Search Results

< Back The Will of God David Cowles May 18, 2023 “…Whatever injects beauty into the world…fills it with truth…restores justice…is the Will of God. Whatever happens will be redeemed and whatever is redeemed is God’s Will.” In most editions of the Bible, the Book of Job is suspended between Torah and the Gospels . Its position is apt. It is a lengthy (over long?) meditation on the Problem of Evil – a ‘problem’ introduced in Genesis but resolved in Revelation . If this sounds surprisingly simplistic, it’s because it is. Nevertheless, the Problem of Evil is cited by non-believers as the number one reason for their rejection of Judeo-Christian theology. It was also the rationale Bertrand Russell relied on in his best-seller, Why I am not a Christian. Why the disconnect? It begins, unfortunately, with our ( mis ) understanding of the story of creation itself. The popular image of God shouting commands into an abyss is anti-Biblical…and a bit ridiculous. No wonder folks don’t believe. It is important to remember that YHWH said, “ Let there be light.” ( Genesis , 1: 3) He did not say, “Be there, Light!” as most people seem to think. God is not auditioning for the role of ‘frustrated parent’ barking orders at a naughty child; nor is he a raging motorist, yelling, “Start, you sucker!” as his stalled automobile struggles to turnover. Rather, he is a compassionate curator ! Nor did he imagine that light would obliterate primal darkness (“…the earth was without form with darkness over the abyss…” – v. 2). Instead, we learn that God “separated the light from the darkness” (v. 3). Later, in the Gospel of John , we celebrate the fact that “the darkness has not overcome it.” (1: 5) Phase #1 of the creation process was not complete, however, until “God saw that it (the light) was good” (v. 4) and “Evening (darkness) came and morning (light) followed, the first day.” (v. 5) All of which raises an obvious question: Why would an ‘omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent’ God need to ‘wait and see’ before determining that created light was a good thing? Could God have created something that was not good ? Would God need to pause and assess developments before rendering judgement? In a sense the whole so-called Problem of Evil is addressed and resolved in these first 5 verses of the Bible. All the stuff about God’s ‘omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence’ comes later and, for our purposes right now, is beside the point. The testimony of Genesis is clear: God’s hands are clean! Not so, the Book of Job . Here God is put on trial, charged with ‘perverting the course of justice’. Job has quite literally staked his life, his health, his family, his fortune, and his reputation on the verdict. But our prototypical existential hero has a tough ‘row to hoe’. God is represented, albeit incompetently, by a ‘dream team’ consisting of three ‘wise men’ and a ‘fool’. Speaking of ‘fools’, Job appears pro se ; he has himself for a lawyer! Worse, God is not only the defendant but also judge and jury. God would happily recuse himself…but who is qualified to take over? Can anyone say, “Conflict of interest?” The trial raises every imaginable legal issue. Does Job have ‘standing’ to sue God? Can God even be sued? Can God be compelled (by subpoena) to come to court? If the court were to rule against God, how could it enforce its verdict? How could it impose a sentence on the Creator of Heaven and Earth? Now the matter of God’s ‘omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence’ takes center stage. Unlike Genesis , Job presents the Problem of Evil in its more familiar trappings. A full account of trial proceedings are available elsewhere on this site. The transcript is instructive. Job’s understanding of evil is one most of us will recognize: “(Human beings) are quashed more easily than a moth, from daybreak to evening they are crushed; when it is not even nightfall, they disappear, forever unnoticed. The pegs of their tent are pulled up. They die without knowledge.” (4: 19b – 21) ‘I have lived a righteous and just life; yet I am being punished most severely. Others, not nearly as upright as me, often in fact deliberate doers of evil, are not punished at all. They live lavish lives in good health and pass that wealth intact on to future generations (this was before Estate Taxes). I, on the other hand, no longer have assets…or children to leave them to if I did. I live on a dunghill, my body covered with scabs.’ God, however, approaches the problem from a very different perspective: “Behold now Behemoth which like you I created (40: 15)...Of all that’s under heaven, he is mine. I cannot keep silent about him, the fact of his incomparable valor…He has no match on earth, who is made as fearless as he? …Over beasts of all kinds he is king.” (41: 3b - 26) Job views Behemoth from a human perspective. He is fearsome, dangerous and destructive. He is the embodiment of evil. But that’s not God’s perspective. God sees things from Behemoth’s perspective as well as Job’s and God values Behemoth’s qualities, the very qualities that Job dreads. Even more importantly, God sees things from a cosmic, ecological perspective: “ Who cleaves a downpour's channel and a path for the thunderstorm to rain down on land without people, on wilderness with no human in it, drenching utter wasteland and sprouting grassy growth." (38:25-27) But Job is unphased; he will not budge. He meets God’s bluster with his trademarked ‘patience’. He has faith that justice will out: in the end the court will have no choice but to find in his favor. Clearly, God has a broader cosmological mandate than Job. He values Behemoth’s qualities per se , oblivious to the intermediate ends for which they’re used. That is the price we pay for our ontological freedom. God can afford to overlook the transient. He knows the Universe, as he created it, will ‘come round’ in the end. The coming of the Kingdom is inevitable. It is built into the teleological structure of Being. ‘When’ and how that Kingdom comes to be is undetermined; that’s up to us ! But that it comes to be and what it comes to be (divine values) are hardwired. We might sympathize with God’s predicament, but Job never takes his eye off the ball. He ignores God’s pleas for understanding; he stands his ground. Suffice to say, the procedural issues are ultimately resolved to the satisfaction of both parties and, in a stunning reversal of fortunes, God finds against himself and restores all of Job’s assets plus damages . But Job remains underwhelmed. He expected this outcome all along. His hurdles were merely procedural. Once the trial commenced, Job trusted that he would prevail. Even the obvious conflict of interest didn’t concern him. Job did not believe that God’s nature would allow him to act unjustly…and he was right! Right trumps wrong after all. But the court’s decision applies just to this one case; millions of Job’s fellow sufferers, while buoyed by the trial’s outcome, remain mired in pain. The final resolution, the cosmic solution, comes in the New Testament’s Resurrection narratives and in the Book of Revelation . Here we learn (after the prophet Isaiah) that God is our fellow traveler, that he suffers ‘the whips and snares of time’ alongside us, via compassion and ultimately, via Incarnation. He is born, tiny and defenseless, into our world at our level. He endures in full the pain of mortality, the dark night of despair, and a slow and painful death on a cross. Clearly, our God is no wimp! But had the story ended at Cavalry, we’d still be in rough shape; fortunately, it didn’t! Jesus overcame mortality, pain and death via his Resurrection and eventual Ascension into Heaven (where he sits at the right hand of his Father). Finally, the last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation , describes in minute detail, albeit coded in symbolism, the process by which evil will be eradicated, root and branch, from the World, and our primal Paradise restored, fulfilling Paul’s assurance that God will be ‘all in all’ (1 Cor. 15: 28), pan in panti ( Anaxagoras ). Once Scripture is understood in this way, i.e. on its own terms and not those imposed on it by non-believers, one can only ask, “What problem of evil?” Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back The Porta Potty Perspective Annie D. Stutley "Job was, you might say, trapped in a Porta Potty right there in the desert, despairingly dejected and despondent." It began with an innocent craving for a York Peppermint Pattie. It was the end of the Sunday night of Mardi Gras in New Orleans a long, long time ago. The last float had passed, the crowd dispersed, and the party retreated upstairs to an apartment far above the muck below for some post-parade libations. All matters of the day settled, two more days of revelry on the horizon, the atmosphere inside nestled into the sweet smugness of good times rolling along...that is, until one member of the party--a friend--was motivated enough by a sudden craving to excuse herself from the carnival laissez-faire. She announced her intentions of a brief absence and set out across the street to where, in the banged up freezer of an old convenience store, would hopefully lie the frozen, artificially flavored mint delight of her deepest desire: a York Peppermint Pattie. She dodged carnival sludge and scattered, discarded beads in the street, for the street cleaners had not yet made their way to this slice of the avenue. She could hear them in the distance, beyond the arching oaks covered in colorful beads and the muted hollering of pop-up parties that dotted the route. She crossed not one, but two streetcar tracks, dodged more sludge and gooky parade throws until before her, lit up like a beacon of hope, was the blinking K under which she could “get the sensation.” But she suddenly had to “go”--a need to pee that came on as fast as the need for a Peppermint Pattie. How could she get the sensation properly while holding it in? To her right was a line of Porta Potties. It wasn’t ideal conditions, but it was better than rushing through her frozen mint chocolate moment. So she entered the last one in a line of publicly used and abused filth pots, locked the door, and did her business, unaware that pulling into the parking lot was the truck that would transport the pots of stinky gold to wherever they go to be cleaned. She also didn’t hear the sequence of padlocks clicking into place down the row of potties. It wasn’t until her door briefly rattled that she heard anything. Had a truck driven by or a gust of wind blown by? She wiped, zipped up, unlatched and pushed on the door, the peppermint pleasure seconds away. Only the door didn’t open but a tiny crack, and dangling in front of her eye was a padlock, quite definitely locked in place. Holy hell, I’m trapped , she thought. Holy hell, I’m trapped in a Porta Potty! It was the kind of realization usually accustomed to nightmare scenarios that belong in “would you rather” games? Would you rather be trapped in a Porta Potty or trapped in a tiny room with ten tarantulas? Dear God, I don’t know the answer! First, she screamed, “Help! Let me out!” until she was hoarse. No answer. Then she banged on the door until her fists hurt. Still no answer. Then she resigned her mind to the idea that she would either spend the night in a Porta Potty or die by death of toxic funk stench. The first would likely lead to the second. She thought about her brief 22 years on Earth--her parents, her boyfriend, all the dreams she never reached and that her death would probably turn into an urban legend. Until the end of time, at festivals and public gatherings all over the world, those with weak bladders would enter Porta Potties and joke to their friends, “Make sure no one locks me in!” Then she heard the worst sound she’d ever heard in her entire 22 years: the screeching sound of the motor of whatever machine drags a Porta Potty onto a truck. She pushed on the door and twisted her head so she could assess her inevitable doom. The Porta Potties were being connected to a mechanism that first dragged, then tilted them into the truck until they were upright again. Forget Mardi Gras sludge! She’d be covered in shit, swimming in shit, and undoubtedly die from shock of so much shit! Oh, hell no! This is not gonna go this way! So she pounded and yelled and kicked and screamed with all her might until, upon pushing on the door one last time, there on the other side of the padlock was another eye. She jumped back and then pushed on the door again. “What are you doing in there?” The voice of the eye was a weak, wavering voice. “What do you think?” she asked. “You’re not supposed to be in there,” the eye scolded her. “Well, you’re not supposed to lock me in!” she said. “Don’t you check these things before you lock them?” “It’s almost midnight.” The eye wouldn’t be discredited. But neither would she. “So! People still need to pee!" “You really should be more careful,” the eye began. “You should always bring someone with you when you go out like this.” Meanwhile, she was still stuck inside a Porta Potty and the eye was still outside in the land of fresh air. “Um, can you let me out, please?” she begged. The voice from the eye sighed, like maybe our friend's lack of judgment made her deserving of a few extra minutes surrounded by a day's worth of urine and carnival crap. Then, rather reluctantly, the padlock was released, and our peppermint protagonist burst through the door, gasping for air and sucking life into her lungs like she’d just been born. “Thank you,” she exhaled to the eye, which she now observed belonged to the oldest looking human being she’d ever seen. And she realized that it was no wonder he hadn’t heard her. He was 110 years old, probably half deaf, and yet moved with the pace of someone who acted like he had all the time in the world. He was a captor to be forgiven--just doing his job, though pretty badly. She shook his hand. She had been freed from death by human feces. That called for a generous dose of the human spirit. Then as if none of it had ever happened, she waltzed into the Circle K, meandered over to the freezer, and bought the only Peppermint Pattie still on the shelf. Either Peppermint Patties were a popular post-parade fare, or so unpopular were they that the one in her hand was as old as the eye itself. But none of that mattered, and as she sank her teeth into the curious blast of winter that settled onto her taste buds and ventilated her nostrils, a new perspective unleashed in her psyche. Shit happens, and sometimes it happens that we become trapped in it. Smelly, yes. repulsive, of course. But more than gross, it can be infectious--if we are weak to it. Shit tricks us into thinking it will always be this way, multiplying one negative thought on the other--despair on top of doubt on top of hopelessness. Job was, you might say, trapped in a Porta Potty right there in the desert, despairingly dejected and despondent. Like Job, it is far easier to let shit consume our outlook, define our future, yank us from hope, and control our thoughts, because whether we’re stuck in a Porta Potty or stuck in any terrible circumstance, it’s always easier to lose. Was it the day drinking turned night drinking talking, or had our friend experienced a life-changing nuance from within that Porta Potty? What if we considered all the problems consuming our fighting spirit to be nothing more than shit inside a Porta Potty? Your failing relationship, my anxious thoughts, this one's motherhood woes, that one's professional problems...your piles of crap and mine...what if we recognize that our losing response to our troubles is as infectious as the crap that almost compromised our poor, innocent, Peppermint Pattie-seeking friend? And furthermore, what if we decided that our moxie wasn’t going to go down with the shit of the world? What if instead we burst through our trapped door and breathe in a fresh perspective, one that refuses to succumb to negativity, refuses to give up hope for something better, and refuses to be taken down by the crap we permit to surround us? One that ultimately turns its back on all the muck and yuck and proclaims, "I know that my redeemer lives!" (Job 19:25), a resilience that knows we permit what our attitude promotes, one that leaves the past in the past, and gets on with living and believing, or, in the case of our friend, leaves the shit in the Porta Potty and gets on with the sensation for which she crossed St. Charles Avenue at midnight. I know enough to know that perspective can be found in the most unlikely places—like a used Porta Potty—but only if we’re open to perspective. Our friend teaches us a few lessons: never go to a public bathroom alone; never change direction without alerting your party firs; but more than anything, never let the shit get the best of you. If it isn’t worth the weight, don’t carry it into the future. Leave it in the toilet where it belongs. Our friend’s story didn’t reach urban legend status, yet it does have the makings of a sensational question: Would you rather be trapped in a Porta Potty of someone else's shit for ten minutes, or spend a lifetime trapped in a Porta Potty of your own making? Annie D. Stutley lives and writes in New Orleans, La. She edits several small publications and contributes to various print and online magazines. Her blog, " That Time You, " was ranked in the Top 100 Blogs by FeedSpot. To read more of her work, go to her website , or follow her at @anniedstutley or Annie D. Stutley-writer on Facebook. Return to our Spring 2023 Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Being a Faith Chaplain in a Secular World By Rev. Dr. Anne-Louise Critchlow As a chaplain, I am allowed to talk about faith or pray with a client if that is what he or she wants. Like many people in our secular and even religious society, I am to be there for ‘those of all faiths or none.’ Like many of us, I work for a company that, while endorsing ‘good moral values,’ does not want to propagate Christian beliefs. So, why would this company want a chaplain to work with its staff and clientele? As far as my employers are concerned, they want me to be concerned with the well-being of their residents (over 55s, some of whom live in independent living units, while some in residential care houses). According to my terms of employment: I can show pastoral care by engaging with residents’ problems and worries; I can give bereavement counseling and advice; I can promote community events; and I can even contribute to their understanding of their own spirituality! However, ‘spirituality’ is a cover-all term for enjoyment of music, poetry, art, and nature. “Everyone has spirituality,” says those interested in this term, “But it may or may not involve specific beliefs or religion, and we should not try to impose our beliefs on anyone.” As a chaplain, I am allowed to talk about faith or pray with a client if that is what he or she wants. Like many people in our secular and even religious society, I am to be there for ‘those of all faiths or none.’ Those of all faiths or none… Have you heard this phrase before? It is very likely that you have because it is used by those who work in education, local councils, hospitals, and anyone in the caring professions. This phrase allows us to include everyone without discrimination (which is helpful), but it also appears to stop those who have a particular religious conviction from sharing it with others. It is a very common remit in the twenty-first century – a sort of catch-all label that means I should offend no one and treat all beliefs as if they are the same, thus supporting the idea that what is true for me may not be true for you. It appears to be the ultimate in tolerance, and tolerance is one of the gods of our secular age. So, how can I work as a chaplain while being true to my faith convictions? You might object, “Surely the apostles were very direct in the way they evangelized? Why can’t we be the same?” You can try being very outspoken if you like, but you will soon find you are dismissed from your job. It is also dishonest to agree to your terms of employment and then override them. As for the apostles, they weren’t being paid by a secular employer, and looking closer at some stories in the Acts of the Apostles, we see that Paul engaged with different audiences and different worldviews in a variety of ways, and we would be well advised to do the same. He discussed the Good News with those in authority in the synagogue, appealing to their knowledge of their own religion, but when he spoke to the citizens of Athens in the Areopagus, he was careful to quote their own poets, as a starting point in the discussion. (Acts 17:28) The early apostles started where their audiences were in terms of culture and understanding, and we can do the same. Listening to where people are in their understanding of life is always worthwhile. Once people feel valued by us, they may trust us to open up about what they really feel, especially about their spiritual concerns. It is a privilege to be invited into their world and their worries; however, we should proceed respectfully. “I’d like to chat to the chaplain, as long as she doesn’t mention God,” one of our residents told the housekeeper. I spent an hour listening to the tragic events of her life and the anxieties she had endured. I asked her the odd question, seeking clarification, but, as she had requested, there was no mention of God. The next time I met her, I listened again. Suddenly, she blurted out, “So, what do you think about believing in God when I have shared with you all of my sufferings?” “Are you sure you want me to talk about that?” I inquired carefully. “Yes, I do,” she replied. After a long discussion, she asked me to pray for her. All this from a resident who had asked me not to mention God! Her life story also points out the truth of the fact that we should not lightly dismiss suffering or sound as though we have easy answers for someone’s personal difficulties. Sometimes, just being alongside them is enough for them to know that they are loved and understood. Nor should we stereotype the sort of person who might be open to God. I had a request from a long-term alcoholic to pray for him, when all the more outwardly respectable people in the housing unit showed no interest in faith at all. The next time I saw him, he had turned his back on addiction – quite an answer to prayer! An ex-soldier suffering from PTSD and heaving drinking was behaving terribly to staff and residents alike. The business director was surprised by his request: “I want to see the chaplain.” We prayed together over a number of months, and when he was diagnosed with a terminal illness, he put his faith in Jesus. I was limited by my work agreement, but he was not limited at all in what he told his fellow residents about his hope of eternal life. In his will, he asked that I take his funeral – what a privilege! Events for residents – body, mind, and spirit I advertise such events with complete transparency so that residents can stay away if they are so inclined. By having a laugh together and sharing on a human level, they relax, and when I tell them a story about how God has forgiven me or if I share a parable or written prayer, they don’t turn away. My secular employer acknowledges that everyone has a spiritual part of their nature, and how true that is. I find that as people get older, they want to know more about their spirituality and experience God. The extraordinary power of prayer No government or company or department can legislate against prayer. I pray for all the places and people I visit, and God answers those prayers! One resident, Betty, was given two weeks to live, suddenly realized she didn’t know how she was going to meet God. She had only met me once when I had prayed for her, but now she felt the force of that prayer, and she asked to see me again. I told her the story of the lost sheep, and she asked to be found by the Good Shepherd. Another Christian resident was made to sign an agreement with her housing provider, affirming that she would not share her faith with the other residents. She was very upset, but she prayed for her fellow residents. On my next visit to her house, I presented an Easter experience event – again with a mixture of games, a quiz, and crafts, but also the power of the Easter story. Who does not need to know about forgiveness and the hope of eternal life? All the people she had silently prayed for came to that event. She said to me later, “Anne-Louise, I thought that God’s work through me had been stopped, but he sent you to do the work instead.” We agreed that we had an unseen partnership! The challenge of dementia Can you communicate the love of God to someone who has lost their mind and memory? God is not hindered, nor should we feel so hindered. While in a discussion with a group of residents about Easter memories, suddenly a resident with dementia, who could hardly speak, sang “There is a green hill far away.” We sang the hymn together, and she recounted what she had heard in Sunday school as a child. (This should be an encouragement to Sunday school teachers!) “Deep calls to deep.” (Psalm 42 v. 7) God speaks to people through recalled memory. We, too, can speak the truth to the memories in the caverns of one’s mind and heart. Restrictions are no barrier to the real work of God I have seen this truth in all areas of work. When I worked with Street Pastors, a Christian organization, we could not share our faith openly when in partnership with the Council and the Police on the streets and in the pubs, but we were allowed to answer questions and respond to requests for prayer. Again and again, we saw people relaxing when they were under no pressure, and we were guests ‘on their turf.’ Because of their feeling of authority, they shared their problems with us openly, asked for prayer, and thanked us for what we were doing. I told more people about Jesus on the streets under those restrictions than I did in the church building. I now wonder whether the politically correct restrictions on faith imposed in the workplace are as detrimental as I once thought. One thing is sure: God has his own way of speaking to people, whether we are ready or not. Let us not be afraid of secular employers and restrictions. No one can stand in the way of God’s work, of drawing His people to Himself. Rev. Dr. Anne-Louise Critchlow has been a teacher of English Literature, a church pastoral worker, and a chaplain in France, North Africa, Manchester, and Bristol (UK). She is married with four children and thirteen grandchildren. She now works southwest of England as a chaplain. Previous Next

Fr. Timothy Joyce, OSB, STL continues his regular blog, “Monastic Scribe”, where he reflects on "what I may have learned from all these years and what I am still trying to learn." Fr. Timothy notes, “I do not speak on behalf of Glastonbury Abbey, the Archdiocese of Boston or the Catholic Church, though I hope my faith is in harmony with all these. Any error in judgment should be credited to me and not anyone else.” < Back Fr. Timothy Joyce, OSB, STL Contributor Fr. Timothy Joyce, OSB, STL continues his regular blog, “ Monastic Scribe ”, where he reflects on "what I may have learned from all these years and what I am still trying to learn." Fr. Timothy notes, “I do not speak on behalf of Glastonbury Abbey, the Archdiocese of Boston or the Catholic Church, though I hope my faith is in harmony with all these. Any error in judgment should be credited to me and not anyone else.” Jesus Meets Mr. Spock

< Back The Fork in the Road David Ritter "...And I'm ever grateful for His guidance." I came upon a fork in the road and paused to have a look. I was weary and filled with burdens, ashamed of past roads I took. The road I was on was battered and worn. I feared another mistake. So I bowed my head to say a prayer, before choosing which road to take. After my prayer, I looked to my left, that path was cold, dark, and bare. And I would have wandered off that way, if my God did not care. He spoke to me in a still small voice, “Why not try something new? You don’t have to keep living this way, there’s a better road for you.” I humbly mustered up the courage, to step towards the right. Suddenly I became misty-eyed, in God’s glorious light. The path was warm, bright, and peaceful, His love gently flowed. And I’m ever grateful for His guidance, facing the fork in the road. This poem is republished with permission. David Ritter is a Christian author and founder of the website Ritter's Rhyme and Reason . He can be followed at these handles: Etsy Store: https://thememoriesikeep.etsy.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheMemoriesIKeep/ Amazon Author Page : https://www.amazon.com/stores/David-Ritter/author/B0745HTLWH?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_3&qid=1596169661&sr=1-3&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true Click the cover image to return to Spring 2024. Previous Next

< Back How to Destroy a Culture David Cowles Oct 20, 2022 OMG, what have I done? I’ve just given you "The Ultimate Imperialists’ Cookbook!" As you stand on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, it’s easy to imagine that you’re surveying human society’s universal floor plan. You’re not! It turns out that human society has developed along a number of different trajectories. The world you and I live in is just one of those trajectories, albeit the currently dominant one. What are the defining characteristics of our branch of the social tree? Here are my Top 10 (yours might differ slightly): Technology Private Property An Entrepreneurial Economy (even in titular socialist countries) Language (with recursive syntax and active voice dominance) Widespread literacy (most people can and do read) Universal numeracy (everyone can and does count) Law and law enforcement (police, courts, prisons, etc.) Nation states A Standing Military Democracy (or at least a nod thereto) It won’t surprise you to hear that these social structures are not universally applauded. Many efforts have been made to alter the fabric of society. Meet the Utopians, the Luddites, the ‘Reds’ (communists), the ‘Blacks’ (anarchists), and the ‘Greens’ (eco-terrorists). Each of these, and many others, have criticized the structure of the current social order; none has been able to effect substantial, long-term change. Ironically, many attempts at ‘reform’ end up reinforcing the very features of society that they were intended to modify. But it might surprise you to learn, unless you are a regular reader of Aletheia Today Magazine (ATM) and Thoughts While Shaving (TWS) , that there are numerous societies, thriving today, that have few, if any, of these defining characteristics. Are these the radical social experiments of superannuated hippies? Sorry to disappoint. With few, if any, exceptions, these are ‘traditional societies’ with long histories, some reaching back to the Stone Age. Many are resistant to change, not out of any sense of 19 th century ideological purity, but out of simple pragmatism: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it . Exposed to the wealth and ‘wisdom’ of today’s dominant culture (i.e., ours), some of these ancient societies have chosen to assimilate. Others have not. In previous ATM and TWS posts( “Meet the Piraha,” “Speaking Piraha,” and “Xiaco Can’t Count,” ) , we have introduced readers to the Piraha, a semi-isolated tribe in the Brazilian rainforest. Let’s evaluate their culture according to my “Top 10” (above): Technology? Hunter-gatherer. Private Property? Incidentals only. An Entrepreneurial Economy? No innovation. Language? Yes, but lacking ‘recursion’ (no subordinate clauses, etc.). Widespread literacy? Zero literacy. Universal numeracy? Zero numeracy (in fact, Piraha don’t have numbers). Law and law enforcement? None. Nation State? Irrelevant. A Standing Military? Are you nuts? Democracy? Consensual decision-making. The Piraha have had contact with the ‘outside world’ for many decades: Brazilian river traders, neighboring tribes in the process of assimilation, missionaries, and, of course, anthropologists. Because they are a small tribe and reasonably accessible, the Piraha have had every opportunity to assimilate. No dice! Sure, they value some of our ‘goods’ (chiefly medicines), but they don’t see this as sufficient reason to overthrow their social structure, to abandon their traditions…or to learn arithmetic! Now from the Stone Age to the Space Age! We’re following in the footsteps of that great explorer of worlds Jean Luc Picard. But times have changed. We are no longer governed by the prime directive. Instead, our leaders have adopted the ‘Columbian’ model of intercultural relations. Sadly, we’ve been told to suppress the indigenous cultures we encounter, forcing them to assimilate. OMG, what have I done? I’ve just given you The Ultimate Imperialists’ Cookbook (see above): everything you need to know to destroy a culture. As atomic scientist Robert Oppenheimer said, paraphrasing the Bhagavad-gītā, “Now I have become death, the destroyer of worlds.” Must I spell it out? Create a desire for consumer goods and for the technology needed to create them. (Learn from the successful business models employed by the drug pushers at your middle school…and by Bill Gates: make people want what you have, and then make sure they can’t get it anywhere else). Private Property will evolve naturally from the proliferation of goods. Reward those who undertake economic initiatives. If lacking, introduce recursion and an active voice verb form into the indigenous language. (see below) Emphasize the 3R’s: universal literacy and numeracy. Introduce laws to protect emerging private property and to regulate burgeoning commerce. Enforce those laws via a system of police, courts, and prisons. Create a standing army to ward off attacks by neighboring planets jealous of your sudden material success. Replace consensual decision-making with ‘democracy:’ majority rule, representative government, universal suffrage, ‘free and fair elections’ and a secret ballot. I have said too much. Let me close with one clarification. Dominant culture requires language that includes recursion (the ability to relate unrelated concepts) and active voice. The first is necessary for propaganda (stereotyping, fake news); the second for production. 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 Loaves and Fishes David Cowles Oct 10, 2024 “God is where he most needs to be, doing what he most needs to do.” Even folks with no religious background know what you mean when you mention the multiplication of loaves and fishes. The story has entered into popular culture, like Noah’s Ark for example. And why not? It’s miraculous, it’s spectacular, and it’s a perfect expression of Christ as the source of material and spiritual nourishment. All four canonical gospels include a ‘multiplication’ narrative – which is somewhat unusual outside of the Passion. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark, probably the two oldest, each include two ‘multiplication accounts’. Hmm, 6 accounts in 4 Gospels…someone must think this is important! According to Mark, Jesus fed 5,000 pilgrims on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee and a few weeks later 4,000 pilgrims on the southern shore. Some scholars have suggested that both accounts might refer to a single event, remembered differently in different traditions or told twice for dramatic effect. But our Enlightenment driven desire to minimize the miraculous element in the Jesus’ ministry is especially inappropriate here. The first event, by itself, tells a great story. But it is the second event that reveals what’s actually going on. It is precisely the juxtaposition of the two events that reveals the real significance of both. Let’s break it down. Jesus first feeds 5,000 pilgrims with just 5 loaves of bread (and a few fish); his disciples collect 12 baskets of scraps. Next time, he has 7 loaves to work with and only 4,000 pilgrims to satisfy. Easy-peasy. But when the disciples gather in the scraps, they only fill 7 baskets this time. According to the rules of arithmetic, we should have expected 21: ((7/4)/(5/5)) x 12 = 21. But we only get 7. How come? Is Jesus running out of steam? Are the apostles skimming? Is bread falling off the back of the donkey cart…in Galilee of all places? I mean, we’re all familiar with ‘shrinkage’…but this is ridiculous. Or is something else going on? If you find these details baffling, you’re in the very best of company. The apostles themselves didn’t have a clue…and this exasperated Jesus to no end: “Do you still not understand? Do you not remember the 5 loaves for the 5,000 and how many baskets you took up? Or the 7 loaves for the 4,000 and how many baskets you took up? How do you not comprehend…” (Matthew 16: 9-11) Of course, they still didn’t understand…and neither do we. I’m reminded of 1st grade when Sister Martha Mary was trying to teach the class basic addition. When she got to 2+2 = 4, there was one boy in the front row who simply could not get it (like me in 7th grade French). Sister had the patience of a saint but after 20 minutes, even she could contain herself no longer: “How do you not get this?” she shouted. Maybe not the best pedagogical technique but, hey, even the very best of us can get frustrated! A case can be made that the apostles never did figure it out! Mark and Matthew tell of both miracles. But even they fail to elucidate the significance of the numbers. Now fast forward to the later Gospels of Luke and John; they only mention the first multiplication story. How come? Is it possible that these New Testament Titans drank the ‘one miracle’ KoolAid? In the case of Luke, I think the answer is probably, “Yes.” Luke learned from Paul and Paul learned from the other apostles, especially Peter and James. There is every reason to believe that the details, the significance of which nobody clearly grasped, were lost in transmission. John is a more difficult case. Though a teenager at the time, he was nonetheless an ‘earwitness’ to these events. Of course, he wrote his Gospel in his ‘senior years’, more half a century after the events themselves…but still, we’re talking about one of the great intellects of Western civ. The only explanation I can come up with, and it’s not a good one, is that he had even more important ideas to convey. What about Jesus himself? He might have said, “Remember the times I fed multitudes with just a few loaves and fish and we had baskets full of scraps left over?” But instead, he focuses on the exact numbers (above). So…can we see now, 2 millennia later? Let’s try! First, the raw numbers themselves are significant. 12 is the # of the tribes of Israel; it is also the # of signs in the Zodiac. It represents the whole, the entirety. 7 is the # of the Sabbath; it represents fulfillment, God’s rest (7th day in Genesis). From it we derive the weekly ‘sabbath’ (7th day) and the ‘sabbatical’ (7th) year. Most importantly, the 7th sabbatical year (7 x 7 = 49) leads directly to a Jubilee year (the 50th) Hot Link, the ultimate expression of harmony and peace. Do all these numbers add up to a coherent narrative? 5 loaves/5,000 → 12 baskets, 7 loaves/4,000 → 7 baskets. The first ‘miracle’ provides the base case: 5 loaves feed 5,000 pilgrims with 12 baskets left over. That’s some doggie bag, BTW! But it’s the second miracle that explains the first and, potentially at least, lets us know ‘what’s happening’. Compare the 2nd input (7/4) with the first (5/5). Now compare the 2nd output (7) with the first (12). Notice how carefully these numbers were chosen. The numbers 5 and 7 appear twice. Jesus did not want the apostles to need a calculator to understand his message, so he made the math ‘easy’. Well, not easy enough apparently. The ratio of the inputs (7/4 : 5/5) is just 7/4 since 5/5 = 1 (thank you, Jesus). The ratio of the output is 7/12. See where this is headed (7/7 also equals 1, thanks again)? Now just divide the simplified input ratio (7/4) by the simplified output ratio (7/12) et voila… the 7’s cancel and you end up with 3, glorious 3, the number of the Trinity, a number representing the power of God. This cannot possibly be coincidental: the numbers are too peculiar…too precise…and too significant. Critically, this formula only works for the precise ratios cited by Matthew and Mark: 5/5/12 and 7/4/7. There is nothing accidental or haphazard about it! Critics of Judeo-Christian theology are fond of saying, “Your God is a ‘god of the gaps’!” You better believe he is! But our God is not some Baal, filling the shortfall measure for measure. Not our God! When he fills a gap, he fills it three-fold in accordance with his Trinitarian nature. Another way of saying this, “God is where he most needs to be, doing what he most needs to do.” 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 At the Beginning of the World: Dinosaurs, Genesis, and the Gift of Science Joe Terrell The Bible isn’t a science textbook. And we shouldn’t expect it to operate as one. When I was ten years old, our church library ordered a book called Dinosaurs and The Bible . I couldn’t have been more excited. Like most ten-year-olds, I was a huge dinosaur nerd. When I grew up, I wanted to be a paleontologist, and I could rattle off the Latin names for all my favorite dinosaurs. The week the book arrived at our church, the pastor told the congregation their children needed to read the book – especially if they were receiving “public school education.” I was, of course, the first in line to borrow it from the church library. The crux of Dinosaurs and the Bible hinged on the idea that since God created everything in six literal days (about 10,000 years ago), dinosaurs and humans definitely co-existed at the same time in history. I devoured the book. It was filled with wild artwork, colorful charts, and scientific explanations of key Biblical passages. However, the more I read Dinosaurs and the Bible , the more uneasy I became. The first red flag was the book’s chapter about Noah’s Ark, which claimed that in order to fit dinosaurs on the ark to save them from the Great Flood, God probably helped Noah by either shrinking the dinosaurs or giving him dinosaur eggs. Okay, weird , I thought. But I can go with it . But it was the book’s final chapter about my favorite dinosaur – the Tyrannosaurus Rex – that finally tipped me over the edge. Deemed the “King of the Dinosaurs,” the T-Rex was a ferocious predator the size of a school bus. But, the book claimed that since pain and death didn’t exist prior to The Fall, the T-Rex was originally designed by God as a plant-eating reptile . The chapter even included an illustration of the T-Rex using its fearsome jaws to crack open and eat watermelons . I distinctly remember closing the book, glancing over to the plastic T-Rex toy on my nightstand, and thinking, There’s no way . I returned the book, disappointed and more than a little confused. But, like most young Christians, I buried my questions and split my scientific worldview in half . On one side, I had Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, and the Tower of Babel . And, on the other, I had dinosaurs, cavemen, the Ice Age, and extinction-level asteroid impacts . A secret bargain was struck between my opposing worldviews: they could peacefully coexist as long as they never overlapped . That compromise was easy to maintain in small-town East Texas. In Sunday school (and most of my high school science classes), the “theory” of evolution was regularly ridiculed and dismissed . In college, things got a bit more complicated. My degree track required a couple of science classes, so I signed up for the two easiest courses I could find – Oceanography and Geology. In my science classes, my scientific preconceptions weren’t so much as challenged as they were simultaneously and completely ignored and obliterated . Suddenly, the questions were coming at me faster than my theological framework could handle. For example, If we have fossilized evidence of interactions between Wooly Mammoths and early humans, how come we don’t have the same evidence for people and dinosaurs? If most of the fossil record is a result of a worldwide flood, why are fossils stratified across geological layers that seem to imply distinct periods of ecological diversity? Shouldn’t the bones of dinosaurs, mammals, and humans be all mixed up in the same rock layers? It takes the light from some distant stars hundreds of millions of years to reach Earth. Shouldn’t the universe be at least that old? And, as a Christian, am I supposed to ignore all the pre-human remains and artifacts we’ve uncovered that pre-date human civilization by tens of thousands of years? The two halves of my scientific worldview had finally collided and revealed several irreconcilable differences. Would I trust the infallible Word of God? Or would I backslide into the cold embrace of modern science? Weird Science When it comes to Christianity’s relationship with science and creation, there are three primary points of view (though variations exist within each): Young Earth Creationism : God created life, the universe, and everything in six literal and sequential days. The age of the Earth can be determined by counting and tracing back the genealogies in Genesis. Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism : God created everything in six literal days, but large gaps of time passed between each of the “days.” Evolutionary Creationism : God created everything, but did so through the testable and observable natural laws and processes He designed. One of the most prolific advocates for Young Earth Creationism is the evangelical ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG). Young Earth Creationists spin an alternative view of human history in which the Earth is only 10,000 years old ( a date derived from counting back on the Biblical genealogies found in Genesis ), but the catastrophic effects of the worldwide flood (as depicted in Genesis 7) creates the appearance of an old Earth . At the beginning of my crisis of faith, I was drawn to AiG for their hardline stances and conspiracy-like approach to “secular science.” But the deeper I dove in, the more I struggled. The Young Earth Creationism view appeared to be at odds with every major scientific discovery of the past century in the fields of geology, paleontology, astronomy, genetics, neuroscience, climatology, anthropology, and biology. It was a posture of constant warfare in a conflict that no one else seemed very interested in fighting anymore. In my mind, it was a battle between a middle-school Sunday School teacher who read a couple of articles on Answers in Genesis and a Geology professor with a doctorate and peer-reviewed research. But what if the battle was completely unnecessary? And what if we could stem the flow of casualties — people, like me, who felt as if they had to make an impossible choice? The Genesis Doctrine Since the beginning of time, people have been telling stories about how it all began . In the Babylonian creation story , the god Marduk kills the goddess Tiamat and forms the earth from her corpse. Humankind is later created to serve the gods and take care of the earth. But, humans get too loud and most are wiped out by a giant flood sent by the gods. In Norse Mythology , the All-Father Odin carved the first man and woman from two pieces of driftwood that floated ashore on a beach. He breathed life into the couple and named them Askr and Embla. In the Mayan creation account , the Creator Gods wanted to preserve their image in a new race of lesser beings that would also worship them. They tried making humans out of mud, but they crumbled in the sun. They tried again with wood, but these people had no soul and had to be destroyed by a flood. Finally, they tried with corn – the staple food of the Mayan culture – and it worked. In the Abrahamic religions , God brought the universe into existence and formed mankind from the dust of the Earth. The first human couple is placed in a garden paradise but is tricked by a talking snake into eating a magic fruit from a special tree. Where and when you were born (and how you were raised) determines which of these stories you would view as myths and which one you’d approach as fact. It’s important to remember that the Bible was not written with a twenty-first-century scientific worldview in mind . The idea that the earth is a globe spinning through the cosmos wasn’t on anybody’s radar for most of human history – especially during the late Bronze Age when Genesis was written and compiled by Moses. Instead, ancient Near East Cultures believed the world was a flat disc with waters above and below the earth . The land was held in place above the ocean below by ancient pillars. They had little to no concept of outer space. All celestial bodies – the sun, moon, and stars – resided below the solid dome that kept the ocean above from flooding the earth. Windows or doors in the dome would allow rain to fall and irrigate the land. To our modern ears, this sounds crazy. But, remember, these views were formed by people whose observations were limited by their geography and technology . And you can find the fingerprints of this ancient cosmological view in early Old Testament writings: In Genesis 1:6 – 8 , for example, we read about God creating a “vault” ( the King James Version reads “firmament” ) to separate “the water under the vault from the water above it.” In the Flood story, we’re told the “ springs of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of heaven were opened .” In Job, the main character says God “ shakes the earth from its place, and make its pillars tremble ” and “ walks on the vault of heaven .” Also in Job, God speaks about laying “ the earth’s foundation ” and “ shutting up the sea behind doors .” In multiple Psalms, we read about the earth’s foundations , the ocean above , and the doors of heaven . Of course, all of us read these verses as figurative or metaphorical now , but to an ancient Near East audience, they were references to a literal understanding of the natural world . So, instead of asking, “Is this story factually and scientifically correct?” a wiser and more helpful question would probably be, “ What is this ancient story trying to say? ” The Storyteller God Prior to the invention of reading and writing, tribes would pass their cultural history, myths, and wisdom from generation to generation through storytelling and oral tradition. Therefore, it was very important that these ancient stories were easy to remember and recite . And if you re-read the Genesis account with poetry (rather than science) in mind, a lot of things will start falling into place. Take, for example, the literary structure of Genesis 1: On Day One , God creates the cosmos. On Day Four , God fills the cosmos with stars, the sun, and the moon. On Day Two , God creates the sky and ocean. On Day Five , God fills the sky and ocean with birds and fish. On Day Three , God creates land and vegetation. On Day Six , God fills the land with animals and people. Do you see the pattern? In the first three days, God creates specific habitats . And three days after He creates each habitat, God fulfills its purpose . The lyrical cadence of the creation account in Genesis even includes a chorus (“ and it was good “) and an easy-to-memorize verse structure (the days of the week). Biblical scholar N.T. Wright puts this more eloquently in his book Surprised by Scripture : “The Genesis account is a highly poetic, highly complex narrative ; it’s main thrust has nothing to do with the number of 24-hour periods in which the world was made, and everything to do with the wisdom, goodness, and power of the God who made it. “ In other words, the Bible isn’t a science textbook. And we shouldn’t expect it to operate as one. The early Biblical authors didn’t live and write within a cultural vacuum. Remember, the most important historical event to happen to the Hebrew people was their deliverance from Egyptian slavery by Moses . The Hebrew people spent more than 400 hundred years enslaved in Egypt, and the Egyptian people had their own religious beliefs and mythologies. One of these Egyptian mythologies involved Apep , a large serpent who was known as the “Lord of Chaos” and an “Eater of Souls.” And then there was Wadjet , an Egyptian goddess who took the form of a snake . The Pharoah would wear a symbol of Wadjet on his crown , which indicated divine authority . So, when the Hebrew people listened to a story about the first couple being tricked by a snake, they did not think, “Oh, that’s the Devil!” Instead, they associated it with what they knew – the snake was symbolic of chaos, death, and – most importantly – slavery under the Egyptian Pharoah . Do you see how taking a story literally can actually strip it of its cultural significance and narrative power? (And that’s only one small example). What if focusing on the “How” and “When” of creation is just a textbook example of missing the point ? The Gift of Science Saint Augustine of Hippo was an early Christian philosopher from Africa who lived in the fourth century. He is considered by many to be one of the most influential Western theologians of all time. Like many intellectuals at the time, Augustine believed the world to be flat. However, one of his most famous works is The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, a commentary on the first book of the Bible. In the commentary, Augustine warned Christians against denying future scientific discoveries just because they didn’t line up with their interpretation of Scripture. He wrote “ it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel [non-Christian] to hear a Christian, while interpreting Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics ” and that Christians should “ take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation .” In A Flexible Faith , Bonnie Kristian writes, “Augustine worried that if Christians deny science, non-Christians will not be able to take our faith seriously. He warned against tying our theology too tightly to scientific theories that may become outdated as new discoveries are made .” In other words, Augustine thought that if Christians held onto pre-scientific ideas in the modern era about the natural world, it could literally prevent people from coming to know Christ . And that’s coming from someone who lived in the fourth century and thought the earth was a flat disc! To be honest, I really don’t think it matters much what Christians think about the first few chapters of Genesis (says the guy who just wrote a 3,000-word blog post on the subject). It holds little to no consequence on how we live our day-to-day lives. However, a Young Earth Creationist worldview can pre-package the assumption that science was out to undermine my faith. I thought all of “secular science” was propelled forward by the demonic goal of erasing God and spitting in the face of Christianity. And it led to a completely avoidable crisis of faith . Francis S. Collins – leader of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God – writes, “Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world , a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul—and the mind must find a way to embrace both realms .” You can have a high view of science and the Bible . We just have to tweak our expectations of each . It’s true that a lot of modern scientists hold atheistic or agnostic worldviews. But could that be a consequence of how Christians negatively portray the scientific community to their children? We need Christians to be at the forefront of quantum mechanics, evolutionary biology, cancer research, ecology, dietary nutrition, space exploration, climatology, and neuropsychology. Science is a gift . Along with art, it allows us the opportunity to become co-creators with God . But it is shackled with a heavy weight of responsibility. With the tools at our disposal, what type of world will we choose to create? Will we use our scientific progress to invent new ways to kill each other, pollute our planet, and exploit our natural resources for our own consumerist gain? Through science, we can heal the sick, feed the hungry, and repair the world. Through faith, we can mend the souls of the broken-hearted and the poor in spirit. United, we can bring light into the darkness – both physical and spiritual. So, let there be light . This is a republish with permission from Joe Terrell and Instrument of Mercy , a progressive Christian blog created and written by Joe Forrest. Featuring in-depth and long-form articles regarding complex and controversial issues about faith, culture, politics, and the church, the goal of Instrument of Mercy is to foster informed and constructive dialogue and encourage radical empathy among citizens of Heaven and Earth. Previous Next

< Back Nothing David Cowles Jun 4, 2024 “Nothing is the ‘space’ that allows something to occur. If it weren’t for nothing, there’d be nothing at all!” We are in love with the idea of nothing ; and why not? Something requires explanation: What is it? What’s it made of? Where did it come from…and when? How did it get here…and why? It’s an exhausting piece of work and at the end of day, we can’t be sure we’re any further along than we were when we started. Nothing on the other hand requires nothing, and we love everything that requires nothing. We love weekends, we love vacations, we love snow days…because those are the times when nothing is required of us. Genesis tells us that God created the world ex nihilo – out of nothing. Contemporary physicists agree: the universe sprang into being spontaneously, and it will return to nothing (at ‘Heat Death’ aka ‘Big Freeze’). Theologians might say that the spatiotemporal world must become nothing so that the eternal world can be all-in-all . Others say that the universe is already nothing , the energy of expansion being precisely balanced and therefore canceled by the force of gravity. We imagine nothing as though it were Plato’s Receptacle, the womb of the world. We imagine it as a vast empty space – a night sky without stars. When we think about nothing , we see ourselves standing on our back porch, drawing in a deep breath of pre-industrial air on a chilly, starless night. Nice! Nope! Nothing could be further from the truth. Astronaut-poet Michael Collins has attempted to disabuse us of our space camp fantasies. His description of a vacuum, free even of light itself, is terrifying. Imagine you are encased, alive, in a medium that is both infinitely dense and infinitely permeable. No forlorn gazes, there’s nothing to see; no deep breaths, there’s nothing to breathe; and, of course, no back porch. Tell me now, what’s to love about that? So what? Who cares? Well, we might care. Love of nothing isn’t nothing; it can have real life consequences. For example, if we love nothing , we may at some point wish to be nothing. Suicidal ideation may follow. Also, nothing is a defense-of-convenience against all forms of gnosis or ethos . Nothing is an acceptable response to any positive proposition. It offers a conceptual foundation for Nihilism, Skepticism and even Solipsism. Of course, nothing has its bright side: “No more pencils, no more books, no more teacher’s dirty looks.” Yes, nothing has a lot in common with the last day of school: “Free at last, free at last! OMG, we’re free at last?” Free to do what exactly? The euphoria of summer vacation fades quickly. It is soon replaced by the steady chant of a Tibetan monk: “I’m bored…I’m bored.” Still, nothing frees me to do whatever I want to do, whenever I want to do it. Cool beans! No rules! Now I just need to come up with something I want to do, not to mention a reason why I, or anyone else, would ever want to do it. So nothing isn’t all it’s cracked up to be! Yet, we can’t live without it! Nothing is the ‘space’ that allows something to occur. If it weren’t for nothing , there’d be nothing at all! ‘Something’ is a one word oxymoron; something can only exist in the context of nothing. Nothing and something are the ultimate dialectical pair. Nothing is what something isn’t. Literally. Therefore, whatever comes to be comes to be out of nothing . What comes to be comes to be out of what is not. Suppose there was something, just something , no nothing . It is , but it reveals no origin, no destiny, no composition, no trajectory, and no relations. Naked something is a degenerate case of Heisenberg Uncertainty. We’d know everything about its position (where it is) and therefore we’d know nothing about its momentum (where it came from, where it’s going). IRL, we know a bit about the position of things ( something ), things as they are, and a bit about the trajectory of things ( nothing ), things as they are not, but we can never know everything about both. Like quarks in a proton, something and nothing do not exist independently of one another. Something is the negation of nothing ; nothing is the negation of something . You can’t have one without the other. They are dialectic and symbiotic. Christian cosmology anticipated this state of affairs with its Trinitarian theology. According to Christian doctrine, God is process. God is the relationship between the Father (God) and the Son (God); that relationship is the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is God. Jean-Paul Sartre talked about entities that are not what they are and are what they are not. It is generally thought that he was talking exclusively about human beings. But in the cosmology outlined in this post, Sartre’s meme would apply equally to everything that is . To be is not to be what you are and to be what you are not! Being is the process of Becoming. Being is inherently restless. In an earlier TWS , we pointed out that every being includes its own negation. But that negation does not annul what is, it preserves it in a subsequent synthesis. Negation is the foundation of faith, not fear, hope, not despair. Thanks to nothing, the Universe is a perpetual process of self-preservation and improvement. When ‘my reach exceeds my grasp’ (Burns), I am reaching into nothing . Nothing creates the space for something to happen. As Being hurtles toward the Kingdom of God, spatiotemporal imperfection must give way to eternal perfection. The progression of Being from ‘spatiotemporal and imperfect’ to ‘perfect and eternal’ requires nothing , i.e. space…for growth and change. As kids in the 1950’s, whenever we were disappointed or disgusted, we would say, “Thanks for nothing!” Now, I repeat that every night in my prayers: “Thanks for nothing, God!” No, really, thanks! 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 What Is Time? An astronomer explains the search to find its origins... Sten Odenwald St. Augustine said of time, “If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain to him who asks, I don’t know.” Time is an elusive concept: We all experience it, and yet, the challenge of defining it has tested philosophers and scientists for millennia. This article was originally published in the May 2022 issue of Astronomy . Read the rest of the article here . Click the cover image to return to Spring 2024. Share Previous Next

< Back The Paradox of Childhood David Cowles “…We treat children…as pets, slaves, snuggle bunnies and proto-adults”. Children are chronic ‘not-yets’. Not yet walking, not yet talking, not yet reading. Not yet matriculated, not yet graduated. Not yet a crime boss, a hit woman, an investment banker, a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker. Not yet! Children are exactly like us, only smaller…they are us, only ‘not yet’. They are proto-parents, proto-doctors, proto-miners (those who spend their working lives in mines, extracting ore – in case you don’t remember what a ‘miner’ is), proto-cubes (those who spend their lives working in cubicles, extracting data). Children are entirely unlike us. They are curious; we are either bored or overwhelmed or both. They have boundless energy; we’re already looking forward to our next nap. They cry at the drop of a hat; we don’t show our emotions. Children cannot be controlled, and it takes an elaborate complex of rewards and punishments, emotional and physical, just to ‘manage’ their behavior; and yet… “Girls are sugar and spice and everything nice; boys are snakes and snails and puppy dog tails.” Maybe, but we treat children of all genders as pets, slaves, snuggle bunnies… and proto-adults. Of course, children are none of these things! How hard must it be then for them to play all these roles at once…and without a single acting class? Up for a ‘thought experiment’? Who’s your favorite 8 year old? Ok, now replay the hackneyed movie plot: switch bodies (ridiculous, of course). Imagine that now you’re living your life as an 8 year old…for a year. What fun! Who wouldn’t want to be a kid again? No responsibilities, no bills to pay, spending half your waking hours ‘just playing’. Not quite so much fun when the giants you live with hurt you, demean you, berate or belittle you. You’d like to make them happy, but it’s not as easy as they would like us to believe. “Just be Good,” but HOW when the constellation of expectations shifts inexplicably from circumstance to circumstance? My father was an Eagle Scout. When I was 12, I followed in his footsteps and joined the Boy Scouts. One night I came home excited. I had just passed my first test. I was a tenderfoot now, and I couldn’t wait to tell my Dad all about it. He was furious. Something about my story, something I’d said, something I’d done, I still don’t know what, rubbed him the wrong way. Needless to say, that ended my brief flirtation with BS. Not quite so much fun when you’re forced to idle in school for 6 hours a day. Sadly, we have found a way to make the process of learning boring and its contents nonsensical – not easy to do in a world as wonderous as ours! We’ve figured out how to transform boundless curiosity into unrelenting boredom. We have become death, the destroyer of worlds. (Oppenheimer) Did you imagine your year would be all fun and games? You’re in a world where everything is either threatening or meaningless, terrifying or boring. Your year will be one of physical fear, social anxiety, and, did I mention it, crushing boredom. Parents, teachers, cops, bullies, pit bulls, bees and bed…and you 4’ 6” and 85 pounds soaking wet. Did your tween/teen ever yell at you, “This house is a prison?” That’s because it is! “But my children love me!” Ok, but have they also learned to ‘go along to get along’? And be honest – isn’t that exactly how you’ve raised them? “My boy is just like me; he’s grown up just like me.” (Harry Chapin) Nothing is worse than being a child…unless it’s being an adult. You want nothing more than to be a kid again while you kids want nothing more than to be… you . I mean, just exactly how crazy is that? Do things have to be this way? Clearly not. In ‘less civilized’ societies, for example, things are often different. Take an Amazonian tribe, the Piraha as an example. They impose no expectations on their children and make almost no effort to regulate their behavior. Punishment of any sort is virtually unknown. Of course, there’s a trade-off. Pirahanese children are quite literally ‘out-of-control’ all the time…but they are never malicious. Why would they be? They have nothing to rebel against ! As a 50 year old, you might not choose to live the Pirahanese lifestyle; but as a 5 year old, you’d love it. We take our children to Disney World. Pirahanese children live in Disney World. By current Euro-American standards, Pirhanese children are neglected; but by the standards of the Pirhana, they are simply respected. Euro-American adults cannot wait to have children. They’ll spend tens of thousands of dollars to treat infertility issues in hope of a single live birth. But once our angelic children are born, we can’t wait for them to grow up and ‘act like adults’. We have goals for our children: sleeping through the night, weaned, toilet trained, etc. To Pirahanese parents, the idea that these eventualities should be viewed as ‘goals’ seems non-sensical. All these things will happen organically, in their own time, without any adult intervention. Much worse, we plan our children’s lives for them before they know there’s anything to plan. “Sally’s going to be a teacher, I’m sure, and she’ll be good at it; she loves to explain things to other kids, and Skip? Well, he’s our budding little MD. I mean, ‘gag me with a spoon’!" Everything is upside down. The kids are trying to fashion a personality and a character; they are deciding, how, where, if at all, they want to be part of the social fabric. And us? Well, we are constantly getting in their way. Tell me, do you see a happy outcome here? 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 Next

< Back Hide and Seek David Cowles Apr 25, 2024 “Being is a game of hide-and-seek…Enjoy it now but know that no one will ever find you.” It looks like an auto salvage yard. Our effort to prove the existence of things has littered the logical landscape with wrecks, now mercifully stored more or less out of sight in junk yards like this one. Proving that something exists should be easy. “Hello, I’m here!” But not so fast! “Hello, I’m here,” is exactly what I would expect to hear from you if you didn’t exist. Huh? Point is, claiming to be is not the same as actually being . Sidebar : You’re 10 years old (now…or again) and you’re playing hide-and-seek with your friends, as usual. This time, however, your friends aren’t able to find you. Bored, you come out of hiding, “Here I am.” But to your surprise, you get no reaction. It’s like they don’t see you…or hear you. Then you overhear one of your friends say, “He’s not here, he must have gone home,” and they leave you standing all alone in the forest. Being is like that; it’s a game of hide-and-seek. We hide, but no one ever comes looking. Enjoy it now but know that no one will ever find you. It’s scary… and lonely! “Claiming to be is not the same as being,” or is it? According to Rene Descartes, cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am). Well, that might work for Rene, but does it work for anyone else? Rene might be convinced that he exists but that won’t get him a grande at Starbucks…unless he can conjure up $3.49 as well. He says he thinks - who am I to judge? But that’s just the point: who am I to judge? I can either blindly accept Rene’s word for things (faith?)…or I can remain agnostic. Rene may have convinced himself that he exists, but he hasn’t convinced me. Come to think of it, neither have you! Nor has God; nor has the so-called External World (aka, the Cosmos). Turns out, nothing has ever been able to prove to anyone that it exists; and nothing ever will. No wonder “there was silence in heaven for about half an hour” when the final (7th) seal was opened ( John of Patmos, Revelation, 8:1 ). No wonder Kierkegaard had bouts of fear and trembling. Only followers of Douglas Adams enjoy the luxury of a quiet meal at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe . But better book now, I hear the wait list is insane; and don’t leave home without it, because I’ve also heard that the bill alone can be heart stopping. What about me? Well, like Rene, I may (or may not) have satisfied myself that I exist, but I can’t prove it to you, or to anyone else, any more than Rene could. If all this sounds weird, it isn’t! The idea that existential facts lie ‘below’ the level of sensation, perception, observation, logic, and language runs throughout Western philosophy: Parmenides’ Aletheia , Plato’s Forms, Aristotle’s Potentia , John’s Logos , Kant’s Noumena , Heidegger’s Dasein , Sartre’s Neant - all fundamental constituents of reality, all well-hidden, none of them accessible to ‘existential proof’. So, to be clear, we can reason logically about relations, appearances, behaviors, etc., but we cannot use logic to determine the existence of any entity underlying those phenomena. To put it more formally, we cannot prove a proposition on one ontological level using premises from a different ontological level. Math and logic deal with structure that is necessarily the same, always and everywhere; the goal is universality. Science, for its part, deals with contingent but reproducible events; the goal is repeatability. But Being consists of one-offs; its goal is novelty. Analogy : Math/logic : Real numbers :: Science : Even numbers :: Being : Prime numbers. ‘To be’ is to be , not to be like . In fact, to the extent that anything is ‘like something else’, it is not entirely novel and therefore gives up a bit of its own being. It subcontracts out part of itself. What is is what’s novel; the rest is just scaffolding. Consider the sentence, “it is!” The subject (it) is always the entirety, the cosmos, the universal; a particular person, place, or thing often ‘stands in’ for that entirety. The predicate (is) refers only to that aspect of the subject (it) that is unique, i.e. particular: “What’s new?” The function of language, the function of every symbolic system, is to confirm the relationship between the universal and the particular. The subject of every sentence is the entirety. The predicate of every sentence is a unique configuration of qualia. Paradigm : the Christian doctrine of Incarnation. The universal, God, is a quantum of being, Christ. ‘To be’ is always a scandal, ‘the scandal of particularity’: Why this and not that, why now and not then, why here and not there? For this reason alone, ‘to be or not to be’ will always be the question , the only question. What about causality and other patterns that seem to connect events? They exist only in the world of relations; they are not part of being per se . They give you a sense of balance and stability in this crazy world; they are an antidote to fear, trembling, angst, and nausea. They function as a fixed horizon for sailors made seasick by the fickle undulation of Being . The truth value of an existential proposition, on the other hand, remains oblivious to observation, experimentation, induction, or deduction. Being is always solitary: “One is one and all alone and evermore shall be so.” 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.