< Back God Hypothesis David Cowles Nov 29, 2021 A much beloved friend and family member sent this to me T-day morning. Much appreciated! But I could not help but notice the care taken to avoid any reference to “God, the father almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth”. I am not suggesting that everyone must believe in God. Far from it. But I am suggesting that substituting various ‘pagan’ alternatives does not work: “god (as if God could be anything else but a proper noun), universe, life, earth”. Imagining that any of these could be sui generis capable or creating all that is ex nihilo is absurd. If you don’t buy into the “God Hypothosis”, ok, well and good, but suggest a viable alternative. A much beloved friend and family member sent this to me T-day morning. Much appreciated! But I could not help but notice the care taken to avoid any reference to “God, the father almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth”. I am not suggesting that everyone must believe in God. Far from it. But I am suggesting that substituting various ‘pagan’ alternatives does not work: “god (as if God could be anything else but a proper noun), universe, life, earth”. Imagining that any of these could be sui generis capable or creating all that is ex nihilo is absurd. If you don’t buy into the “God Hypothosis”, ok, well and good, but suggest a viable alternative. 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 Home Alone “Macaulay Culkin is ‘every boy’ and his Home Alone family is ‘America’s family’ – except it’s not!” David Cowles Another season of holiday specials has passed, but it was reassuring to see that the Home Alone movie franchise remains alive and well. In addition to being immensely entertaining, these films prompt some ‘AT ( Aletheia Today ) worthy’ questions, beginning with, “How do we come to know about the world we live in?” Seriously? Isn’t the answer obvious? We know about it because we live in it! Living is knowing, right? Well…maybe not: Imagine you’re a toddler. You’re certainly living in the world…but how much do you really know about that world? On the mappa mundi you drew for your Park Avenue therapist, 60% of the ‘canvass’ was taken up by your house and yard. The scrub pine at the corner of your lot was the tallest landmark, and your so-called ‘caretakers’ were pictured as giants. You are in the world, but your knowledge of that world is rudimentary at best. But come on! You're a toddler; you’ll learn, right? How? By living, of course. But if our knowledge of the world came from living in it, our maps would look more like Escher than Euclid! Things would recede geometrically from here and now. Bostonians could be forgiven for mistaking the Connecticut River for the Mississippi. Once upon a time, it’s possible that people did learn about the world by living in it…but not now! Today we learn about the world, not from our experience of that world but from representations projected at us by the media. Roland Barthes called such images mythologies . What’s a family and what’s it like to live in one? Turn on the TV and find out! Most of us grew up in families; many of us live in families now, but we don’t trust our experience. For our ideas about family, we rely on television and the movies. The contemporary American family has been defined for us by shows like Leave It to Beaver , The Simpsons , and Modern Family . Of course, we don’t live on the set of a TV sitcom. My own dad was less like Phil Dunphy than he was like Sir Robert ( Downton Abbey ), but I never expected to grow up like Prince Charles. I might have hoped to grow up like Luke Dunphy. Confronted with these images, we have two options: either (1) we ignore actual experience and imagine that our own families are ‘just like’ these sitcom families, or (2) we honor our experience and accept that we live in ‘failed families’. I think I do a bit of both, but either way, we do it to our detriment. Today, our social scientists are focused on the twin phenomena of Entitlement and Privilege . Our media diet certainly reinforces both. But it sets our socio-economic expectations as well. Macaulay Culkin is ‘every boy’ and his Home Alone family is ‘America’s family’ – except it’s not! The McCallister family is rich. Rabbit rich! They are unapologetic ‘one-percenters’. They live in a McMansion in a posh Chicago suburb. In 2023, the estimated price tag was a mere $2,800,000. Plus, the family can afford (money and time) to take an extended vacation in Europe. (Two vans to the airport; parents fly first class.) Both parents work, but the nature of that ‘work’ is posh-vague. Suffice to say, neither works in a sweat shop, coal mine, or cube. Economists estimate that in 2024, a family would need an annual income of at least $750,000 to support such a lifestyle. Yet, the Home Alone franchise encourages all of us to imagine ourselves Growing Up McCallister . Nice work if you can get it. The McCallister Life is the way life’s z’posed to be. It’s the way all of us were meant to live. According to Bernie Sanders, our actual lives fall short because our patrimony has been stolen from us by greedy robber barons. Sadly though, most of us locate the fault, neither in the stars nor in the social system, but in ourselves. “What’s wrong with my parents that they did not provide me with the McCallister lifestyle? What’s wrong with me that I cannot provide that lifestyle for my own children?” These questions seem ‘natural’, if self-denigrating, but they are anything but. They contain anaerobic assumptions that will not survive exposure to oxygen…or sunlight. First, the questions assume that the McCallister lifestyle is within the reach of median members of society. Of course, there are Families McCallister, and in a sense, any family could be a McCallister Family (they could hit on a scratch card, for instance), but such outcomes are at best loosely related to the skills, efforts, abilities, or virtues of the beneficiaries. Somebody’s got to win life’s lottery, but, Immanuel Kant and Bernie Sanders notwithstanding, not everyone can win. That’s not how lotteries work. Second, and even more perniciously, the questions assume that the McCallister lifestyle defines ‘the good life’. It is good to live in a mansion in a monochrome neighborhood. It is good for siblings to have their own rooms (and not to share). It is good for families to spend the holidays in Europe. Sez who? The consequences of these hidden assumptions are nothing short of ‘socially catastrophic’. Think I exaggerate? Think again! We have decided to view life in terms of winners and losers. That’s problematic at best. Do winners earn immortality? Then what’s the point? We have told all participants that they will win or lose based on their performance on a ‘standardized test’ called childhood. What the players don’t know is that their answer sheets are shredded the minute they are turned in; no one will ever even look at them. Winners and losers will be determined instead by a secret algorithm unrelated to test scores. After a suitable interval, our beloved founder, Gordon Oliver Day, enters the exam room to announce the results. James Astor – winner; Jonathan Baskin – loser; and so on through the entire roster. (Note: there are many more losers than winners.) After tears of grief, the losers are left to mourn: “I’ve let myself down, and not just myself, but my parents, my coaches, my teachers and any future spouse(s) and children.” After tears of relief, the winners begin to compare notes and quickly realize that they did not all perform brilliantly on the test; they begin to intuit that something else must have intervened in the selection process. Their euphoria turns to insecurity…or even guilt. In the down-under film Hunt for the Wilderpeople , the 12-year-old lead says, “I didn’t choose the Skux (gangster) life; the Skux life chose me.” Kevin McCallister might have said the same thing about the Posh life. So, we’ve managed to create a value system in which we are all designated ‘losers’, at least in our own minds. Not easy to do but we’ve done it. Brilliant! I’m not done! I’m not rich, but I’m not poor either. I have a ‘nice’ lifestyle; I’m ‘satisfied’. But it’s not the McCallister lifestyle. So I am dissatisfied with being satisfied, and I take every opportunity to mimic the Family McCallister. Some people ask, “What would Jesus do?” I ask, “What would Kevin McCallister (or his parents) do?” So, I buy a house bigger than I need…or can afford, and I take the family on a trip to Europe, even though I have no interest in things European. These are the things one does if one wants to think of oneself as an honorary McCallister...or Dunphy. Like everyone else in the game, I was dealt an average hand. It was all I needed. But I squandered it by trying to live someone else’s life. Looking back, I wish I had paid more attention to the Rolling Stones : “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try some time, you just might find, you get what you need.” Image: Home Alone. 20th Century Fox. 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 Yuletide 2023 Previous Next

< Back A Universal Quantum Computer Is Possible! David Cowles Sep 10, 2024 “We are living in a version of Universe in which some quantum bits are still in superposition (potentiality) and others are already ‘decohered’ (actuality).” In a recent edition of Thoughts While Shaving (August 8, 2024) , Aletheia Today (AT) proposed that the Universe might itself be a giant Quantum Computer with every bit in superposition. Now scientists have released new findings that support that possibility. Physicists have created a new model for quantum computers that could more easily scale them up to make them more powerful than previously thought possible. The new theory, outlined in a recent study published in the journal PRX Quantum , proposes linking qubits, the fundamental workhorses of quantum computers, over vast distances to work as if they were part of a single super-powerful machine . These qubits can then be stitched together through quantum entanglement , linking their data across vast spans of spacetime, to process calculations in parallel. The more qubits are entangled, the more exponentially powerful a quantum computer can become. According to our (AT’s) version of this model, there is one ‘Universe’ with 10^80 bits, all potentially in a state of quantum superposition (i.e., not 0 or 1 but 0 and 1). Accordingly, there are 10^160 possible ‘universes’, i.e. unique combinations of decohered (0 or 1) quantum states. Perhaps unexpectedly, the Book of Genesis captures this model explicitly. Prior to the primal creative act ( Fiat Lux! ), “…the earth was without form or shape with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters” (1: 2). What better metaphor could there be for ‘universal quantum superposition’? At any given moment in time, we are living in a version of Universe in which some quantum bits (Q-bits) are still in superposition while others have already decohered. (Time is not an element in Universe if decoherence is either 0% or 100%.) Imagine a bucket of water. As the temperature cools, the water will gradually, not suddenly, transition from a liquid to a solid (ice) state. Like the surface of a shallow pond, ice first forms at the surface and along the edges and then gradually spreads until the entire body of water is frozen solid. The constituent molecules, randomly jumbled in the liquid state, gradually assume a fixed alignment according to the principles of crystallography. Our Universe is currently in such a process of crystallization. We experience that process as ‘time’, the gradual transition from ‘pure potentiality’ (Aristotle) to total actuality. This model potentially resolves the perennial philosophical challenge of reconciling stability with flux. This problem fascinated the founders of Western philosophy (e.g. Parmenides and Heraclitus, 5th century BCE) as well as its last great systematic thinker, Alfred North Whitehead (c. 1930 CE). The challenge is transmuted into a prayer in an Anglican hymn: “Abide in me, fast falls the eventide.” Permanence amid flux! From here and now, we would expect additional Q-bits to decohere, ultimately resulting in a universal and eternal steady state. Could that be the much anticipated Kingdom of Heaven (Whitehead)? Or much dreaded Heat Death (Penrose)? Or the Block Universe we hear so much about these days? Our model, however, raises an additional question: If the Universe is in a state of superposition, how is it that any of its Q-bits ever decohere? According to standard quantum theory, decoherence only happens when a Q-bit comes in contact with an outside agent, a measurement tool, e.g. a nosey physicist. Decoherence, like ice, is contagious. But if the entire Universe is in a state of superposition, how is it that any portion of it can decohere? Traditionally, the role of universal outside agent, the cosmic other, has been assigned to God. But for those of you who are ‘enlightened’ and therefore God-phobic, we don’t need that hypothesis. The phenomenon of universal, reciprocal Incarnation will do the trick. The Universe is incarnate in each of its component entities just as each such entity is incarnate in the Universe. Anaxagoras realized this 2500 years ago. Pan in Panti he called it. Therefore, everything has the potential to function as an outside agent relative to anything else. The end is implicit (not necessarily determined) in the beginning. Bertrand Russell notwithstanding, just as ø is a member of every set, so every set must be a member of itself. Universe is maximally recursive. Universe is recursion. What we experience as ‘time’ (above) is the process of the Universe decohering. This model reflects our everyday experience in realms far removed from icy lakes. For example, assume 20 legit candidates announce plans to run for President of the United States in the next cycle. The outcome is highly uncertain. Gradually, the number of possible ‘final states’ (outcomes) reduces. On Election Day, the remaining Q-bits ‘collapse’ and we are left with one bit with a value of 1 (all others are 0). We call that Q-bit POTUS. Keep the conversation going. 1. Click here to contact us on any matter. How did you like the post? How could we do better in the future? Suggestions welcome. 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 Who Am I? David Cowles Sep 6, 2022 “My job is to experience, even enjoy, the prairie, not fix it…” I’ve always wanted to see America, ‘from sea to shining sea’ and all that, an d I have done so many times – through an airplane window. I dream of seeing it again, but this time through the window of a transcontinental train. The time has come. I board Amtrak at Penn Station (NYC): destination, San Francisco. I’ll see all the sights along the way, all the sights that can be seen from the window of a train, that is. Other than that, I’ll have nothing to do for at least 4 blissful days. I have placed my body in the care of the RR employees, but my mind is free and, within the confines of the train, I can do whatever I want. I can read, listen to music, take naps, go for walks, eat heartily, and drink ‘til my money runs out. But for all that, I’m a passenger, a spectator in relation to the main event . But my trip, even though it’s virtual, gives me a chance to think. How is life like taking a ride on the Reading ? (Admit it, ever since you learned to play Monopoly you’ve been asking yourself this question!) Through no fault of my own, I am a passenger on the train of life. I didn’t ask to be here; somebody else bought me my ticket. But it’s passably comfortable, and I’m totally free to do whatever I want whenever I want, subject only to the facticity of my body and the train itself (the roadbed, the rails, the cars, my fellow passengers, the rules of the road, the Amtrak employees on board, etc.). Mary bloody or virgin, an incredible show is taking place just outside my window. Who am I with respect to that show? I am nothing, no one, nemo . The prairie knows not that I exist, nor that I’ve been where I’ve been; I’ve left no crumbs, nor any footprints. I live life like an anthropologist studying an alien culture. Unknowingly, I am obeying Star Fleet’s Prime Directive . I leave everything as I found it, undisturbed. Just as my railroad self is ‘nothing’ with respect to its medium, the prairie, so I am ‘nothing’ with respect to my so-called real life. Is this a gospel of disillusionment, or even despair? Is this the preface to a full-blown nihilism? No way! The reverse is true. That I have nothing to do with the prairie is liberating. As a passenger, my job is to experience, even enjoy, the prairie, not ‘fix it’ (as though it needed any fixing). Whatever happens, I’ll still be me. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can ever change that. And that’s a glorious thing. Even if I am nothing ? Especially if I am nothing! In Eastern spirituality, the goal is often to break the bond that attaches the self/soul ( atman ) to the world ( maya ). The good news is that there is no bond to break; there never was such a bond. I’m already fully liberated, always have been. I just need to realize it – and of course, that’s the hard part. Hard, because it involves a paradox. How can I… be …nothing? The question itself involves a contradiction. How can ‘not being’ and ‘being’ co-exist? With respect to crossing the continent, I am nothing. How is that a glorious thing? Well, let’s get out our Descartes: cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am). I’m thinking right now, poor as those thoughts may be, so I must be being ; but we’ve already determined that I am nothing. So how can I be being ? Talk your way out of this one, you, you, philosopher ! As is so often the case, paradox here is the mother of discovery . I am nothing with respect to the prairie. What is the prairie? It’s space and time, spacetime . What else could the prairie be? I am nothing with respect to the prairie, therefore I am nothing with respect to spacetime, yet I am . So, I must be with respect to something beyond spacetime and whatever is beyond spacetime is, by definition, eternal. Jesus said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Each of us can say the same to our own ‘Pilates’ – internal as well as external. We live in spacetime; our minds and bodies are in spacetime. But we are not of spacetime, we are of eternity, we are eternal beings. But if we are ‘eternal,’ then ‘eternity’ must be as well, and spacetime can be no more than an underprivileged bubblein an infinite sea. What have we accomplished? Have I proven that I exist? No, I didn’t need to prove that. Per Descartes, we can infer that we are from the ‘phenomenal’ fact ( phenomenal in both senses of the word) that we think. No, we have proven something much more important than that! We have proven that we exist eternally. Thoughts While Shaving is the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine ( ATM) . To never miss another Thought, choose the subscribe option below. Also, follow us on any one of our social media channels for the latest news from ATM. Thanks for reading! Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back Comfort for Clumsy Believers: What the Disbelief of the Disciples Means for Us Deidre Braley "There is evidence that, in the backs of the disciples' minds, there was always the glimmer of the same question that shimmers on my frontal lobe today: 'But what if we’ve gotten it all wrong about him?'" Every quarter or so, I have an existential crisis. It’s not something I typically bring up in conversation; it turns out that questions like, “What if everything we’ve believed about God and the universe is wrong?” tend to dampen the overall mood of dinner parties and coffee dates. Plus, it just isn’t polite Christian talk. Nobody wants to hear the late night doubts of a so-called believer—least of all me . These questions are unwelcome; these doubts, disturbing. But I’ve found comfort as of late in the recountings of Jesus’ death and resurrection in the Gospels. For the first time in all of my rereadings, it’s striking me that the disciples really didn’t understand the entirety of what Jesus was up to and who he was. There is evidence that, in the backs of their minds, there was always the glimmer of the same question that shimmers on my frontal lobe today: “But what if we’ve gotten it all wrong about him?” How have I missed it until now? How did I not see that these men—just like me—grappled with the pesky whispers that poked and prodded at the foundations of their faith, their security, their eternal futures ? I’ve always assumed that since they knew Jesus personally, it was a given that they also understood he was really the Son of God. That every moment they were in his presence, his essence of saving grace would be so palpable that they’d know for sure who they were dealing with. That there would be no way they could touch and see, eat and banter with Jesus himself and still hold on to any shred of disbelief that mumbled, “Maybe he’s just a really good guy. A stellar prophet. Ten out of ten, as far as leaders go.” The Disbelief of the Disciples But looking around at Jesus’ closest handful of friends in the days surrounding his death and resurrection, we see a group of people thrown into the confusing waters of uncertainty, fear, and doubt. Judas acts a traitor. Simon Peter denies knowing him. The disciples in the upper room refuse to believe Mary when she tells them Jesus has left the tomb. The men on the road to Emmaus can’t even see past their discouraged hopes to realize that Jesus himself is walking alongside them. In short, even though they knew Jesus and he’d told them exactly what would happen, they still couldn’t seem to bring themselves to the point of certain, unwavering belief. Doubt is often seen as a character flaw. Society loves the certain. But maybe certainty is such a hot commodity because it’s what we all actually lack, addled by our own human condition. The disciple, too, were humans, and I see now that they each struggled with varying degrees of disbelief. What is significant to each of their stories does not turn out to be their level of dubiety, though—it is the way they end up responding to their natural predisposition to doubt. Judas, for example, is consumed by his disbelief. I have always wondered how he possibly could have betrayed Jesus, knowing he was the Son of God. Because honestly, how did he think that was going to work out for him? But now it strikes me: he didn’t know it, not really. If he had, he never would have traded him for thirty pieces of silver. He would have understood he was making a preposterous exchange (a bagful of coins for the Savior of the world) and that his treachery would have eternal consequences. My theory is that it wasn’t about the silver at all; it was about the fact that he heard the crowds all around him saying, “He is not who he says he is,” and allowed them to feed the doubts that niggled there in his soul. You can almost hear the snake in the Garden whispering the same lie in Judas’ ear that worked with Adam and Eve: “Did he really say that?” Judas justified his betrayal by shaking his head alongside the others, letting the disquiet of his disbelief overwhelm even the intimacy, miracles, and teachings he’d experienced in his close walk with Jesus. It isn’t only Judas, though, who questions the truth of Jesus’ words. Before it happened and on multiple occasions, Jesus himself had explicitly told his disciples that he would be mocked and shamed, beaten and killed, and then would rise on the third day. But it is written, “...they understood none of these things. This saying was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said” (Luke 18:34). This proves to be true, for on the day of Jesus’ resurrection, when Mary and the other women burst in to tell the eleven that the tomb was empty, Luke says, “these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them” (24:11). And when a disguised Jesus meets the two men on the way to Emmaus and asks why they look so sad, they respond, “...we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). The unspoken implication is obvious here: But he wasn’t. It is clear that belief and doubt had done battle in their souls; their belief had told them that Jesus was the Messiah, while their doubt had told them he was just a man. In his death, disbelief had won, and the men succumbed to despair. A Closer Look at Simon Peter Simon Peter was not immune to doubt either. He walked on the water to Jesus, yes, but he also began to sink the moment he saw the wind and the waves. And later, his three denials of Jesus are evidence that he did not have enough faith to stand against the enormous fear mounting within and around him. And yet, throughout the Gospels we see Simon Peter among the first to surrender to belief. At Caesarea Philippi, Simon Peter confesses that Jesus is “the Christ, “the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). On the mountain with Jesus during the Transfiguration, he is the one to (albeit awkwardly) embrace the seemingly-impossible fact that Moses and Elijah are there too; he offers to set up a tent for each of them (Matthew 17:4). When the other disciples balk at the notion that Jesus has risen, Simon Peter dashes from the room and arrives in breathless wonder to see the folded linens for himself (Matthew 24:12). And when the resurrected Jesus later appears on the beach where they are fishing, he is the first to recognize him as Lord and jump in the water in his haste to get to him (John 21:7). Simon Peter is not set apart in these stories because of his absence of disbelief or his stunning quality of character. In fact, he seems like a bit of a hothead—rash and impulsive and imperfect as any of us. But now I see that his superpower is his utter willingness to surrender to belief and, like a clumsy jump off the high-dive, to submerge himself in holy mystery. It’s not always pretty and he doesn’t always stick the landing, but he does keep jumping. Comfort for Clumsy Believers I’m comforted to know that those who walked with Jesus—who heard things of heaven directly from the Master’s mouth—also struggled against insidious doubt. I’m even more comforted by Jesus’ response to their clumsy attempts at belief. On the road to Emmaus, he admonishes the two disheartened men, saying, “‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’” (Luke 24: 26). But he doesn’t leave them there; he goes on to interpret “to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (v.27)—starting all the way back at the beginning as if to gently lead their analytical minds into the territory of total belief. And to Thomas who says, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe” (John 20:24), Jesus appears and lets him do just that, as if to say, “I know this handicap you’re working with—humanity—is a tricky, finicky thing. Come, let me lead you to belief.” He helps his friends believe with their minds and their physical beings, appealing to wherever the incredulity has laid siege. He encourages them to touch, think, and feel. He helps them do whatever it takes to clear the shared hurdle of humanity: a quizzical nature. I have to believe that if there was grace for them, there is also grace for us clumsy believers—the ones who are troubled with unwelcomed doubts as we lay awake at night, and who sometimes tremble under the weight of our own existential crises. But let’s also take inspiration from Simon Peter. He was sifted by the devil and, like so many of us, heard the echoes of the original lie reverberating in his eardrums. But instead of letting disbelief win out, he still jumps out of the boat. He still lunges toward his Lord. When the enemy and all the world cry, “Is he really who he says he is?” Simon Peter waves them off as if to say, “Yes—he is I AM. And I am here for it.” Jesus responds to his friends’ varied degrees of doubt with tenderness and grace. He is not surprised by their disbelief, nor does he turn away because of it. But as Thomas puts his fingers into his wounds, Jesus does say, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (John 20:29). Remember—it is not our disbelief that defines our faith, but rather how we choose to respond to it. So the next time we find ourselves in the turbulent waters of late-night doubting, we needn’t give in to despair, nor chastise ourselves for having questions. Instead, we can consider ourselves normal, and then remember that our response is what drives the narrative. Judas had doubts and betrayed the Savior of the world. Simon Peter had doubts, and Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom. The difference? Judas leaned into disbelief of what he couldn’t see, while Simon Peter leapt into the mystery. Let us be followers who, addled with doubt though we are, choose to keep jumping from the boat, to keep lunging toward our Lord, and to keep on believing what we can’t see. It is our willingness to surrender to belief that will ultimately define our faith. Deidre Braley is a freelance writer and editor. She lives in Maine with her husband and two children, and most days can be found savoring an overly cheesy bagel or drinking a second cup of coffee while working on her weekly newsletter, The Second Cup . She is a strong believer in the power of poetry, picking roadside flowers, and blowing past small talk at all costs. Follow her on Instagram @deidresecondcup or on Facebook — she loves meeting new friends. Return to our Holy Days Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Reading The Bible Backwards David Cowles May 23, 2024 “We struggle for freedom from the prisons others build for us, from the prisons we build for others, and from the prisons we build for ourselves.” We are accustomed to reading books from cover to cover in the order determined by the author/editor(s). Take the Old Testament: Genesis through Malachi . The order makes sense. Creation had to come before Exodus, which had to precede Monarchy, preceding Exile and the erection and destruction of the Second Temple. Of course, this order is not necessarily the order in which the texts themselves were written. Some of the material in Job and Exodus , for example, is much older than anything in Genesis . The modern Bible groups the books of the Old Testament into four categories: Law (Torah), History, Wisdom, and Prophesy. Read this way, the Old Testament tells a perfectly coherent story. Torah : Creation (Genesis), Liberation (Exodus), Theocracy (Leviticus). History : The transition from Theocracy (Leviticus) to Anarchy (Judges) to Monarchy (Samuel) to Tyranny (Kings, Chronicles, et al.) and ultimately to Captivity (Daniel, Ezekiel) in Babylon (6th century BCE) and Repatriation. Wisdom : The Wisdom Writers paint with a broad brush; they are the ‘big picture’ guys. They write at the level of cosmology, ontology, and metaphysics. They condemn all manifestations of secularism: idolatry, materialism, even consumerism. As they do so, they outline an alternative world order. Prophesy : If wisdom is big picture , prophesy is laser focused . Prophets react to the socio-economic conditions and events of their own time. They write at the level of journalism. Recurring peeves: concentration of wealth, abuse of power, lax observance of Torah and ever increasing secularism. Wait! Something’s not quite right about this picture. The Old Testament was edited and assembled in the time of the Prophets. Wisdom, History, and Torah (Creation & Law) should be viewed from that perspective. But we don’t read the Bible that way, do we? We start with Creation and, well, you know the rest. Doing so makes it seem as though history is a chain of semi-logical deductions with today as its ‘theorem du jour ’. In fact, however, we build our past based on empirical inductions beginning with today . Make no mistake: Judeo-Christianity is a revolutionary idea! It was revolutionary when Abraham left UR, when Moses confronted Pharaoh, when Joshua conquered Jericho, and when Canaan lived in relative peace during 250 years of Theocratic Anarchy under the Judges. It was revolutionary when Jesus fought a war on two fronts, confronting the twin authorities of Rome and Jerusalem, and when Paul planted the seeds that undermined the Roman Empire. It is just as revolutionary today and fortunately, since 1776, we’ve learned a bit about revolutions. We have learned, for example, that all revolutions require three things: A searing indictment of things as they are (status quo). A clear vision of things as they could be (utopia). A practical program to get from point A to point B. We find all three in the Old Testament…but not in the ‘right’ order! The Prophets condemned the immorality, corruption and tyranny that had taken over Palestine. But a critique of current injustice, by itself, doesn’t get the job done. It takes three legs to make a tripod. Critique only bites if it is powered by a vision of ‘what might have been and could still be’. That’s the job of the Wisdom Writers. The Prophets and the Wisdom Writers tell the same story but from different perspectives…and we need them both. The Prophets focus on the specific historical and political situation, the Wisdom Writers on the futility of any human endeavor that lacks God as its guiding principle. Hijacking the words of Robert Kennedy, Prophets “see things as they are and ask why?” Wisdom Writers “dream of things that never were and ask why not ?” Which brings us to the third leg of our tripod: Praxis . It’s how we get from A to B. If Prophesy answers the what , and Wisdom answers the why , Praxis offers the how . Praxis has two sides: History and Strategy. What’s been tried and how did that work out for us? What practical steps must we take now to realize our vision (Wisdom)? We need to begin with a practical political platform – like the Party manifestos in the UK…only realer and truer . But for us, this turns out to be the easy part! Long before there were prophets and wise guys, there was already a detailed political program to redeem an alienated world – it’s called Torah: 613 rules of conduct - time tested in the crucible of Sinai, at the great wall of Jericho, and during the time of the Judges - guaranteed by God to promote health, prosperity, justice, and peace. Wait! 613 rules of conduct? What am I, 8? 613 rules, yes; 8 years old, you wish! But don’t fuss, there’s a secret, shh! Lean in and I’ll whisper it to you: “Torah includes its own Cliff’s Notes . You just have to know where to look.” (If only Tolstoy, Dickens and Thackery had been as considerate.) The Torah consists of 613 laws (above), 611 of which are specific laws applicable to specific behaviors in specific situations; but the other two are general laws, applicable to all things in all situations, and as it turns out: these two laws perfectly summarize the other 611. Therefore these two general laws, collectively known as the Great Commandment (Mt. 22: 37-40), summarize the other 611 (tactics) and form the core of our revolutionary strategy: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Deut. 6: 5) “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Lev. 19: 18b) To which Jesus adds, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Mt. 22: 40) We struggle for freedom: freedom from the prisons others build for us (prophesy), freedom from the prisons we build for others (praxis), freedom from the prisons we build for ourselves (wisdom). 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 AI - Our New Frenemy AI and the Human Quest for Love AI - The Next Big Test of the Human Soul Hadassah Treu "The longing is powerful. Perhaps because this is the longing for unconditional love and acceptance with which every human being is born." When I grew up and even as a mature adult, I was fascinated by Isaac Asimov's books about robots. Asimov is the one who invented in his books the so-called Three Laws of Robotics. These instructions are not scientific laws, but they are built into every robot in his stories to prevent dangerous malfunctions. According to the first law, robots must not cause harm to humans or allow humans to be harmed by not taking action. However, the laws underwent an interesting development because the robots themselves added a 4th law, the so-called Zero law. In "Robots and Empire," the robots Giscard and Daneel devised a law that put the needs of humanity first before the needs of the single individual. The Longing for a Perfect Companion These books thrilled my imagination, and they also sparked a powerful longing in me. I was longing to have somebody by my side, somebody like "Daneel." The robot had a human-like appearance, beautiful and perfectly resembling a human. He was available 24/7 and possessed superhuman strength, intelligence, and access to limitless information. The positronic robot Daneel Olivaw was something between a superhuman and a faithful servant. Who didn't want to have a perfect friend like this? Asimov wrote six novels about robots and a lot of short stories. In these novels, he explores different scenarios of the robot-human society, whereas the ratio and the role of the robots in society differ. It is noteworthy that all robot-human societies developed dysfunctions, eventually leading to humanity's extinction. This was, for example, the case on the planet Solaria, described in the novel "The Naked Sun." A tipping point in Asimov's robot stories was when one robot (Giscard) gained telepathic abilities. Namely, he gained the ability to read and influence minds. From this moment on, he gradually took on the role of a god, changing events and decisions throughout society. In fact, he took responsibility for the whole human race! AI Is Our New Reality Nowadays, surrounded by artificial intelligence (AI) in our daily life and sitting on the brink of a technological revolution, I can't help but think about Asimov and his robots. AI is not a sci-fi fantasy. It's reality. AI is everywhere, and it has become an integral part of our daily lives; it doesn't matter whether we recognize it or not. AI is on our smartphones, the chatbots, and the virtual assistants, on social media feeds, not to speak about Alexa or generative AI like ChatGPT. But we always need to remember that technology is a tool. And as a tool, it is our responsibility how to use it. We can't define it as good or bad because it doesn't have a moral value, but we can use it for good or for evil. We also need to remember that even as a tool, this technology is extremely valuable and powerful. So, we have to train ourselves not only to have a balanced and realistic attitude but also how best to interact with this technology. The output we will get from our interactions is largely based on the input we are feeding. Most probably we will need such jobs shortly like AI whisperers and prompt engineers, fact-checkers (yes, AI can give misguided and untruthful information – remember the input!), and creators who will co-create with AI. But most of all, we will need some kind of ethical guardians and voices of the societal conscience who will spur us to act with integrity and ensure the proper development of the human-machine relationship. Is AI Really Our New Best Friend? Is AI like us? Why do we have such a longing for a relationship with artificial intelligence? Artificial intelligence is a type of nonbiological intelligence. Machines are given instructions to complete tasks using a set of rules. Because it's nonbiological, AI can be copied and reprogrammed and can be very flexible. AI has no conscience like human beings, and it lacks emotions, beliefs, and desires. However, research shows that even though machines and computer programs don't have sentience, the people interacting with them, give the machines human characteristics—like feelings, beliefs, desires, and understanding. This is dangerous because we begin to trust them and treat them the way we treat other people. This is exactly what happened in the robot novels of Azimov – the robot Daneel (although lacking emotions) was treated by the main hero, detective Elijah Baley like a human, like a friend. When we talk, for example, with a generative AI like ChatGPT, we can get a good imitation of what a human might say. However, we need to remember that AI lacks real feelings, empathy, or awareness. So we need to approach every AI output with an open but critical eye. Another substantial difference is that as a machine, AI looks back to gather information. Unlike humans, AI can't have visions, imagine futures and outcomes, invent things, or even plan. These are high-level skills that still belong only to humans. People are forward-thinking, and machines are retrospective. And yet… The longing is powerful. Perhaps because this is the longing for unconditional love and acceptance with which every human being is born. Disappointed and disillusioned on the quest for love, struggling with intense loneliness in an overpopulated world, where does the human soul turn next? A new study explains that robots with artificial intelligence can help fight people's loneliness. These mechanical companions could help isolated people by reducing the potential health risks that come with chronic loneliness. Researchers claim that interacting with a robot can have the same impact on humans as interacting with a person. So, companion robots can alleviate stress and loneliness and provide a promising "quick fix" to the problem of making new friends in adulthood. However, despite how promising this sounds, the issue with the moral and trustworthiness of such mechanical companions remains. The Big Temptation Are we tempted to treat AI as more than a tool? Definitely, yes. This is dangerous ground because AI has the potential to influence our theology and become our new idol. We should be careful not to become too dependent on AI but use it wisely and with caution. Part of this process is to admit the fact that AI influences us and even changes us when we use it. It expands our possibilities as humans. It opens for us new opportunities to live, work and create. So, AI is a powerful change agent. The question is, will it sparkle good and positive changes or not? Ultimately, it is our responsibility to use AI for the glory of God and the good of society. Perhaps you guess the end of Asimov's robots saga… The robots Giscard and Daneel chose to be humanity's saviors and concluded that the only way to help humanity advance was to break free from the robots. What was meant to be humanity's aid has turned into an obstacle. The strength has turned into weakness. The friends have turned into enemies. What they meant for good, brought evil. Is this where we are heading to? Hadassah Treu is an international Christian author, blogger, and poet, and the Encouraging Blogger Award Winner of 2020. She is passionate about encouraging people in their journey to faith and a deeper walk with God. Hadassah is a contributing author to several faith-based platforms and devotional and poetry anthologies. She has been featured on (In)courage, Living by Design Ministries, Thoughts About God, Today’s Christian Living (Turning Point), and other popular sites. You can connect with Hadassah at www.onthewaybg.com. Return to our AI Issue Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Everything IS Possible David Cowles Nov 4, 2021 Yesterday, my 8 year old grandson told me, quite authoritatively as usual, “Nothing is impossible, everything is possible.” My first thought was, “Hmm, that doesn’t seem right.” But I should have known better; whenever I disagree about anything with any of my grandchildren, I am usually wrong. In this case, I started coming up with examples of things that are impossible. For example, a circle that is also a square. But then I realized, it’s not that a ‘squared circle’ is impossible, it’s that it’s not a thing. Despite riddles to the contrary, you cannot have something that is black and white at the same time. The meaning of the concepts themselves, the words ‘black and white’, preclude something that is both. (White is the sum of all colors; black is the absence of any color.) On the other hand, a unicorn, even if does not actually exist, is certainly possible. There is nothing about the attributes of a unicorn that would make its existence an impossibility. So, historically we’ve gotten this all wrong. Everything IS possible! But not every random combination of attributes constitutes a thing. Yesterday, my 8 year old grandson told me, quite authoritatively as usual, “Nothing is impossible, everything is possible.” My first thought was, “Hmm, that doesn’t seem right.” But I should have known better; whenever I disagree about anything with any of my grandchildren, I am usually wrong. In this case, I started coming up with examples of things that are impossible. For example, a circle that is also a square. But then I realized, it’s not that a ‘squared circle’ is impossible, it’s that it’s not a thing. Despite riddles to the contrary, you cannot have something that is black and white at the same time. The meaning of the concepts themselves, the words ‘black and white’, preclude something that is both. (White is the sum of all colors; black is the absence of any color.) On the other hand, a unicorn, even if does not actually exist, is certainly possible. There is nothing about the attributes of a unicorn that would make its existence an impossibility. So, historically we’ve gotten this all wrong. Everything IS possible! But not every random combination of attributes constitutes a thing. 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 Matzah of Hope--Passover Part One B.J. Yudelson "This matzah, which we set aside as a symbol of hope for the thousands of women who are anchored to marriages in name only, reminds us that slavery comes in many forms." You may remember that back in the ’70s and ’80s, we added a fourth matzah to the three required for the Seder and called it the Matzah of Hope. It was a symbol of the three million Soviet Jews who had no freedom to be Jews. Some twenty or thirty years later, our united voices had changed the situation. I propose that this year we once again add a fourth matzah to our Seder table and read the following. What do you think? Maybe together we can change the situation for the Agunot, women anchored to men who neither want them as wives nor are willing to free them to lead their own lives. This matzah, which we set aside as a symbol of hope for the thousands of women who are anchored to marriages in name only, reminds us that slavery comes in many forms. Three thousand years ago, Jewish women were forced to see their baby sons die. They themselves were forced to follow the orders of the Egyptian masters to make bricks and perform other onerous tasks. Today, there are women enslaved to unsustainable marriages. The common term for them is “chained” women. But the Hebrew, agunah, comes from the root that means “to anchor.” These women, who have asked for a divorce but are dependent upon their husbands for the “get” that completes the divorce procedure, are anchored in place by men who refuse to comply. Tethered under water, it is as if they are mired in the muck on the bottom. Although the water that swirls about them represents opportunity, freedom, the ability to navigate to new and different Jewish places, they can barely breathe. How tantalizing to be surrounded by freedom yet to be prohibited from leading the free, fulfilling Jewish lives they crave. These women can dream of a new life, of new experiences that await them in a different part of this lake or sea they are trapped in. But they can’t, by themselves, hoist the anchor to change their situations. They need our support: our prayers, our petitions, our demonstrations. They need for us to convince our rabbis to take action, for where there is a rabbinic will, there will be found a rabbinic way to free agunot. As we set aside this matzah in their honor, let us pledge to do more in the coming year to free all agunot from the bondage that weighs particularly heavily as we celebrate freedom this Seder night. This was republished with permission from T he Jewish Pluralist . It is first in the series Four Women’s Collected Essays on the Meaning of Passover . Click here for introduction to the series. This essay was also published on B.J. Yudelson website. Image: Passover Seder, 19th Century B.J. is an explorer who loves both the comfort of the familiar and the challenge of the unknown. As a child growing up in Atlanta, she knew the size and position of every tree in the wooded ravine behind her house as well as the best rocks for crossing the creek at the bottom. When she passes a street repeatedly, she may suddenly turn onto it just to find out where it goes, making the unknown familiar. World religions, her own beloved Judaism, a foreign country, or a local park all bring out the explorer in her. She writes to make sense of the inner landscapes of family and friends, the ins and outs of her community (currently, Rochester, New York), and the beauty of loon-filled lakes. Her writings—published in a variety of literary journals, websites, and anthologies —explore family, Judaism, nature, and overcoming obstacles. She invites you to join her on her adventures. Return to our Holy Days 2023 Table of Contents, Previous Next

< Back A Prayer for Comfort Hadassah Treu "Dear Lord, thank you that you are Jehovah Shammah–"the Lord is there". (Ezekiel 48:35) Dear Lord, thank you that you are Jehovah Shammah–"the Lord is there". (Ezekiel 48:35) You showed up centuries ago in the least likely place the Jews expected You–in the place of their captivity and exile; You showed in Babylon! Thank you, that You will show up in my place of bondage and oppression, too. You are always present and intimately involved in my earthly life, while preparing me for eternity with You. I can see the signs of Your presence being there in my preservation, endurance, and overcoming adversity. The Lord is there is my greatest possible comfort! He is there in the ruins, in the pain, in the garbage, in the suffering, in the darkness and in hopelessness. He not only knows; He also feels my pain. When I doubt–the Lord is there. When I am overwhelmed with grief–the Lord is there. When I break down–the Lord is there. When I can't take it anymore–the Lord is there. When I worry and fret- the Lord is there. The Lord is there–knowing, feeling, holding, comforting, and working. Lord, remind me always of this truth that brings the greatest possible comfort. Remind me You are with me, knowing me and the problem in all intimate details and feeling my anguish and pain. I am grateful that You are working on my behalf, sustaining and strengthening me until I see the light again. Whatever happens, help me remember that You are with me. Because the Lord is there, I may be "hard-pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed but not in despair; persecuted but not abandoned; struck down but not destroyed". (2 Corinthians 4:8-9) I just need to stand and wait for You and Your perfect timing. In Jesus' name. Amen. Hadassah Treu is an international Christian author, blogger, and poet, and the Encouraging Blogger Award Winner of 2020. She is passionate about encouraging people in their journey to faith and a deeper walk with God. Hadassah is a contributing author to several faith-based platforms and devotional and poetry anthologies. She has been featured on (In)courage, Living by Design Ministries, Thoughts About God, Today’s Christian Living (Turning Point), and other popular sites. You can connect with Hadassah at www.onthewaybg.com. Return to our Summer 2023 Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Pre-existing David Cowles Jan 6, 2022 In my last post, I reflected on the idea that all the world’s ontologies (philosophical, theological or scientific) fall into one of two camps: (A) Some sort of Determinism, where the ‘actual’ is ultimately embedded in what is falsely called the ‘potential’ or (B) some sort of Indeterminism where potentiality is selectively converted to actuality through an agency that somehow, in some way transcends pure potentiality itself. In my last post, I reflected on the idea that all the world’s ontologies (philosophical, theological or scientific) fall into one of two camps: (A) Some sort of Determinism, where the ‘actual’ is ultimately embedded in what is falsely called the ‘potential’ or (B) some sort of Indeterminism where potentiality is selectively converted to actuality through an agency that somehow, in some way transcends pure potentiality itself. Group A would argue that there must be nothing before there can be something; Group B would reverse it: there must be something before there can nothing. At first glance, Group A might seem to have the better of the argument. After all, doesn’t it make sense to move from ‘nothing’ to ‘something’? But there are two problems: (1) No one has been able to explain successfully how nothing can give birth to something without reference to some pre-existing actuality (e.g., chaos, virtual particles, negative vacuum pressure) or some transcendent agency (e.g., a probability function, the fundamental laws of physics) (2) The notion of Nothing, by itself, has no denotative meaning. No-thing implies ‘thing’ and there are no pre-existing things in this ontology. On the other hand, if one posits Something then the notion of Nothing emerge 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 Time David Cowles Aug 4, 2022 Contemporary views of Time include such ideas as: ‘there is no such thing; it’s an illusion; it’s a giant block and every moment is a slice; time is just one more dimension in spacetime,' etc. Our lead article in ATM Issue #2 ( The Beach Issue , 7/15/22) was titled Yesterday, the Very Tomorrow . This is a great kick-off piece for what we hope will be an ongoing discussion of Time in upcoming issues of ATM. Scientists and philosophers have mostly moved away from the idea that ‘time’ is substructural, that it is a hardwired feature of Being itself, that it just is. Contemporary views of Time include such ideas as, ‘there is no such thing, it’s an illusion, it’s a giant block and every moment is a slice, time is just one more dimension in spacetime,' etc. Whenever any fundamental assumption in science or philosophy is overthrown, it triggers a blizzard of new ideas and models. (That’s where we are right now with the concept of Time.) The goal of any new theory is always the same: account for everything we thought we knew and did; account for everything we thought we knew but didn’t; and account for the new ‘data’ that doesn’t seem to fit anywhere. What better forum is there than Aletheia Today Magazine for such a conversation. ATM Issue #3 will kick off with an article outlining the principal theories of time, current and past. It will include at least one article about the Piraha tribe of the Amazon (Brazil) and their very unusual conception of time (just one piece of their unique model of reality). I believe it was Augustine who said something like, “Everybody knows what time is, but nobody can describe it.” We are calling on all independent writers with an interest in Science & Philosophy: Do you know what Time is (or what it is not)? Can you describe it? We want to hear from you as we plan for future ATM issues dedicated to the discussion of Time. Please visit the Write for Us! section on the Aletheia Today site home page, follow our guidelines, etc. Let’s work together. “It’s time for time” – The Beatles ( Yellow Submarine ). Thoughts While Shaving is the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine ( ATM) . To never miss another Thought, choose the subscribe option below. Also, follow us on any one of our social media channels for the latest news from ATM. Thanks for reading! Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.