congress of the Second International designated May 1st as the day dedicated to the celebration of work and the worker. In the Roman Catholic Church, the month of May is dedicated to Mary, the mother of Jesus. In 1955, Pope Pius XII also designated May 1st as the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker, underscoring, yet again, May Day’s economic import. Thoughts While Shaving is published on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Subscribe to the newsletter in the form below nd never miss another Thought! 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 Parlement of Paris and You David Cowles Apr 10, 2025 “(The Parlements) functioned as a prototype for what became the independent judiciary and the federal court system in America.” A lot of ink has been spilled on matters relating to the executive and legislative functions of government. In fact, however, it is often the judicial function that drives the bus. Am I speaking of 20th/21st century America? How about medieval France? (Where else? When else?) During France’s ‘Golden Age’ (1226 – 1338) a series of three major and three minor monarchs undertook a series of initiatives that could only be described in hindsight as ‘proto-democratic’. It all began with Louis IX, ‘St. Louis’ to you. He laid the groundwork for two institutions, each with the prospect of curbing, or at least channeling, the power of the monarchy. What politician today would admit their need for outside ‘civilian counsel’ or advocate for independent ‘judicial oversight’ of executive actions? French kings in the Golden Age did just that! Louis’ son and immediate successor, Philip III, oversaw the first formal convocation (1278) of the Parlement (Paris), an institution spun off from the much older Curia Regis (King’s Council, 1st millennium CE). A Parlement , not to be confused with a ‘parliament’, was a sovereign court with sweeping constitutional prerogatives: Registration of royal edicts, required before a law could take effect within the region of the court’s jurisdiction, The final court-of-appeals for all matters under its purview, A guardian of and advocate for… the ‘fundamental laws of the kingdom’ (i.e. the foundational constitutional principles), regional prerogatives and interests, the interests of ‘the nation’ as opposed to those of any one class, caste, region, or ‘estate’. These prerogatives effectively extend to the French people many of the rights and protections constitutionally guaranteed to the American people. I have in mind especially, but not exclusively, the 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th and 14th amendments. Over time, the power of the parlements evolved to the point where they could indefinitely delay, and so effectively kill, any royal edict. The flood of lawsuits and injunctions restraining sitting Presidents of both political parties in 21st century America is a reprise of the Parlement s' role. 25 years further on, Philip the Fair convened the first session of the Estates General, a deliberative body designed to represent and protect the interests of the Clergy, the Nobility, and ‘enfranchised’ Citizens. The Estates was a consultative body, not a legislature; it advised the monarch on aspects of public policy. Its authority rested solely on the benevolence of the ruler and the sagacity of the guidance offered. The Estates General met 60 times during the 14th century, but only spasmodically thereafter until its eventual dissolution in 1790. Ultimately, the pseudo-democratic Revolution of 1789 abolished the functionally democratic institutions of the Ancient Regime, including the powerful parlements and the much weaker Estates General. Presumably, the will and interests of the French people were better represented under the National Convention, the Reign of Terror, the Directory, the Consulate and the Empire. How did that work out for the half million French killed by political violence from 1789 – 1803 or the one million French who lost their lives in ultimately fruitless foreign military adventures between 1803 and 1815. It was quite a quarter century! Compare that with the fewer than 500 executions that took place during France’s ‘Golden Age’. According to Prof. Claude (Anthropic): “The nature of medieval governance, while certainly capable of brutality, generally didn't facilitate mass political repression on the scale seen in later centuries.” So if you measure the effectiveness of a political regime by its annualized death toll, French Democracy out performs the Ancient Regime by four orders of magnitude. I love the smell of gunpowder and dried blood in the morning! Progress, ain’t it grand? Comparing the Parlement s with the Estates General: The Parlement s were permanent judicial bodies, while the Estates General was an irregular assembly called at the discretion of the king and usually in times of crisis (e.g. the Hundred Years War). The Parlement s of Paris played a pivotal role in forcing the monarchy to convene the Estates General, the first stage in the unfolding of the Revolution, when it ruled (1788) that only the Estates General could approve new taxes. Both shared a common fate at the hands of the Revolutionaries. But this article is entitled The Parlement of Paris and You . So far, we’ve heard a lot about the parlements but precious little about the ‘you’. Do you live in the United States? Then you live in a country whose constitutional development reflects contributions from England’s constitutional monarchy, from France’s Ancient Regime, and from the first green shoots of revolutionary ideology prior to the Storming of the Bastille (1789). The structure of America's bicameral legislature is often seen as a reflection of the French Estates. I’ve made the comparison myself . The connection is not altogether invalid but it is certainly weak. For example, the U.S. Congress was intended to be the apex of political power, sharply contrasting with the much weaker Estates General. Under the U.S. Constitution of 1789, the Congress does have a similar advisory role vis-a-vis the Executive. For example, the Senate gives ‘Advice and Consent’ on certain Presidential appointments. But the key word here is Consent . The Senate can withhold its consent, thereby annulling the President’s appointment. The Estates General did not have that kind of power, at least not before 1788…or after 1790. The U.S. Senate can even remove the President from office for high crimes and misdemeanors. Imagine if Philip’s nascent Estates had attempted to remove him, or any of his successors, from office; it would likely not have ended well. Even the Estates General of 1788 did not claim the power to depose. Nor did any of the parlement s (to the best of my knowledge) but they did have the power to do what is effectively the same thing: nullify royal decrees. In that sense they functioned as a prototype for what became the independent judiciary and the federal courts (SCOTUS) in America. *** The Crucifixion of the Parlement of Paris is a religious painting on wood by an unknown French master active between 1428 and 1450 in Tournai and Amiens. Created circa 1452, the work is part of the collection of the Louvre Museum and is currently housed in its Department of Paintings. 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.