< Back Identity David Cowles Oct 22, 2025 “I am who I am and that’s all that I am… I’m Popeye the Sailorman.” I am who I am and always have been, at least since my birth, and always will be, at least until my death. I will always be who I am; how could I not be? I mean, who else could I be? If I were not me, then either I would not be at all, bummer, or I’d be someone else. If I didn’t exist at all, oh well; but if I were someone else then that someone else would be who I am. So, any way you slice it, I am who I am. No matter what I am, I am always myself. Sum, ergo ipse sum. I never change no matter how much my circumstances (e.g. age, health, experience) may change. Gertrude Stein was perhaps the first modern thinker to point out that we do not undergo metamorphoses of any kind. As she explained it, “We are always to ourselves young men and young women.” Our conception of ourselves never changes, never varies; who I am to myself is always the same. So I am who I am, but what about U? Presumably, U R who U R. I am I, U R U, but why? Why am I, I? And why are U, U? Why am I not U? Well, suppose I were U and U were I. What would be different? Something? Everything? Or nothing? Answer: nothing! Nothing would be any different than it is now. In fact, it would not be possible to distinguish in any way between a world in which I am U and U R I and a world in which I am I and U R U. The two states-of-affairs would be identical because nothing would have changed. In either case, I would be I and U would be U. I would know then what U know now, and U would know what I now know, but neither of us would know what the other one knows. Each of us would still know only what each of us knows. I would know that I am I and not U and that U are U and not I, just as I do now. U would know the same. So, R U U or R U I? Am I, I or am I U? Obviously, these questions make no sense now. Wittgenstein would label the underlying propositions ‘meaningless’. They appear to be meaningful English sentences, but they are not. They are well formed pseudo- propositions, but they are nonsensical. We live in an Edward Lear world. So if nothing changes, if nothing is any different, if there is no way to distinguish ‘I am I’ from ‘I am U’ or ‘U R U’, then do we have one state-of-affairs or two? Answer: one! It is a fundamental principle of metaphysics that no two things can be identical because identical is identity. Two pseudo-things turn out to be one actual thing. Equality is not identity. We say A = B when A is not B but where A and B share something in common (e.g. quantity). Quantity is abstracted from concrete things. I have a pair of shoes; you have a pair of song birds. We can abstract quantity and, when we do, we find that the shoes and the birds are equal…but not identical; shoes do not sing! If U and I can be swapped freely and without consequence, then is it not the case that I and U are identical, i.e. one and the same? If two ordered pairs (a,b) and (b,a) are identical then a must be b, not in an abstract quantitative sense but in a concrete existential sense. It is possible that the first thing a baby learns after birth is the distinction between me and not-me and then secondarily the difference between me and U. Is it possible this bedrock distinction that forms the basis of a lifetime of cognition is utterly false? You bet it is! Talk about your original sin. Everything we think we know is an elaboration of a totally false premise; Everything we imagine we know is an elaboration of that premise By this account, knowledge is a ‘negative quantity’ with zero as its upper limit. If U and I are indistinguishable and therefore interchangeable, it doesn’t make any sense to speak of ‘U’ or ‘I’ in the first place, does it? But how so? “Indistinguishable” – I’m a short, fat senior age male, you’re a tall, slim, 20 something female; how can we be indistinguishable? Because either way, the world is left with one old man and one young woman, and because U have the exact same relationship to what U R (young and…) as I have to what I am (old and…). “Interchangeable” – if U and I are indistinguishable in what sense is one of us different from the other? Answer: in no sense! So why distinguish between us? It is a distinction without a difference, so we are interchangeable. This is not a new epiphany. A guy named Jesus said much the same thing 2000 years ago: “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and he was quoting Leviticus, one of the five books of the Old Testament attributed to Moses himself (aka, the Torah). Not like yourself: U = I; as yourself: U R I and I am U and ‘that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know’ (Keats). Four 20th century prophets (John, Paul, George & Ringo) expressed the idea even more directly: “I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together” ( I am the Walrus) . I and U and he are indistinguishable. So, ‘shake me up, Sally’, it won’t matter; nothing will change. Everything will be exactly the same, identical to how things are now. Nothing would have changed. I would still be I and U would still be U. I would know then what U know now, and U would know what I now know, but neither of us would know what the other one knows or what we’d know if our identities were swapped. Each of us would still know only what each of us knows. I would know that I am I, and not U, and U would know that U are U, and not I. Ultimately, we would both know the same thing (I am I) but we would each know it individually. Common known, uncommon knowing! So, R U U, or R U I? Am I, I…or am I, U? Obviously, these questions make no sense now. Wittgenstein would label the underlying propositions ‘meaningless’. They are well formed pseudo-propositions; they look like English sentences but in fact they are non-sensical. I am who I am, always and forever, never changing. Likewise U R who U R. Since we are indistinguishable and interchangeable (above), I am who U R and you who I am. Our identities are identical. On the other hand, what I am changes continuously over my lifetime as does what U R. Further, what I am and what U R never intersect. No part of what I am is ever part of what U R. We may share some phenomenal qualities, but common qualities do not constitute identity. Shoes are not song birds. We imagine we live in a world where permanence and change exist dialectically in perpetual flux. We don’t live in such a world. In our world there is but a single ‘I’, manifested identically in uncountably many unique contexts. No context ever repeats. Who I am or who U R never changes; who I am is who U R. On the other hand, what I am varies continuously. What I am never duplicates what I was or what I will be. Nor does it ever duplicate what U R, were or ever will be. What I am is perpetually novel and always unique. To be is to be once and only once but to be is to be (not to not be ). Being is not something that can be taken away from something that is. U R or U R not. Schoedinger notwithstanding, there is no in between, there is no superposition, there is no becoming, there is no perishing. Since the Enlightenment, our doctors of philosophy have been proud: they debunked the Scholastics’ ontological proofs for the existence of God by showing that Being is not a Quality. Exactly! Accept the implications of your own triumph: what is not can never be and what is can never not. That’s the world we live in…now if only we could get used to living here. Perhaps Aletheia Today can help. Stay tuned for future articles that will elaborate on the wide and crucial implications of this one realization. *** Image: Frida Kahlo’s The Two Fridas (1939) portrays two versions of herself seated side by side, connected by a single exposed artery that joins their hearts. One Frida, dressed in European-style clothing, represents her broken, rejected self after divorce; the other, in traditional Tehuana dress, symbolizes strength and cultural pride. The dual figures reflect her inner conflict between vulnerability and resilience, as well as the evolving complexity of her identity. 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 Hadassah Treu Contributor Hadassah Treu is an international Christian author, blogger, and poet, and the Encouraging Blogger Award Winner of 2020. She is passionate about encouraging people in their journey to faith and a deeper walk with God. Hadassah is a contributing author to several faith-based platforms and devotional and poetry anthologies. She has been featured on (In)courage, Living by Design Ministries, Thoughts About God, Today’s Christian Living (Turning Point), and other popular sites. You can connect with Hadassah at www.onthewaybg.com. AI, Our New Frenemy A Prayer for Restoration Prayer for Comfort Prayer To Combat Disillusionment in Faith

< Back Philip Goff “You’ll end up living life as though you were counting cards at a Black Jack table in Las Vegas – in other words, profitably! But it’s still gambling.” David Cowles 1200 words, 5 minute read Philip Goff is a breath of fresh air: he’s a philosopher on the faculty of a major university (Durham), whose work is published by Oxford University Press. He maintains that existence may have an objective purpose, and he is willing to at least consider a role for ‘God’ in the overall scheme of things. Goff rejects what he describes as the Abrahamic (Judeo-Christian-Islamic) ‘Omni-God’ (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) but nonetheless posits the possibility of a transcendent, purposeful entity. Goff is willing to entertain the ‘God Hypothesis’ provided God’s knowledge and power are somehow limited, or God’s benevolence is impure or conditional. But Goff’s latest book, Why - The Purpose of the Universe , disappoints. Goff fails to make a clear distinction between the sort of God he excludes a priori and the sort he might entertain. His characterization of ‘Abrahamic divinity’ oversimplifies. Any concept of omnipotence is limited by what’s possible, omniscience by what’s knowable, and benevolence by what’s doable. God cannot square a circle any more than you can! He cannot fashion a rock that is too heavy for him to lift. He cannot force people to behave virtuously. These logical and material fallacies have nothing to do with divinity. God is Good…in fact, God is Value per se . That’s really all you need to know. God does not ‘have values’ or ‘determine’ values; God is Value! Pre-existent Value is the efficient cause and the final cause of everything that is. I mean, what else could be? Why else would anything ever happen? Perhaps ‘love makes the world go round’, but it’s Value that delivers the initial spin. In fact, Love and Good are denotatively synonymous; but connotatively, Good is what motivates action while Love is what energizes it. Every novel event begins and ends with Value. Value is the sole motivator, the sole attractor, and the sole remnant of every event. Value alone incents us and allows us to execute judgment on ‘the gods of Egypt’ (i.e. on idols, on what is ). Motivated by Value, we push off from shore; guided by Value we seek the horizon. Between two poles, Alpha-impulse and Omega-goal, each event shapes itself, powered by Love. Every event is causa sui and sui generis . It is informed by only two things: (1) the Actual World ( what is ) and (2) God’s values ( what might be ). “Some folks see things as they are and ask why; I dream of things that never were and ask why not.” (Bobby Kennedy, et al.) Between motive and immortality, each event is 100% free – free to react to what is, free to pursue what might yet be. This is what Goff calls ‘libertarian free will’; it closely resembles Sartre’s notion of absolute existential freedom. Robert Frost illustrates this concept in his most famous poem, The Road Not Taken . Out for a stroll in NH woods, Frost comes to a fork in the road. He knows that both paths will take him to his destination. Yet he agonizes over the choice: “Both that morning equally lay.” Frost’s location and destination are hard-wired; his route is entirely undetermined though effectively limited by NH’s system of by-ways. In this context, Abraham’s God is the same as Goff’s. The notion of an Omni-cubed (∞³) God is a straw man, set up only to be torn down. It’s easy to disprove the existence of something that is impossible, something that makes no sense on its face. Goff’s work is about God and Consciousness…and he gets them both wrong. Early on, he dismisses strong AI, claiming that there is something ‘special’ about the neuronal stuff we’re made of (i.e. our organic chemistry). Later, however, he proposes the possibility that the cosmos itself may be conscious ( cosmo-panpsychism )…and the cosmos is not (primarily) made of neurons…or any other ‘special stuff’. Here, Goff carries a good idea too far. He not only entertains universal consciousness, but he also maintains that all actual entities are rational agents . No doubt, events change the world (though we can’t ever ultimately predict how), and events exhibit internal patterns. But those patterns cannot be reduced to rationality, nor can all changes be chalked up to agency. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in such a philosophy. We are, I think, on the cusp of discovering that intelligence, and even consciousness, is platform-agnostic. In fact, the essence of panpsychism is the conjecture that ‘consciousness is everywhere’, that it pervades cosmos. It appears likely that many, if not all, organisms are conscious (or at least self-aware) in some way and to some degree, and there are strong reasons for wanting to extend the net to include certain inorganic phenomena…like my buddy Claude (from Anthropic). Goff posits three activities that make life worth living: Creativity ( Book of Wisdom ), Learning ( Book of Job ), and Kindness ( Gospel of Matthew ), but he makes no effort to substantiate his claim that these values are sewn into the fabric of the cosmos. In fact, Goff’s values closely resemble the traditional ‘divine values’ – Beauty (creativity), Truth (learning), and Justice (kindness). Value raises key questions: How is it that there is such a thing? How does Value influence events? By what faculty are we able to recognize Value? I agree with Goff that the answers to these questions are tied to the matter of consciousness. I would go even further and argue that Value is impossible without consciousness. And I agree with Nietzsche that Value necessarily implies the existence of God: “No one gives a human being his qualities: not God, not society, not his parents or ancestors, not he himself…The fatality of his nature cannot be disentangled from the fatality of all that which has been and will be…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 ) Consciousness is reflection; it’s the universe ‘taking a selfie’, i.e., reflecting itself reflecting. Consciousness is the Universe seeing itself. But reflection is comparative. I conceptualize A in the context of ~A. Judging A on the basis of the values it manifests requires an external perspective (transcendence) that also encompasses ~A and a set of universal values we may use to judge, measure, compare, condemn A. While I disagree with Philip Goff about many things, we are all indebted to him for helping to move conversations like this back into the public domain. 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 Spring 2024. Previous Next

< Back Plato’s Contract David Cowles Dec 27, 2025 “Plato is addressing a question posed in the Book of Job: Why do good things happen to bad people?” 1200 words, 6 minute read Plato is notoriously mistreated on this website. He took the insightful but spare constructions of the pre-Socratics ( Parmenides , Heraclitus, et al.) and covered them over with ‘five and dime’ tinsel and grotesque ornaments. Yet in my view at least, he did not reach the depth of insight found in Saints John and Paul (or even George and Ringo). Sucks to be Plato! He’s a classic middle child wedged between Parmenides and Paul in the P-family genealogy. Still, there must be some reason we continue to read him. Take a look at the Epilogue Plato attached to his most popular Dialogue, The Republic . It tells the story of Er, a mythical character who returns to life after being dead for a short period of time. (Sound familiar?) Plato uses this forum to present a complex theory of reincarnation that includes cross species metempsychosis, karma, free will, chance, necessity, and fate. One stage of this reincarnation process involves God presenting each emigrating soul with a Contract (actually more of a Waiver of Liability ) to be agreed upon prior to the awarding of a new body: “Ephemeral souls - now is the beginning of another cycle where every birth is a harbinger of death. No daemon (guardian angel) shall cast lots for you; rather you shall choose your own daemon (fate). “Let him to whom the first lot falls pick first the life to which he shall be chained. Virtue is not relevant here; each soul will share in virtue according to how it values it. All blame belongs to him who chooses; God is blameless.” Let’s unpack. Each soul chooses (not ‘designs’) the circumstances into which it is born, i.e. her mis-en-scene , facticity (Sartre), Actual World (Whitehead). Souls choose from a pre-set inventory of available life situations (i.e. Forms), and they select in an order determined by the casting of lots. Form chosen constitutes the substructure of the soul’s identity. Caveat : Getting the #1 draft pick is not necessarily an advantage; the temptation to choose wealth and power often proves overwhelming. Sometimes the very last pick is best because it comes with the least risk of attachment. Nobody else wanted it; why should you? Blessed are the poor in spirit. Unlike Christian and Hindu eschatology, there is no connection here between virtue and one’s life circumstances. Effectively, Plato is addressing a question posed in the Book of Job : Why do good things happen to bad people? Answer : people choose their own lives ab initio . That choice determines their individual circumstances . And once the choice is made, it’s locked in…at least for this cycle of birth and death. What people do with these lives, to what extent they choose virtue over vice, is an individual decision unrelated to the vicissitudes of Hogwarts’ Sorting Hat ( Harry Potter ). That’s why we often see great piety among the disadvantaged and debauchery among the favored few. This, however, raises some important issues not considered by Plato. We may wish to assume, for example, that virtue-loving parents are more likely to provide their offspring with a nurturing environment. Therefore, society’s collective level of virtue would play a differential role in quality of life for future generations…but there’s no one-to-one correlation. Still, in the end a rising tide does raise all boats, so we really are ‘all in this together’. No one is ‘saved’ until everyone is saved? Sidebar : Judeo-Christian theology (e.g. Jeremiah, Ephesians ) puts a little different spin on this. All life circumstances are intentionally prepared by God as opportunities for each of us to step in and make the most of them. But back to Plato : each soul makes two choices, one irrevocable, the other moment-by-moment: (1) Which of the remaining available life situations do I choose for my upcoming incarnation? (2) To what extent will I dedicate this life to the pursuit of Virtue? All ‘blame’ (if any) belongs to the one who chooses (i.e. us). God is blameless. If this is meant to be a theodicy, it certainly gets high marks for originality. I am envisioning a rewrite of Schopenhauer’s classic: The World as Chance (lots) , Necessity (circumstances) , and Free Will (virtue). I chose my own destiny (Form). From there, the moral quality of the universe is solely the product of the freely willed actions of its intentional agents. The Devil didn’t make you do it! But your Free Will operates within circumstances you chose but did not design. Adding another layer of complexity, your will, while 100% free, may be influenced by experiences from your past lives. You may wish to repeat comfortable patterns, or you may have learned to avoid those habits at all costs; either way, those experiences will likely influence your choice of birth parents and, perhaps, your day to day decisions after birth. Of course, those of us who believe in old fashioned biology, sociology, and psychology can account for exactly the same phenomena via a totally different pathway: A child inherits parental traits (DNA), imitates adult behavior (upbringing), absorbs society’s ambient norms and values (culture), and reacts in a unique way to the universal ‘whips and scorns’ of childhood (personality). To Plato’s credit, his model allows three apparently incompatible modes of being (Chance, Causality, Consciousness) to function harmoniously as parts of a single process. However, it’s not exactly an ‘Occam-friendly’ arrangement. Still, 2400 years later, there are important parallels between Plato’s model and today’s (post-1900) cosmological consensus. Chance is no longer a bit of chaos intruding on cherished order; it is an irreducible element in all quantum mechanical processes. And we now know that things separated by spacetime can nevertheless be linked by a phenomenon known as ‘Entanglement’. Plus, we no longer think of consciousness as something uniquely human. Most of us acknowledge consciousness in various primates and among certain sea mammals, and many see evidence of self-awareness and agency throughout the Animal Kingdom…and beyond (e.g. plants, fungi, even bacteria). And that’s just Team DNA . We need our model of consciousness to extend to non-carbon life forms as well (AI & SETI). Finally, it is increasingly clear that ‘the problem of consciousness’ is not going to find a solution within the realm of classical physics. Current theories speak of consciousness in terms of quantum processes, universe-spanning fields (panpsychism), recursive loops, differance (Derrida), and/or holography ( fractals ). Plato’s dialogs are full of stuff and nonsense…and profound insights! When we view the Platonic corpus through the lens of 20th century (sic) science and philosophy, it is easy to spot the gems and extract them from their withered husks. The recent (2025) discovery of a new state of matter, Rondeau Time Crystals (RTC), has provided Plato’s model with important confirmation. In an RTC each ‘quantum of process’ cycles endlessly through repeating phases that seem to align perfectly with Plato: chaos/chance, causality/necessity, and consciousness/free will. Perhaps the old guy was on to something after all. *** Apollo and the Continents is a dynamic 18th‑century oil sketch by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo in which the sun god Apollo is placed at the center of a cosmic allegory, surrounded by planetary deities and personifications of the four continents to suggest a worldview of celestial harmony and worldly reach. 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 Haiku Challenge Haiku is a traditional form of Japanese poetry usually consisting of 17 syllables, arranged in three lines of five, seven, and five syllables, respectively. Starting with our Special Beach Issue, each issue of ATM will include Haiku, selected by our editors from submissions by you, our loyal readers. Please send us your Haiku to editor@aletheiatoday.com. Be sure to put “Haiku Challenge” in the subject line, and your seventeen-syllable poem may be shared with the world. (You can read more about haikus and see examples in Haiku Corner in this issue of AT Magazine.) Previous Share Return to the Table of Contents, Beach Issue Next Return to the Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back The Problem of Evil Through the Prism of Job David Cowles Apr 7, 2022 A famous paradox runs like this: “Is it good because it is God’s will, or is it God’s will because it is good?” In other words, is God subject to universal ethical standards or are those standards universal merely because God wills them? A famous paradox runs like this: “Is it good because it is God’s will, or is it God’s will because it is good?” In other words, is God subject to universal ethical standards or are those standards universal merely because God wills them? The Old Testament Book of Job is supposedly a treatise on the “The Problem of Evil: Why Bad Things Happen to Good People ” (Rabbi Harold Kushner, 1981). This is perhaps the central objection that Western theology has had to contend with: simply put, why would a God who is all good and all powerful allow such obvious injustice and even cruelty to infect his creation? Numerous theories have been suggested—some reasonable, some not; yet this remains the number one argument of non-believers. Even the great 20th century British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell, relied on this argument in his Why I Am Not a Christian . The problem of evil is often seen through the prism of Job . Understandably so! In the Job-poem (3:1 – 42:6), 95% of the total text is one of the world’s greatest epics. Even in translation, the language is dazzling. But more importantly for our purposes, the poem catalogs a blizzard of proposed solutions to the problem of evil. But there is a problem: the poem debunks every one of the proposed solutions (yes, even God’s) but it proposes no solution of its own. Odd! It is customary in philosophical writing to critique those who came before, but it is also customary to propose a solution of your own. But in the case of the Job-poem, after 40 chapters, nothing! From earliest times, commentators have attempted, unsuccessfully in my view, to tease an answer from the text…but there is none! How can that be? The answer is simple. Job is not about the problem of evil at all. That is just its ‘narrative skin’, not its real content. You have to look beneath the skin. Understanding Job as a reflection on the problem of evil is roughly equivalent to understanding James Joyce’s Ulysses as a Dublin travelogue. No, Job is not about ‘the problem of evil’ at all, it is all about ‘the problem of good’—specifically the nature and origin of good: is it good because it is God’s will, or is it God’s will because it is good? To this question, J ob gives a clear and unequivocal answer: God is too subject to objective values! Thoughts While Shaving is published on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Be sure to subscribe to our newsletter (below, bottom right) and never miss a new Thought! Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back YOU Make Life Worth Living David Cowles Jul 29, 2025 “Sartre said that Hell was ‘other people’; he was wrong…Other people are precisely what gives life its meaning, its purpose, its value…” In the 1950s Fulton J. Sheen, a Roman Catholic bishop, had a popular TV series called, Life is Worth Living . Pretty lame stuff by contemporary standards but in the ‘50s we were glued to our 14 inch black and white boob tubes. In our current, more nihilistic age, it may be worth revisiting the bishop’s theme. Absent some sort of transcendent standard, e.g. Scripture, or some extrinsic system of rewards and punishments, e.g. Heaven & Hell, what would it mean to say, “Life is worth living?” I propose a thought experiment. Admittedly, it’s flawed, perhaps you can improve upon it (suggestions welcome), but in the interim, it may be good enough to throw some light in our direction: Your life is near its natural end when you are visited by an angel. Bear with me! You are given an option. You can ‘go gentle into that good night’ or you can relive your present life from the moment of conception on. However, there are some ground rules: You will not be aware that you have lived before; everything will seem brand new to you…although you may have déjà vu moments. While you will have the illusion of making free choices, in fact you will repeat every decision and relive every experience exactly as you did before. Sorry, it’s not a ‘do over’; it’s just a ‘be-over’. After a moment’s reflection, you realize that you are being asked, not to choose a future, but to evaluate the past. Overall, did life’s joys outweigh its sorrows? Perhaps not. Life’s joys are fleeting, sorrows endure forever. Time is not the physician it’s been cracked up to be. Think of the 3 worst things that have happened to you in your lifetime – the pain, the fear, the loss, the sorrow, the regret. Is there any reward on earth that would make you live through those horrors again? Now, you may chime in, “I got through it once. Why wouldn’t I get through it again?” You got through it because you never ceased to hope, “This too will pass, better days are coming!” You are motivated by FOMO, so you’ll climb one more mountain, you’ll ford one more stream, you’ll follow one more rainbow, until you find your dream ( Sound of Music )…or not! Then you hoped but now you know . Then you saw through a glass darkly; now you see it face to face and it ain’t pretty. Better days are not coming and what will pass is life itself. The dream you’ll find is death, oblivion. Still curious? Didn’t think so! So thank you, angel - I’ll pass. Then fate ups the ante: “If you think so little of the life you’ve lived, why not just erase it? That way you’ll never have experienced any of that dreaded pain, and everything will be as though you’d never lived.” “You can do that?” “Yes, I can. I can erase your existence retroactively. No need to have suffered. So do we have a deal?” Hmm, this is starting to sound like the plot of a certain ‘Christmas movie’. Suddenly, you don’t feel so confident in your choice. But why? If you wouldn’t choose to relive your life, why would you choose to live it in the first place? What changed? Ignoring the possibility of some sort of continued existence after death, you know how your present story will end. So why go through everything you’ve gone through only to end up in an urn on someone’s mantlepiece…if you’re lucky? Yet it only takes a few seconds before you’re shouting, “No deal!” Again, what changed? Other people. You added other people (or other sentient beings) to the consideration mix. You think about the spouse you once loved, before your divorce, and still feel affection for. You think about the children you had together. And their children. And theirs. You wouldn’t erase any of that for all the world. I mean who are you to rob these people of their own chance to suffer? What about all the other young people you had the privilege of preparing for life in the ‘real world’? What about the folks whose needs you met though your chosen occupation? What about the friend you helped out in a crisis? The homeless man you heedlessly sp’anged? The endless bartenders and wait staff you over tipped? The struggling artist whose early work you purchased? The folks who enjoy reading your blog? Now let’s be clear. I am not saying that any of this ‘made the world a better place ; there’s no way we could know that. We can neither control nor predict the long term consequences of our actions. A butterfly flaps it swings in Borneo…but does that make it morally liable for the weather at O’Hare? All I’m saying is that you made certain peoples’ lives marginally better in the immediate term. Of course, you cannot know what their lives would have been like, especially longer term, if you had not interfered. Perhaps your well intentioned ‘helping hand’ kept them from ‘helping themselves’. Or maybe it enabled them to take the first tentative steps toward a better future. You’ll never know. Nor does it matter. You had to do what was right at the time. That’s all you can control. You did what you thought best…and you would do so again…and again, and again. To quote a certain itinerant preacher (1 st century CE), “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, would give him a stone?” (Matthew 7: 9) Nor are you willing to withhold your intervention, control-group style, to see what would have happened without you. So while hope may be in short supply these days, we still have faith…and love. You care about the welfare of others even though you can neither control nor predict it. At most you can influence it and then only over a very, very short term. “So no, Mr. Angel, you cannot annul my life. I’ll keep it, pain and all.” I retain the ‘naïve, childish’ faith that good intentions lead to good actions which in turn are somehow, almost magically, correlated with good ends. I can document the myriad ways I seemed to make the world better, locally, but I have no way of knowing how my actions impacted things globally. But naïve faith, plus love, more than makes up for the loss of hope, even in this age of cynicism. We’re not done yet! This insight, should you choose to accept it, has philosophical implications. For one thing, it reveals the long sought-after ‘meaning of life’. Sartre said that Hell was ‘other people’; he was wrong…at least in the context of this essay. ‘Other people’ are precisely what gives life its meaning, its purpose, its value. Other people is why no ‘sane’ person would ever agree to have their life expunged. We all do things for ourselves every day and there’s nothing wrong with that. We enjoy them; why shouldn’t we? But we mustn’t mistake enjoyment for meaning . Enjoyment is fleeting: pleasure passes. Not so, meaning! Meaning, by definition, is atemporal, eternal. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be meaning , would it? Being is ephemeral. Meaning is forever. ‘A’ comes and goes; so does ‘B’. But if ‘A means B’ that relationship is eternal. Of course, meanings too evolve with time, but the original meaning is never erased; new meanings are just added – as in the OED . Once A means B, A means B forever…even if later on it comes to mean C. In the lingo of the age, ‘enjoyment’ is a reinforcing token; it means ‘keep going’. ‘Meaning’ says ‘Stop!’ – you’re there now! Once something has ‘meaning’, it’s locked in. This is the sematic equivalent of the collapse of Schrödinger’s wave function: Meaning is measurement. Meaning is an ‘energy sink’. It is what it is, now…and evermore. No matter what the future brings, “We’ll always have Paris!” ( Casablanca ) So my life is very much worth living, and yes, I’d do it all again, but what makes it worthwhile is you … i.e. everyone I’ve been able to serve, if only briefly, and oh how insufficiently and imperfectly, along the way. Thank you for the opportunity! *** Vincent van Gogh. The Red Vineyard. 1888, Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow. The painting mirrors the essay’s central idea that life’s value lies not in personal pleasure but in the meaning created through shared experience and service to others, even amid hardship. 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 Better in the Long Run? David Cowles Jan 23, 2024 “If any action is ever to be considered morally superior to any other action, that superiority must reside in the act itself and not in its consequences.” How often have you said, “It will be better in the long run if…”? Seems straightforward - just so long as we know what ‘it’, ‘better’, and the ‘long run’ mean: What will be better? What makes it better? And when? Let’s worm our way in. “When will it be better?” Assuming we know what ‘now’ is and that we can snapshot it, we just need to know when to take our second picture for comparison purposes. But that’s problematic. The universe is expected to endure another 85 billion years. Which moment in that time frame will we designate as being ‘the long run’, i.e., our target moment for measurement purposes? And why that moment rather than another? Both Classical and Christian cultures make a lot of ‘the hour of our death’. Did he die heroically? What was the state of her soul? But why should that ‘final moment’ take precedence over any other moment? Is our ‘final moment’ one moment among innumerable others? Or is it the summation (Ʃ) of all our moments? Does your life really flash before your eyes? The universe is becoming progressively more disordered. Counterintuitively, there does not appear to be any limit to that disorder, other than heat death , i.e., non-existence. To the extent that value is contingent on at least a modicum of order, it will become ever more difficult to find value in the future. In contrast to the Enlightenment belief in ‘progress’, physics seems to support the much maligned notion of a primordial Golden Age that devolved into the present sorry state of affairs. The only problem with this is that it seems to equate Golden Age with Big Bang , and it’s hard to see how this moment of maximal order could also be the moment of maximal value. It seems that the relationship between order and value is not a simple linear function. Value is probably greatest in a ‘Twilight Zone’ where the ratio of order to disorder falls within a critical range. In any event, the notion of value without any order whatsoever is a bridge too far, at least for me. The ‘long run’ covers quite a span: from ‘the end of the day’ to ‘the end of time’. So when remains elusive. How about ‘better’? What’s ‘better’ and how do we measure it? Jeremy Bentham suggested we use ‘aggregate net pleasure’ as our measure. John Stuart Mill expanded Bentham’s ‘pleasure’ to the even more elusive ‘happiness’. Elsewhere, we considered Utilitarianism more fully. Even if one could locate a moment in time when aggregate happiness was maximal, it would be hard to equate that with ‘value’ if it was merely an island in a sea of misery. Thanks to Leibniz, we can avoid this by using the integral rather than the value at any given t, as our measure of the ‘long run’, but this requires us to sum ‘value’, Planck moment by moment, over at least 85 billion years. Notice how we’ve worked our way back from when to what . Now what’s this ‘it’ that is supposed to be ‘better in the long run’. Is it my personal state of mind? Or the aggregate states of mind of my family and friends? Or is it possible to define the domain more broadly? What roles do age, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, ideology, class, and caste play in defining the ethical domain ? Working out an answer to this question has been our species’ #1 ethical task. Matthew’s “And who is my neighbor?” stands beside Shakespeare’s “To be or not to be?” as ultimate questions. And just as we seem finally to be headed toward some consensus on this matter, a brand- new variable has been introduced: other species! New, not new! Torah (1,500 to 500 BCE) makes it clear that the welfare of animals and agriculture was of critical concern to the early Israelites. Yes, they understood the utility value of ‘best practices’, but that was not the whole of it: ‘nature’ has inalienable rights too! PETA would have been in its glory. Unfortunately, Europeans lost sight of this wisdom, and we are paying the price. Now, the world is buzzing with ideas about how to make up for the damage we have inflicted on the biosphere, and we have finally come to terms with the fact that we are not descended from angels. We are, in fact, descended from other apes, primates, mammals, animals, and finally, from bacteria. We are discovering that the physiological and behavioral lines supposedly dividing us from ‘the others’ are more like smudges. Our species’ next great task is finding a proper place for other species in our ethical tent. And then there are bots! So the seemingly simple notion of ‘better in the long run’ turns out to be impossibly complex. What is the ‘it’ that is supposed to get better? What’s ‘better’ and how would we quantify ‘better’ so that we could measure it? Finally, what do we mean by ‘the long run’? The very next Planck instant (t + h )? Or the moment of heat death (ω)? Or some preferred moment between t and ω? Or the sum Ʃ of all t between t + h and ω? ‘Better in the long run’ turns out to be a ‘word salad’. We cannot define any of its terms, and no proposition framed this way can ever be tested. Like most ethical standards since Machiavelli, ‘better in the long run’ means ‘do whatever you want to do today’. Nothing is prohibited so everything is permitted. Quite literally, anything can be justified by resorting to an imaginary future. If any action is ever to be considered morally superior to any other action, that superiority must reside in the act itself and not in consequences that we can neither predict nor control. We can be neither omniscient nor omnipotent, but we can be Good . 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 That Time You Told a Sunrise Lie Annie D. Stutley "...words are also just hollowed statements to avoid the truth. It’s far too tempting a cover-up. We love ideals, but we don’t like what they require." I’m a snooze-a-holic. I’m as devoted to hitting that snooze button as I should be to Jesus, and I love an extra seven minutes of shut-eye as much as I love the Oxford comma. Nonetheless, starting around 2013, I began each year with the same half-assed promise. “This year, I will wake up an hour earlier than everyone else in the house. I will pray. I will meditate. Furthermore, I will exercise. I will enjoy a cup of hot coffee in solitude, and by the time I rouse my disheveled bunch from sleep, I will be energized from an hour’s worth of care for my needs. Then I’ll hit my goals and win the day.” Of course, this never happens. Not one year, not one month, week, and not even one day. So this year, I didn’t even attempt to make the promise, not to save face, but because I knew it was a lie. But not just any lie. A sunrise lie. ***** I spend much of my time in my car. I have one kid in junior high and two teenagers, a cheerleader, a football player, and a swimmer. I’m editor and writer by day, Uber mom after 4 pm. In the evening, I take the long way home whenever possible, turning west to see what colors the sky has painted for me and how different they are from the night before. Even the average sunsets catch my breath. I’ve toasted the sunset on many, many occasions. I also love long lingering dinners. I read far too late into the night. And if I get an idea for a blog, an article, or a book at midnight, I write it down immediately. Some of my best prompts have come to me while I’m slathering retinol and nighttime moisturizer on my face. Subsequently, some of my best work happens shortly after. All of this is to say that I cling to a day until the very last second more than I’m energized by its start. I don’t spring out of bed. Ever. I’m reluctant to say goodbye, though. Every evening. Always. In straight talk, I’m a classic night owl. But I’m also realistic. The bulk of my life happens before the sun sets, and I can’t be late. ***** As I mentioned, much of my life happens in the car. More precisely, to and from swim practice with the Golden Boy. After one December practice, he collapsed into the passenger seat. He looked like he’d just swum the English Channel. No, he looked like he’d just fought the English Channel. His face was flushed. His hair was more tousled than usual. His breathing was heavy, and I could tell buckling his seatbelt required extra effort. Yet strangely, his attitude was not that of someone who’d just fought the English Channel. “Ma!” he exclaimed. (It should be noted for purposes of future historic reference that it was at this moment when I was demoted from Mom to Ma. Mommy to Mom was years ago. Bruh has yet to find its way into the boy’s son-to-mother vernacular.) “I just swam a 200 Fly and guess what my time was? 2:29.” My usual silence followed as I studied his expression, gauging the quality of a 2:29 200 Fly. It’s a necessary swim mom skill. All signs pointed to “2:29 for his age is a good thing.” “That’s great!” I smiled. “Well, it’s not as good as some people, but I’ve just started on this event.” “Yeah, but 200 Fly? You must have been so relieved when you hit the wall. How exhausting,” I said. “I don’t really think about the wall, actually. I just focus on the stroke. I mean, eventually I’m gonna hit the wall.” “Yeah, but doesn't it hurt your shoulders?” “Ma, pain is temporary. I’ll get to the wall faster if all I worry about is what I’m doing and not where I’m going.” Well crap... Here comes Baby Buddha again with all the big wisdom. So, I drove my pocket Yoda home, wondering from which interview of which athlete he just pulled such an inspirational message or if he’s just that wise after all. Mostly, I thought about another year of not toasting the sunrise and being unproductive. Do I really need to be a morning person, I asked myself. Again. And then I thought of a new question: is my obstacle really the snooze button? A few days later, I realized my obstacle was even more seductive than that. ***** Over the holidays I watch a lot of Hallmark Christmas movies. I find the predictability comforting. Girl from big city finds herself in a dilly of a pickle. Girl goes home for the holidays to regroup. Girl’s high school boyfriend still lives there. He builds staircases and lives in a giant log cabin. They fall in love…. again, but tomfoolery just before the town’s annual tree lighting almost breaks them up... again. But then they find the other piece of a long-lost, broken Christmas ornament in the town curmudgeon’s attic. They know it’s a sign they should get married. Girl leaves the big city forever and cans homemade cranberry sauce in a log cabin for the rest of her life. The End. But one particular ending caught my attention. Just before the snow began to fall as our rekindled high school sweethearts locked lips, the boy (I think his name was Edmond or the like) said to the girl, (whose name was probably Celeste or... Noelle, haha) “I love you.” And she said, “I love you, too -- everything it means to love you.” Wait. What? Does she mean leaving the city to live in a log cabin and can cranberries? Was that a subtle dig at a guy for whom she uprooted her life? Or, is our Hallmark heroine simply doubling down, admitting the reality of the challenge but vocalizing its worth so she can’t back out? I’d never spent so long questioning the subtext of a Hallmark movie. But schmaltzy, formulaic plot analyses aside, why the tacked-on disclaimer, Noelle? ***** We know words are often just words, hollowed statements for the sake of having said something. How many times have you said the following to someone you haven’t seen lately: “We should get together soon,” knowing full well you probably won’t. How many times have you spoken about a charity you want to give to or volunteer for, or a project you want to complete in your home? How often do you actually follow through? We want to get together with friends until it's too inconvenient. We want to give more until we realize its cost. I want to embrace my day and be productive until I realize how hard it will be. More notably, words are also just hollowed statements to avoid the truth. It’s far too tempting a cover-up. We love ideals, but we don’t like what they require. Every year I make this empty promise not because I want to see the sun rise, but because I don’t want to fight my day anymore in order to keep up. I want to “hit the wall” -- lots and lots of walls -- day after day. Only, I likely won’t, whether I wake up early or not -- not if I continue to spew words, tricking myself into avoiding the truth. The fact is, I’m not committed to hitting the wall. I’m intimidated by all of it -- the good, the bad, and the pain (though temporary) that I must experience to hit the walls I want to hit before I watch my last sunset. Words imply a message, whether we mean them to or not. Words hurt, inspire, disgust, and heal. Words carry so much power that we censor them. Or they unite so gloriously that we preserve them. But words, as moving as they can be, are truly worthless when the one who speaks them has no intention of giving them any meaning at all. In those instances, they’re no better than a sunrise lie. Every dawn begins with the best intentions, but unless the people for whom the sun has risen embrace the day, should the sun have bothered rising at all? ***** So this year, I didn’t say anything about waking up early or making any promises about some personal Kumbaya hour in the morning. But I know enough to know that I’m a night owl living in an early bird’s world. Yet, as I embark on my next event, I’m not going to worry about walls to hit or labels to achieve. This year, all I told myself, and all I’m saying to you is this: “I’m just gonna do my work and do it well.” Or, as the woman from that tiny town in the middle of nowhere Mississippi so wisely put it last May when I fretted about how in Sam hill I was going to house-train the golden retriever puppy I’d just adopted: “Oh, Darlin’,” she said. “You’ll get ‘er done. Just get ‘er done.” I won’t publicly pledge to wake up much earlier than usual this year. I will likely continue my affair with the evening star. But I will get ‘er done — and everything it means. What I’m doing and how I’m doing it is more important than where I’m going. It’s the work, not the goal. If the work is lackluster, I’ll never hit any wall anyway, at least not in due time. The statements we make are hard to live out, but if we actually do love ourselves enough to know a sunrise lie when we tell it, we just might refocus our energy where we need it most. We’ll hit that wall one day, and when we do, we may even spring out of bed to celebrate. Annie D. Stutley lives and writes in New Orleans, La. She edits several small publications and contributes to various print and online magazines. Her blog, " That Time You, " was ranked in the Top 100 Blogs by FeedSpot. To read more of her work, go to her website , or follow her at @anniedstutley or Annie D. Stutley-writer on Facebook. Previous Next

“Job v. God is the Marbury v. Madison of theological law.” < Back Job Verses God: The Trial of the Epoch David Cowles Jun 1, 2024 “Job v. God is the Marbury v. Madison of theological law.” Those of us old enough to remember 1995 know the impact a good trial can have on society. For nearly a year, business paused, and an entire nation focused on a Los Angeles courtroom: “Hush! Hush! Whisper who dares! Christopher Robin is saying his prayers.” O.J. Simpson was on trial! Vietnam, Civil Rights, Rodney King, nothing polarized this nation quite like OJ. It’s appropriately known as the ‘Trial of the Century’ and it is certainly one of the seminal public events in my superannuated lifetime. But it pales in comparison to a trial that took place 3000 years earlier at an undisclosed location somewhere in the Middle East; I’m referring, of course, to Job v. God . Astonishingly, we have a verbatim transcript of those proceedings, virtually intact! The text is embedded in the Old Testament Book of Job. Here’s the ‘run-up’: Job, a virtuous man by all accounts, right in his personal conduct, just and generous in his dealings with others, suddenly loses his wealth, his children, his reputation, his social standing, and eventually, his health. He is the victim of an ‘Act of God’. That God acted capriciously in this matter is not in dispute. He admits it and shows no remorse. God is no Bill Clinton; he does not feel Job’s pain! The legal issue here is whether God, being God, the Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, is entitled to act capriciously. I mean, he is God after all! That’s got to count for something, right? Or to put it the other way, is there a higher law that can bring even God to heel? The Book of Job is a 40 chapter epic poem bookended by a short prose prologue and epilogue. The provenance of the prose is suspect and its semantic relation to the poem itself is dubious, so we’ll focus on the OG epic itself. Job’s physical suffering is overwhelming, but surprisingly, that is not his biggest complaint, not by a long shot. Torture is nothing compared to existential angst. You know that. You’ve tossed and turned at 2AM, lying on Egyptian cotton sheets. “(Human beings) are quashed more easily than a moth, from daybreak to evening they are crushed; when it is not even nightfall, they disappear, forever unnoticed. The pegs of their tent are pulled up. They die without knowledge.” (4: 19b – 21) Job is possibly the most misunderstood character in all of Judeo-Christian literature. He is famous for his patience: he is anything but patient! He is about to lead an assault on Heaven, only slightly less ferocious than Lucifer’s…but enormously more successful. Job’s crusade is about to put an end to humanity’s dreams of an Imperial Deity. Job’s determination does not come out of any personal disrespect for God but rather out of profound ‘faith in the system’ (legal and cosmic). While society around him has accepted the notion of God as benevolent but erratic, Job holds out for a higher value: Justice. Job is joined by a cadre of ‘false friends’. They reject the notion that God can act capriciously. From Job’s ‘reduced circumstances’ they infer evidence of sin. They advise Job to ‘cop a plea’: Admit guilt (even if you don’t feel it) and ask God to commute your sentence to time served. Sensible advice, abhorrent to Job! Job will not debase himself, not even before God. And he will not corrupt the value of Truth with a false pleading. Rather than plead out, Job welcomes a trial: It gives him an opportunity to confront his opponent ‘face-to-face’ and a chance to question God directly. Job’s reasoning? If I cannot get my conviction overturned, at least I can gain a better understanding of ‘what makes God tick’. That alone would be worthwhile. Like many corporate litigants today, Job not only wants to win his suit; he also hopes to force God to divulge ‘trade secrets’. Job will use the trial to ask God for nothing less than a full accounting of himself and his activities: what did he have in mind when he ‘created the heavens and the earth’, why didn’t he do a better job, and why doesn’t he fix it…now? And so the trial begins. Job, the Plaintiff, appears pro se ; God, in absentia , is represented by a self-appointed legal team – the very same ‘friends’ that previously counseled Job to cop a plea. This is the Old Testament’s version of Johnny Cochran’s Dream Team…only much less competent . Pity any god who cannot afford better legal representation than this! Job carries a heavy legal burden. To defeat God’s application for Summary Judgment, Job must show that there is a court of competent jurisdiction, that he is the victim of a tort, that he has legal standing to bring an action, and that a potential remedy exists. (Note that God’s agency in Job’s tragedy is not at issue.) Job v. God opens with Job offering the court a detailed summary of the injustices done to him. Then, one by one, God’s attorneys attempt to “justify the ways of God to men (sic).” ( Paradise Lost ). Of course, God’s team resorts to the full bag of legal tricks. Can’t defend the assailant? No problem, put the victim on trial instead. God’s lawyers go to great lengths to demonstrate Job’s culpability…and they advance some novel legal theories in the process: Job is being punished, not for his own sins, not even for the sins of his father, but for the sins of his sons. Job is being punished now for the future crime of taking God to court. As in Through the Looking-glass , the miscreant first serves his sentence, then goes on trial (“Guilty!”), and only later commits the crime for which he has been convicted, sentenced, and punished. Surprisingly, Job finds a way to turn this argument against his adversaries later in the proceedings. One by one, Job effortlessly swats away his opponents’ arguments. Against the dogmatic deductions of his friends, Job appeals to empirical facts; here’s a ‘Cliff’s Notes’ version: “I have lived a righteous and just life; yet I am being punished most severely. Others, not nearly as upright as me, often in fact deliberate doers of evil, are not punished at all. They live lavish lives in good health and pass that wealth onto future generations, intact. I on the other hand, have no assets, and no children to leave them to if I did, and I live on a dunghill, covered with scabs.” That said, Job was not born last night. He realizes that he’ll struggle to meet his legal burdens. Most likely, a court will conclude that: No court has the power to compel God to answer charges…or comply with judgments; Job’s circumstances do not constitute a tort; No one can ever have standing to sue God; and No plausible remedy exists. So, Job decides to invoke the doctrine of ‘Jury Nullification’; he asks the court to look past the veil of law and judge the case based on its existential merits, on common law and natural law , based on universal values and empirical evidence, without regard to legal or religious pre-conceptions. Job’s argument for Nullification is complex…but ultimately irrefutable; note how it ingeniously puts the twisted logic of God’s attorneys (above) to purpose: God is assumed to be immune from civil suits because he is God. Even so, such immunity would not extend to a similarly situated defendant who was not God. Consequently, it is necessary to establish that God is God before the court can rule on his immunity claim. But how? “God is good (adjective) and Good (noun). God does not choose to be good; God is good by nature (it’s his essence ). As Jean-Paul Sartre frequently pointed out, God is the one and only being whose essence precedes his existence! “An important component of Good is Justice (along with Beauty and Truth). If it is shown that a ‘god’ deliberately engaged in unjust behavior, then this cannot be God. And a god that is not God can assert no valid claim for immunity.” Brilliant! Job is arguing that the court must decide the merits of the case first… before it can determine if the defendant is entitled to immunity. And the court agrees! An unjust God would be a violation of Natural Law ( aka the Good), a ‘law’ God created and later codified in Torah. So, there is a remedy after all: the court can simply order God to be God and God cannot refuse because God is God. The Job-poet anticipates Dante. In Inferno , folks are sentenced to ‘be themselves’, eternally. Could a more fearsome punishment possibly be imagined? Did I mention that Job went ‘all in’? Consider this: We are used to a legal system where the burden of proof falls squarely on the Plaintiff. In Job’s world that burden is shared but the preponderance falls on the Defendant. “Prove you didn’t do it!” Hence, the importance of an alibi. However, Job can overcome this presumption of guilt, and even reverse it, by swearing an ‘Oath of Innocence’. According to the common legal customs of the ancient Middle East ( The Egyptian Book of the Dead ), when one party swears a proper Oath of Innocence, that party is immediately presumed to be innocent. Job so swears. Now, if God still wants to contest Job’s claim, he must appear in person and accept that the burden of proof is now on him. But there’s a downside for Job. If a party offers an Oath of Innocence that is later judged to be untrue, the ‘taker of false oaths’ will have earned himself additional punishment, too severe to be detailed in this article. Excerpts of Job’s oath are worth a read (note its highly structured legal form): “If ever a poor man would extend me his hand, if in time of disaster he cried out to me…If I’ve ever thwarted a poor man’s desires…or ate a loaf by myself so an orphan could not eat of it…If I ever saw a vagabond with nothing to wear or the needy with nothing to cover him...If I ever raised my hand to the fatherless…If I ever made gold my reliance and called pure gold ‘my precious’…If I ever rejoiced at my enemy’s ruin and exalted when evil befell him…If ever my land has complained of me, if ever it’s furrows cried out…” (31) Job seals his oath: “Here is my mark, let Shaddai respond! … Complete are the words of Job.” (31: 35-40) God can ‘read a room’ as well as the next guy. He sees that his team is losing. Hoping to avoid an adverse judgment, he takes over his own defense and decides to testify after all. He appears “out of the whirlwind” and takes the stand. Is there a more exciting moment in all of literature? Almighty God, summoned to court by a man who lives on a dunghill; God complying, furiously raging, tail between his legs. “Oscar! Oscar!” God imagines that he can dispose of Job with a simple display of pyrotechnics ( aka majesty and might). That usually does the trick where muggles are concerned! But Job is no muggle, far from it in fact, as God is about to learn to his everlasting dismay. God is supremely confident, over-confident as it turns out, that he can prevail in Earl Stanley Gardner’s Case of the Pesky Plaintiff . He decides to approach the challenge as an American Presidential nominee might approach a debate with her opponent. God begins by questioning Job’s ‘real world’ experience. But first, he sarcastically calls on Job to put on his big boy pants: “Who is this who obscures good counsel, (using) words without knowledge? Bind up your loins like a man! I will ask you – and you will help me know !” (38: 2-3) Job bears God’s condescension silently…but, as we shall see, he files it away for future use. God has a keen sense of humor! ( ditto Job.) God suggests that he is here to learn from Job. In fact, of course, his questions are designed to demean Job, to demonstrate that Job has no business being on the same stage, much less giving instruction: “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations? (38: 4) …Have you ever reached the sources of the Sea and walked on the bottom of the Ocean? Were you ever shown the gates of Death?” (38: 16-17) “Have you ever in your days summoned daybreak? Made known to the dawning its place, holding the earth by its corners so the wicked would be shaken from it?” (38: 12-13) As sarcastically as possible, God highlights Job’s inexperience; then he questions Job’s competence. Can Job do the things that God does? Can he do them better? If the answer is negative, then what’s the point of Job’s ridiculous lawsuit? And what’s the remedy? “Do you hunt down prey for the lion and quell the hunger of beasts?” (38: 39) “Can you tie the wild ox by rope to a furrow?... Do you give the horse its bravery…Does the falcon take flight through your wisdom?” (39: 1-7) Here God pauses, thinking his work is done. Confident that he has put forward irrefutable arguments, he takes one last swipe at his opponent: “Should Eloah answer (such) an accuser (Job)?” (40: 2) In God’s opening discourse, he attempts to bully Job into submission; but Job is well aware that God has not answered a single one of his complaints. Plus, Job cannot let God’s sarcastic taunts go unanswered; he cannot back down to the school yard bully. Against that background then, what follows seems surprising: “Lacking respect, how can I answer you? My hand I place over my mouth. I have spoken once and I will not repeat; twice, and I will no more.” (40: 4-5) This is traditionally interpreted as Job dropping his suit. It is easy to see how these words could be read as an ‘Act of Contrition’. Job placing his hand over his mouth could be interpreted as a gesture of submission. But does that meaning make sense? Would Job confess to disrespecting God when he had only the greatest respect for the Deity? Or did he cover his mouth as if to say, “I have said all there is to say, and you have not refuted any of my allegations. Why should I talk?” If this was to be Job’s resignation, then why did God feel the need to deliver a second full throated defense? Remember, God does not want to be here. Had Job truly conceded, God would have been out of there in a flash, secrets intact. So how else might the verse be read? Could it be it’s God who’s disrespected Job, that Job is the object of the disrespect, not its subject? Therefore, Job’s original testimony should be more than enough to secure judgment for the Plaintiff. Job need not talk past the close! The first God/Job exchange boiled down to taunting, bullying and name calling. (Good thing nothing like that could ever happen today!) But now the time for posturing is past; it’s time for God to ‘get real’. God wants a settlement, but to get it, he will have to ‘open his books’. He will need to share with Job deep secrets regarding the process of creation and the structure of the world. He must grant Job’s request for knowledge! Unlike Adam, Job will be allowed to eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Remember, Job has not asked God to abdicate; he has not asked for restitution, much less reparations; he has not even asked God to end his suffering. Job is clear, he’s in this for one thing only: knowledge! In his 2nd speech, God first challenges Job to work with him to rid the world of injustice: “If you’ve an arm (as strong as) El’s…look for the proud and lay him low…crush the wicked where they stand. Cover them all in dust; in dust wrap their faces! Then I myself will praise you as your right hand brings you triumph.” (40: 8-14) This time God challenges Job, not to do something cosmic, something absurd on the face of it, but to do something that is local and conceivable but just very, very hard. God is happy to join Job’s Crusade, but first he needs to give Job a ‘heads-up’: the problem is not as simple as it seems, nor the remedy as easy as it looks. The balance of God’s testimony concerns two of his more ‘monstrous’ creations, Behemoth and Leviathan, introduced as a way of explaining to Job the ‘ecology’ of the world: “Behold now Behemoth which like you I created...Can you pull out Leviathan with a fishhook? Can you bind his tongue with a rope? ...Will he make a pact with you? Will he be your slave forever? Can you toy with him like a bird? …Who has ever confronted him and survived?” (40: 15 – 41: 3a) “Of all that’s under heaven, he is mine. I cannot keep silent about him, the fact of his incomparable valor…He has no match on earth, who is made as fearless as he? …Over beasts of all kinds he is king.” (41: 3b - 26) Even if God could rid the world of Behemoth and Leviathan, he wouldn’t do so! He’s proud of his creatures, he loves them, and he knows that they have a role to play in the ecology of creation. And besides, he’s crushing on Leviathan. We’re transported to the 18th century (Leibniz). This is not the best world imaginable ; it is just the best world possible . And that world includes Leviathan (or his functional equivalent)…sorry! Such ‘beasts’ are an integral part of nature; they have unique qualities (genes) of their own. True, their behavior may appear ‘evil’ from the perspective of creatures with conflicting interests (like us) but just imagine what other species would say about homo sapiens ! So ends God’s defense! The Job-poem ends with Job’s ‘final speech’…and this time it really is final. Job gets the last word…and just listen to what he has to say: “Who is this hiding counsel without knowledge? Truly I’ve spoken without comprehending – wonders beyond me that I do not know. Hear now and I will speak! I will ask you and you help me know. As a hearing by the ear, I have heard you, and now my eye has seen you. That is why I am fed up; I take pity on ‘dust and ashes’ (i.e., humanity).” (42: 3-6) Notice that Job’s closing lines (38: 1-3) nearly duplicate God’s opening… complete with the dripping sarcasm. But now, it is Job, relishing victory, who mocks God, not the other way around. We’ve come full circle and there can no longer be any doubt about the outcome of this trial. But before we ‘call’ the contest for Job, we’d better check to see how the media is spinning it. Oops! In a review of 17 independent commentaries on Job that were written over the past 150 years, Job scholar, Stephen Vicchio, found 15 calling the judgment for God and only 2 calling it for Job. Like Job’s ‘friends’, and the Chicago Tribune , we see the evidence of the world through the filtered lens of our preconceived notions: “Dewey defeats Truman!” Job v. God is the Marbury v. Madison of theological law. It confirms and codifies the structure of Being itself. It affirms the absolute universality and supremacy of Value (Good – Beauty, Truth, Justice). It answers once and for all the perennial question: Is Good ‘good’ because God wills it or does God will good because it is Good? The verdict of the court: God is subject to the same objective ethical values and standards as the rest of us; they are enforceable; he enjoys no privileged immunity. “Who’d a thunk it?” ( Hairspray ) 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 Summer 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 Language…or Logic? David Bowles Jul 13, 2026 “Don’t you just hate it when real-physics spoils meta-physics?” 1500 words, 6 minute read Few ideas in Intellectual History remain constant across diverse cultures and through successive eras. One exception? The privileged relationship between Language and Logic. The Old Testament story of the Tower of Babel directly connects our ability to solve physical problems (logic, engineering) with our use of language. In the creation narrative (Genesis 1: 3), “God said , ‘Let there be light’, and there was light.” Across the Bosporus, the father of Western philosophy, Parmenides ( On Nature , 5 th century BCE) also linked speaking with being: “What there is for speaking and knowing, there is for being.” (Fragment 6) . Apparently, physis (being) and logos (language) are two sides of one coin on both sides of the Strait. 500 years later, the Apostle John retold the creation story from the Christian perspective, incorporating material from the Old Testament and from the Pre-Socratics, resulting in an even heavier emphasis on the linguistic component: “In the beginning ( arche ) was the Word ( logos )…through whom all things were made and without whom nothing came to be. In him ( logos ) was life and that life was the Light of the world.” (John 1: 1 – 4) Now fast forward a few millennia and see various schools of North Atlantic Analytic Philosophy, from Logical Positivism through Deconstruction, attempting to ‘reduce’ philosophy to linguistics once and for all. Do names like Ayer, Wittgenstein, Austin, Derrida and Chomsky ring any bells? But it’s all for naught! (Don’t you just hate it when real-physics spoils meta-physics?) A recent study conducted at MIT's McGovern Institute for Brain Research concludes that “language isn't necessary for logical reasoning.” Wow! That’s 2500 years we’ll never get back! Our ability to induce from experience and deduce from assumptions is neurologically unrelated to our ability to use language. Brain imaging shows that language-processing parts of the brain are not involved in logical reasoning. In research published in the journal PNAS , and reported by Medical Xpress (July 9, 2026), researchers led by MIT associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences Evelina Fedorenko showed that people can perform well on tasks that require logical reasoning even if their language abilities are severely impaired. Researchers presented participants with challenges involving geometric shapes, numerical sequences, etc. As participants solved increasingly difficult puzzles, it became clear that people don't need language for this kind of reasoning. Patients with language impairments solved the problems as well as the ‘verbo-typical’ control group. The MRI scans showed the brain's language system was not engaged for either inductive reasoning (when participants identified hidden rules) or deductive reasoning (when they assessed the validity of syllogistic arguments). How come? Why don’t the language and logic functions converge, or at least overlap, neurologically? For one thing, language is naturally, and probably necessarily, fuzzy . Wittgenstein (above) spoke of word meanings as familial relationships . We’ve all experienced frustration when talking with someone whose speech is unwaveringly literal. Logic, on the other hand, is inherently precise. Much blood has been shed, figuratively and literally, because someone applied rigorous logic to an imprecisely defined concept (language). Plus, language is multifunctional. It can ‘compare thee to a summer’s day’, it can talk you through an IKEA assembly maze, and it can inspire soldiers at Agincourt. Logic is, well, more logical. Finally, most languages are linear in structure, progressing one word at a time, whereas evaluating available information to reach logical conclusions often requires thinking along several tracks at once, connecting those tracks via reciprocity and recursion. The closest thing we have to that in English is the work of James Joyce, especially Ulysses and Finnegans Wake . In these ‘novels’ the narrative follows multiple story lines simultaneously: Leopold and Stephen in Dublin, Ulysses and Telemachus in Ithica, King Hamlet’s ghost and the Prince in Denmark, YHWH and his Christ in Roman Catholic Liturgy. As in polyphonic music, each line maintains its integrity but harmonizes with others. These extraordinary works are to the rest of literature as Beethoven is to Gregorian Chant…or as today’s quantum computers are to their analog ancestors. In truth, Ulysses and Finnegans Wake are exceptions that prove the rule. They demonstrate both the limitations and the potential of linear language foe modeling non-linear reality. When we approach the whole with language, we necessarily break the entirety into a sequence of stages (so-called causes and effects); we think horizontally. By contrast, Logic is threadbare; but it is also inherently holistic and recursive. We conceptualize our problem as a whole and then break it down into discrete modules, each modifying and being modified by the whole. We reason vertically. We trust that we can gain information about the whole by understanding its self-similar parts ( aka fractals). Because I know that 1 + 1 = 2, I can calculate x + y for any values of x and y. *** "(This research) really upends a(ny) theory that says that symbolic rule induction is not possible without linguistic capacities." Yes, it does…and it upends more besides. For example, I no longer have any reason to assume that my poor pussy cat, who struggles mightily but unsuccessfully to participate in family conversations, is any less conscious than I am (and perhaps even more so after I’ve had a couple of bone dry martinis). Fedorenko’s team has provided a major boost to advocates of panpsychism and/or animal rights. On the other hand, the implications for AI are less sanguine. Large language models like ChatGPT and Claude are trained entirely on text and use text as their output—yet they convincingly simulate some kinds of human reasoning (Turing, Searle). My LLM bot, for all its apparent genius, relies exclusively on language to reach logical conclusions. Knowing that, it is hard to assign any logical validity to its output. Is this the greatest con job in history? Like many a fast talker I’ve known (and one I’ve caught sight of in a mirror), does Claude use language facility to mask logical inadequacy? Does he have a career in politics in mind? Earlier we smirked that physics was overturning metaphysics; could it also be said that rhetoric (LLM) is overturning logic? Or is it just possible that at the performance extremes achieved by today’s AI, horizonal reasoning (language) genuinely reproduces the results of vertical reasoning (logic). If so, can we treat that confluence as significant or must we consider it mere coincidence? I am reminded of Aristophanes’ Clouds . In this play, the students in Socrates’ Thinkery are trained to apply logic to nonsense…with predictably hilarious results. Are today’s LLMs extensions of Socrates’ academy? Could it be that Kitty is conscious and Claude is not? And what of Turing’s Test ? And Searle’s Room ? These philosophical paradigms draw their power from an assumed relationship between Logic (reasoning) and Language (communication). But what if there is no such relationship? *** “What if there is no such relationship?” What if? There is none! (assuming we trust the research of course) So now what? What can we say we know? And how do we live? Imagine a triangle. Label the apex R for Reality. Label the base points L1 and L2 (L1 is Language, L2 Logic). This figure lies, unrecognized of course, at the foundation of all of our conceptions of the World; no more! R ↙ ↘ L1 ↔ L2 We have concluded (above) that Language and Logic provide irreconcilable accounts of Reality; our triangle is inherently unstable. That leaves us with a choice of three possible models: (1) The world of Lewis Carroll ( Alice and her Lookingglass ): Language but no Logic. (2) The world of Jacques Ellul ( Propaganda ) and George Orwell ( 1984 ): Language and Logic but no Reality. (3) The world of Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco: Logic and Reality but no Language. (Of course, all three employ language masterfully in their works but it has no agentic force, it does not advance the narrative, its function is subservient to Logic and Reality.) Hold up! If there are three models of the World that fit the data with equal fidelity, don’t we have to conclude that ALL of them are true? Yes indeed, we do! No single model of the World that includes Logic, Language and Reality can be stable; but no model can be complete without all three. So, we must accept that we live in a world of wave-particle duality, of quantum complementarity, of Feynman’s Sum over Histories, or Bell’s entanglement. No single model can account for the World as it is but multiple models, applied separately but simultaneously, just might; but you’ll have to stay on your toes to make sure that they never meet. And they say Atlas had a tough job. 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.

“Bakunin was fierce in his profession of atheism; but unlike his Marxist counterparts, he was not shy about using the language of Judeo-Christian theology to make his points.” < Back The Theology of Mikhail Bakunin David Cowles Jul 15, 2023 “Bakunin was fierce in his profession of atheism; but unlike his Marxist counterparts, he was not shy about using the language of Judeo-Christian theology to make his points.” 250 years ago, philosophical atheism came into its own. Judeo-Christian hegemony, though often honored more in name than in act, had dominated Europe since the closing centuries of the Roman Empire. Now, for the first time, it had a worthy challenger. Rather than reform Christianity (again) or import yet another new religion from the East, Europe’s intellectual elite began to question and then dismantle the entire theological enterprise. The process occurred unevenly over various nation states, ethnic groups, and social classes; it’s still very much a work in ‘progress’ today. The early success of Christianity must be attributed in part to specific conditions operative in Mediterranean society at the time. Likewise, its demise! The early advances justly attributed to the Scientific Method ‘made the world safe’ for a new, secular, and empirical concept of truth. Likewise, the identification of the Church with Europe’s Ancien Régime put it squarely in the crosshairs of emerging pro-democracy movements. If the king must go, why not the bishops? While the newly emergent atheism came in a Baskin and Robbins-array of flavors, Dialectical Materialism, i.e., Marxism, became dominant in the later half of the 19 th century. And why not? As the name suggests, this new philosophy took process away from the providence of God and placed it squarely in the province of Nature and Society. It also fiercely denied the reality of a transcendent realm or of any non-material substance (e.g., spirit). Judaism was quicker to respond to the threat of secularization than Christianity. By the middle of the 18 th century, Hasidism had taken root and begun to grow; it was not until 1880 (the Papacy of Leo XIII) that Christianity first put forward a cogent response. Valuable time was lost. Since Leo, the intellectual engagement between the two competing world views has been torrid. However, it has for the most part been unproductive. (Exceptions: Teilhard de Chardin, Liberation Theology). Like eight-year-olds in the school yard, the rival gangs never tire of screaming insults back and forth. For the most part, though, they’re not even speaking the same language. Imagine a ‘charter school’ in Belgium where half the kids are hurling insults in Flemish while the other half prefer to insult in French. That’s approximately the state of ideological discourse today. Mikhail Bakunin is a notable exception to this over-simplified version of intellectual history. Often called the Father of Anarchism and a leading 19 th century thinker in his own right, Bakunin was fierce in his profession of atheism; but unlike his Marxist counterparts, he was not shy about using the language of Judeo-Christian theology to make his points. This allows theists to engage with Bakunin in a way they often can’t with other 19 th century atheists. Our interest in Bakunin’s theology is rooted in the hope that it might serve as the basis for a dialog between Judeo-Christians, and Modern Secularists. Anarchism has much to teach Christians, and the Judeo-Christian tradition has a lot to contribute to the exposition of modern political theory. Together, we envision these two ideologies as the twin bases of a new spirit of intellectual cross-fertilization, so desperately needed now in the tumultuous 21 st century. By comparison, 12 th and 13th century Europe was a Golden Age in the intellectual history of the West. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam generously cross-fertilized, allowing the emergence of towering intellects like Aquinas, Maimonides, and Averroes. Could the same happen in our time? Written in 1871, the year of the Paris Commune, Bakunin’s God and State is the clearest statement of his theological principles; let’s sample some of his ideas: “Humanity is nothing other than…the highest manifestation of animality…The power to think and the power to rebel…constitute(s) humanity in man (sic).” “But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him…urging him to disobey and eat the fruit of knowledge.” Bakunin anticipates Sartre in defining human beings in terms of their existential freedom ( aka free will). In this, he preserves what is foundational in Judeo-Christianity as well. “God being everything, the real world and man are nothing. God being truth, justice…man is falsehood, iniquity… God being master, man is the slave…The idea of God…is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and in practice…For if God is, he is necessarily the eternal, supreme, absolute master, and if such a master exists, man is a slave.” Here Bakunin is a victim of his epoch. He understands social process primarily as conflict, and he cannot imagine a relationship between God and the world (humanity) that is anything other than an instantiation of the ruler-subject, master-slave paradigm. Bakunin appears to present a ‘zero-sum’ model of society. If one is free, another must be enslaved; if one is prosperous, another must be poor. Bakunin applied the ideas of certain liberal economists (e.g., Malthus and Riccardo) to anthropology, cosmology, and theology. In these areas, I think Bakunin misses the mark. After all, as an anarchist he is ‘duty bound’ to believe that social order can emerge unforced, based on cooperation and justice. However, he apparently cannot imagine such organic order emerging alongside Judeo-Christianity. Of course, Judeo-Christians offer a very different account of things. God and humanity are on the same side; they cooperate in pursuit of common goals (values). In a sense, they (i.e., we) are symbiotic. As an anarchist, Bakunin detests any form of human authority; but as a scientist, he enthusiastically embraces the authority of natural law: “Yes, we are absolutely the slaves of these laws. But in such slavery, there is no humiliation, or rather, it is not slavery at all.” Here again, Bakunin is anticipating Sartre, this time with a notion akin to ‘facticity’, i.e., being-in-the-world. “For slavery supposes an external master…while these (natural) laws are not outside of us, they are inherent in us; they constitute our being, our whole being…” Did Bakunin realize that he was echoing a theme that occurs throughout both the Old and New Testaments? “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:33) The first five books of the Old Testament, the Torah, considered together, are an uninterrupted exposition of Natural Law. The Written Torah (Scripture) is meant to be a reflection of the Oral Torah (Nature): as above, so below! “The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he himself has recognized them as such…” The best way to attack an ideology you disagree with is to mischaracterize it, to build a proverbial straw man . Doctrinaire Communists did this to Christianity; Christians did the same to Communism. The ‘Commies’ we feared and hated in the 1950s were for the most part phantoms created by the imperial state and by a church playing defense. Marxists’ characterization of Christianity is often likewise distorted and prejudicial. In a few spots, Bakunin seems to give in to this temptation. He pretends not to understand ideas like Incarnation and Trinity; but for the most part, Bakunin presents a reasonably accurate summation of Judeo-Christian theology. Potentially, it could form the basis for some serious dialog: “…Divinity (is) lost and scattered in the matter which it animates…but each man considered individually…can contain only a very small particle…these divine particles, human souls…are irresistibly drawn toward their whole; they seek each other, they seek their whole.” This is remarkably close to the Hasidic doctrine of Shekinah , God existing in all things as a divine ‘spark’, each spark seeking reunion with its whole. But, ultimately, of course, Bakunin’s theology is defective from a Judeo-Christian perspective. The problem, though, is not so much doctrinal as it is methodological. The 19 th century was the stage set for the Industrial Revolution. As such, its world view is incurably linear and mechanical. The world is imagined through the lens of grade school arithmetic. A product of his times, Bakunin has an overly simplified, overly Euclidean, notion of wholes and parts. “If God entire could find lodgment in each man, then each man would be God…” But God ‘lodging’ in each and every human being does not transform those humans into gods. The unique perspective of Christianity is that the ‘whole’, God, can be present in some or all of its parts – e.g., as Incarnation, as Spirit, as Eucharist, as Church, as Shekinah. Yet, God is never divided; God is always whole and entire. Unity and simplicity are God’s nature. (Aquinas) This model of embedded being is alien to the world of industry with its division of labor and its assembly lines . The 19 th century is hopelessly linear ; the Judeo-Christian world view is fundamentally non-linear : The whole is greater than the sum of its parts; The whole is reflected in each of its parts; Each part is reflected in the whole. Conceptually, and understandably, this was a bridge Bakunin could not cross. Bakunin carries his arithmetic model of reality even further: “…The infinitely small is equal to zero. God is everything; therefore man and all the real world with him, the universe, are nothing.” This, of course, Judeo-Christian doctrine categorically denies. Metaphysics is not a ‘zero-sum’ game. The whole does not eclipse its parts; it is reflected in those parts. Parts are not irrelevant to the whole; each part enriches the whole. Now, in the 21 st century, organism is replacing mechanism as the prevailing model of reality and Judeo-Christianity is inherently organic. Finally, Bakunin’s attitude toward religion itself is ambivalent. In one place, he calls religion “collective insanity”; but elsewhere he lauds Jesus as “the preacher of the poor, the friend and consoler of the wretched, of the ignorant, of the slaves, and of the women…” and he refers to the early Church as “the first awakening, the first intellectual revolt of the proletariat.” Today, we live in a world that is superficially divided between economic liberalism (capitalism) and political democracy (universal suffrage) on the one hand and various forms of political and economic totalitarianism on the other. Neither path leads to the emancipation of the world. What is needed is a new initiative, heavily informed by the Anarchism of Bakunin and others and by Judeo-Christian tradition. Combining these influences, we can look forward to a world that respects the absolute freedom of the individual, that welcomes the organic emergence of social structures, and that honors in word and in deed the fundamental, divine values of Beauty, Truth, and Justice. Is that too much to ask? 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 Beach Read 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