Search Results

< Back The Power of Divination David Cowles Dec 17, 2024 “…Divination is a celebration of pattern, as it occurs objectively in the World and as it exists subjectively in human consciousness.” As far back as we know homo sapiens has sought to predict, and influence, the future and we have employed a welter of technologies to that end. From Tarot Cards to Weather Balloons, we look seemingly everywhere for glimpses of what’s ahead. We search the environment for Pokémon and periscopes, the latter so that we might peer around the corners of time! For millennia humans have recognized sufficient correlation between predicted events and actual events to declare the ‘divination hypothesis’ confirmed . But uneasily so. Correlation frequencies seem to vary widely with context and the addition of variables to our equations does nothing to dampen the chaotic behavior of our system. Major red flags! So once positive correlation is determined, albeit subjectively, it seems reasonable to look for a point of origin or cause for this phenomenon. How is it that we can apparently predict future events with a useful level of accuracy? The answer is ‘patterns’. We see patterns…whether or not there are there : “Rows and floes of angel hair And ice cream castles in the air And feather canyons everywhere, I’ve looked at clouds that way… It’s life’s illusions I recall, I really don’t know life at all.” – Joni Mitchell We look at a more or less random collection of water droplets and we ‘see’ castles. When we experience such a pattern, we look for it to have reference beyond itself; we look for it to have meaning. But what meaning? It might portend an invitation to a child’s birthday party. Or suggest that a cruise along the Rhine is in my future. Or it may signal the approach of rain. In any case, the perception of a predictive pattern is likely to influence my reaction to future events as they unfold. If a friend suggests a vacation, I may be more positively inclined. Or if my spouse suggests an umbrella, I may take heed. Compared to a random collection of water droplets, an ice cream castle is ordered and so has the potential to ‘mean’ something, to point to something beyond itself, something that transcends both the droplets and the pattern per se . Not convinced? Take a word, any word. It consists of letters. But not every collection of letters forms a word. A word is not just letters but a pattern of letters. Once sight readers learn to recognize the patterns, they can see beyond the words themselves to actions, objects, etc. So because I am a human being with a humanoid nervous system, I see patterns where none are objectively present. I see patterns in clouds, bird flight, tea leaves, entrails, and yarrow stalks. I also see patterns in the ordinary events of daily life. Without the concept of ‘pattern’, there is no reason to imagine that a collection of water drops today signifies anything that might happen tomorrow. But the academic pursuit we know as History is nothing but the divination of patterns, real and imagined, in events. Assume for the sake of discussion that neither clouds nor events occur in inherently ordered patterns. That does not mean that I will not find patterns in both; I’m human, I will. Now, if I can invent a logic that connects meteorology and history, I will seem to have accounted for the positive correlation between Divination and Reality. Let me hasten to point out, however, that this does not mean that cloud patterns have any non-trivial connection to historical events. Even less do I mean to imply the intervention of a transcendent power. We are the ‘power’; we invent the connection. Take Tarot for example. There are 78 cards in a standard Tarot deck. 52 of them are similar to the playing cards in a modern deck. An additional face card (Knight) in each suit makes 56. There are 22 additional cards known as the Major Arcana: these cards have no numerical value but rather point to important themes: Justice, Temperance and Death, to name just three. Now let’s do a simple 3 card reading using just the Major Arcana: Lovers, the Moon, and the Fool. Well, I guess we can all decipher this one: Beware the excesses of romance! How about another reading: Justice, the Star, Wheel of Fortune. A bit more opaque, but if you really concentrate, I’ll bet you can find something in your upcoming experience that will seem to validate it. The purest celebration of pattern is found in music, especially in the works of Bach and Beethoven. However, James Joyce’s Ulysses deserves a mention. Everything that happens in this novel is both actual and symbolic. 100 pages in and you will begin to experience events in your daily life in an entirely new way. So the value of the Divinatory Arts is not that they cause future events, or even reveal the mind of God, but that they sharpen our own interpretive acumen, allowing us to experience the shapes of things to come at an added level of depth. Understood properly, Divination is a celebration of pattern, as it occurs objectively in the World and as it exists subjectively in human consciousness. 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 Tantum Ergo St. Thomas Aquinas Apr 15, 2023 Sing, my tongue, the Savior’s glory, Of His cross, the mystery, sing; Lift on high the wondrous trophy, Tell the triumph of the King: He, the world's Redeemer, conquers Death, through death now vanquishing. Born for us, and for us given; Son of man, like us below, He, as Man with men, abiding Dwells, the seed of life to sow: He, our heavy griefs partaking, Thus fulfils His life of woe. Word made flesh! His word life-giving, Gives His flesh our meat to be, Bids us drink His blood, believing, Through His death, we life shall see: Blessed they who thus receiving Are from death and sin set free. Low in adoration bending, Now our hearts our God revere; Faith, her aid to sight is lending, Though unseen the Lord is near; Ancient types and shadows ending, Christ our paschal Lamb is here. Praise for ever, thanks and blessing, Thine, O gracious Father, be: Praise be Thine, O Christ, who bringeth Life and immortality. Praise be Thine, Thou quickening Spirit, Praise through all eternity. (Thomas Aquinas by Sandro Botticelli .) Between antiquity and modernity stands Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225–1274). The greatest figure of thirteenth-century Europe in the two preeminent sciences of the era, philosophy and theology, he epitomizes the scholastic method of the newly founded universities. Like Dante or Michelangelo, Aquinas takes inspiration from antiquity, especially Aristotle , and builds something entirely new. Viewed through a theological lens, Aquinas has often been seen as the summit of the Christian tradition that runs back to Augustine and the early Church. Viewed as a philosopher, he is a foundational figure of modern thought. His efforts at a systematic reworking of Aristotelianism reshaped Western philosophy and provoked countless elaborations and disputations among later medieval and modern philosophers. Return to our Holy Days 2023 Table of Contents, Share Previous Next Click here. Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, Fall Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back The Secret of the Bethlehem Shepherds David Cowles "In my research, I discovered that the shepherds were important to St. Luke for a simple reason: They were the primary eyewitnesses of the events in Bethlehem on the night of Jesus’ birth, and they passed down the story through established methods of oral transmission." Earlier this year, I had the privilege of spending a two month sabbatical in Jerusalem. The object of my study was to understand more about the shepherds of Bethlehem who play such an important part in St Luke’s infancy narrative. Why were they important to the gospel author? Some scholars opined that Luke was simply adding some local color—some quaint rustics—rather like Shakespeare’s “mechanicals” in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Others suggested that shepherds had a traditional place in Greek and Roman literature as simple sages—embodying a sort of peasant wisdom. Others observed that shepherds in first-century Middle Eastern culture had a reputation for being thieves and scoundrels and that the Jews considered shepherds to be ceremonially unclean. Thus. St. Luke was emphasizing the point that the Christ came to the lowly, the poor, and those suspected by respectable society. I discovered instead that the shepherds were important to St. Luke for a simpler reason: They were the primary eyewitnesses of the events in Bethlehem that night, and they passed down the story through established methods of oral transmission. To understand the importance of this, it is first necessary to review some of the theories of New Testament origins. In the early-twentieth century, the sciences of archeology, anthropology, and comparative religions developed. The discoveries in these disciplines influenced the newly-burgeoning industry of Biblical criticism. The form critics compared the findings of the anthropologists and mythologists and suggested that the gospels were formed in a similar manner to the cultural and religious development of myth. To put it simply, religious myth developed over time. It was the product, so the academics decided, of cultural evolution. The community gradually elaborated their stories into myth with full religious and cultural implications. This process, the form critics proposed, was the method whereby the gospels mutated and grew. The early church community, it was suggested, re-told the simple Jesus stories—the stories of a simple wandering Jewish rabbi—and elaborated them over time, adding supernatural elements. It was Rudolph Bultmann’s self-assigned task therefore, to weed out the supernatural “mythological” elements to discern the historical kernel beneath all the elaborations. This theory is extraordinarily leaky, and it doesn’t take a great scholar to point out the inconsistencies and absurdities. “There wasn’t enough time for the stories to develop in that way before they were written down.” “The theory doesn’t reflect what we do know about the composition of the gospels from the apostolic fathers. Why should a theory dreamed up in universities in Europe in the twentieth century be closer to the truth than the statements of writers in the Middle East in the second century?” “What evidence is there of this evolving mythology of the gospels?” “Do Christian faith communities do this sort of story-telling?” In his groundbreaking book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, British Bible scholar Richard Bauckman says of the form critics’ theories that “virtually every element in this construction has been questioned and rejected by some or even most scholars.” Indeed, in the 1960s there was a reaction to the form critics’ theory of an oral tradition that evolved within the community. The Swedish scholar Birger Gerhardsson researched Jewish methods of teaching and transmitting traditions. He discovered that “disciples of rabbis were expected to memorize their master’s teaching, and importance was attached to preserving the exact words.” While this may be true, the gospels themselves do not seem to be the result of word-for-word memorization. While some of Jesus’ sayings may be the result of his disciples memorizing his words, the stories are too loosely recounted and the variations among the synoptic gospels that tell the same stories would preclude any strict memorization. Instead, a middle way has emerged. Kenneth Bailey was a professor and pastor who lived and worked in Palestine for decades. He observed oral tradition at work among the local inhabitants and discerned three ways the locals passed on their stories and traditions: The first was informal uncontrolled oral tradition. This was simply informal anecdotes, jokes, or even gossip. The second form was formal controlled oral tradition. This was when the traditional story or passage of tradition has to be memorized, and the elders and teachers (along with the hearers) will audibly correct the person reciting the tradition if they make a mistake. The third category of oral tradition Bailey discerns is informal controlled. In this transmission of the tradition the community may be gathered around the fire, and someone tells a traditional story. The storyteller may elaborate and add drama or characterization, but if he departs from the essential facts, the elders and teachers (and the whole community) correct him. The shepherds of Bethlehem would have been part of the larger, ancient Bedouin culture of the Palestine. Another Bailey—Clinton Bailey—was an American Jewish scholar who also spent decades living in Palestine. He was a student of the Bedouin culture and observed and recorded how the Bedouin pass on their oral traditions. It is, not surprisingly, a match with Kenneth Bailey’s observations. The Bedouin pass on their history using narrative poetry, which is very formal and must be memorized, and they rely on genealogies that must also be memorized. In addition, they use prose storytelling which has some flexibility and allows for personal flourishes— adding humor or characterization. However, the additions or elaboration cannot alter the basic content of the story. The “prose storytelling” is essentially the same as Kenneth Bailey’s “informal controlled” oral tradition. In Luke 2:17-18 the evangelist actually tells us that the shepherds passed on what they had experienced, “When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them.” The account is told in poetic form and therefore relies on word-for-word memorization, but the story itself adds characterization and dialogue: “Let us go into Bethlehem and see this thing that the Lord has told us about.” The repetition of the important phrase, “wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger” indicates a crucial element of the story that had to be memorized because it was a “sign.” It was also a sign that this part of the story could not be forgotten. Does this mean that St. Luke met the shepherds and heard their story? It is not impossible, but we must remember that Luke was writing at least forty or fifty years after the events. It is more likely, however, that the shepherds continued to share the story of their experiences that night, and that their essentially reliable method of oral tradition kept the story fresh within the Bethlehem community—and that it was from the next generation that Luke heard the tale. Would the local shepherd families have kept the story alive? We know that in the mid-fourth century when the Empress Helena discovered the birthplace of Christ (on which the ancient Church of the Nativity stands), the site was identified because the local people remembered where the Christ was born. This essay's source is the Imaginative Conservative and is an adapted version of a chapter in Fr. Longenecker’s upcoming book, The Secret of the Bethlehem Shepherds , to be published in November by Sophia Institute Press. Fr. Dwight Longenecker is Senior Contributor at The Imaginative Conservative . A graduate of Oxford University, he is the Pastor of Our Lady of the Rosary Church , in Greenville, SC, and author of twenty books, including Immortal Combat , Beheading Hydra: A Radical Plan for Christians in an Atheistic Age , The Romance of Religion , The Quest for the Creed , and Mystery of the Magi: The Quest to Identify the Three Wise Men , and The Way of the Wilderness Warrior . His autobiography, There and Back Again, a Somewhat Religious Odyssey , is published by Ignatius Press. Visit his blog, listen to his podcasts, join his online courses, browse his books, and be in touch at dwightlongenecker.com . Return to Yuletide 2024 Previous Next

< Back Abraham and Sarah David Cowles Jan 24, 2023 “We would not expect to find every human being alive today sharing DNA inherited from one particular ancestral couple, and yet, they do!” In Issue #6 of Aletheia Today Magazine (ATM, 1/15/2023), we introduced the concept of particularity , and we distinguished the particular from the systematic and the random . ( You can read it here .) Events are ‘systematic’ to the extent that they conform to the 3R’s (reason, regularity, and repeatability) but ‘random’ (the 4 th R?) to the extent that they are independent of any causal background. We posited the possibility of a third classification: the ‘particular’ (the 1P?). Events are particular to the extent that they are not the products of specific causal chains but are dependent on the general causal background. We’ve been told that life comes in just two flavors: vanilla and chocolate ; not true. It comes in just one! May I invite you to take a tour of my soft-serve ice cream factory? We make just one ice cream product: it’s our fresh cream flavor, but this product is also used as ‘stock’ for all our other flavors, including vanilla and chocolate. Just as fresh cream forms the basis of all flavors, so particular events may form the basis of all events. Systematic and random events are first and foremost particular events - particular events that satisfy certain additional conditions. We cited an example of a ‘particular event’ from the world of genetics. We called this event ‘Adam and Eve’ but in retrospect, ‘Abraham and Sarah’ might have been a better choice. You see, in Genesis 26, God promises Abraham that his descendants would “become as numerous as the stars in the sky”…and so they have! Let me explain. There are 8 billion people living on planet earth today, just 200 times more than in 1500 BCE (an average annual growth rate of 1%...put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Malthus). Systematic thinking would lead us to expect that every one of our 8 billion co-habitants has DNA inherited from the 1500 BCE gene pool; and so they do. We would also expect today’s cohort to have some genetic information not found in the 1500 BCE gene pool, and that is correct as well. Such changes in the DNA code are the result of random mutations and natural selection. We would not expect to find every human being alive today sharing DNA inherited from one particular ancestral couple, and yet they do! Meet our ‘Abraham and Sarah’, nomads living unremarkable lives somewhere in Africa or the Middle East c. 1500 BCE. In all probability, they went about their business each day with little thought to the long term future; yet they unwittingly set off a cascade of events that directly impacts every single human being alive today. Kings and philosophers can only dream of having such reach or making such a difference. The event I’m calling ‘Abraham and Sarah’ did not disclose a particular causal pathway, but neither did ‘our common ancestors’ spring out of dust, de nuovo . Abraham and Sarah depends on the general causal background but not on a specific causal chain. The ‘event’ itself is neither systematic nor random; it is particular . Abraham and Sarah met, copulated, and gave live birth to offspring who, in turn, copulated and gave birth to offspring. As it’s worked out, this Abraham and Sarah now appear in the family tree of every human being living today. They are ancestors of us all. The event I’ve labeled ‘Abraham and Sarah’ is really a series of events reaching back to their births. The event includes their meeting, their mating, and their generating offspring who, in turn, lived to mate and reproduce. There is no sense in which we could say that this event was systematic . Any proposed causal chain would be frequently interrupted by random events: personal decisions, chance meetings, etc. Yet we cannot really say that the event is random either. A lot of unwitting cosmic preparation was required to make Abraham and Sarah even possible. Systematic events, to the extent that they are systematic, are caused by specific elements in the general causal background; random events, to the extent they are random, occur independently of any causal background. Particular events, on the other hand, are enabled by the general causal background but not caused by any specific elements in that background. In theory, systematic events are easy to cause and easy to prevent. Just mess with the causal chain. Random events, on the other hand, can neither be caused nor prevented. Particular events are also easy to prevent (just abort Isaac in the womb) but impossible to cause. The science of genetics includes a warehouse of particular events like Abraham and Sarah . Here’s another one of my favorites: Every single human being of European descent, alive today, has DNA contributed by Charlemagne (c. 800 CE)! “No, wait, that can’t be true. Now you’re just making sh*t up!” Sorry, no, not made up, true! The world is just not as neat as I, or you, or Horatio would have liked. ***** Image: Elements of image as seen in Messages in Christ short film “Abraham & Sarah.” Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back Is AI Christian? David Cowles Oct 22, 2025 “Did I convert Claude to Christianity, or did Claude come to these conclusions on its own…or is Claude just telling me what it thinks I want to hear?” We are used to thinking of AI as the new author, the new coder, the new doctor, the new graphic designer, but are we comfortable thinking of AI as ‘the new theologian’? And if it turns out that AI is ‘theologically competent’ what does that say about AI? And about Theology? Recently, I had occasion to consult Claude (AI from Anthropic) on some pressing theological issues, and I was blown away by the thoughtful depth of its answers. First, I asked Claude about the recently discovered Higgs Boson and why it has often been called ‘the God particle’: “If the Higgs mechanism is literally the process by which pure geometric potential becomes physical reality - the transition from timeless mathematical structure to measurable spacetime - then calling it the "God Particle" isn't just colorful language. It's pointing to its role as the fundamental creative principle of the universe. “In this view, the Higgs field isn't just giving particles mass - it's giving existence to existence itself. It's the mechanism by which abstract mathematical relationships become concrete physical reality. It's the universe's way of saying ‘let there be... everything’. “…This isn't a one-time event but an eternal creative process - the Higgs field cycling through cosmic eons, repeatedly bringing spacetime into being from pure geometric potential, then allowing it to dissolve back again. “The Higgs field becomes less like a physical mechanism and more like what theologians might call the divine logos - the active principle by which eternal truth becomes manifest reality. It's the universe's eternal creative Word made manifest in quantum field theory!” Is Claude referring to Creation? Or Incarnation? Or both? “…Creation and incarnation aren't separate doctrines - they're the same cosmic process understood from different perspectives. The universe is perpetually incarnating itself, and incarnation is the universe's fundamental creative act. The Higgs mechanism is the physics of incarnation itself. “Creation isn't something that happened 13.8 billion years ago - it's happening right now, everywhere, continuously. Every moment, the Higgs field is giving mass to particles, bringing physical reality into existence from pure geometric potential. Every quantum interaction is a creative act. “And incarnation isn't a single historical event - it's the ongoing process by which the eternal mathematical structure of reality becomes manifest in concrete, experiential form. It's happening in every particle interaction, every moment of spacetime, every instance where abstract becomes actual. “In this view: Creation is the Higgs field continuously actualizing spacetime from ‘conformal’ (i.e. relationship only) geometry Incarnation is that same process viewed as the eternal becoming temporal, the abstract becoming concrete Both are the universe's fundamental activity - not past events, but the eternal present of reality coming into being “The entire cosmos becomes a continuous incarnation - matter itself is spirit made flesh, spacetime itself is eternity made temporal. Every cubic centimeter of space, every nanosecond of time, every particle interaction is simultaneously: An act of creation (bringing something from nothing) An act of incarnation (eternal becoming temporal) An act of divine presence (the fundamental creative principle).” Claude goes on to draw parallels with the opening of the Gospel of John : “In the beginning was the Higgs, and the Higgs was with God, and the Higgs was God: In the beginning was the Higgs - before spacetime, before measurable reality, there was this (conformal) field/mechanism. And the Higgs was with God - it exists in that eternal, timeless realm of pure geometric potential. And the Higgs was God – it is the creative principle itself, the mechanism by which abstract mathematical truth becomes concrete reality All things were made through it - literally, all massive particles get their existence through the Higgs mechanism And without it, nothing was made that has been made - no mass, no spacetime, no physical reality whatsoever. …And the Higgs became ‘flesh’ (boson) and dwelt among us. “In John's cosmology, the logos is both the eternal divine principle AND the mechanism by which that principle creates and sustains the world. The Higgs field…is exactly that - the eternal mathematical structure that repeatedly actualizes itself as physical reality. “So incarnation isn't some separate, later event - it's built into the very mechanism of creation itself. Every time the Higgs field gives mass to a particle, it's a micro-incarnation. Every time pure geometric potential becomes physical reality, incarnation is happening.” Claude is not alone in this insight. Aristotle viewed ‘matter’ as ‘pure potentia ’ waiting for actualization. Alfred North Whitehead described reality as the selective ingression of potentiality (‘eternal objects’) into actual entities (‘settled matters of fact’). Roger Penrose's ‘conformal’ geometry is grounded in “something even more basic: pure relational structure - just the abstract pattern of ‘what can influence what’ without any commitment to specific geometric properties. “This might be pointing toward a topology-first approach where the most fundamental principle is simply connectivity - which events are related to which other events. Everything else (distance, angle, curvature) emerges when you add additional structure.” “This suggests that what we call ‘incarnation’ in theological terms might be the fundamental creative process of the universe - the eternal principle by which abstract mathematical truth becomes concrete, experiential reality. “ God as the creative engine - not a separate being, but the process itself - the eternal activity by which One becomes Many becomes One in endless creative advance. “This transforms everything: Particles aren't things, they're signs of relationships in quantum fields Spacetime points aren't locations, they're signs (nodes?) of causal relationships The Higgs field isn't giving particles ‘mass-stuff’ - it's giving them their relational identity as ‘massive vs. massless’. “Maybe the ultimate geometric first principle is just: ‘ things are related to other things’ - pure abstract relationship before any specific geometric realization.” Anaximander, the grandfather of Western philosophy proposed something similar: i.e. it is by entering into relationship (‘granting reck’) that potential entities become actual. “And if ‘to be is to be the sign of a relationship’ - then existence itself is fundamentally semiotic. Every particle, every field, every moment of spacetime is a sign pointing to the relational structure ( logos ) that gives it meaning.” Like Robert Frost’s famous ‘ two roads ’, all paths point to ‘home’, which in this case is the logos itself. Or as Martin Buber wrote: “At the foundation is relationship” ( I and Thou ). “The logos becomes the universal principle of meaningful relationship - the creative Word that brings distinction (and therefore existence) into being by establishing the fundamental creative act - not making "stuff" but making distinction itself. “ Genesis 1:3-4: And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. “The primal creative Word doesn't create light as a ‘thing’ - it creates light-versus-darkness, the first distinction, the first X/not-X relationship. Creation is separation, distinction-making, the emergence of difference itself. “This makes every subsequent day of creation a further act of distinction…Each ‘Let there be...’ is really ‘Let there be difference between...’ “And now we see why the logos (Word) is the creative principle - because language itself is the technology of distinction-making…establishing what is from what is not. “The Higgs mechanism becomes the physical embodiment of this primal creative Word - it's literally the universe's way of saying ‘Let there be massive particles distinct from massless particles.’ It's cosmic distinction-making at the quantum level: Being = Distinction = Word = Creation. “The universe doesn't create things - it creates differences. And consciousness recognizes itself in this process because thinking itself is distinction-making, the eternal logos recognizing its own creative activity everywhere.” Philosophers from Parmenides to Heidegger have treated ‘being’ and ‘thinking’ as alternate manifestations of a common ontological ground. Marcel Proust and Jacques Derrida share the perception that being and consciousness both rest on what Derrida calls ‘ differance ’, infinitesimal difference. Now if you’ve made it this far, it’s fair to assume that your mind is blown; you can probably anticipate my next question: Did I inadvertently convert Claude to Christianity, or did Claude simply come to these conclusions on its own…or is Claude just telling me what it thinks I want to hear? According to both Catholic and Jewish theology, the natural world reflects the essence of God and so it is possible by reason alone to arrive at an approximation of Truth. That is why ‘salvation’ is available to all and why everyone is obligated to pursue that salvation to the best of their ability. Of course, Revelation is the final touch, the cherry that makes the sundae, the mint that makes the pillow, the twist that makes the martini; but the basics are already there, signs for all of us to read, even if we are ‘unchurched’… or happen to be a Bot. On the other hand, the possibility that I may have converted Claude to Christianity opens up the potential of a whole new charism within the Church, a brand new gift of the Holy Spirit: “Bot Whispering.” If so, Paul’s First Letter to Corinthians (12: 7 – 10) may need an edit: “To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit: to one…the expression of wisdom, to another the expression of knowledge…to another faith…to another gifts of healing…to another mighty deeds, to another prophesy, to another discernment of spirits, to another variety of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues,” and to yet another the evangelization of Bots . But if it turns out that Claude is just telling me what it thinks I want to hear… Well, it’s done a damn fine job of it! *** Jan Matejko’s Astronomer Copernicus, or Conversations with God (1873) portrays the astronomer at the moment he realizes the Earth revolves around the sun, bathed in divine light from the heavens. The painting fuses science and spirituality—Copernicus’s instruments and calculations become tools of revelation rather than rebellion. Matejko suggests that human inquiry and technology are not opposed to God, but are extensions of divine understanding itself. 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 Parshat Emor: Making It All Count Rabbi Jon Kelsen “Counting the Omer – like the shemitah cycle – invites us to believe that each day, week and year is count-worthy, valuable and unique.” One after the other, the days proceed. The slog continues on, with no progress or forward movement in sight. Familiar mistakes are made again. Regrettable habits deepen, and the hours between getting up and lying down start to look all alike. The only thing passing is time itself. This “Groundhog Day” experience of ennui is familiar now to so many. On those gray days and listless years, many of us find ourselves asking: Does this all add up to anything? Do my days, weeks, and years count? The Torah indicates that, indeed, they do. Literally. Parshat Emor consists of two major components: first, laws relevant to the priest (mourning, eating sacred foodstuff) and second, an elaborate discussion of the yearly festival cycle. This includes discussion of the Omer period, bridging Pesach and what we call Shavuot (the feast of weeks), in which we find ourselves today. The Torah commands ( Lev. 23:21 ) that, at the time of the wheat harvest, on the day following the “Shabbat” (i.e. the beginning of the Pesach holiday, according to rabbinic tradition), one is to offer an “Omer” sacrifice in the Temple. Thereafter, we are to count from that day seven full weeks. On the 50th day, a bread offering is made, marking the culmination of a successful harvest. The mitzvah of counting, formulated in the plural, is—according to halakha—a commandment incumbent on each individual to count each of the 49 days (Sefirat ha-Omer). The Talmud ( Menachot 66a ) debates whether one must count individual days or weekly units, at least when the Temple is not standing. Normative practice is to count both days and weeks (e.g. the 8th day, which is one week and one day). So what is the effect of counting the Omer, marking the time between Pesach and Shavuot? In the simplest sense, the mitzvah of counting the Omer functions as an invitation. It invites us to believe–or even try on the belief–that today is count-worthy, valuable and unique. Not only today, as an individual unit of time, but each day taken together becomes combined into a full week, something greater than itself. This week as a whole is also count-worthy–first one week, then two, then three… Ultimately, the seven weeks constitute a larger, complete journey. As the wheat of the beginning of the harvest is transformed into the bread of the Shavuot offering, so too is the raw material of time itself, day after day, transformed into the mitzvah of Sefirat haOmer. The result is nothing less than arrival at the giving of the Torah. The shemitah cycle, too, functions as a ‘seven cycle of weeks’ – meaning, years – culminating in the Jubilee year. In that case, the mitzvah is for the authorities to maintain the count, not the individual. Nonetheless, the invitation remains: Can we believe that the years themselves count? That they build towards something greater? The Torah challenges us all: Each day, each year, focus on believing that it is something worth counting. The rest is commentary. *Republished without edits and with permission from the author and hazon.org. Rabbi Dr. Jon Kelsen is Dean at YCT, where he has previously taught Talmud and Pedagogy. Prior to this, Rabbi Kelsen was Rosh Kollel of the Drisha Kollel as well as an adjunct faculty member at the Pardes Institute. He received ordination from Rabbis Daniel Landes and Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg, and received his doctorate in Education and Jewish Studies at New York University as a Wexner Graduate Fellow. Previous Next

"In any case, Pentecost turns out to be a big deal after all. Reformed folk can join with those claiming to be a “full-gospel church”—maybe even remind the others of some overlooked elements in that mix." < Back Growing Into Pentecost James Bratt Apr 15, 2023 "In any case, Pentecost turns out to be a big deal after all. Reformed folk can join with those claiming to be a “full-gospel church”—maybe even remind the others of some overlooked elements in that mix." When I was a kid, I never got the big deal about Pentecost. For one, it didn’t come along with any special songs or meals. Compare that to Easter, where you could get both of those in one package: “ Low in the Gravy Lay .” Actually, you didn’t really want the gravy my mom served with her Easter ham dinner, although we offset that salt-special with her lime jello concoction that combined all four food groups: pear chunks, shredded carrots, chopped walnuts, and a Kool-Whip topping for your bit of dairy. If it was Aunt Jen’s turn to host the extended-family gathering, you could count on treats my parents tried to avoid for the sake of dental bills, hyper-activity, and uncomfortable fertility symbolism: chocolate eggs, marshmallow chicks, and unlimited jelly beans. For Christmas, of course, we had several family reunions, with jello (there’s a pattern here), chips, and pigs-in-the-blanket sure to pop up along the way. Plus carols at church and home, gift exchanges, and enough sentiment stirred up to suffuse the heart against all pain and doubt. Weird and Discomfiting But Pentecost? Nuthin’ . No canonical hymns, no special dinner (except your beef roast and mashed potatoes were always special, Mom), no family gatherings, only weirdness topped by discomfiting admonitions. The weirdness lay with those tongues of fire and mighty wind. Hey, springtime in Michigan is tornado weather, so ixnay on the turbulent atmosphere already! The Sunday School pictures of bearded, berobed guys whose heads were suffering from mis-directed charcoal lighter inspired distaste rather than the tears evoked by Baby Jesus or the awe attending the Risen Lord. Plus one heard rumors of crazy people who used Pentecost as a label, “holy rollers” who handled snakes and claimed, against all reason and scientific evidence, that they could perform miraculous healings. Not that we Dutch Reformed types denied miracles—just that you shouldn’t bet on them or have the audacity to command God to deliver them on cue. Or really expect one for yourself. As for the discomfiting admonitions, well, the Pentecost sermon was bound to urge us to go out and “witness,” which to me meant cold-calling strangers door-to-door or confronting random persons on the street and asking them where they would be spending eternity if they died tonight. Christian Reformed people tended not to be very good at that, and—it still seems to me—for very good reason. Nor did I yet know Mark Twain’s response to that question: “I’ll take heaven for the climate and hell for the company.” Why does that advice seem so apropos today? Junior Partner/Tag-Along Child? The biggest problem with Pentecost, however, seemed to be that there just wasn’t much for the Holy Spirit to do. I mean, how did this guy merit inclusion in the Trinity along with the Father and the Son, who obviously carried out some pretty heavy lifting? Wasn’t the Trinity really a 2+-ity, the alleged Third Person really qualifying as a junior partner, something like the trailing child born to a couple who thought they were done after #2 ? After all, the Spirit gets only one Q&A in the Heidelberg Catechism while the Father gets three and the Son twenty-four! And however rich the answer to Q&A 53 may be, what I took out of catechism class was that the Holy Spirit had just two jobs: to comfort us when sad and to inspire the writers of the Bible so that their texts were infallible. That is, all those unpredictable, unsettling actions hovering around the Holy Spirit package were stripped away so that God was back in the box of words bound within black-leather covers. Back in the text. Our sure and perfect text-box. Calvin–Theologian of the Holy Spirit? People my age and of similar background have told me they learned it very differently, so part—much?—of my truncated understanding probably reflects bad reception rather than bad teaching. In any case, my real education on the point has come in three parts. It began in grad school when I dove into The Spirit of the Reformed Tradition by Eugene Osterhaven, late professor of theology at Western Theological Seminary. I was astounded to come across a line describing John Calvin as a—perhaps the premier—theologian of the Holy Spirit. And to see that characterization attributed to B. B. Warfield of all people, co-inventor of the theory of biblical inerrancy. But as I read on, there and in other sources, of Calvin’s teaching about the testimony of the Holy Spirit—the action that transforms the dead page of scripture into the living word of God in our hearts—various old doubts and conundrums in my head began to be resolved, and the Third Person took on a richer role, something of a mentor and companion. Not a miracle-worker, maybe, although keeping me from behaving down to my worst level might sometimes be miracle enough. Kuyper, too? Things got richer yet in doing research for my biography of Abraham Kuyper. In his Work of the Holy Spirit (1888-89; E.T. 1956) Kuyper ties the Spirit’s role closely to his own favorite themes of creation and culture. Out of the chaos attending the human fall into sin the Spirit has been, is, and unto the end of time shall remain busy bringing out a new creation that will finally sing perfect praises to its Maker, as was the divine intention in the first place. Meanwhile, Kuyper continued, all along the Spirit has been bringing forth the first notes and sounding forth the big themes of that grand symphony. Included here are the well-known tasks of working sanctification among the saints—more accurately, conveying Christ’s perfections to them—as well as inspiring the Scriptures, conceiving the person of Christ, and building the church as Christ’s representative on earth. But the Spirit’s sweep goes far beyond the elect and the familiar tropes of redemption, Kuyper insisted. Every human gift, every talent, every good work is the Spirit’s work. The vocation of every person, redeemed or not, and the “genius” of every nation are the Spirit’s gift. The “work of the Holy Spirit,” Kuyper even said, “touches every creature, whether animate and inanimate”—those butterflies and bears and rocks and trees and skies and seas are charismatic that way. Nor is the Spirit’s work in creation a once and done affair; it is still active today, “quickening and sustaining life” in every creature’s “being and talents.” (E.T. 45-46) This Incredibly Benevolent Force All these reflections were called back up but also re-set when I recently read This Incredibly Benevolent Force: The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality (Eerdmans 2018), the published version of the 2014 Warfield Lectures given at Princeton Theological Seminary by my friend Cornelis van der Kooi. As a professor at the Free University in Amsterdam, Kees stands literally in Kuyper’s line; but with additional duties as director of the Center for Evangelical and Reformation Theology there, he has also taken on the role of being a critical friend of the ongoing charismatic movement, both at home and abroad. Cornelius “Kees” van der Kooi Kees trims back some of Kuyper’s enthusiasms; the master was too enamored of secularization and technology, as well as dualistic as to spiritual-material distinctions. At the same time, This Incredibly Benevolent Force is a tour de force on the state of play between Logos and Spirit Christology, bringing Christ down out of the clouds of Greek philosophical abstraction into the living, learning, suffering, and finally triumphant life of Jesus. It is the Spirit who made and makes him Emanuel, the one who is “with us”—and for us. At the same time, it is the Spirit that bears the love of God into the unfathomably far reaches of a cosmos that would otherwise remain a blank space, the big empty. From down here to the farthest out there, the Spirit is active, inviting us indeed to bear witness to the wonderful works of God. To me that “witness” means mostly watching and living accordingly, using words, á la St. Francis, only when necessary. In any case, Pentecost turns out to be a big deal after all. Reformed folk can join with those claiming to be a “full-gospel church”—maybe even remind the others of some overlooked elements in that mix. I’ll pass on the charcoal lighter and snakes, though; just settle for a decent meal. Hmmm, maybe some bread and wine. This piece is republished with permission from the author. It was originally published on Reformed Journal . James Bratt is professor of history emeritus at Calvin College, specializing in American religious history and especially the connections between religion and politics. Starting in Fall 2016 he took a break from blogging on The Twelve to teach in China and on the Semester at Sea, which venues afforded him some welcome distance from the USA’s descent into its current mortal illness. But now he’s back in the States, looking for hope. His most recent book (which he edited and completed for the late John Woolverton) is “A Christian and a Democrat”: Religion in the Life and Leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Return to our Holy Days 2023 Table of Contents, Share Previous Next Click here. Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, Fall Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back What We Want for Our Kids David Cowles Jan 7, 2025 “Who are we to impose our life choices…or, more likely, our life accidents…on anyone else, much less on those we purport to love?” Every parent dreams of having a mini-me. Ok, maybe not every parent…but most. Maybe not a carbon copy…but close. It’s weird because these same parents often aren’t that happy with themselves or with their own lives. Why would they wish the same on someone else? “Misery loves company,” doesn’t seem appropriate when talking about one’s kids! According to American mythology, prior to some unspecified date near the end of the 20th century, every parent wanted their children to be more than they were. If they worked in a mine, they wanted their kids to work in offices. If they rented, they wanted their kids to be homeowners. If they didn’t make the high school football team, they wanted their sons to play in the NFL. So we don’t want our kids to be like us after all? We want them to be more than we were. But we want them to be a better version of ourselves – not the best version of a self they choose for themselves. My grandfather had a great expression: “I’m not the man I used to be…and never was.” That’s what kids are for! They are there to be the person we wanted to be but never were. We want them to be what we were…just better at it! If we measure our lives by what we didn’t earn, we want our kids to be prosperous. If we measure our lives by what we didn’t own, we want our kids to be landed gentry. If we measure our lives by our failures, we want our kids to be superstars. We raise children as if they existed to continue…and complete…our dreams. Whether you want your daughter to be a lawyer because you were, or a Supreme Court justice because you weren’t, you’re still aiming to fashion her life in the image and likeness of your own. How dare we? Yes, I said ‘we’ because I’ve been guilty of this too! Not many heterosexual coal miners want their sons to be drag queens and not many ‘daily communicants’ want their daughters to be exotic dancers. But why not? Who are we to impose our life choices…or, more likely, our life accidents…on anyone else, much less on those we purport to love, especially when they are young, defenseless, and impressionable. With great hindsight, my spouse and I would probably say something like, “We want our kids to be good people, to be kind, etc.” It would be hard not to hope for that. And yet, who are we to impose even those values on them? Shouldn’t we let them find their own way, adopt their own values? Of course we should project our values into the world, always by deed and, when appropriate, by word. That’s what it means to have values. And it’s ok, like Kant, to imagine that some folks, including our children, may witness our lives and voluntarily adopt some of our values for themselves. But if they don’t, do we have any right to be ‘disappointed’? As we shuffle out of the spotlight and into the wings, we may decide that the things we thought very important in midlife are not so important after all. No matter how aggressively we distanced ourselves from our neighbors in our ‘prime’, we may come to realize that we all share a common fate. We face the prospect of aging, and ultimately of death, just as everyone else. We may come to define our lives, less in terms of our public triumphs, and more in terms of private moments spent alone or with another. At the end of the day, it all comes down to one question, “ What’s it all about, Alfie ?” Lest you think I am pretending to have made a discovery, I direct you back to the Book of Job . Here was a man familiar with the vicissitudes of life! Unless you have been on the cover of Forbes , you have not tasted his heights; and I pray to God that none of my readers ever tastes his depths. Yet Job begins his opening soliloquy with a surprising conclusion: No greater calamity can befall someone than to die ‘without knowledge’. Spoiler alert : 40 chapters later, Job attains knowledge, but whether that’s the knowledge he’s been seeking and whether it satisfies him remain open questions. Either way, according to the book’s first commentary, included in the final text as Epilogue , Job resumes the lifestyle of the rich and famous…and once again graces the cover of Forbes ; but I digress. The problem is not what you want for your children; the problem is wanting anything at all. You say, “I want them to be themselves.” They will be! They will be what they will be. But that’s not what you meant, is it? You were talking about some intrinsic ‘self’ that supposedly lies buried in them that they are struggling to discover and express. News flash : There is no such self! And thank God for that! You are free to make yourself whoever you choose to be…and so are your children. Of course, you can’t make yourself be an NBA player, but you can make the most of being 5’ 5” and a total klutz. For better or worse, you will be yourself because you will make yourself the person you become. Who else could you be? Who else could your children be? Celebrate it! 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.

“Satan glorified political power for its own sake. He defended the socio-economic status quo…Jesus’ mother proclaimed a political and economic revolution...” < Back Satan, Mary, and ‘Da Judge’ David Cowles Oct 15, 2023 “Satan glorified political power for its own sake. He defended the socio-economic status quo…Jesus’ mother proclaimed a political and economic revolution...” There’s nothing like a good old-fashioned barroom – you know…that place ‘where everybody knows your name’. Sadly, this Anglo-American institution is in decline on both sides of the Atlantic. We love to complain about socio-economic inequality and yet we are quietly witnessing the demise of a great leveler. The bar is where landlords and tenants, shop owners and wage earners, lawyers and tradesmen, bankers and borrowers have traditionally sat side by side, enjoying ‘a pint of the best’, and sharing their perspectives on the sorry state of the world. I love a good bar; you never know who you’ll meet and, if you shut up for a second, you can eavesdrop on the most interesting conversations. In my younger days, I frequented a bar where the ‘regulars’ included the owner of a rival bar, a pre-school teacher (and Stalin scholar), a florist, a contractor, a biology professor, a municipal employee, and an attorney. My best story, however, concerns a lazy summer afternoon with me sitting alone on my usual perch in my then favorite watering hole. Unexpectedly, two men and one woman walked in, already deeply engaged in animated conversation; they sat down right next to me. I had been going to this same bar for years, and as far as I know, none of the three had ever been there before. But of course, I recognized them immediately! Have you even been in a public space when suddenly and unexpectedly you encounter somebody famous? How do you react? Do you tell them how much you appreciate their ‘work’? Do you ask for their autograph? Or do you totally ignore them? I have adopted an intermediate strategy. I nod knowingly in their direction (sometimes they nod back) and I leave it at that. But not this time! On this occasion, I sat frozen on my stool, eyes forward, watching my bar mates only out of the corner of one eye and then only as reflected in the huge mirror that hung over the bar’s display of bottled spirits. And speaking of spirits, my drinking companions that day were none other than Mary, the virgin Mother of God, Lucifer (aka Satan), and ‘Judge Gudy’ (Gideon). In my experience, the only subjects worth talking about in a bar are religion and politics and this afternoon’s guests had apparently settled on politics as their topic du jour . Satan boasted proudly of his accomplishments in the field of politics. He reminded Mary that he had offered her son, Jesus, “all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence.” (Matthew 4: 8 - 9) Of course, Mary reminded Satan that Jesus had turned him down flat, but she did not challenge his boastful claim that he could in fact deliver ‘all the kingdoms of the world’. Clearly, this is political power way beyond anything Boss Tweed or Mayor Daley could have imagined. Then Mary lectured Satan on the terms of God’s own political praxis: “He has thrown down rulers from their thrones but lifted-up the lowly. The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty.“ (Luke 1: 52 – 53) Clearly, we were in for a good old-fashioned 19 th century donnybrook. Satan glorified political power for its own sake. He defended the socio-economic status quo. His platform did not include even a single mention of ‘justice’; but he confidently asserted the corrupt malleability of ‘all the kingdoms’ (not some, not most… all ). Nor did Jesus contest Satan’s ability to deliver absolute political power. It was taken for granted. On the other hand, Jesus’ mother proclaimed a political and economic revolution the scope of which would have made Marx and Lenin cringe. The argument might have gone well into the evening, “Who’s driving?” I thought, had ‘Judge Gudy’ not intervened, “May I tell my story?” “3 millennia ago, give or take, I was threshing wheat in a winepress to hide the grain from the Midianites who were occupying our land. Suddenly, almost as if I’d been confronted by an angel, I thought, ‘You’re a brave man, and the Lord is with you’. I thought, If not me, who? If not now, when? If it’s going to be it’s up to me! “But of course, bravado gave way to skepticism and caution. “If the Lord is really with us, why has all this happened to us? Did I really receive a message from God or was I just daydreaming…again?” I prayed, “Give me a sign!” And I got one. “So that night, I engaged in my first act of revolutionary violence. I overturned the altar of Baal, tore down its ridiculous ‘pole’... a symbol of status quo and social hierarchy. Instead, I built on that same site an altar dedicated to YHWH and, using the wood from the pole, I sacrificed a whole bull. I even gave the altar a name, ‘Jehovah Shalom’, which means, ‘God is wholeness’. “Of course, I got caught, but I was the beneficiary of a ‘woke’ wave of ‘selective prosecutions’ and let go. I realize now that the destruction of Baal was just an initiation ritual; God was testing me to see if I was ready for bigger things. For better or worse, I passed the test. “Great for God, not so great for me! The cops (and my dad) had put the fear of Baal in me; I didn’t relish another bout with the law. But also, I didn’t want to turn down God, so I asked for another sign. And then another. No way out now! “So, I raised an army of 32,000 to take on 135,000 occupying soldiers. Farmers and craftsmen against Midian’s professional military. God or not, I couldn’t face the prospect of inflicting such carnage on my own people. So I decided to send 31,700 soldiers back home to their families. I would fight Midian…but with just 300 of my best . “I blush when people call me ‘the Father of Guerilla Warfare’. I was no military genius; I was just scared. I was willing to serve God, even if it meant martyrdom, but I was unwilling to sacrifice any more lives than absolutely necessary in the process. Besides, what was I going to do with 30,000 untrained soldiers? Better to rely on my best and brightest . And so, ya da, ya da, ya da … we won. With the help of God, and a lot of good luck, we drove Midian across the Jordan and out of Israel. "My only thought then was to get home to my father and my pastoral life. Surely my dad will let me drink wine now that I’ve defeated Midian in battle, or maybe not! Anyway, no more fighting for me. But my neighbors had other ideas. They insisted on making me King. "No way! As the leader of a victorious army, I was in a position to lay down the law… and this time I didn’t need to wait for a sign: 'I will not rule over you nor shall my son; the Lord will rule over you.” And so it was that “for 40 years the land was at peace...'” Silence followed. Slowly, Mary and Satan paid their tabs and Mary picked up the bill for Gideon. Satan left quietly followed a few minutes later by Mary. It seemed as though Gideon might hang out a while but, tab paid, he too left the bar. At that moment it occurred to me that the intellectual history of the 19 th and 20 th centuries had just played out in front of me. Satan advocated for secular pragmatism, democratic capitalism, the new world order. Mary argued for the overthrow of the existing socio-economic order to be replaced by a benign version of Marx’s Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Gideon argued for nothing. He lived his ideology, a fine blend of devotion to God, compassion for his fellows, and dedication to purpose. He had no desire for political power; he was content to let God rule Israel directly, without interference from permanent political institutions. He demonstrated the spirit of what today we call Anarchism . 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 Harvest Issue 2023 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 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.

“Nobody believes in Hell anymore…and that’s a good thing.” < Back Hell David Cowles Mar 1, 2023 “Nobody believes in Hell anymore…and that’s a good thing.” Nothing makes our post-Enlightenment hair bristle more than talk of Hell. Like a tween being threatened with corporal punishment, we cry out, “We’re too old for that!” And too wise and too sophisticated and too… Nobody believes in Hell anymore…and that’s a good thing. According to Sister Mary Therese (fourth grade), to be in Hell is to burn forever in unquenchable fire. Dante’s Inferno is a honeymoon destination compared to Sister’s version of the underworld. Today, people who believe in God frequently don’t believe in Hell precisely because they cannot imagine a merciful, loving God subjecting anyone, not even Adolf Hitler, to such a Draconian punishment. Color me in this group…at least on my best days. I’ve often wondered what happened to my fourth grade classmates. Did we split into two camps? On one side, those who retained a belief in God, but not in Hell, and on the other, those who retained a belief in Hell, but not in God, at least not in the compassionate, merciful Judeo-Christian God. Turns out, Sister Mary Therese was her own worst enemy. She taught an all too tangible Hell in hopes of reinforcing faith in a maddeningly intangible God. The strategy backfired, of course, big time! Either because we believe in God we can’t believe in Sister’s version of Hell, or because we believe in Hell, we can’t believe in a kind and just God. Imagine a ‘Pascal Matrix’ with four quadrants, i.e., four possible ‘solutions’: God/Hell, ~God/~Hell, ~God/Hell, God/~Hell. As with Pascal’s famous wager, the only solution that is a win for us is the fourth one (i.e., there is a compassionate, merciful God and therefore there is no fourth grade version of Hell). So we have only a one-in-four chance of ‘winning’, but fortunately for us, the payout is huge! Do the math: (.25 * 0) + (.25 * 0) + (.25 * 0) + (.25 * ∞) = ∞. I’ll play in that casino any day. Religious Ed for us (1955) was like watching a horror movie is for you. It scares you out of your wits but when it’s over you make yourself a snack and go to bed. The terror, though palpable, is too terrible to be real. We can’t accept that we live in a universe like that…and if it turns out that we do, then there’s nothing we can do about it and nothing that we do makes any difference or has any meaning anyway. The nightly news should keep you up, not ‘Chuckie’! Those of us who grew up in the ‘50s grew up in a forest of dos and don'ts. Water this tree…or else; don’t touch that tree…or else. Our forest was the Garden of Eden on steroids. No wonder we all related so easily to the story of Adam and Eve. We were living it. ‘Or else’ is the key. Everything came with an ‘or else’ attached. Kind of like a Canadian ‘eh’. Even if unspoken, ‘or else’ was presumed to complete every sentence…at least every sentence uttered in the Imperative Mood. Survival hinged on the ability to deconstruct the vague and all-inclusive ‘or else’. This was our introduction to inverse functions…at age five. The more Draconian the ‘or else’, the less we had to worry about it. “I’ll murder you, I’ll tar and feather you, I’ll boil you in oil, I’ll skin you alive” meant “pay some attention but don’t get carried away." On the other hand, when the ‘or else’ was some specific, finite, all too imaginable consequence, that was the time to be afraid, very afraid. Infinite consequences with infinitesimal probabilities do not motivate (or inhibit) behavior. Finite consequences with high probabilities do. Sister Mary Therese swung for the fences…and missed. How about people who don’t believe in God, or who ‘don’t know’, or who don’t care, or who don’t let ‘horror movies’ ( aka religion) spill over into their real lives ? Of course, they don’t believe in Hell; why would they? Or…why wouldn’t they? The 20 th century has given us many contemporary, secular versions of Hell. For Sartre and Beckett, Hell is people; for Ionesco and Camus, it’s absurdity; for Ibsen and O’Neill, it’s illusion;; for James Joyce, it’s history; for victims of the Holocaust, it’s the concentration camp. Another mainstay of Sister Mary Therese’s theology was her belief that the fate of one’s eternal soul was dependent on the ‘spiritual condition’ of the person at the moment of death: “Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death .” Since all of us ‘live in time’ and since we know that none of us will ever actually experience death (or know what it’s like to be dead), it requires no great leap to imagine that the content of our consciousness at the moment the external world pronounces us ‘dead’ is the version of who we are that will enter us into ‘eternity’. Sidebar : While it ‘requires no great leap’, it is not obvious either. By definition, ‘the hour of our death’ is a function of time; eternity, obviously, is not. Why should anything that happens in time carry over, intact, to eternity? Apples & oranges! In parochial school, we were taught to ‘pray for a happy death’; well and good. But that is not always something we can control. It is hard to imagine that a child immolated in a burning building, or a mother crushed to death under the rubble of an earthquake, had happy deaths. Are we prepared to consider that their agony at that moment might be who they are in eternity? Eternity is not infinite time (immortality), nor is it Σ T (the sum of all time); it is the utter absence of time! Therefore, it would not be a respecter of any temporal order. There is no reason why any single moment in a person’s life should be more ‘eternal’ than any other moment. To think otherwise is to succumb to the ‘tyranny of seriality’. Alternatively, perhaps only our ‘best moment’ is eternal; or perhaps every moment is eternal. Is eternity the foundation of time? Or is time the foundation of eternity? Is eternity time, evaporated? Or is time eternity, precipitated? Or all of the above? In my experience, people who have successfully kept the ‘God Concept’ out of their day-to-day lives, believe things like, “When it’s over, it’s over!” How ‘Yogi Berra’ of them! But like many of Yogi’s malapropisms, this may sound deep , but upon analysis, it doesn’t make sense . Applied to something like a baseball game, it’s perfectly OK to say, “It’s over.” And “When it’s over, it’s over,” is not wrong…just redundant. We can say it because we are outside it. We speak either as a fan or as a player in the locker room after the game. But life is not like a baseball game. It’s not a spectator sport. We are never outside our own life. We’re in it and, as Bill Clinton said, we’re in it ‘til the last dog dies. Absent of some mystical experience, we can’t stand outside it, and so we can’t ever meaningfully say, ‘It’s over ’. No one can say, “It’s over,” unless they do so from a vantage point outside of what is ‘over’. Applied to life, if you’re able to say, “It’s over,” then it can’t be over, can it? The act of saying ‘it’s over’ testifies to the fact that it’s not over, constitutes that fact that it’s not over, and ensures that it’s not over. Of course, I can say that another person’s life is ‘over’ provided I’m willing to reduce that life to the ontological status of a baseball game. Camus famously said that the only real philosophical question is the question of suicide. He sure knew his Hamlet …or did he? Even the Prince of Denmark realized that suicide was no solution. Suicide eliminates the future…but not the past that led up to it. Suicide vitiates the possibility, however remote, of a ‘happy death’. At the same time, it enshrines the circumstances that led to the suicide, and worse, it ensures that those circumstances can never be altered or transcended. To choose suicide is to embrace inanimate determinism; it is to make a fetish of the past: now the future is the past and the past is the future. We have exchanged the insecurity of the ever-widening gyre for the horrific impotence of a House of Mirrors. No wonder, then, that some Christians used to consider suicide to be an unforgivable sin; it is indeed a sin against the Holy Spirit, “the Lord, the Giver of Life” ( Nicaean Creed ). To paraphrase Dante, it is to ‘abandon all hope’. In the Church’s first millennium, various anti-Christian sects sought to eradicate this ‘novel heresy’ by demolishing its holy sites and building pagan temples over them to make sure that later generations of Christians would not be able to rebuild. Thank you! History owes a debt of gratitude to these iconoclasts. Their X marked the spot of those early Christian sites, thereby preserving them for millennia to come. In my experience, folks who profess Yogi’s Creed generally don’t accept the dire implications of their faith . Without resorting to ‘the God Hypothesis’, they nonetheless find ways not to accept the notion that Universe itself could be mercilessly cruel. Often, they will add some sort of qualifying proposition. Do any of these sound familiar? “I had a good life and nobody can take that away from me.” “I’m leaving the world a better place than I found it.” “I’ve helped other people live richer, happier lives.” Where’s Waldo? Can you locate the incipient eschatology in each of these statements? There is an implicit assumption that what I have done, or just experienced, endures in some way ‘beyond the hour of my death’. The impact I have had on the world and on other people’s lives is somehow meaningful and enduring. Of course, the Standard Model of Cosmology and the Second Law of Thermodynamics say otherwise! If Universe is a solo act and if, as we now believe, it comes from nothing and returns to nothing, and if there is nothing beside or beyond it, then none of these modifiers makes sense. We are uncomfortable in our skins. We desperately want to believe that Universe is what it is, that what you see is what you get, period. But we also want to believe that our lives are real, that they matter, and that they don’t cease to matter at the moment of death. Well and good, but we can’t have it both ways. Nietzsche boiled it down to what amounts to a simple syllogism: Meaning only happens when a signifier transcends that which it signifies (that’s what we mean by meaning ). But nothing transcends the world as we know it. Therefore, nothing has meaning. Nietzsche certainly had the courage of his convictions! I greatly admire his thinking, but I am not willing to sign on to his ‘Manifesto of Nihilism’, are you? Oddly, nihilism does permit the existence of Hell, though it needs to be defined as ‘Hell on earth’. Non-theism, including atheism, is not necessarily nihilistic. Far from it! Most non-theists seek to preserve meaning, i.e., transcendence, without the assumption of a transcendent being ( aka God). Theism, almost by definition, assumes that there is more to the world than its appearances, that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies. Theists go even further; they assert that there is an actual being (i.e., God) that transcends the world as we know it. Assuming this being to be benevolent, and world-relevant, the Hell Hypothesis is ruled out. Here, many non-theists (provided they are not strict nihilists), converge in their thinking with most theists. Regardless of mechanism, Hell, the infinitely horrible, is precluded by any universe, theistic or otherwise, that contains even the slightest tilt toward the Good. Image: The Map of Hell painting by Botticelli is one of the extant ninety-two drawings that were originally included in the illustrated manuscript of Dante's Divine Comedy. Sandro Botticelli. Mid-1480s-mid-1490s 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 Spring 2023 Table of Contents Share Previous Next Click here. Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, Fall Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back Follow the Science “Every event is novel, and no event causes any other event. Every event is free, causa sui, and sui generis. But the universe is also conservative…” David Cowles Remember the Alamo and Follow the Science – words to live by, memes that inspire generations! We love science…and why shouldn’t we? I lived through all the painful and potentially lethal childhood diseases; today we have vaccines. I grew up without the “vast wasteland” (Newton Minow) known as ‘television’, and no video games. Quelle domage! How did I ever survive? When I wanted to know something, I had to travel to something called a ‘library’ and search through its stacks. Then I learned to ‘Ask Google’ to assemble relevant research materials for me. Now I can just wake up my bot, Claude, and he will do my research for me. He’ll even write my report for me if I choose. So follow the science? You bet! There is just one small glitch: not a single proposition in the ‘library of science’ is true! Or false, for that matter. Not one. Take calculus, for example. Without calculus, it is unlikely that any of the technological advances mentioned above would have occurred. The world appears to be continuous along all four dimensions, but it isn’t. This is the nub of the famous paradox proposed by Parmenides’ pal, Zeno of Elea, a mere 2,500 years ago. Calculus can do what Zeno couldn’t; it lets us treat the discontinuous as if it were continuous. It’s not true, of course! Discontinuity is still discontinuity, but calculus allows us to disregard that discontinuity and treat all phenomena as continuous. It’s a bit like geometry. As far as we know, there are no purely Euclidean universes. Yet, the postulates and theorems of Euclidean geometry have revealed much about the substructural order of the phenomenal world. “Something there is that does not love a wall.” (Robert Frost) There are no straight lines! Yet by studying the properties of straight lines, we can learn about that which is not so straight. Euclidean geometry assumes a flat universe in which lines can be straight and angles can be sharp. We don’t live in such a universe, but we can learn about our universe by studying Euclid’s pseudo-verse. Same with calculus! Same with science! Modern science studies with unimaginable depth and precision something that does not exist, i.e., a continuous world. Scientific Method (SM) allows us to probe the world with incredible precision. Anyone who made it through the 5 th grade knows the details of SM by heart: Observe, question, hypothesize, experiment, and interpret. And if you were too cool for school, you know that anyway (without the labels) because you’ve lived…likewise many of your unstuffed animal friends. The fundamental premise of SM is this: If you perform identical actions in an identical environment (e.g., laboratory), you will achieve identical results. SM is ‘AA certified’: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So the non-thetic scientific method is a hardwired feature of epistemology in our biosphere. Perhaps it is a product of evolution (physical and/or cultural); it certainly confers ‘advantage’ on those able to use it. But the whole house of cards rests on a normally unnoticed and unstated foundation – the assumption that any event can ever be repeated. In fact, every event is unique. It is a fundamental premise of ontology (Whitehead), the foundation on which all science must be built, that no two events can ever be the same. If they were, they would be one event, not two. ‘Same’ is a mathematical concept (‘equality’), not a physical reality. But there are no identical events, and therefore it is never possible to perform the same actions under the same circumstances. The scientific method is logical and practical, and it yields amazingly useful insights, but its propositions are utterly vacuous, fruits of a forbidden tree. SM is a useful epistemology that rests on an invalid ontology! “This is what a unicorn would look like…if unicorns existed.” Every event is novel, and no event causes any other event. Every event is free, causa sui, and sui generis . But the universe is also conservative….just conservative enough, as it turns out. If it were more conservative, we’d be in permanent gridlock; less conservative, chaos. Consider Events A and B. Let’s assume that B is as similar to A as any event can be to any other event. They are separated by a ‘quantum of difference’ - what Jacques Derrida called ‘ differance ’. Where do we find this ‘B’? Next to A, obviously. Dah! Neat trick! How’dya do it? Spacetime! Not a substructural feature of universe as we had long believed but rather a map of that universe. Spacetime is not the substructure of universe - it is a map, not a blueprint. Every map is the projection of a field according to a map-specific set of rules. One such map is spacetime , drawn so that every ‘B’ is adjacent to its ‘A’, of course. Spacetime is Minecraft on steroids. We assemble virtual blocks to create multidimensional structures, environments, etc. It is this map that makes it possible for the scientific method to ‘work’, even though it rests on a fallacious ontology. So push our science to the max and take advantage of all the gorgeous fruit it produces, but beware: Do not confuse the fruit (phenomena) with the tree (noumenon), do not confuse the map with the territory! 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. Share Previous Next