< Back Enlightenment! David Cowles “It is often said that victors write history. That is even truer when the war is cultural rather than political.” Whenever history decides to grade itself…beware! ‘Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment’ – see a pattern here? it all sounds so cheery. And why shouldn’t it? Someone turned European History into a ‘self-graded class’, and like any self-respecting fifth grader (think Bart Simpson), History’s given itself an A. What about what went before? What happened between Rome and Renaissance? We’re talking religion before it was ‘fixed’ by Martin Luther, art before it was ‘fixed’ by the introduction of perspective, and the feudal system before it was ‘fixed’ by capitalism and the idea of constitutional government. This year, Sister Martha Mary decided to change again the way students are graded in her class. Instead of students grading themselves, each student is now graded by another member of the class. Guess what? Not an A in sight…but lots of C’s, D’s and, oh so many F’s. Does it surprise you that 10-year-olds are harder on others than they are on themselves? (Guess you never had siblings!) Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment: consider the words carefully! Now what would you call periods of history that were none of those things? Why you’d have to call them ‘Dark Ages,’ obviously. And History has obliged. It is often said that victors write history. That is even truer when the war is cultural rather than political: Our culture is who we are, our politics are what we are. (My apologies to Karl Marx.) In the June 27, 2022, edition of Thoughts While Shaving (TWS), we explored the difference between Faith (who we are) and Belief (what we are) . We are grandchildren of the Enlightenment. Sir Isaac Newton (c. 1700) flipped a switch, et voila, “Fiat Lux” . At that moment, the clouds were swept away and for the first-time humanity was able to see the world ‘as it is,’ without the camouflage of religion: No God, no Spirit, no Soul…this world is Nietzsche’s sand box. If you’re into science and technology, the Enlightenment is your era! It was a period of unparalleled invention and discovery, but also a period of war, tyranny, and myriad atrocities. But I digress. I said earlier that the Enlightenment was a period of invention… Was, not is! The period misnamed ‘Enlightenment’ is mercifully over…though our politicians, generals and terrorist leaders apparently missed the memo. The Enlightenment turned out to be an ouroboros. Like the Vacuum Monster is the Beatles’ Yellow Submarine , it consumed itself. Most often, epochal shifts occur when a ‘better idea’ replaces the current paradigm. That could have happened here…but it didn’t. Revolutionary discoveries in science (1900 – 1930) were a death sentence for the Enlightenment…but gracelessly, it insisted on exhausting every avenue of appeal. And it’s not done yet! Like President Trump, it’s still looking for 12,000 votes in Georgia. Enlightenment’s paradigms of materialism and causality were demolished by the discoveries of Planck, Einstein, and the ‘Quantum Mechanics.’ But instead of ‘exiting stage right’ as scripted, Enlightenment has refused to leave, even though its final scene is long since played out. Unlike the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, the Enlightenment did not “go gentle into that good night;” it raged against the dying of its imaginary light. Enlightenment refused to leave the stage before ‘the fat (sic) lady (Brunhilda)’ sang; and boy did she ever sign! Fittingly, Brunhilda’s final aria in Wagner’s “Ring” also heralded the collapse of a civilization preserved now only in Norse Mythology (The Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda )…and Marvel comics. The demise of the Enlightenment played on two stages. Stage right: Fascism. Stage left: Stalinism. Though mortal enemies on paper, these two ideologies both see the world through the paradigm of mechanization. Human beings are essentially machines and human society is akin to an assembly line: an arrangement of resources designed to maximize the production of goods and services…especially goods. Think nuclear! An atomic bomb can be understood as the self-annihilation of matter. Now think the self-annihilation of Enlightenment: Auschwitz, Buchenwald and the Gulag archipelago. Hitler, Stalin and their ‘gangs’ were determined to make the world safe for mechanization, i.e., the transformation of human beings and their social systems into ‘machines.’ To do so, they needed to rid the world, or at least Europe, of competing ideologies: Judaism (especially Hasidism and Kabala), Catholicism, Orthodoxy, tribalism (allegiance to smaller, more culturally focused groups), and individualism (in philosophy, in art and in lifestyle). Image: Reading of Voltaire 's tragedy of the Orphan of China in the salon of Marie Thérèse Rodet Geoffrin in 1755, by Lemonnier , c. 1812. Thoughts While Shaving is the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine ( ATM) . To never miss another Thought, choose the subscribe option below. Also, follow us on any one of our social media channels for the latest news from ATM. Thanks for reading! Previous Next

< Back Imagine! David Cowles “John’s Utopia is a 20th century version of Friedrich Nietzsche’s flat universe.” In 1971 John Lennon, and his co-writer and life partner, Yoko Ono, exhorted us to ‘imagine there’s no heaven’; they assured us that ‘it’s easy if you try’. Ok, I’m imagining, or at least I’m trying to, but…it’s not all that easy. John’s Utopia is a 20 th century version of Friedrich Nietzsche’s flat universe . Listen to what Nietzsche had to say in 1888: “One belongs to the whole, one is in the whole – 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!” — Twilight of the Idols . Note that Nietzsche’s World explicitly lacks values : “There exists nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn our being.” In John’s words, there’s “nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.” One thing you could say both of Nietzsche and of Lennon: They paved paradise and put up a parking lot . Their flat universe represents the hierarchical cosmos of Judeo-Christian tradition, squashed. Of all Western philosophers, Nietzsche’s vision is the most penetrating. He knew only too well that his flat universe would make any Halloween House of Horrors seem like a kiddie ride at Disney World, but that didn’t stop him. Whatever else you might say about Nietzsche, he had the courage of his convictions; he always philosophized in good faith. When Nietzsche pronounced his death sentence on Value (he had already done so on God), he did it with a heavy heart and a twinge of regret. He knew he was destroying a magnificent edifice…and he got no pleasure from it. When John Lennon did the same, he celebrated! Let’s unpack John’s lyrics: Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Ok, nobody likes to think about killing or dying . Either way, it’s the ultimate sacrifice. But it may be that there are things you would kill or die for (at least you’d like to think you would), things you value more than you value your own life. By denying that possibility, John turns the world in on itself; it becomes Nietzsche’s ‘whole’. And religion? The function of religion is to identify things that someone might be willing to kill or die for, i.e., to identify values…and then to curate those values. We can’t have any of that, can we? So , no religion too . John’s message in Imagine is the same as Nietzsche’s. Live now, die later. We are our own highest value. This sounds benign enough, but it isn’t: If we have no values beyond ourselves, there is no reason for any of us not to head straight for those tempting Deadly Sins: Pride, Greed, Lust, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath and Sloth. There’s even a combo pack, one of each vice; it’s what all the kids are asking for this year for The Holiday that Used to be Called Xmas , and it’s even on sale this month at Costco. Pick up a pack for me while you’re there. We’re often told that death is one of only two certainties in life. We will all die someday and if we are our own highest value, then our highest value (ourselves) will also cease to exist. But how can a value cease to exist? How can a value cease to be a value? By definition, values are universal, eternal and immutable. They apply, period, even in a Multiverse. Suppose we value Honesty. Ok, not everyone is honest; someone can be honest today and dishonest tomorrow. But even if everyone was dishonest all the time, it would not diminish the Value of Honesty. John & Yoko are taking us down into the Valley of the Shadow of Death (i.e., Nihilism) and at the same time they are depriving us of the Good Shepherd who was supposed to meet us there. How cocky we once were, “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for you are by my side.” In other words, the Good Shepherd and I can handle anything life throws at us. Afraid of the valley? Heck no, I rule that valley! As long as I have my wingman with me, I’m good. The problem is that if there is nothing to kill or die for, then there can’t be anything to live for either. In Lennon’s universe, killing and/or dying can’t be the ultimate expression of value because per se they have no value. We are all going to die someday. In that sense, we are all the same; and we all come to the same end. We are all conceived ex minimis , and our future is a common, unmarked grave. And all that comes in between? According to Shakespeare, it will be “melted into air, into thin air… the cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, the solemn temples, the great globe itself…shall dissolve.” ( The Tempest , Act IV, Scene 1) We live “now (and) at the hour of our death.” We should all be prepared to give that a great Amen at any time. So ‘to be or not to be’ is not on the table. Our common fate is ‘to be and not to be’, and, as Hamlet realized, there’s nothing we can do to escape it. I am because I am writing this article and I am not because I will soon perish. Only values can give our fleeting lives meaning. The sense of purpose, anathema to Nietzsche, was celebrated by Victor Frankl, psychiatrist, philosopher, and Holocaust survivor. He replaced personal happiness as the goal of life with ‘purpose’, dedication to something outside oneself, i.e., dedication to Values. Not John Lennon’s favorite philosopher, I’m guessing. D avid 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

“Things are the way they are simply because they are the way they are.” < Back Super-Determinism David Cowles Apr 15, 2024 “Things are the way they are simply because they are the way they are.” In Thoughts While Shaving (3/26/2024), we introduced the notion of a Block Universe ( BU ) . According to this model, Universe is best represented as a static block. People used to write about the Block Universe but now we know that there are multiple models of BU . Each of these models has a different look and feel. However, it remains to be seen which of these various ideas, if any, are denotatively distinct. We explored two models of BU : Classical Determinism ( CD , Laplace) and Many Worlds ( MW , Everett). We’ll briefly recap these two models and then explore some other possible Block cosmologies, ultimately focusing on our title topic, Super-Determinism . The principle of Classical Determinism is well known. If we could specify the location and the momentum of every element in the Universe, we could calculate the state of the Universe at any time, past or future. Maybe so…but we can’t do it! Turns out that location and momentum are not entirely independent, so it is never possible to measure both at once without there being a certain amount of ‘fuzziness’ in the data (and fuzzy is fatal when it comes to determinism – I mean, one flap of a butterfly’s wing can throw all our plans and predictions into a cocked hat: no picnic today!) In fact, if we could know location with the precision required for a deterministic calculation, it would come at the expense of any knowledge whatsoever concerning momentum. Fortunately for us, the relationship between location and momentum is not linear. There is a ‘sweet spot’ where we have enough information about location and momentum to make informal, imprecise, predictions re the evolution of affairs. No picnic…but probably no asteroid collision either. Hugh Everett salvaged the picnic. He posited that any event that can happen (even a picnic) does happen…but in its own universe. We no longer need to rely on knowing position and momentum to predict the future: whatever can happen does happen! Predictions can be made with 100% certainty and 100% accuracy. No predicted event has ever failed to materialize…nor will it…ever. Riddle : If a prediction is guaranteed in advance to be correct, is it a ‘prediction’? Many Worlds is irrefutable, but not very useful. It’s really just a device to get around the paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics. The inventory of ‘worlds’ explodes super-exponentially and there is no way to prefer one universe over any other: they’re all just happening! Question : Is ‘everything happening’ the same as ‘nothing happening’? If everything occurs, does anything occur? When do we start saying silly things like, “I know it’s happening but is it really happening?” Laplace or Everett , either way your experience is the same; you live in just one world – because either that’s all there is ( CD ) or, what amounts to the same thing, that’s all there is for you . Your actual trajectory is unique according to either model. No matter what choices you appear to make, which alternatives you seem to choose, Everett-World will still be your world, and therefore phenomenally indistinguishable from Laplace-World . CD and MW describe the same World. In both cases, actuality is singular. CD brings us back to Shakespeare: “To be or not to be.” And to Looney Tunes : “That’s all folks!” One and done. It either is or it is not. If it is, it is what is! Welcome to Hell – but don’t worry, it’s all-inclusive . Many Worlds relieves the boredom of CD … but at a price: chaos! According to MW , there is a universe in which I ordered lasagna and a universe where I ordered fish. Some wedding…lucky me! Well, not really. I only know from fish or pasta – like meat and dairy, I can’t experience both at the same time if I’m keeping a kosher diet; I can’t combine the two. In another universe, somebody ate lasagna, but not me; I only got to taste fish. Rats! Of course, the bifurcation of reality does not stop at wedding menus. Everything you do functions as a node, a bifurcation point…you and every other human being…you and every other living organism…you and each one of the 30 trillion independent cells that make you up…you and… A person could lose count! It’s possible, I suppose, that one of these models ( CD , MW ) might be correct. I’ll concede that there’s probably no way to ‘falsify’ either one, i.e., to prove it wrong. One reason these models can’t be falsified is that they don’t tell us anything very useful. As a result, they fail out of the gate because they don’t account for the world as we actually experience it. Turns out, MW and CD are the same! In both models, what happens just happens. There is no causal contingency. There’s nothing recognizable as agency , and of course, there’s no free will . Wait! According to CD , ‘only one thing happens’; while according to MW , whatever can happen does happen. How can the two models be the same? Thanks to Bill Clinton, we can resolve this paradox: it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. MW applies ‘is’ to all possible pathways; CD applies it to just one actual pathway. On 3/26/2004, I proposed a modification to Everett’s Many Worlds model. Call it ‘Many Worlds Modified’ ( MM ). Suppose ‘the world tree’ ( Yggdrasil ) is convergent as well as divergent. We know from Botany that roots and branches can converge and reconnect; why not divergent ‘world lines’ as well? If we treat the World as a computer simulation, made up entirely of 1’s and 0’s, it is easier to see how two different number streams could settle at a single shared value. According to MM , the inventory of ‘worlds’ grows, but as a linear function of time…a big improvement I think you’ll agree. Speaking of Yggdrasil , according to Norse Mythology 3 norns (Macbeth’s witches) weave the World (Fate) from 3 skeins of yarn. How Trinitarian! MM is consistent with Norse cosmology. The textile, aka the World, accretes arithmetically over time. No stasis , no kaos , just logos . But am I too late to the party? 75 years ago, renowned physicist Richard Feynman created another theoretical framework that offers to bridge CD and MW . Like Everett 25 years later, Feynman takes ‘can happen, does happen’ as his starting point. But he treats ‘does happen’ in terms of mathematical probability rather than physical process. “Does happen” means “ happens with a probability greater than 0 but less than 1”. Simplistically, with Laplace there is never any ‘event’ per se , with Everett there are inconceivably many ‘events’, while with Feynman there is exactly one ‘event’ per region of spacetime. Ah, fresh air! Feynman integrates many virtual (probabilistic) events into one actual (physical) event: the path integral . As with Schrödinger’s puss, at some point the Universe has to declare itself: “Is you is, or is you ain’t, my baby?” That actual, real declaration is a function of the probability of each of the potential, virtual declarations. But that’s only the beginning of Feynman’s genius! He went on to suggest that, while the probabilistic wave function does collapse into the specific actual event that we ‘see’, ALL the virtual pathways that ‘sum’ to that event pass on intact to the future. Such influences are transmitted noumenally, rather than phenomenally, according to Feynman’s model, which he appropriately called Sum Over Histories ( SH ). The result is a world that is ‘loosely causal’ – remarkably like the ‘real world’ of our everyday experience. Even though neither Laplace nor Everett can be debunked mathematically, their models are not very satisfying. One is totally rigid; the other wildly chaotic. One is fixed, the other grows super-exponentially. The problem is that neither remotely resembles the World we experience. Our World is stable but not frozen, dynamic but not chaotic. SH to the rescue! According to SH , all potential pathways influence the world-line noumenally, but the intensity of each influence is in direct proportion to its probability. What we experience, dubiously, as ‘phenomenal causation’ is just a gross approximation of ‘noumenal causation’. SH is much richer than my paltry effort ( MM ). However, it introduces complexities from Quantum Mechanics that are not strictly necessary. MM is like an n-1 dimensional sketch of SH . All of which brings us back, finally, to various schools of so-called Super-Determinism ( SD ). SD duplicates the rigidity of CD but dispenses with the illusion of causation. A secular version of SD states that the Universe just is and is as it is. There’s no time, no space, no causation, no process, no true becoming or perishing. Connections among events are real…but they are not causal. Things are the way they are simply because they are the way they are. Other versions of SD invoke a transcendent agent, e.g. God. The Universe is the way it is because God made it that way…end of! SD comes in a variety of ‘transcendent’ (theocratic) versions as well as the one ‘immanent’ (secular) version outlined above. Theocratic SD often takes the form of God’s Will or Divine Providence or Best of all Possible Worlds (Leibniz). SD , secular or otherwise, is an intellectually honest version of CD . It applies Occam’s Razor Strop to Laplace. ‘Time’ and ‘causation’ are superfluous terms, so SD eliminates them. But then the world where SD applies is removed even farther from the world of everyday experience. ‘It is what it is’ begs the question, “Why? Why is what is, the way it is?” Of course, the theocratic model answers that, “It’s God’s will;” but that just kicks the can down the road. It begs the further question, “ Why is this what God wills?” And presto , we’re back into the world of transcendent values. The Five Books of Moses (Torah), indeed the entire Old Testament (OT), affirm our right, as value driven human beings, to question God’s judgment. We are God’s conscience, his Jiminy Cricket. The Book of Job explicitly asserts ‘the right of disputation’. Job takes God to cosmic court and wins! According to OT, God is powerful and benevolent but ‘morally confused’. Riddle : How is God like my grandmother (as described by her teacher)? He means well but he doesn’t always do well (at least not as we see things). SD , secular or theocratic, needs to address three questions: Why aren’t things better than they are? (The Problem of Evil) Why are things as good as they are? ( The Problem of Good ) Why are things as inefficient as they are? ( The Problem of Waste ) The world we experience seems riddled with Value; arguably (Whitehead), it is only Value. Yet SD is a world without even a category for Value. What is, is – don’t judge, deal! Can such a model shine any light on the world as we experience it? 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 . Click the cover image to return to Holy Days 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 Science Behind the 7-Second Rule Dr. Stuti Pardhe "First impressions swiftly shape neural pathways, steering our social interactions through rapid cognitive processes." The concept of the "7-second rule" is often linked to swift assessments or forming initial impressions in the first moments of an encounter. While not a strict scientific principle, it resonates with the notion that our brains excel at swiftly processing information, potentially tied to creating and activating neural pathways. Neural pathways are links between neurons (nerve cells) in the brain, enabling signal transmission. The brain's capability to establish and reinforce these pathways is termed neuroplasticity. Here's how the 7-second rule might relate to neural pathways: Rapid Processing and First Impressions: The brain can handle a vast amount of information quickly. When meeting someone or encountering a new situation, the brain promptly evaluates visual cues, facial expressions, body language, and other nonverbal signals. This rapid processing contributes to forming initial impressions within seconds. Thin Slicing and Neural Efficiency: "Thin slicing" means making quick judgments based on limited information. This swift cognitive process likely stems from neural efficiency—the brain's adaptation for rapid decision-making crucial for survival. In the context of the 7-second rule, thin slicing aids in forming initial impressions, possibly activating specific neural pathways linked to swift decision-making. Neural Plasticity and Adaptation: Neural plasticity allows the brain to adapt based on experiences. Quick judgments and first impressions can impact strengthening or weakening existing neural pathways. Consistent positive first impressions might reinforce neural pathways associated with positive social interactions over time. Emotional Responses and Neural Connectivity: First impressions often trigger emotional responses. Positive or negative emotions can influence neurotransmitter release, affecting connectivity and strength of associated neural pathways. Over time, repeated emotional responses might contribute to habitual thought patterns. While the 7-second rule doesn't strictly dictate neural pathway formation, it highlights the brain's swift cognitive processes and its ability to form rapid judgments. It's crucial to note that the brain's plasticity permits ongoing adaptation and rewiring based on experiences. Hence, individuals can consciously shape their neural pathways through deliberate thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes. In essence, the 7-second rule corresponds to the brain's quick processing, thin slicing, and neural pathway formation. These mechanisms influence the swift judgments and initial impressions formed during social interactions. Neuroplasticity allows ongoing adaptation, offering opportunities for individuals to consciously impact their thought patterns and responses. Dr. Stuti Pardhe is a dedicated professional with a broad spectrum of experience spanning social work, clinical therapy, and alternative modalities. With a profound commitment to mental and public health, she aspires to be a global Brand Ambassador and Role Model, leaving a positive impact on humanity. Click above to return to Winter 2024. Previous Next

< Back Navigating Easter to Pentecost Magesh "Jesus was always teaching. Teaching, all the time." Wait. Pray. Teach. I have been incredibly lucky as a musician to work with some of the world's biggest pop stars like Rihanna, Lionel Richie, Ricky Martin, and a host of others. I attribute my success to hard work and faith in the Lord. The music business, like everything else, has its seasons, and people act in accordance with these seasons. For some reason, people seem confused as to what to do between Easter and Pentecost. Many feel uneasy, unsure of what steps to take. I feel I have a great system that keeps me focused on my faith. It comes down to three simple steps: Wait. Pray. Teach. I would like to talk in-depth about each of these three topics. Waiting is easily the hardest! The world moves so fast today with new technology and our need for instant everything. In the music business, there is a lull in the time after Easter because most major tours have already been booked by this time of year. So there is nothing to do but wait. That being said, I still like being proactive. I organize small club gigs with local bar managers and promoters. These shows are usually low-stress, although they don't pay as well as performing with a major artist. Waiting requires a certain mindset. You have to trust in God's plan and know that He has a way for you. It's important not to get impatient and submit to temptation. In the music business, temptation usually comes in the form of drugs and alcohol. I'm happy to say I never engaged in these negative behaviors due to my faith in the Lord. The period between Easter and Pentecost is a great opportunity to reflect while you wait. I usually write down what I'm thankful for in my life. I also look back on my past success as a springboard to create new motivation. I accept that during this season, I may not have an overabundance of work but more than enough to get by. This brings me to my next point. Prayer. There is nothing easier than praying when everything is going well in your life. If you have had lots of uphill battles and challenges, it may not be so easy. Having faith that things will work out in your life is easy when you trust the Lord. I can't remember the musician who said, "Sacred as the prayer that asks for nothing." Pray for yourself but pray for others also. I remember reading that Jesus was always teaching. Teaching, all the time. My life in the music was always hectic so teaching all the time wasn't possible. However, I always took advantage of teaching opportunities that came up during the period between Easter and Pentecost. Drum clinics were the easiest way for me to teach. They were usually held at a music store on a Monday night. The music stores liked putting these on because a top professional would demonstrate the latest gear and talk about music. This always led to packed audiences which led to lots of sales! I liked doing these drum clinics for more selfless reasons. I got to teach others how to play music. My favorite part of the clinics was the question and answer segment at the end. This was enjoyable because I got to interact with all types of people. It made me feel good that my experience could help someone on their musical journey. I feel we all have some gift. Something we can teach to someone else. Whether that is how to cook a meal, fix a car, or throw a basketball. Teaching is a great way of spreading love. This reminds me of Corinthians 1:13 "Love is about action, how a person lives for the Lord and obeys him and how a person lives for others and serves them." A friend of mine knew that the period after Easter wasn't super busy for me and asked if I would teach at a shelter for troubled youth. I jumped at the chance! This felt like the perfect opportunity for me to really give back. I felt as though the Lord's talent was coming through me and now it could affect the lives of young people who were in vulnerable positions. Not only did I get to teach these young people about music and show business, but I also got my sponsors involved. The sponsors gave everyone in the audience a free pair of sticks and a book on drumming for beginners. This really put a smile on everyone's face. So remember the next time you are unsure of what to do with your time after Easter. Remember this formula: wait, pray, teach. Magesh has written for “Lessonface,” “Aeyons,” “The Modern Rogue,” “Euronews,” “The Roland corporation,” “Penlight,” and “Elite Music.” He writes several monthly publications on music education. In the past, Magesh has written for parenting, humor, mental health, and travel websites as well. Return to our Holy Days Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back You have Nothing to Lose but Your Clouds...What if you could vote to change the weather? David Cowles May 3, 2022 Suppose every day we could vote what weather we were to have tomorrow. What fighting there would be, what killing of one neighbor by another…most things that we vote for do not really matter, you are a little more or a little less uncomfortable as the government does one thing or another but the weather oh dear…that would be a disaster.” “Suppose every day we could vote what weather we were to have tomorrow. What fighting there would be, what killing of one neighbor by another…most things that we vote for do not really matter, you are a little more or a little less uncomfortable as the government does one thing or another but the weather oh dear…that would be a disaster.” ( Everybody’s Autobiography by Gertrude Stein) The year is 2075. Scientists have finally figured out how to control the weather. For centuries everybody has talked about it, but nobody has ever done anything about it, until now! Scientists now control the weather, but we still control the scientists. Each evening, we citizens decide by majority vote what the next day’s weather will be. We logon to our computers or smart phones and pick: high temp, low temp, sunny, cloudy, rainy, snowy, windy, etc. Our present political parties would quickly disappear (irrelevant now), and they would be replaced by competing lobbies: beach goers, ice skaters, sunbathers, farmers, skiers, sailors, etc. But this state-of-affairs would likely prove unstable. As Ms. Stein suggests, it could quickly degenerate into social chaos with violent conflicts breaking out among opposing ‘parties’, i.e., gangs. On the other hand, I do like all the new political slogans that are cropping up. My favorite so far: ‘Sunbathers of the world, unite; you have nothing to lose but your clouds!’ Of course, it is also possible that the reverse would happen. It just might occur to us that compromise was the only viable course: seasonal variation in temperatures, a mix of sun and rain, and a certain number of days set aside each year to meet the needs of ‘special interests’: swimmers, skaters, skiers, sailors, etc. In other words, we could decide to keep things exactly as they are now! Well, not exactly as they are. Nature has provided something for everyone, but the body politic might be willing to ride roughshod over the interests of a few folks on the edges: storm chasers, snow ploughers, rescue workers, i.e., and of course, meteorologists. Of course, there would be unintended, and at least initially unwelcome consequences: what would we talk about during those awkward pauses in a conversation? Could local TV news programs survive without a weather segment? But this fable raises many more serious issues, for example: How balanced are the forces of order and chaos in society? When they clash, what is it that determines the outcome? Are there limits to the justice or utility of majority rule? And if so, what lies beyond? If you enjoyed this ‘Thought while Shaving’ and would like to take a deeper dive into this topic, check out the feature length article, Meteorological Democracy , in Issue #1 of AT Magazine , to be published on 6/1/22. Anytime from 6/1 on, just click on aletheiatoday.com . 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 Maya David Cowles Sep 27, 2021 “Nothing is everything” is an advertising slogan for a new drug that treats plaque psoriasis. Of course, in this context “nothing” refers to unblemished skin while “everything” refers to the goal of the treatment. But what could “nothing is everything” mean in other contexts? “Nothing is everything” is an advertising slogan for a new drug that treats plaque psoriasis. Of course, in this context “nothing” refers to unblemished skin while “everything” refers to the goal of the treatment. But what could “nothing is everything” mean in other contexts? One branch of contemporary physics claims that ‘everything’ emerges spontaneously out of ‘nothing’. Include in this camp Big Bang Theory, Bootstrapping, and the idea of Negative Vacuum Pressure. Another branch of physics claims that ‘everything’ inevitably becomes ‘nothing’. Include in that camp the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Carnot et al), Entropy, Big Crunch, and Heat Death. In one sense both groups are saying the same thing, nothing = everything, but in another sense, they are saying the exact opposite of one another. Of course, one could belong to both schools simultaneously: everything emerges spontaneously out of nothing, and everything ultimately decays back into nothing. This is probably the most cogent formulation of this idea. However, it has consequences. It threatens to reduce so-called reality to the status of ‘maya’ or the cosmos to the status of a virtual particle. Opposing these views is the idea that the cosmos has a transcendent origin (God?) and that whatever is can never not-be (Parmenides, Servino). 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 Logos (not Legos) David Cowles Jun 9, 2026 “If Being is an organism, logos is its skeleton; if it’s an edifice, logos is the foundation and the frame.” 1500 Words, 7 minute read Do you like riddles? Give these a try: (1) What do people fail to comprehend before and after they have heard it? (Heraclitus) (2) What is shared by everyone but acknowledged by no one? (Heraclitus) (3) What separates us from what is closest to us? (Heraclitus) (4) What was before all things, through which all things came to be? (St. John) (5) What scatters all things and gathers them together…simultaneously? (Heraclitus) (6) What is with God (spirit) outside history and with us (flesh) in history? (St. John) (7) How do we know that all things are one? (Heraclitus) Each of these riddles has the same answer and, you guessed it, the answer is logos . But that doesn’t help very much, does it? What is this logos and how can it be all things to all people (as above)? Logos is an ancient Greek word, of course, whose meaning has evolved. The original concept was that of a weir or net, useful for example in fishing. Logos first emerged as an organizing principle in the philosophy of Heraclitus, a 5 th century BCE pre-Socratic from Ephesus , modern Turkey. After a stint with the Stoics, logos resumed center stage with Heraclitus’ fellow Ephesian, the Apostle John (c. 80 CE). It is no exaggeration to say that John’s Gospel is Christianity’s founding philosophical document (vs. biographies, letters, diaries, sermons, exhortations, hymns, etc. elsewhere in the New Testament). Today, logos is typically translated as ‘word’ – not wrong, but certainly the semantic minimum . Odd too, because John uses a completely unrelated term whenever he’s referring to a unit of speech. If we’re sticking with the language metaphor, then logos is more like syntax than word . More broadly, logos suggests order, i.e. the way uniform spacetime accommodates non-linear concentrations of energy such as subatomic particles, atoms and molecules, objects and organisms, galaxies and their clusters, to wit the way it helps me catch a fish. If Being is an organism, logos is its skeleton; if it’s an edifice, logos is the foundation and the frame. On the other hand, logos is nothing like an architect’s drawing. Blueprints specify a building’s details down to the positioning of fixtures in the bathrooms. Logos , on the other hand, is ‘detail agnostic’. It does not care how spacetime clumps, only that it does so inexorably and spontaneously: “Light appeared in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” (John 1: 5) It is as if your contractor said, “Here is the house’s footprint; it’s non-negotiable. But you can break up the interior space (rooms, corridors, etc.) anyway you wish. One great room, 100 tiny cells, it’s up to you.” *** “Cold enuf 4 ya?” (What, you don’t speak New England ?) If it is, then pour some water in a bowl and watch it freeze. Fascinated? Well, it’s better than watching paint dry! Ok, so do it again…and again. Each time, you begin with a liquid and end up with a solid. But the process is not instantaneous; phase change takes place over time, and the specific sequence of crystallization never repeats…exactly. Did you make videos? Then note that while no two crystallizations are the same, there’s no way to distinguish one pattern generation (in space and time) from another…except point. The most we can say is, “They look different.” The territory is the map. Or we could say that the crystallization patterns (in space and time) differ from one another infinitesimally. Therefore the difference between any two patterns is the difference between every two patterns. We could say the ‘difference’ is really a differance (Jacques Derrida). “Cold enuf 4 ya?” No worries, I’ve got a Markov Blanket that will keep you warm (below). *** Logos is a rich philosophical concept, an abstract model of physical process. Recently, however, developments in math and physics have identified concrete correlates. For example, in 1995 Michael Talegrand conjectured that given any unspecified number of points scattered across an unspecified number of dimensions, it is always possible to connect some of these nodes to form a convex surface that divides the space asymmetrically into a compact, self-contained interior and its exterior template. Unexpectedly, Talegrand’s conjecture was recently proven (with some help from AI) and is now a theorem. It basically states that the tendency of spacetime to self-organize is endemic. Logos is what Being is. Order is neither imported nor injected; it emerges naturally. This tendency of chaotic elements to self-order ( logos ) is what distinguishes fecund Being from sterile Void. Logos is Being and Being logos . That is how there is something rather than nothing. The Book of Genesis outlines the process. Beginning with that inert Void, the primal separation of light from dark kicks off a process (crystallization?) that results in the World as we know it today. Genesis , of course, attributes the process to divine agency but there is no reason, at least not initially, to accept that conclusion. *** The bifurcation of spacetime creates a non-linear gradient that distinguishes inside from out . In living organisms (cells), this gradient takes the form of a semi-permeable membrane, an organelle responsible for the structural integrity of the organism and for its long term survival in an ever changing environment. To achieve this dual mandate, the membrane must enable, but censor and ultimately limit, the exchange of energy/matter/information between the interior and the exterior of the organism. This limited exchange of elements across a non-linear gradient is characteristic of so-called dissipative systems . When spacetime self-orders, it does not break into inert monads, forming a multiverse. Solidarity is always preserved by logos . Here Aquinas was right, “Being is one!” And so Riddle #7 is solved. Congratulations, BTW. I beg your pardon: I promised you a Markov Blanket (above) and so far all I’ve delivered is a semi-permeable membrane. You must be freezing! What gives? Well, turns out our membrane includes a Markov Blanket, so it’s everything I promised you…and more! (With a track record like this, I should run for public office.) To the extent a Markov Blanket is in place, interior and exterior are isolated. Nothing inside can communicate with anything outside, or vice-versa, without the intermediation of the Blanket: I → MB → O and O → MB → I but never I ↔ O. In living organisms, a Markov Blanket is one function of a membrane. It preserves the integrity of the interior. It functions like Big Brother (TV show or novel); like a prison warden, it reviews all communication between inmates and the outside world; it mediates all communication…until it doesn’t. Communication is one thing. Food and Waste are something else again. The warden does not monitor the daily delivery of food nor the continuous discharge of waste. These functions are organic to a prison. The membrane allows order to be concentrated and conserved in convex regions of spacetime known variously as ‘insides, interiors, figures, or bubbles’, even as the whole (inside/outside) obeys the 2 nd Law of Thermodynamics, i.e. even as entropy increases inexorably. This remarkable existential feat is known as homeostasis , a complex of self-regulatory mechanisms that allow a figure to maintain its integrity (order) against an entropic ground for an extended period. In the case of living organisms, e.g. cells, homeostasis requires a regulated exchange of particles/energy between the interior and exterior of a cell. These exchanges serve solely to maintain the character and the integrity of the Bubble. They do not satisfy Gregory Bateson’s ontological criterion: they do not constitute ‘a difference that makes a difference’. In other contexts, figures can act intentionally to modify their grounds ( techne ); this is not that! Here the exchange of energy occurs only to suppress change, i.e. to propagate the status quo . It has no informational value. Other than homeostatic noise, no direct communication occurs between interior and exterior . All communication is mediated by the membrane functioning as a Markov Blanket. Information generated internally impacts the Blanket and, if appropriate, the Blanket impacts the exterior. Likewise, information generated externally… The natural tendency of spacetime to bifurcate into convex shapes, sustained by homeostatic processes but otherwise segregated from their exteriors by a Markov Blanket, is direct, experiential evidence of the operation of logos at the heart of Being. So back to our riddles: (1) What do people fail to comprehend before and after they have heard it? logos. (2) What is shared by everyone but acknowledged by no one? logos. (3) What separates us from what is closest to us? logos. (4) What was before all things, through which all things came to be? logos. (5) What scatters all things and gathers them together…simultaneously? logos. (6) What is with God (spirit) outside history and with us (flesh) in history? logos. (7) How do we know that all things are one? See above, logos. 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 03/16/2022 So for 25 years you do nothing to anyone or for anyone; everyone does everything to you and for you. Other people feed you, clothe you, shelter you, teach you, play with you, hurt you, etc. Then, for the next 50 years, you do everything to and for others: you feed them, clothe them, shelter them, teach them, play with them, yes, hurt them. More later… -David So for 25 years you do nothing to anyone or for anyone; everyone does everything to you and for you. Other people feed you, clothe you, shelter you, teach you, play with you, hurt you, etc. Then, for the next 50 years, you do everything to and for others: you feed them, clothe them, shelter them, teach them, play with them, yes, hurt them. More later… -David Previous Next

< Back Nicholas Senz Contributor Nicholas Senz is a husband and father who tries every day to live Galatians 2:20: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." He is Director of Religious Education at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church in Mill Valley, CA, a managing editor at Catholic Stand, and a Master Catechist. A native of Verboort, Oregon, Nicholas holds master's degrees in philosophy and theology from the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley, CA. His work has appeared at Catholic Exchange, Crisis Magazine, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, and his own blog, Two Old Books . Nicholas is a science fiction aficionado, Tolkien devotee, avid Anglophile, and consumer of both police procedurals and popcorn in large quantities, usually together. Twitter at @NickSenz . Transubstantiation for the Rest of Us

Imagine a complete Theology (Judeo-Christian), Ethics (Pauline), and Cosmology (21 st century), condensed into just 50 words. Now imagine an army of out-of-work college professors and librarians. That is the Lord's Prayer. Time Crystals and the Lord's Prayer The Lord’s Prayer is a fractal: It consists of 3 stanzas, each in turn consisting of 3 verses, each verse self-similar to the other verses in its stanza, each stanza self-similar to the other stanzas in the prayer and to the prayer as a whole. Cosmologists today like to talk of the Universe as if it were a hologram (The Matrix). LP presents it just so! The Lord's Prayer Paul’s First Letter to Corinthians includes a well-articulated system of values, which upon analysis, turns out to be an elaboration of ethics embodied in LP:er for a crystal of time? What if I threw in Knicks tickets?” St. Paul's Lord's Prayer But before all else, LP is the cornerstone of a theological and spiritual tradition with roots in ancient Judaism and parallels in RCC tradition and Kabbalah. Kabbalah and the Lord's Prayer Folks often wonder why Jesus only taught his disciples one short prayer. Why? What more was there to say? The Our Father “This tiny prayer…is a cyber-wonks dream. The density of information content is out of this world, quite literally!” Readers React What's the buzz about? Our readers' reactions to Aletheia Today... Additional Reading Can't get enough of Aletheia Today's content? Check out the books that inspire our magazine.

< Back Corinthians David Cowles How is it that God can perform the miracle of Incarnation? Or to put it more accurately, how is it that God is the miracle of Incarnation. In the Bible’s New Testament, 14 letters (‘epistles’) have traditionally been attributed to Paul of Tarsus, St. Paul. The authenticity of some of these letters is in dispute, but scholars agree that 7 of them were almost certainly written by Paul himself. One of the most important is Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians , often referred to simply as Corinthians (even though there is a second letter from Paul to the congregation). Corinthians is one of the oldest books of the New Testament (probably written before 60 AD). It reflects Christian Christology, ecclesiology and eschatology during a relatively early period in Christianity’s development. It is important to note that Paul wrote this letter while he was in Ephesus, a city in Asia Minor that has an outsized role in the history of Western philosophy and theology. Heraclitus, for example, was a member of the Ephesian royal family and John the Evangelist is thought to have been the Bishop of Ephesus at one time. Just before visiting Ephesus, Paul wrote his Letter to the Romans from Corinth. While the doctrines advanced in the two letters are certainly compatible, Corinthians marks a profound change in emphasis. While Romans is focused on sin and the salvific power of Christ’s crucifixion, Corinthians focuses more on Christ’s resurrection, the role of the Spirit and the nature of eternal life. Did Paul’s visit to Ephesus enrich his theology? Like any ordinary letter, Corinthians is a mixed bag. It contains personal greetings, biographical updates, advice, exhortations, and even a bit of old-fashioned gossip. But woven into the fabric of this letter, in between the dominant lacunae, lies a complete systematic theology. Nowhere except in the Gospel of John is early Christian theology so thoroughly spelled out. We proclaim Christ crucified…the power of God and the wisdom of God… Christ Jesus who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption… Paul begins by juxtaposing ‘Christ crucified’ with ‘the power and wisdom of God.’ Superficially, the two seem to be in conflict, but Paul and his followers knew differently. Christ crucified is precisely ‘the power and the wisdom of God.’ How so? Creation is a neat trick if you can pull it off, but God’s defining ‘power’ lies in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus, the Christ. God, the ‘creator of heaven and earth’ quite literally turns himself inside out to become a single quantum of being (Jesus) in the vast spatio-temporal universe. It is as true to say that the God is embedded in Universe as it is to say that Universe is embedded in God. Christianity threads with the needle between pantheism, on the one hand, and Deism, on the other. In Paul’s theology, God is ultimately “all in all.” You might say that God manifests himself in three stages: Creation & Providence Incarnation & Resurrection Salvation & Redemption And wisdom? Wisdom is you being aware of the world, and of yourself, and of yourself in the world, and of yourself being aware of yourself in the world, all at the same time. Wisdom is very different from knowledge. All the knowledge in the world does not make a person wise. Knowledge tends to be linear; not wisdom! Knowledge can masquerade as static information; wisdom is always dynamic. Knowledge is something you can park on a shelf; wisdom is a way of living, a state of being. If you are wise, you understand ‘the ecology of the moment.’ You are neither subject nor object, noun nor verb. You are the perceiver-perceived and the perceived-perceiving. God’s wisdom is his perception of himself through, with, and in Christ. Old Testament Wisdom ( Sophia ) is related to New Testament Logos . The Father is perceiver-perceived while Christ is perceived-perceiving. That is wisdom. God is wise by nature, you are wise through grace and through worship, study, prayer and good works. With wisdom comes righteousness, sanctification, and ultimately redemption. Through wisdom, one comes to know what is right (‘righteousness’), one comes to live what is right (‘sanctification’), one comes to be what is right (‘redemption’). This is why Solomon, the wisest of men, asked God for one gift only, Wisdom, trusting that all else would follow. “Seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all other things will be given to you.” (Mt. 6:33) How is it that God can perform the miracle of Incarnation? Or to put it more accurately, how is it that God is the miracle of Incarnation. The Nicene Creed tells us it is “by the power of the Holy Spirit,” and Paul agrees. (Or perhaps we should say that the Council of Nicaea agrees with Paul.) It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father. The Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” ( Nicene Creed ) and Paul tells us that the Spirit dwells in each of us. Because we have received the Spirit because the Spirit of God dwells in us, we have the mind of Christ. Everything belongs to you be it… the world or life or death, or the present or the future, all belong to you and you to Christ and Christ to God. Each of us has a unique role to play in the cosmic dance. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ…whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him… Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own. We belong to Christ, but not as material possessions. We belong to Christ as members of his body. Because we are members of Christ, the Spirit that dwells in Christ dwells in us. Paul’s theology is just as materialist as anything Karl Marx ever wrote. There is no wimpy bourgeois idealism here! In fact, Paul’s philosophy might best be described as Christian Materialism, an effort, in my view successful, to explain how the cosmos works at the most fundamental, and therefore most general, level. Because we are members of Christ, we are part of something much bigger than ourselves. We are an integral part of the cosmos (in Christ we inherit the cosmos), and we are part of something even greater than that. Everything belongs to us, but we in turn belong to the Lord of ‘everything’ (i.e., Christ). We are not alone, we are not our own! For us, there is one God, the father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist. Note the variation in voice here. We receive all things from the Father (active voice), we exist for the Father (passive voice), but it is through Christ (middle voice) that all things, including ourselves, come to be. From him, for him, through him – one reality perceived from 3 perspectives. The Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Christianity is a materialist theology, and nothing makes that point more clearly than the Eucharist. Eucharist is not Christ symbolically, or metaphorically, or even just spiritually; it is Christ materially, body as well as spirit. There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. To each, the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit… But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person... As a body is one, though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also is Christ. For in the Spirit, we were all baptized into (his) one body. We belong to Christ; but we do not just belong to him (I-It), we are members of his body (I-Thou), and not members in the way that elements of a set are members of that set or in the way that friends become members of a club. We are members of Christ as parts of his glorified body! A body is unlike a mathematical set and unlike a social club. In a body, each member’s health reflects the health of the whole; and in turn, the health of the whole (body) reflects the health of each of its members. This is the language of mutuality and reciprocity, not dualism: subject/object, active/passive. A body has many parts, and each of those parts makes a unique contribution to the overall functioning of the body. So, too, each of us has a unique set of gifts and a unique role to play in the community that is Christ’s body. Now the body is not a single part but many… God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one (the same) part, where would the body be? Christianity is not only materialist; it is also pluralist. The many constitute one, and that one adds to the many. Buckminster Fuller was fond of saying, “Universe is plural and at minimum two.” Was he paraphrasing Paul? There are many parts, yet one body… But God has so constructed the body…that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. The body is one organism with many organs. These organs (parts) do not just relate to the body (whole); they also relate to (i.e., have the same concern for) each another. In this topology, each part relates, not just to the whole, but to every part of that whole. In fact, it is that network of relatedness, that mutual concern, agape (love), that constitutes the body as a body. The earliest Western philosopher, Anaximander, held a similar view. He believed that it was as a result of mutual concern (“reck”) among parts that the whole came to be. 20th century British philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, shared this view as well. In his ‘Philosophy of Organism’ every part (‘actual entity’) is related to every other part and to the whole as ‘whole.’ A relates to B. A relates to C. B relates to C. A relates to B in C and B relates to A in C. Confused? Try this: If one part suffers, all parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all parts share its joy. Now you are Christ’s body and individually parts of it. To use Whitehead’s language, God does not just ‘prehend’ us, we prehend each other, and we prehend God. This tight network of relatedness is, I think, what John meant by Logos . (According to Martin Heidegger, originally, logos originally meant ‘net’ or ‘weir.’) According to Anaximander (above), the whole exists because of the parts, but the parts in turn subsist in the whole. If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised. This is a remarkable verse. It rules out the possibility that Christ was raised, but we will not be. Paul argues that either there is resurrection or there is not. If there is, then Jesus was raised and will we be too; if there is not, then Jesus was not raised, nor will we be. Paul is an ontological democrat; he rejects the gnostic concept of an ontological hierarchy. Whitehead (above) agrees: God is not an exception to natural law, but its highest exemplar. Our fate is inextricably linked to Christ’s. And if Christ has not been raised, then empty is our preaching and empty too your faith…if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain… Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If one rises, all rise, otherwise none rise. But since we are members of Christ’s body, if Christ rises, we must inevitably rise with him. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep… For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ all shall be brought to life, but each one in proper order; Christ the first fruits; then at this coming, those who belong to Christ… Christ has been resurrected and so as members of his body we can be assured that we too will be resurrected. Then comes the end when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father… When everything is subjected to him, then the Son will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all. Alfred North Whitehead (above) thought that this was the pivotal verse in all scripture. But in another sense, it is merely a restatement of a much earlier idea: “Everything belongs to you and you to Christ and Christ to God.” But in this later version, Paul goes one step further and points out explicitly that God is ‘all in all.’ This is certainly the climax of Corinthians. But Paul goes on to give us a deeper understanding of resurrection: What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel…So, also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown corruptible; it is raised incorruptible… It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one. Only by living (and dying) in the spatio-temporal world can we be resurrected in the eternal world: a seed must fall to the ground and ‘die.’ Mortality is the gateway to eternity. We understandably dread death, the suffering, the uncertainty, the utter loss of control. We pray to be delivered from danger and ill health so that me may live as long as possible. Fortunately, God does not grant all petitions! If he did, we might ask him for immortality, and he might grant it, and there is no greater punishment than immortality (think of the poor souls in Dante’s Inferno ). There is no greater punishment than immortality (think of the poor souls in Dante’s Inferno ). Unknowingly, we are praying for a fate far, far worse than death, but God will overlook our folly. Resurrection is physical and material, but it is not ‘natural.’ The resurrected body is different from the natural body. The natural body, for example, is ‘corruptible’ while the resurrected body is ‘incorruptible.’ The resurrected body is ‘spiritual’ but nonetheless physical. From here on, I will ‘shut up’ and let Paul speak for himself: Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not fall asleep, but we will all be changed, instantly, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility, and that which is mortal must clothe itself with immortality (sic). And when this which is corruptible clothes itself with incorruptibility and this which is mortal clothes itself with immortality, then the word that is written shall come about: “Death is swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” … But thanks be to God who gives us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Image: Rembrandt van Rijn (and Workshop?) (Dutch, 1606 - 1669 ), The Apostle Paul, c. 1657, oil on canvas, Widener Collection. 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