< Back Call Me a Dinosaur, I Won’t Use ChatGPT Deidre Braley "The fact of the matter is, we will never be like God, nor will we ever be able to create a system that knows everything, is capable of anything, and controls all things." “Have you heard about ChatGPT?” my husband asked one night as we ate pad thai from our laps on the couch. “No.” I rolled my eyes. “Is that something you heard about on your talk radio?” I wiggled my fingers for emphasis on that last bit. He’s always bringing home hot takes on the latest news. “Well yeah, but it’s everywhere. Everyone’s talking about it. It’s gonna be the next big thing. It writes anything you want for you. You just put in a few keywords and bam! You’ve got your newsletter, your sermon, your website content, whatever.” As someone who writes content for a living, I wasn’t exactly thrilled with this new development. “Yes, and I’m sure it’s generic and basic and boring, too.” I took a giant, disinterested bite from my chopsticks. “Let’s try it.” Before I could finish chewing and object, he had ChatGPT pulled up, cursor waiting. “What do you want it to write?” “Maybe it can do basic copy, but I doubt it can write a speech. Tell it to write a sermon or something. I’m sure it’s got its theology all wrong.” He entered a few keywords: ‘sermon on John 15.’ Instantly, a message materialized. I peered over the edge of his phone. “Read it to me.” In truth, it wasn’t bad. But it did lack any personal elements, and I pointed that out. “The power behind any good speaking is the ability to relate with the audience on a human level. AI simply can’t do that.” My husband entered, ‘add personal story,’ to the keyword bank. In a matter of moments, the sermon had been adjusted to include a personal story of overcoming addiction that somehow tied to the central themes of the message. I grimaced. Well, there’s the beginning of the end of my writing career, I sighed. I ate more noodles. Since then, ChatGPT has been popping up everywhere. In my inbox, in personal conversations, in the articles I read and the content that I follow, people are, in general, here for it. They say it’s inevitable, that it’s helpful, that it can cut time and costs, and we might as well use it for good. That this evolution of technology is a tale as old as time, and that only dinosaurs would bother to resist it. But in our home, it’s boycotted. Call me a dinosaur. See, there’s this personal element that makes ChatGPT so offensive. It’s as though it has taken all eighteen years of my schooling, every ounce of constructive feedback I’ve ever received and grown from, and the sum of the hundreds of thousands of hours I’ve spent reading and writing to develop my craft, and laughed and said, “You can’t possibly compete with my efficiency and breadth of knowledge. Your humanity is a handicap. Go find a new day job. That is, until I find a way to do that better, too.” But there’s something deeper that rubs uncomfortably against my humanity, and it’s the way that AI seems to be moving steadily toward the goal of omniscience. Not only is the very technology that we’re creating moving on a gleeful path to render us obsolete, it is also beginning to seem like an unfortunate reenactment of the scene in the garden of Eden, except with robots. “No! You (your humanity, your jobs, your creativity) will not die,” the tech gurus assure society. “In fact, God knows that when you eat it (partake in it, accept it, rely on it), your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God” (see Genesis 3:4-5, parenthetical phrases mine). "You’re being so dramatic!" the AI proponents will cry. But just as the serpent was so eager to point out the fun points of being like God and failed to mention the rest—being expelled from the garden, being cursed with weary toil and painful labor, facing death—those who push the propaganda that AI is for the betterment of the human race are being irresponsible when they omit the possibility for any negative implications. The fact of the matter is, we will never be like God, nor will we ever be able to create a system that knows everything, is capable of anything, and controls all things. Our efforts to do that only result in a separation from what makes being human worthwhile: a dependence on Someone greater, an interdependence on one another and the giftings he has given each of us, and the spark of the Holy Spirit that reveals mysterious things that this world can neither see nor understand (1 Corinthians 2:10). Dependence as a Gift Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. How tempting it is—to see the possibility of creating systems that will make everything streamlined, instant, accessible, and unlimited—and want to lunge toward it, to bring humanity to a new level of efficiency and ease. To make a name for ourselves and to usher in an era of increased self-reliance. These were the people who brought us AI, people will say. Can you even imagine the world without it? It’s not a new temptation. Think of the Tower of Babel; the people who settled in Shinar realized one day that they could make bricks and mortar, and suddenly they began to take “the sky’s the limit” with shocking literalism: “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth” (Genesis 11:4 NIV). I used to be a little miffed by God’s response. He saw what they were doing, realized that if they kept working together like this nothing would be impossible for them, and then confused them by giving them different languages and spreading them all over the earth (Genesis 11:5-9). Let the people have this! I’d think. Teamwork makes the dream work! And if they wanted to work together to build a really tall tower, well, where was the real harm in that? But God can see the implications of our actions far past our own nearsightedness. The people saw a tower, God saw their hubris destroying them. The people saw security in self-reliance, God saw them forgetting that security comes from him alone. The people saw a magnificent plan, but God saw the holes shot all through it and saw it fit to humble them. In his omniscient goodness, God scattered the people all over the earth before they could live out the lie that glory and self-sufficiency are superior to his love and security. While it’s unlikely they were thrilled with this outcome, they lacked the foresight and understanding to acknowledge that their forced dependence on God was a gift—he was protecting them from being destroyed by their own humanity. I haven’t a single doubt that ChatGPT will continue to grow and be refined. People will spend their entire lives working to perfect it, and they will be applauded for it. The tower will reach higher, the fortress of AI will be strengthened—but to what end? Will our own nearsightedness lead us into something we haven’t bargained for? The Value of Interdependence Speaking of nearsightedness, the self-checkout line at Target makes me sad. And the self-order kiosks at restaurants strike me as miniature tragedies—proof of a regression for humanity, rather than progress. They seem to be evidence that our society has moved away from valuing people as living, human beings to thinking of them instead as expensive roadblocks to growth. Of course, people are costly in every sense of the word: they cost money and time and emotional investment. From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense to eliminate as many as possible. In terms of ChatGPT, for example, why take the time to sit down with a content creator and discuss the unique needs of your business when you can enter a handful of keywords into a website and have your content generated instantaneously? Plus, how can you compete with free? Human minds are expensive, unpredictable, and limited. They have feelings and opinions. OpenAI removes the need to deal with any of that. But come now. We aren’t so naive as to believe that there’s no cost to making decisions to cut expenses. When we decide to eliminate human interaction—whether in designing content for our websites or ordering french fries at Applebee’s—we are saying, in effect, that we can do it ourselves. That we’ve got our own talents and abilities, and whatever we haven’t got, our technology will make up for it. We’ve got this. I often think of an anecdote I once heard about a small village in Africa. Every day, the women of the village would go to the river to wash their laundry. They would talk and share and laugh and cry together while laboring over their wash. Over time, the women began to get washing machines in their houses, and they didn’t have to go down to the river anymore. They could push a button and move on with their days, right from the comfort of their homes. But, as the months and years progressed, something unexpected happened: the women realized they did not feel that their lives were enhanced by the efficiency and ease the laundry machines had brought, but rather noticed that they felt more melancholy, more anxious, and more alone. The new technology had eliminated the necessity of coming together each day at the river and, unintentionally, had unraveled the fabric of their community. We do the same every time we welcome new technology that allows us to keep our time, energy, and money to ourselves at the expense of human interaction. Just as Paul wrote, “The eye can’t say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ The head can’t say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’ we cannot, in good faith, look at our fellow humans and say, “I’ve reached a point where I don’t need you anymore. I can do it all myself” (1 Corinthians 12:21). In doing so, we’re rejecting the inalienable truth that we’ve been designed for community, that we are, in fact, limited, and that it is when our giftings work in interdependence that we’ll feel most satisfied, supported, and successful. The Holy Spirit as Creative Genius Finally—and this is my coup de grâce—there is one thing that ChatGPT will never be able to replicate or harness, and that is the creative genius of the Holy Spirit. While AI might be more efficient, more expansive, and more cost-effective than the human mind, it will never be able to tap into this one superpower that is only accessible to humanity. And not for a moment should this power be mocked or dismissed. In a world where content is oozing out of our phones and televisions and radios and watches, information feels cheap. Much of it is formulaic, and even if the information is new, it is palpably devoid of any real spark or magic. The Holy Spirit can offer that magic. God says, “Call to me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know” (Jeremiah 33:3). God—the creator of the universe, who is a well of deep mystery and creative brilliance—invites his people to ask him anything, and then promises to answer. And answer, he will. As a writer, I can attest to this wild and wonderful mystery. The level of originality and truth in my work is directly related to the amount of Holy Spirit it is infused with. And the level of connection it makes with my audience is a powerful indicator of how well I was able to tune into His whispers while I wrote. Work without the Holy Spirit falls flat. Work with it, however, rings magical and fascinating and unique and true. In this way, the human spirit wins. ChatGPT is a robot, and its lack of soul will forever be its downfall. I have this dream that one day society will step back from its advancements, look up and look around, and realize that its deepest and truest needs are not actually more knowledge, efficiency, or ease, but rather connection, thoughtfulness, and its ability to depend on God and others for nourishment. At the end of the day, the question of AI isn’t about the usefulness of ChatGPT or self-help kiosks; their value is easy to see. The real question is: Just because we can do it, does it mean we should? Is it worth it to eat the fruit, if it means we will lose the Garden? Deidre Braley is a freelance writer and editor. She lives in Maine with her husband and two children, and most days can be found savoring an overly cheesy bagel or drinking a second cup of coffee while working on her weekly newsletter, The Second Cup . She is a strong believer in the power of poetry, picking roadside flowers, and blowing past small talk at all costs. Follow her on Instagram @deidresecondcup or on Facebook — she loves meeting new friends. Return to our AI Issue Table of Contents Previous Next

"Faith is not belief without evidence; it's the content of a relationship with God and is based upon the private experience of God's love." < Back Faith Is Not Belief Without Evidence Joseph Hinman Jan 15, 2024 "Faith is not belief without evidence; it's the content of a relationship with God and is based upon the private experience of God's love." I am tired of hearing atheists say "faith is believing things without evidence." No definition of faith in Christianity says that. Let's Get this out of the way up front. Heb 11:1: faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the argument (argumentum) of things that are not apparent. Most translations say "evidence of things not seen."This does not say faith is belief without evidence it says faith itself is a kind of evidence because it points to the reality that caused one to have faith. The most important dictionary in theology is the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. There are two kinds, one for theologians and one for ideas. Let's consult the latter. faith (Gr. pistis, Lat. fides, “trust,” “belief”) In Christianity, belief, trust, and obedience to God as revealed in Jesus Christ. It is the means of salvation (Eph. 2:8–9) or eternal life (John 6:40). Faith affects all dimensions of one’s existence: intellect, emotions, and will. See also salvation.[1] According to that definition there is nothing like a lack of evidence. There Is no hint that faith involves a lack of evidence. Consulting the same source for different uses of the term "faith:" Faith, explicit (Lat. fides explicita) Faith in that of which one has knowledge. Thus the term may be understood as referring to what one professes to believe because of what is known.[2] Here faith is equated with knowledge. Since evidence involves knowledge and builds on knowledge it would seem that faith is actually dependent upon evidence rather than being without it. Faith, implicit (Lat. fides implicita) The Roman Catholic view that one believes as true “what the church believes,” even without certain knowledge. It was rejected by the Protestant Reformers as a true faith because the element of knowledge was lacking.[3] The Catholic view seems closer to being without evidence, but not an exact fit. In any case that view was rejected by the reformers and is not really compatible with the Protestant view.The Protestant view rests upon knowledge, which again, would have to involve evidence at some point. Thus direct contradiction to the atheist bromide. Then we turn to the protestant notion of "saving faith." That is faith that saves. Remember Paul tells us salvation is by Grace through faith:“For by grace you have been saved through faith” (Ephesians 2:8).[4] Faith, saving. The gift of God through the Holy Spirit whereby one accepts and believes the promises of the Gospel as the reception of salvation through the life and the work of Jesus Christ. One is incorporated into Christ, participates in his benefits, and is an heir of eternal life. [4] No indication is given that there is no preliminary basis for belief which might involve evidence.Before one can trust God one must believe that God is. None of these definitions preclude basing that initial belief upon evidence. It is after one accepts the conviction that God is real that faith might supersede evidence in matters such as trusting God for salvation. Let's turn to some major figures in Christian theology to see if they define faith as belief without evidence: St. Augustine Faith, to Augustine, is a humble posture of seeking and confession, in which the individual confesses their sin and brokenness before God, and by his Grace, is cleansed. The individual surrenders to the God who is already present in the soul. This initial work begins the process of cleansing the soul so that it can see clearly. As the individual continues to seek God, the soul is continually cleansed as a gracious process, which slowly flakes away the filth of the Fall. Augustine believed that much could be known through Platonic meditation: eternal things and God’s presence could be apprehended, but God could be known only for a moment.[5] Thomas Aquinas Popular accounts of religion sometimes construe faith as a blind, uncritical acceptance of myopic doctrine. According to Richard Dawkins, “faith is a state of mind that leads people to believe something—it doesn’t matter what—in the total absence of supporting evidence...Such a view of faith might resonate with contemporary skeptics of religion. But as we shall see, this view is not remotely like the one Aquinas—or historic Christianity for that matter—endorses. To begin with, Aquinas takes faith to be an intellectual virtue or habit, the object of which is God (ST IIaIIae 1.1; 4.2). There are other things that fall under the purview of faith, such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. But we do not affirm these specific doctrines unless they have some relation to God. According to Aquinas, these doctrines serve to explicate God’s nature and provide us with a richer understanding of the one in whom our perfect happiness consists (Ibid.).[6] Here again knowledge, an intellectual thing, compatible with evidence. How could faith be based upon knowledge and be an intellectual act and yet without evidence? By intellectual he means one consciously assents to belief. Marin Luther ... faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words. Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace.[7] John Wesley With a deep conviction, Wesley repeatedly stresses the necessity of faith. ‘Saving faith is a sure trust and confidence which a man has in God, that by the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven, and he is reconciled to the favour of God.’1 It is also clear that Wesley sees faith as a gift of God, although he does not emphasize that very much.[8] There is an initial coming to faith where one decides "I do believe in God." In that stage evidence is not a contradiction to belief. Most of the activity of faith involves personal trust in God's salvation and his providential care. In this regard evidece is irrelivant, unless we want to think of the content of personal experience of God as evidence.It is evidence of God's goodness. I think for the most part evidence is irrelevant to faith. Faith is not belief without evidence, it's the content of a relationship with God and is based upon the private experience of God's love. Source: This originally appeared in Metacrock's Blog and is seen here without any edits. Notes [1] "Faith," The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms,SECOND EDITION, Revised and Expanded,Donald K. McKim ed.,Louiscille Kentucky:John Knox Press, 2014. https://www.mybibleteacher.net/uploads/1/2/4/6/124618875/the_westminster_dictionary_of_theological_terms_by_donald_k._mckim__z-lib.org_.epub.pdf [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid. [5] Mark Hansard, "Faith and Reason, Part 2 Augustine," Intervaristy: Emerging Scholars Network, (August 18,2018) https://blog.emergingscholars.org/2018/08/faith-and-reason-part-2-augustine-summer-2018-series/ [6]Shawn Floyd,"Aquinas Philosoph8ical Theology,"Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy, https://iep.utm.edu/thomas-aquinas-political-theology/#SH3a [7]An excerpt from "An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans," Luther's German Bible of 1522 by Martin Luther, 1483-1546. Translated by Rev. Robert E. Smith from DR. MARTIN LUTHER'S VERMISCHTE DEUTSCHE SCHRIFTEN. Johann K. Irmischer, ed. Vol. 63 Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), pp.124-125. [EA 63:124-125] https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/martin-luthers-definition-faith [8]J. W. Maris, "John Wesley's Concept of Faith," Christian Library taken from Lux Mundi 2010 https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/john-wesleys-concept-faith https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408765 Joseph Hinman's new book is God, Science and Ideology. Hinman argues that atheists and skeptics who use science as a barrier to belief in God are not basing doubt on science itself but upon an ideology that adherer's to science in certain instances. This ideology, "scientism," assumes that science is the only valid form of knowledge and rules out religious belief. Hinman argues that science is neutral with respect to belief in God … In this book Hinman with atheist positions on topics such as consciousness and the nature of knowledge, puts to rest to arguments of Lawrence M. Krauss, Victor J. Stenger, and Richard Dawkins, and delimits the areas for potential God arguments. Click above to return to Winter 2024. 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 Apocalypse Now! David Cowles “We are not midway through the Second Act of a Mystery Play called Salvation… Brunhilda has sung; we just need to applaud!” (We are not waiting for the Apocalypse, it’s already here, now. Celebrate!) Christian eschatology is organized around two key concepts: Apocalypse and Parousia , ancient Greek words commonly translated as ‘revelation’ and ‘coming’ respectively. Such translations are not wrong; but neither are they optimal. Apocalypse primarily means ‘uncovering’ or ‘unveiling’. It can convey a sense of revelation, not in the way that one might ‘reveal’ a secret, but rather in the way one might ‘uncover’ something hidden beneath a surface. Think of the bride’s face that is ‘revealed’ at her ‘unveiling’. Parousia in turn means ‘presence’; it is derived from another Greek word, parontes , that means ‘near’ or ‘at hand’. In special contexts, it can have the sense of ‘coming’ (coming to be present) but ‘presence’ is the core concept here. Because of sub-optimal translation, Christian eschatology has been understood as the revelation of future events, the most of important of which is the second coming of Christ. This misunderstanding has inflicted untold misery on the Church. For example, New Testament texts are almost unanimous in their portrayal of Parousia as immanent; how then can it be that we are still waiting…2000 years later? Likewise, the understanding of Apocalypse as related to future events has led to gross misinterpretations of history: The world will end on Christmas Day, 1285…or is it 2185? Is Hitler ‘the beast’? Or Stalin ‘the anti-Christ’? And where does Nostradamus fit? How different would the development of Christian eschatology have been if we had properly understood Apocalypse as ‘uncovering’ or ‘unveiling’ and Parousia as ‘presence’! We would never have lost our way in the forests of the future ; we would always have known that we were talking about something that already is. Apocalypse is simply the ‘unveiling’ of Parousia , Christ’s ‘presence’. Jesus’ words at the close of Matthew’s Gospel (28: 18 – 20) testify to that presence: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me…and behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Tellingly, Jesus did not say, “All power in heaven and on earth will be given to me someday…and then I will be with you.” We are not midway through the Second Act of a Mystery Play called Salvation . The play is already over, Brunhilda has sung; we just need to applaud! Consider Jesus’ final words at the moment of his death on the cross, “It is finished.” (Jn. 19:30), not “We’ve only just begun” (Carpenters). Then check out Matthew’s account of the crucifixion: “…Jesus cried out again in a loud voice and gave up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom.” (Mt. 27: 50 – 51) The ‘sanctuary’ Matthew refers to is the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple; the ‘veil’ is what hides God’s dwelling place from human eyes. At the moment of Jesus’ death, the veil is torn in two, revealing God’s dwelling to the world, and therefore revealing God’s universal presence. Sidebar : Torah conflates God’s dwelling place with God’s presence. The splitting of the veil makes it clear: God’s presence is no longer hidden; the ‘Holy of Holies’ is now the Universe. This quite literally is the Apocalypse ! But in a broader sense, Apocalypse can be understood as a process. It begins with Creation and continues uninterrupted to the end of time, except that from God’s perspective, all this happens in the Present. Law ( Written and Oral Torah ), history, wisdom and prophesy all work together to reveal Christ’s immediate presence in the world. There is no contradiction here. William Blake properly understood the relationship between the immediate and the eternal: “To see a World in a Grain of Sand and a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand and Eternity in an hour.” Apocalypse assumes a special focus and a new intensity in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus’ Nativity, Baptism, and Transfiguration, his parables, miracles, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension, all work toward a single end: the manifestation of Christ’s presence ( Parousia ). And who is this Christ who was present then, is present now, and will be present to the end of time? “When everything is subjected to him (Christ), then the Son himself (Christ) will be subjected to the one (God) who subjected everything to him (Christ), so that God may be all in all.” (I Cor. 15: 28) The eternal, universal presence of Christ ( Parousia ) is indicative of a God that is all in all. But the apocalyptic process does not abruptly end with Jesus’ Resurrection and subsequent Ascension. On Pentecost, Christ sends his Holy Spirit into the world, perpetuating the Apocalyptic Age until the end of time. The Church itself and each of its Sacraments point to Christ’s presence. The Church is Christ’s “Mystical Body” (vs. Jesus’ biological body) and Christ himself is in every sacrament, but in a special, material way in the Sacrament of Eucharist. “This is my body…this is the cup of my blood…do this in memory of me.” With these words, Jesus consecrated and then distributed the ‘bread and wine’ ritually consumed at the Passover meal. By this act, Jesus assured his disciples that his material presence was not confined to his biological body and that it would not vanish with the destruction (or glorification or ascension) of that body. Through the sacrament of Eucharist, Jesus demonstrated that his physical presence utterly transcends the limitations of mortality. Christ is present everywhere and at all times (God is all in all). But the Eucharist demonstrates that Jesus’ presence is at least potentially material at any place and at any time. Through the sacrament of Eucharist, transubstantiation occurs many times every day all around the world. Each time, Jesus is present. But his presence is not merely spiritual; it is just as physical after transubstantiation as the bread and wine were before. The Sacrament of Eucharist is the real physical presence of Christ in the world but, like all sacraments, it is also a sign. Eucharist symbolizes nothing less than the ultimate transubstantiation of the entire material world into the body and blood of Christ “…so that God may be all in all”. Therefore, the Sacrament of Eucharist, every time it is celebrated, is “Apocalypse Now!” It constitutes Parousia and it reveals Christ’s material presence. Traditionally, folks have thought of Apocalypse as synonymous with the end of the world, as something that happens at the ‘end of time’ (like Douglas Adam’s Restaurant at the End of the Universe ). But Apocalypse is not something that will happen billions of years from now; it ‘is now and ever shall be’. It exists outside of space and time and so is co-present with all things at all times in all places. In Eucharist, the elements retain the appearance of bread and wine, but they are substantially transformed into Christ’s body and blood. ‘Attributes’ create the appearance of bread and wine; but the ‘substance’ is Christ. British philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, in his magnum opus, Process and Reality , presents a detailed model for the process by which conflicts become contrasts which in turn harmonize into new unities, “so that God may be all in all”. But we can find a similar but simpler model in each of the seven sacraments: Baptism, Penance, Matrimony, et al. Each brings about new unity out of what was previously an isolated or conflicted state. Christ is present in the sacraments because the sacraments effect the harmonization that is his essence. Commutatively, the sacraments effect unification and harmonization precisely because Christ is present. This is true for Eucharist, of course, but it is also true for each of the other sacraments. But Eucharist is really three sacraments in one because it effects that harmonization in three distinct ways: (1) It builds community through the common meal (‘messe’ or Mass). (2) In communion, the consumption of the so-called ‘bread and wine’, materially integrates Christ into the body of each communicant. (3) But by ‘commutative topology’, each communicant is simultaneously integrated into the body of Christ (so that God may be all in all). In Eucharist, not only is Christ present as the agent and the product of harmonization but Christ is materially present in the transubstantiated elements which merely retain the appearance of bread and wine. Eucharist truly is Apocalypse Now ! 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 Groundhog Issue 2025 Previous Next

< Back Ethics and the Works of Mercy David Cowles Nov 7, 2023 “The Past is what it is, the Future will be what will be. We are just here, now!” Rule of thumb : Any 10 philosophers on the head of a pin = 18 different ethical systems! Most of us cling to a childhood confidence that ethics can be reduced to a series of commandments, a list of dos and don'ts, and the convergence of the 4 P’s: priest, parent, pedagogue , and police . Since 1500 CE, we have eagerly shifted our ethical focus away from the concrete act per se and onto the imputed ‘intentions’ behind the act (psychology) and/or its mythical ‘consequences’ (political science). “Act? What act?” The Future is nothing but a mirror image of the Past: New chairs, same deck! From Machiavelli (‘ends justify means’) to Mill (‘greatest good for the greatest number’) to Marx (‘dictatorship of the proletariat’) to Malcolm (‘by any means necessary’), we have made a pact to suppress the Present (action) and amplify the Past (intention) and the Future (consequence). We have deceived ourselves into believing that modern pragmatism is a smooth continuation of an ethical heritage that traces back to Moses and Socrates. It’s not! Moses did not lead the Exodus because he wanted to experiment with a new social contract or because he dreamed of enjoying a more lavish lifestyle in the ‘Land of Milk and Honey’, Canaan. Moses did it because Liberation per se is an ethical imperative. As we’ll see (below), it is one of the Works of Mercy , albeit writ large. The ethics of Moses, Socrates, Jesus, and Marcus Aurelius are consistent with their cosmologies. Our ethics…not so much! Example: Chaos Theory renders any ‘consequence-based’ morality untenable. No event ‘causes’ any other event; therefore, no event is to blame for any other event. On the other hand, every event is responsible for itself; it is its own intention and its own consequence. According to the ‘standard model’, an Event is simply the Past acting through the Present to secure the Future (Darwin, Freud, Trotsky, Skinner, Derrida, et al.). I am the accidental battlefield on which various cosmic forces contend: Michael vs. Lucifer, God vs. Satan, Arjuna vs. his kinsmen. According to this ontology, ‘to do’ is active voice in form only; in fact, it can have only one voice: the passive voice. I am the passive product of my Past projecting its ‘image’ onto my Future. Our morality, therefore, contradicts our ontology. It requires us to take full responsibility for events over which we have no control and to shun all responsibility for events over which we have total control. We’ve stood the Serenity Prayer on its head: “God grant me the serenity to accept things I could have changed but didn’t, and the courage to change things that can’t be altered.” According to contemporary ethics, “the devil made me so it…or it was an accident; I inherited bad genes…or bad Karma; I grew up poor…or posh; I was abused…or neglected, and of course, I was under the influence of alcohol and drugs.” This contradiction is crystallized in the structure of most modern Indo-European languages: noun (subject) → verb (active voice) → noun (object). Past (noun) → Present (verb) → Future (noun). The active/passive voice is well suited to describe the transition from Past (subject) to Future (object): I dig a hole in the ground so that I can pour concrete. Most of us assume without reflection that this formula describes something that is a substructural feature of being itself: intention → action → consequence; I mean, how else could it be? Well, instead of Past (subject) → Present (verb) → Future (object), try Past (co-subject) → Present (verb) ← Future (co-subject) or Past (co-object) ← Present (verb) → Future (co-object). The difference appears subtle, but in fact, it is tectonic…to the extent that anything in philosophy can be ‘tectonic’. According to consensus, the contrast of Past and Future constitutes the Present. But according to our ‘alternative models’ (above), every Present determines its own Past and its own Future. It is easy to express an ethics based on intentions (Past) or consequences (Future), using active/passive verb forms. But how about an ethics divorced from any consideration of Past or Future, an ethics focused entirely on the Act per se , the Present? That would require an alternate voice: a Middle Voice , interactive and/or reflexive. Originally, Middle Voice may have been the dominant voice; today, it has disappeared or atrophied in most Indo-European languages. Now consider the Works of Mercy ! The first known reference to these Works, Corporal and Spiritual, comes from the theologian Pseudo-Isidore, a Frankish monk, writing around 550 CE. T he Works of Mercy focus on the material and spiritual needs of other creatures. They are consistent with the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. They trace back to Chapter 25 of the Gospel of Matthew, but they are also mentioned in the Old Testament (Isaiah and Tobit): Feed the hungry. Water the thirsty. Clothe the naked. Shelter the homeless. Visit the sick. Liberate captives. Bury the dead. Instruct the ignorant. Counsel the doubtful. Admonish sinners. Bear wrongs patiently. Forgive offenses. Comfort the sorrowful. Pray for the living and the dead. These ‘new commandments’ make no reference to Past or Future, only Present. In fact, what makes these Works ethically imperative is precisely that they are divorced from motives and consequences. They just are! A recent Thoughts While Shaving mentioned Michael Kelly’s Holy Moments . His ‘Holy Moments’ are moments of kindness, of being there for others. In other words, performing the Works of Mercy ! The Past consists of ‘settled matters of fact’ – we can’t do anything about it. The Future is indeterminate; we can’t control it. We can only control the Present, the moment, the act. The Past is what it is, the Future will be what will be. We are just here, now! Keep the conversation going! 1. Click here to comment on this TWS. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back The World Series David Cowles Oct 27, 2025 “The World Series is stochastic. A team cannot carry over excess runs from one game to offset a future scoring deficit.” In professional baseball, the champion is the team that wins 4 games (out of 7) in the World Series. Typically, the first two games are played on the home field of one team, the next three games on the home field of the other, and then back to the initial venue for the final two games (if needed). It’s not rocket science; a precious 6 year old can grasp it. It is not uncommon for the ‘home team’ to win the first two games. That does not by any means guarantee that that team will win the series. The other team now has ‘home field advantage’ (i.e. 3 out of the 5 remaining games will be played on its home field). After the first two games, we still have no idea which team will win the Series but we do know that one team will win it and that it will take no more than 5 additional games to determine that winner. This much is certain. Still, after the first two games, our ‘home field winner’ is half way to the goal of 4 wins while their opponent is just getting started…maybe. Does this remind you of anything? How about a certain road race alleged to have taken place in Greece more than 3000 years ago? According to legend, as reported by the philosopher Zeno, a certain tortoise challenged the great Achilles (the Usain Bolt of his day) to a road race. As expected, Achilles declined; it would be demeaning for him to leave a lowly reptile in the dust. So the tortoise upped the ante, “Ok then, how about you give me a head start, say half the distance to the Finish Line?” Now Achilles was a clever boy; he knew that he could run at least 10 times as fast as the tortoise so catching up should not be a problem. By giving the tortoise a substantial head start, he can blow him away and still preserve his precious classical honor. Plus, his Saudi friends had put up a sizeable pot of prize money. And then there’s always the chance of making some lucrative side bets with naïve punters in the crowd. So, honor intact, Achilles accepts the challenge! Gotcha! Not so clever after all, are you, Troy Boy ? Achilles has fallen into the tortoise’s trap; he has agreed to a wager he cannot possibly win. But the future hero of Troy positions himself at the Starting Line, brimming with bravado. The challenger takes his place half way to the Finish Line; the crowd is surprised, and somewhat disconcerted, by the reptile’s quiet air of sly self-confidence. “Is there something going on here that we’ve missed?” You ‘bet’ there is (pun intended)! Achilles knows that he can run 100 meters in 10 seconds or less without breaking a sweat. So just 5 seconds after the starting gun is fired, Achilles has caught up to the tortoise; except, of course, he hasn’t. While Achilles was busy getting himself to the 50 meter line, the tortoise was also moving forward, albeit at a slower pace. After the same 5 seconds, the tortoise has just 45 meters left to go (vs. Achilles’ 50). So once again, Achilles needs to catch up and this time he only needs a half second to do so (5 meters); except of course, once again, the tortoise has moved on. Our contestants repeat this process over and over, but Achilles never quite catches his nemesis. Gradually it dawns on Achilles, the punters, and the fans that Achilles will not catch the tortoise…ever! The tortoise made a lot of money on side bets that day and he used it to build a Jurassic theme park dedicated to the preservation of endangered reptilian species. The world is a better, richer, more diverse place because of Achilles’ blind arrogance. But why is this result different from the outcome of the World Series (above)? Achilles’ difficulties stem from the fact that we all assume that spacetime is continuous, i.e. that it is infinitely divisible into ever smaller units. The World Series is not continuous; it is stochastic. It consists of no more than 7 games, and each game is a discrete event with a definite outcome. One game does not bleed into another. A team cannot carry over ‘excess runs’ from one game to jump start the next or use those runs to offset a future scoring deficit . Are you posh enough to play golf? Or are you, like me, content to watch Rory on the tube? Either way, you know that a game of golf can be organized in either of two ways: Match Play works like the World Series. Every hole stands on its own: you win, you lose, or you tie. With Medal Play shots accumulate over 18 holes and the winner is not determined until the last ice cube drops into a glass on the 19th green. Now, here’s what’s kept us focused on Zeno’s Paradox for more than two millennia: IRL, we all know that Achilles wins easily…even though we’ve proven that he can’t. There must be something wrong with our assumptions… and indeed there is! Our assumption (above) that spacetime is continuous must be false. In fact, we now know thanks to Einstein & the Quantum Mechanics that spacetime is made up of tiny, Planck size units; it’s not a flowing river, Heraclitus, it’s a post-industrial foam. The Planck bubbles are so small that for most purposes we can treat spacetime as though it were a continuum…but it isn’t. And because it isn’t, no slimy reptile stands a chance against our GOAT…and no World Series lasts more than 7 games. *** Marjorie Phillips — Night Baseball (1951) depicts a vivid evening at Griffith Stadium under the glow of newly installed floodlights. The artist captures the tension of the game as players, umpires, and fans are illuminated by artificial light, emphasizing the novelty and spectacle of night sports. Her use of bold color and simplified forms reflects both the excitement of baseball and the mid-century fascination with progress and modern leisure. 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 Is Universe a Quantum Computer David Cowles Aug 8, 2024 “We create a classical likeness of quantum reality. We run a virtual machine on the quantum software that is the universe.” Recently, a friend I’d made in the 60’s asked, “What is the Universe, really?” Immediately, the standard answers sprang to mind: Space and time, matter and energy, position and momentum, inertia and acceleration. Then my friend’s question got me thinking. (Heaven forbid!) Before we transcended gender dimorphism, we relied on sexist memes to order our social world: “Girls are sugar and spice and everything nice; boys are snips and snails and puppy dog tails”. Might cosmology’s accepted wisdom be similarly facile…and wrong? Fortunately, my friend supplied his own answer: “I think the universe is a quantum computer.” Of course it is! What else could it be? The known universe consists of at least 10^80 bits of information. According to classical cosmology, each bit has one of two values: 1 or 0. That’s what makes ‘information’ information. Flip a bit! 1 becomes 0 or 0 becomes 1. Either way it’s an isolated event; the rest of the Universe remains as it was. All change, like ‘all politics’ (Tip O’Neil), is local. In quantum cosmology, however, each bit is in a state of quantum superposition: not 1 or 0, but 1 and 0. While in classical computing, each bit has but one value (1 or 0) at time, in quantum computing, each bit has two values (1 and 0). In classical computing, all events are local; their impact on one another is mitigated by Newton’s inverse square law. In a quantum computer, on the other hand, each bit is potentially ‘entangled’ with other bits so that determining the value (1 or 0) of one bit simultaneously determines the value of another bit, regardless of that bit’s relative position in the cosmos. According to Hugh Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (1957), every time a bit flips a new universe comes into being. The result is powerful, albeit extravagant…and messy! Nonetheless, most cosmologists today subscribe to some version of Everett’s model. Everett ‘interpreted’ quantum phenomena according to a classical framework. He had drunk the Kool Aid: ‘the quantum world is embedded in the classical’. But by treating the entire universe as a quantum phenomenon, we’re able to conserve the power of Evertt’s interpretation…without the mess. Everett assumed that each unique combination of 1’s and 0’s constitutes a novel universe. Without superposition and entanglement, it’s hard to come to any other conclusion. Reframing this model in quantum mechanical terms allows us to achieve the same result within a single universe, as long as that entire universe is entangled and in superposition. Why didn’t Everett think of that? Well, for one thing, the principle of ‘non-locality’ (entanglement) was not discovered until 1964 (Bell). But beyond that, it was scientific dogma at the time that quantum phenomena could occur only on extremely small scales...certainly not on the scale of the cosmos. How do local systems in superposition acquire classical values? Schoedinger’s cat, basking in a sort of suspended animation, learns its fate only when some ‘outside agent’ interacts with the experimental apparatus. Interestingly, if puss discovers it’s dead, it will have been dead for some time prior to realizing it. Quantum mechanics does funky things with time. (Feynman) Universe, however, by definition, has no outside agent – unless you wish to invoke God. But that is not necessary, at least not at this point. A feature of Universe, indeed a feature of all systems, is that it interacts with itself. It is incurably recursive. Contrary to Bertrand Russell, IRL every ‘real’ set is a subset of itself . The whole is one of its parts. So the concept of Incarnation applies not only in theology but also in cosmology. Incarnation is not an exception to the laws of physics, it is a law of physics. To paraphrase Alfred North Whitehead, God does not reflect a suspension of the ‘rules’; God is the paradigmatic expression of those rules. Therefore, a change in one part of a system entails a change in the whole while a change in the whole entails a change in at least one part. Sets that are not recursive in this way are merely useful mathematical abstractions. The universe, the set of all sets including itself, is in a permanent state of ‘self-assessment’. As a result, it manifests classical values at all times. But this is misleading. Those contingent classical values (Kant’s phenomena) mask substructural quantum reality (noumena). As Universe observes and interacts with itself, we experience consciousness and agency (free will). The phenomenon that you, acting recursively, experience as ‘you’ is a function of the Universe being aware of itself (consciousness) and acting on itself (agency). Every time an agent (e.g. you) makes a choice, i.e. exercises free will and acts on it, multiple potential values collapse down to a single actual value, mimicking a classical world. We create a classical likeness of quantum reality. We run a virtual machine on the quantum software that is the universe. We convert pure potentiality into settled actuality. So yes, Virginia, Universe is a quantum computer. 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. Keep the conversation going. 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 Haiku Be courageous, take the leap. Dream it? Be it! Faith…not just Belief! (With credit to The Rocky Horror Picture Show) Autumn empty now, Leaves bore into soggy ground. Birds fold into clouds. (After Basho – 17th Century) Somewhere in the void, souls sojourn naked, awake. We are Resplendent. (Richard Blankenship) We build barricades - Kith and kin and kind – Hide from Our terror - the void. (David Cowles) Train rattles my ear, Sun reveals magic to us, A perfect moment. (Jack Cowles) Grits, butter, no cheese, explosion of Tabasco which cantaloupe cools. (David Cowles) You there, “Make snowballs!” They crumble. Age 6 and a Crooked arms dealer! (David Cowles) One caw of a crow Turns all of the fallen leaves A deeper yellow. (Richard Wright) Writing love poems now - Planting season so long gone – How ridiculous! (David Cowles) Drip, drip goes the water How I wish I could use it To wash the world away. (Basho – 17th century) Enough is enough – Except when it’s not; voila, ‘Rithmetic is born! (David Cowles) I am entropy, My touch unravels order, Agent of Kaos. (David Cowles) Good morning. Eyes up, Hearts full, Minds sharp! Compassion - On full blast. Let’s go! (after Lin-Manuel Miranda) Editor's note: a friend and I engage in a very short ‘Haiku-slam:' Hanging on corners - Dark streets, dive bars, and the Ritz - Having fun with friends. (David Cowles) Sleeping on the tracks - Flying first class selling dreams. Behold a poet! (John O’Brien) David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com. Share Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue Your content has been submitted Add to our haiku in the comment box below.

< Back Moses - The Story of Everyone David Cowles Nov 10, 2025 “The story of Moses is the story of one man, but it is also the story of the Hebrew nation, the Middle East, and human civilization.” How is the biography of a 20 th century Anglo-American (I can’t speak to the 21 st century…yet) like the ancient history of the Middle East? It recapitulates it! The Old Testament Book of Exodus records the birth of the Hebrew nation in the second millennium BCE. Additional ‘histories’ extend that story through to the onset of ‘senility’ c. 600 BCE. Our story begins with young Moses tending sheep (a boy’s job) for his future father-in-law, a priest of Midian, Jethro. Not to press the analogy too far (but who can pass this up): puberty dawned for Moses in the form of an inexhaustible, perpetually burning, bush. (There, I’ve got that out of my system, thank you for indulging me.) The newly adolescent Moses observes an Egyptian mistreating a Hebrew slave and he suddenly becomes aware of the gross injustice baked into the social order, an order he’d previously taken for granted and, as a sometime member of Pharoah’s household, benefited from. Only the poshest private schools for Pharoah’s ward! Moses resolves, with the help of God, to correct this injustice – preferably before noon so he can get back to tending sheep…and wooing Jethro’s daughter. A lifetime later, on his death bed, gazing into the Promised Land, Moses realizes that ‘he’d only just begun’. Still, what he did accomplish in his lifetime was enough to make him one of the best known figures in all of Western history. Like adolescents everywhere, Moses rebelled against ‘the rents’ (par ents , governm ent , etc.). But unlike most, Moses’ adoptive father was the government! His version of the stern but well-meaning beat cop was none other than the commander of Pharoah’s charioteers. His ‘parish priests’ were wizards attached to Pharoah’s court. This couldn’t be any ordinary adolescent rebellion! Fortunately, Moses had help from his older siblings, Miriam and Aaron, and oh yeah, from God. These were the days when God’s intervention was not confined to a well-placed pep talk, though he certainly gave those when needed; God still got his hands dirty! The recently discovered screenplay for an unmade movie, Young Moses , intended as Part I of the larger project which ultimately became The Ten Commandments (Heston & DeMille), clarifies matters: the most powerful man in the Middle East is challenged by an adopted foundling, his sister (Miriam), his brother (Aaron), and one very big best friend, the kind we all wish we’d had growing up. Marginal notes indicate that teen Moses was to be played by Mickie Roonie, a wimpy kid with a not so wimpy sidekick (YHWH), to be played by Arnold Schwartzenager. (Pardon the anachronism.) Today, a temper tantrum might lead to a broken vase or a fist through a wall. Moses expressed his displeasure in a different way: he rained down hordes of pests (frogs, flies, gnats, locusts) on the rents . Today, a mischievous tween might put salt in the sugar bowl. Moses turned water into blood. You get the picture! Finally, Moses and his ‘father’ reach an understanding: they agree to disagree. Moses will leave home with Pharoah’s blessing…or not: even after agreeing to emancipate his wayward son and his entourage, Dad has second thoughts. He sends law enforcement to bring Moses home. Happily, this last ditch effort by a helicopter parent who couldn’t let go fails and Moses is finally free to go his own way – but which way is that? (Think Truffaut’s 400 Blows .) Free at last! But free to do what? After all this, is freedom “just another word for nothing left to lose?” ( Joplin ) Time now for the dreaded “OMG, what have I done?” Who has not been there ? So young Moses sets off to find himself . He needs to discover who he is or, more accurately (per Sartre), who he wants to become. He needs to survive on his own, support himself and his dependents, and leave footprints in the sand. Compared to this, rebellion was a piece of unleavened bread. Moses was an adult now with all the privileges and responsibilities attendant thereto. Metaphorically, we sometimes describe this 40 year period of our lives as ‘wandering in the desert’. In Moses’ case, that was literally true. Fortunately for his immediate dependents and for the rest of Western civilization, Moses was successful. He found himself ; he reached Cannan, the Promised Land, a land flowing with milk and honey. Gold watch in his pocket, 401k money in the bank, and travel brochures in his tunic, Moses was ready for blessed retirement. But before he could enjoy it, his body gave out, and he died. Ring any bells? Truth to tell, Moses on his death bed had much to be proud of; but he also realized that the job was far from complete. Fortunately, Jethro had previously advised Moses to set up a robust ‘judicial system’ to govern in the event of his absence, temporary or permanent. His successors, Joshua and the Judges , had a tough road. They faced their own challenges, their own trials. They wandered in deserts of their own but for a time at least, they too succeeded. The story of Moses is the story of one man, but it is also the story of everyone! (Think Odysseus, Quixote, Hamlet & Leopold Bloom.) It is the story of the entire Hebrew nation, the Middle East, and by analogy, it is the story of human civilization per se . *** Bartolomé Esteban Murillo’s Moses at the Rock of Horeb (c. 1669–1670) depicts the moment when Moses strikes a rock to miraculously bring forth water for the parched Israelites in the desert. The painting captures both divine power and human desperation, with light dramatically illuminating Moses and the cascading water while weary families and animals gather to drink. Murillo’s warm color palette, soft brushwork, and emotional realism transform a biblical miracle into a deeply human scene of faith, relief, and compassion. 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 Tantum Ergo St. Thomas Aquinas Apr 15, 2023 Sing, my tongue, the Savior’s glory, Of His cross, the mystery, sing; Lift on high the wondrous trophy, Tell the triumph of the King: He, the world's Redeemer, conquers Death, through death now vanquishing. Born for us, and for us given; Son of man, like us below, He, as Man with men, abiding Dwells, the seed of life to sow: He, our heavy griefs partaking, Thus fulfils His life of woe. Word made flesh! His word life-giving, Gives His flesh our meat to be, Bids us drink His blood, believing, Through His death, we life shall see: Blessed they who thus receiving Are from death and sin set free. Low in adoration bending, Now our hearts our God revere; Faith, her aid to sight is lending, Though unseen the Lord is near; Ancient types and shadows ending, Christ our paschal Lamb is here. Praise for ever, thanks and blessing, Thine, O gracious Father, be: Praise be Thine, O Christ, who bringeth Life and immortality. Praise be Thine, Thou quickening Spirit, Praise through all eternity. (Thomas Aquinas by Sandro Botticelli .) Between antiquity and modernity stands Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225–1274). The greatest figure of thirteenth-century Europe in the two preeminent sciences of the era, philosophy and theology, he epitomizes the scholastic method of the newly founded universities. Like Dante or Michelangelo, Aquinas takes inspiration from antiquity, especially Aristotle , and builds something entirely new. Viewed through a theological lens, Aquinas has often been seen as the summit of the Christian tradition that runs back to Augustine and the early Church. Viewed as a philosopher, he is a foundational figure of modern thought. His efforts at a systematic reworking of Aristotelianism reshaped Western philosophy and provoked countless elaborations and disputations among later medieval and modern philosophers. Return to our Holy Days 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 Kabbalah and Thomas the Train David Cowles “Children and tank engines are not so different from the rest of us. They crave meaning! They only settle for pleasure when…they lose hope.” How plugged in are you to the five-and-under crowd? Not so much? Ok, try this for an icebreaker: ask your favorite neighborhood terror to name his or her favorite character from movies, TV or books. Expecting Winnie the Pooh or Paddington Bear? You may be in for a surprise. Ask that question of any properly aged, English-speaking child on either side of the Atlantic, and you’re likely to learn a lot more than you ever cared to know about Thomas the Tank Engine and his Friends on the Island of Sodor in the UK. Created in 1945 and popularized in 1979, Thomas represents a very different take on the ‘childhood hero.’ Thomas is not mischievous; he is not introspective; he is not filled with existential angst; he’s not even heroic, and he certainly has no superpowers. Thomas defies the stereotype of childhood as fantastical, hedonistic, self-indulgent, and anti-social. His sole goal in life is to be “a really useful tank engine.” In this sense, he is the anti-Pooh. Thomas wants to earn the respect of his boss, Sir Topham Hatt, and the friendship of his fellow engines and rolling stock. He wants a sense of identity; he wants to belong. Unfortunately, young and inexperienced as he is, Thomas makes mistakes, each of which he feels deeply. He finds himself at times teased, ridiculed, ignored, criticized, and even disciplined – like any child his age. But he never loses his good humor; he never stops trying to ‘be all that he can be,’ and from time to time, he has well-recognized successes. Thomas may be sad, angry, or frustrated, but he is never depressed. His only response to adversity is to try even harder to be the tank engine he knows he was ‘born’ to be. Anything less is out of the question. So what’s so revolutionary about this? Defying the West’s philosophical consensus, Thomas puts zero weight on personal happiness . He evaluates himself by one and only one criterion: is he being useful, and, if so, is he being as useful as he could be? It turns out that children and tank engines are not so different from the rest of us. They crave meaning! They only settle for pleasure when, like The Great Gatsby , they lose hope: “Living well is the best revenge!” Pleasure is the graveyard of hope and a poor substitute for purpose. Imagine, children have an innate desire to be useful! Who knew? But we systematically frustrate that desire and divert it into self-centered pleasure seeking. Not you? You never offered a child a bowl of ice cream to ‘make up for’ some disappointment? Yet we marvel, “What’s the matter with kids today?” Answer: Look in the mirror! We do things to and for and occasionally with children, but we’re terrified to let them do anything on their own. We need to be needed, and we’re happy to exploit the children in our orbit to satisfy that need. “You will be dependent on me…or else!” A baby is born! Hallelujah! But somewhere along the way, no later than age seven, usually much earlier, we encase that ‘caterpillar’ in a chrysalis until its 18 th birthday when it is expected to emerge, fully formed and beautiful, as a butterfly. It’s a dangerous reproductive strategy, one that frequently goes awry. Yet with each hiccup, we double down. Like any species caught in an evolutionary cul-de-sac , we insist on making our adaptations work, empirical evidence notwithstanding. Crystlle Medansky creates children’s literature from the tradition of Kabbalah – an ancient school of Jewish mysticism related to, but not identical with, Hasidism. In one story, A Droplet , she tells the tale of a single drop of water, aptly named Dewy. Dewy lives in the sea but the experience is unsatisfying. Vast, undifferentiated water is not very interesting, and by itself it reveals nothing about the nature of Dewy, the ocean, or the world. So Ocean agrees to send Dewy on a quest of self-discovery; it begins with Dewy’s evaporation and resumes with his eventual recondensation. Dewy’s goal is to return to Ocean, newly enlightened about the world, the self (Dewy) and the other (Sea). It is the paradigm of all life-experience. The soul of any such quest is the journey itself, not the destination. After all, when all is said and done, we end up right back where we started. Oh, but the adventures we have along the way! Dewy is anxious to complete his quest by returning to the ocean of his birth, but he does not place himself and his interests on a pedestal. Along the way, Dewy encounters various fellow creatures who need his help. Despite the urgency of his own mission, Dewy does not begrudge others the help they need to complete their own life journeys. First, a stalk of wheat needs hydration. “I’m in a hurry, but if you need my help, I will stay.” And Dewy stayed with the wheat until it had ripened. Then a stream needed Dewy’s help to wear away enough rock to create an unobstructed pathway to the sea. Again, Dewy responded generously. Next, Dewy encountered a boat that needed a wave to push it out to sea; Dewy selflessly delays his own reunion with Ocean in order to accelerate the arrival of his ‘fellow traveler .' At last, just as Dewy can hear the roar of the ocean ahead, a young mother calls to him from the embankment: “Can you help me take care of my little child?” Of course I can! Quest complete, Dewy finally reunites with the source of his being, the ocean. We don’t know what Dewy’s expectations were when he embarked on his quest, but it’s doubtful he expected to be gone for so many years. Still, it’s a small price to pay for the Pearl of Great Price, aka Enlightenment. Dewy’s quest allows him to realize that the meaning of life is not mystical union with the sea, but the helping hand he can lend to others on their own personal quests. Life is what happens while you’re waiting to begin living. Dewy was waiting to complete his quest so that his enhanced life with Ocean could begin. Instead, he discovers the real meaning of life lies in the projects of the others he encounters on his way. After an experience like this, Dewy will not be satisfied with the simple pleasures of frolicking with Ocean. Dewy, like Thomas, has discovered purpose…and nothing else will ever satisfy him again. 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 Previous Next

< Back Catastrophe David Cowles Apr 20, 2023 “Humanity had better hope there’s a God who is relevant, benevolent, concerned, engaged, eternal and omnipotent because otherwise…” Once upon a time, I was affiliated with a company that conducted twice annual business retreats for its staff. Each conference ended with this: “We have just spent two days analyzing in detail opportunities and risks ahead for our business. But are there broader, more general risks that we have not addressed that could take us down?” Pity the newbie who answers, “No.” Aletheia Today is focused on ‘opportunities and risks’ pertaining to philosophy, theology, and culture (science). But are there broader, more systemic risks that could bring the curtain down at any moment? I think so! May I suggest three? Thermonuclear War Bioengineering Artificial Intelligence Each one of these catastrophes has the power to end the ‘human experiment’. But notice what’s not on my list…three boogeymen (sic) of times gone by: Overpopulation Climate Change Alien Invasion Overpopulation turned out to be an ideologically motivated scare-tactic, supported by ‘selective science’. Back in the 1960s, Buckminster Fuller was already crying foul ( Utopia or Oblivion )! Turns out, many countries are wrestling with the problem of underpopulation, and it is estimated that Earth’s population could eventually drop below 6 billion (vs. 8 billion today). Once we’re finally ready to start building space colonies, will we be able to spare enough folks to populate them? Climate change , on the other hand, is real …but it’s not going to take us down. This is a problem we can solve by combining effective public policy with fast-tracked investment in new technology. It may be costly, and it may be painful, or not, but as long as we can ‘rescue life on Earth’, and I am confident we can, does anyone seriously doubt that we will…eventually? Nor am I kept awake at night by fear of invading aliens … because there aren’t any! Folks who assume the existence of complex life forms unrelated to us anywhere else in the universe, underestimate the mind-boggling improbability of intelligent life ever-evolving anywhere . We’re already an anomaly. We are not entitled to assume another. Plus, if I’m wrong, and I might be, then where are our alien non -cousins? We are beaming all sorts of sophisticated messages into space (Bach’s Concerti , for example) but all we’re hearing are the cicadas outside our observatory, serenading the inanimate stars on a moonless night. While I don’t have a shred of evidence to support this theory, I suspect it will turn out that we need every second and every cubic inch of our universe, now 92 billion light years across and 14 billion years old, just to create a high enough probability that conditions necessary for an Earth-like biosphere will evolve somewhere. So, I must be sleeping soundly – no Ambien for me! Except I’m not. I hardly sleep at all. And while insomnia has many roots, the state of the world is certainly in the mix. So, what does keep me up at night? Well, Schrödinger’s cat for one. Hiroshima ‘let the cat out of the box’ once and for all, and it has resisted our best efforts to re-cage it. After WWII, Europe was awash with calls for something akin to unilateral disarmament . Slogans du jour: Ban the Bomb Better Red than Dead Slogans, placards, marches, and demonstrations are great, but by themselves, at least, they do not disarm hostile nations. Two other strategies have been marginally more successful: Non-Proliferation Treaties Strategic Arms Limitation Agreements (SALTs) But this is Century 21, and gradually, but inexorably, more nations are acquiring the expertise and resources needed to produce nuclear weapons. Can anyone doubt that there will be dozens of nuclear states by the end of this century? So what? At least 10 countries have the bomb already, why not make it 50? The countries currently seeking membership in ‘the nuclear club’ (e.g., Iran) are probably not high on your list of destinations for next year’s family vacation. As our club opens its books to third and fourth-world nations, it is possible that some of the new member states will have governments less stable, borders less secure, and cybersecurity less robust than most current members. But this, of course, is just another ‘tip of the iceberg’. Can you not imagine a world in which private corporations, NGOs, political organizations, and even wealthy individuals all have access to the bomb? (Does the Second Amendment apply to nuclear weapons?) What then? Mind Bet : What’s the over/under on the date the first ad for a nuclear weapon will appear on the dark web; and will it qualify for free delivery if the buyer is an Amazon Prime customer? Moving on, can you believe it’s been only three decades since we decoded the human genome? Already we are using this discovery to enable sex selection, to eliminate certain ‘undesired’ genetic anomalies, and to resurrect extinct species. Recently, the world was brought to its knees by a mutant virus (COVID-19), accidentally released from a lab engaged in modifying organisms into bioweapons. Finally, we are proposing to use CRISPR to ‘improve’ our species by inserting the genes of certain non-human organisms into human DNA. What could possibly go wrong? And then… … There’s AI, perhaps the crowning achievement of human technology. Homo Sapiens , ‘the one who knows’, is on the cusp of outsourcing its hallmark ability to a network of machines. “No more rulers, no more books, no more teacher’s dirty looks.” Life is about to get very, very comfortable. But at a horrible price! Studies suggest that the human brain is already shrinking , presumably as a result of fewer external threats. The sci-fi chestnut of a universe taken over by machines is not at all far-fetched; the process is well underway. So no, I’m not getting much sleep these days. How about you? I’ll leave you with this: humanity had better hope that there’s a God who is relevant, benevolent, concerned, engaged, eternal and omnipotent because otherwise… 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. 4. Aletheia Today Magazine (ATM) will be devoting its entire fall issue (released 9/1/23) to artificial intelligence (AI). What are the philosophical, theological, cultural and even spiritual implications of AI powered world? If you’d like to contribute to the AI Issue, click here . 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 Adam and Eve David Cowles Jan 20, 2022 In one respect at least, The Book of Genesis and the Book of Job are mirror images of one another. In Genesis, mankind (Adam) finds itself in Paradise with all its needs met; yet ‘Adam’ chooses to sin. In Job, a man (Job) finds himself in the most dire straights possible; yet he continues to practice virtue and he defends both God and Goodness against the relentless taunting of his wife and 3 (or 4) so-called “comforters”. While Adam put his ‘significant other’ (Eve), the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (apple), and even the serpent (Satan) ahead of God, Job never waivers in his monotheism: “For I know that my redeemer lives and that he will stand on the earth on the last day, and though after my skin (is gone) worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh I will see God, whom I shall see for myself, and mine own eyes shall behold, and not another’s.” (Job 19: 25 & ff) In one respect at least, The Book of Genesis and the Book of Job are mirror images of one another. In Genesis, mankind (Adam) finds itself in Paradise with all its needs met; yet ‘Adam’ chooses to sin. In Job, a man (Job) finds himself in the most dire straights possible; yet he continues to practice virtue and he defends both God and Goodness against the relentless taunting of his wife and 3 (or 4) so-called “comforters”. While Adam put his ‘significant other’ (Eve), the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (apple), and even the serpent (Satan) ahead of God, Job never waivers in his monotheism: “For I know that my redeemer lives and that he will stand on the earth on the last day, and though after my skin (is gone) worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh I will see God, whom I shall see for myself, and mine own eyes shall behold, and not another’s.” (Job 19: 25 & ff) 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.