Search Results

< Back Life on Mars David Cowles “Based on what we think we know about biogenesis, there should be life on Mars. If it turns out that there isn’t, somebody’s “got some ‘xplainin’ to do, Lucy.'" We estimate that Planet Earth formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago. A mere 500 million years later, its first and only ever living molecule (DNA/RNA) concresced. Today, organisms descended from that one molecule cover nearly every inch of the planet and manage to survive, nay thrive, in unimaginably hostile environments. A single human body consists of 30 trillion of these resilient little critters. Planet Earth is infested, infested with life ! Like a ball of popcorn, soaked in honey and left lying out in the hot sun, we can no longer see the ball through the swarm of ‘beneficiaries’ covering it. “Its first and only ever ?” There is no evidence that life evolved more than once on Earth. Had it, its various forms would probably not have been compatible. Perhaps none of those forms would have survived. Best case, a single architectural design would have quickly won out (as it did?). Given the state of things on Planet Earth 4 billion years ago, it is natural to wonder how likely it was that a living cell would have emerged? But probability doesn’t enter-in to this discussion! It happened once, period. There’s no guarantee it will ever happen again; make the most of it! We’re left trying to construct a probability matrix based on a sample of one; can’t do it! Imagine you have never seen a deck of playing cards before. Your terrestrial life coach invites you to ‘pick a card, any card’, and you do. Ace of Clubs. Now, what’s the probability that the next card drawn will also be an Ace of Clubs? We know that the answer is 0. But we know that only because we know how the deck is constructed. Absent that information, the question itself is meaningless. Of course, once we start finding life forms ‘off-Earth’, it will be a whole different ball game, but that time is not now. Which means biogenesis on Earth (x) could be just shy of ‘infinitely likely’, or of ‘infinitely unlikely’, to have occurred. So all we can say about P(x) is that P(x) > 0 but < 1. Given that life has evolved only once on Earth in 4 billion years and, as far as we know, nowhere else in our solar system, it is impossible to assert that biogenesis (x) has any real probability at all: i.e. that P(x) є {R}. Sidebar #1 : If {R} > P(x) > 0, we can say that P(x) is hyperreal . While we cannot say that x is possible, we cannot say that x is impossible either. Is this the statistical model of agnosticism? Sidebar #2 : If {R} > P(x) > 0, is (x) the mathematical definition of a miracle? Given what we know (a lot) about conditions on Earth over the subsequent 4 billion years, how likely is it that such a life form would have survived ? Common sense says that if life only evolved once on Earth, it could easily have been wiped out early on, perhaps never to evolve again. Common sense also suggests that states-of-affairs will likely arise in the future that are incompatible with life as we know it today. So life then is suspended between ‘what is barely conceivable’ and ‘what is virtually certain’. It occupies the space between ‘not yet’ and ‘not still’. If so, then the bio-verse itself is a ‘logical dispensation’. It is a single fecund oasis perched above a giant sinkhole. It shouldn’t be…but it is! We can say that life on Earth did evolve, and we must anticipate its eventual extinction, so the only variable here is the time span. Time span is quantifiable but like all quantities, it is comparative. Is a liter a lot or a little? Neither? Both? Once you understand the terms, the question itself makes no sense. What then is the comparison between time and no time? What is the significance of ‘one’ in a universe already known to span at least 60 orders of magnitude? About all we can say, objectively speaking, about any ‘time span’ is that it is neither instantaneous nor eternal. A grandson once referred to a now deceased friend of ours (appropriately called Big John) as ‘giant’. Was John a speck of dust (“All we are is dust in the wind” - Kansas) or the Colossus of Rhodes? Both! Conditions on Earth vary. They vary by temperature and tempest, by the density and chemical composition of the atmosphere, and by the availability of water. Yet from the top of Mount Everest to the mouth of a thermal vent on the ocean floor, there is life. From arid desert to arctic glacier, there is life. ‘Give us any gas, we’ll breathe it’ – Laverne & Shirley. O₂? It’s a breeze. CO₂? A-OK. Terrestrial life has even evolved organisms that breathe methane! Once evolved, life is amazingly durable and adaptable. The tenacity of its survival contrasts with the fragility of its birth. Can’t live without it, can’t live with it, can’t kill it! The biosphere is omni-recursive . It gradually terraforms its physical environment to make it more bio-friendly: e.g. stone becomes soil. It experiments with innumerable distinct survival strategies, called species . Finally, it creates Artificial Realities (Culture, Society) that confer additional resilience via epigenetic adaptation. The existence of ‘life’ is extremely improbable but once here…it’s here to stay! Hypothesis : The conditions necessary for the emergence of a living molecule are much more stringent than the conditions necessary for its survival. Once life happens, it’s almost impossible to snuff it out. Of course, individually, we’re all only one stray bullet away from the boneyard and even as a species, we face eventual extinction. But as far as life per se is concerned, we’re not sure what it would take to kill it off. Consider Pando , the largest organism (by mass) on Earth. (It’s a tree!) It is at least 15,000 years old but none of its constituent organs (trunks) lives more than a few hundred years. That said, the conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago were anything but bio-conducive: Heavy asteroid bombardments, high levels of radiation, zero oxygen, superabundant methane. It’s hard to imagine that conditions on Mars, even today, are any less propitious for the emergence of life than that. Martian Bio-skeptics (that’s humans skeptical of life on Mars, not Martians skeptical of life on Earth) blame the planet’s sterility on its lack of heat, air, and water. But this argument is tired. We just flew 72 helicopter missions over the Martian surface. If the planet’s atmosphere is thick enough to support flight, it’s certainly sufficient to support some form of life. Even today, conditions on Mars are probably sufficient to support biogenesis, but if not, they certainly were at some time in the past. From what we know about life, it should have emerged and evolved on Mars at more or less the same time it did on Earth. We’re looking for life on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and I hope we find it – in my lifetime, please; but isn’t it much more likely that life would have emerged on our twin planet? Based on what we think we know about biogenesis, there should be life on Mars. If it turns out that there isn’t, somebody’s “got some ‘xplainin’ to do, Lucy.'" 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 dtc@gc3incorporated.com . Return to Yuletide 2024 Previous Next

< Back Elizabeth Bradfield Contributor Elizabeth Bradfield is the author of five collections, most recently Toward Antarctica and Theorem , a collaboration with artist Antonia Contro. She has co-edited the anthologies Broadsided Press: Fifteen Years of Poetic/Artistic Collaboration and Cascadia: A Field Guide Through Art, Ecology and Poetry (forthcoming 2023). Her work has been appeared in The New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, Poetry, and her honors include the Audre Lorde Prize and a Stegner Fellowship . Founder of Broadsided Press ( www.broadsidedpress.org ), Liz works as a naturalist/guide and teaches creative writing at Brandeis University. www.ebradfield.com Again

< Back Faith Is Not Belief Without Evidence Joseph Hinman "Faith is not belief without evidence; it's the content of a relationship with God and is based upon the private experience of God's love." I am tired of hearing atheists say "faith is believing things without evidence." No definition of faith in Christianity says that. Let's Get this out of the way up front. Heb 11:1: faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the argument (argumentum) of things that are not apparent. Most translations say "evidence of things not seen."This does not say faith is belief without evidence it says faith itself is a kind of evidence because it points to the reality that caused one to have faith. The most important dictionary in theology is the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. There are two kinds, one for theologians and one for ideas. Let's consult the latter. faith (Gr. pistis, Lat. fides, “trust,” “belief”) In Christianity, belief, trust, and obedience to God as revealed in Jesus Christ. It is the means of salvation (Eph. 2:8–9) or eternal life (John 6:40). Faith affects all dimensions of one’s existence: intellect, emotions, and will. See also salvation.[1] According to that definition there is nothing like a lack of evidence. There Is no hint that faith involves a lack of evidence. Consulting the same source for different uses of the term "faith:" Faith, explicit (Lat. fides explicita) Faith in that of which one has knowledge. Thus the term may be understood as referring to what one professes to believe because of what is known.[2] Here faith is equated with knowledge. Since evidence involves knowledge and builds on knowledge it would seem that faith is actually dependent upon evidence rather than being without it. Faith, implicit (Lat. fides implicita) The Roman Catholic view that one believes as true “what the church believes,” even without certain knowledge. It was rejected by the Protestant Reformers as a true faith because the element of knowledge was lacking.[3] The Catholic view seems closer to being without evidence, but not an exact fit. In any case that view was rejected by the reformers and is not really compatible with the Protestant view.The Protestant view rests upon knowledge, which again, would have to involve evidence at some point. Thus direct contradiction to the atheist bromide. Then we turn to the protestant notion of "saving faith." That is faith that saves. Remember Paul tells us salvation is by Grace through faith:“For by grace you have been saved through faith” (Ephesians 2:8).[4] Faith, saving. The gift of God through the Holy Spirit whereby one accepts and believes the promises of the Gospel as the reception of salvation through the life and the work of Jesus Christ. One is incorporated into Christ, participates in his benefits, and is an heir of eternal life. [4] No indication is given that there is no preliminary basis for belief which might involve evidence.Before one can trust God one must believe that God is. None of these definitions preclude basing that initial belief upon evidence. It is after one accepts the conviction that God is real that faith might supersede evidence in matters such as trusting God for salvation. Let's turn to some major figures in Christian theology to see if they define faith as belief without evidence: St. Augustine Faith, to Augustine, is a humble posture of seeking and confession, in which the individual confesses their sin and brokenness before God, and by his Grace, is cleansed. The individual surrenders to the God who is already present in the soul. This initial work begins the process of cleansing the soul so that it can see clearly. As the individual continues to seek God, the soul is continually cleansed as a gracious process, which slowly flakes away the filth of the Fall. Augustine believed that much could be known through Platonic meditation: eternal things and God’s presence could be apprehended, but God could be known only for a moment.[5] Thomas Aquinas Popular accounts of religion sometimes construe faith as a blind, uncritical acceptance of myopic doctrine. According to Richard Dawkins, “faith is a state of mind that leads people to believe something—it doesn’t matter what—in the total absence of supporting evidence...Such a view of faith might resonate with contemporary skeptics of religion. But as we shall see, this view is not remotely like the one Aquinas—or historic Christianity for that matter—endorses. To begin with, Aquinas takes faith to be an intellectual virtue or habit, the object of which is God (ST IIaIIae 1.1; 4.2). There are other things that fall under the purview of faith, such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. But we do not affirm these specific doctrines unless they have some relation to God. According to Aquinas, these doctrines serve to explicate God’s nature and provide us with a richer understanding of the one in whom our perfect happiness consists (Ibid.).[6] Here again knowledge, an intellectual thing, compatible with evidence. How could faith be based upon knowledge and be an intellectual act and yet without evidence? By intellectual he means one consciously assents to belief. Marin Luther ... faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words. Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace.[7] John Wesley With a deep conviction, Wesley repeatedly stresses the necessity of faith. ‘Saving faith is a sure trust and confidence which a man has in God, that by the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven, and he is reconciled to the favour of God.’1 It is also clear that Wesley sees faith as a gift of God, although he does not emphasize that very much.[8] There is an initial coming to faith where one decides "I do believe in God." In that stage evidence is not a contradiction to belief. Most of the activity of faith involves personal trust in God's salvation and his providential care. In this regard evidece is irrelivant, unless we want to think of the content of personal experience of God as evidence.It is evidence of God's goodness. I think for the most part evidence is irrelevant to faith. Faith is not belief without evidence, it's the content of a relationship with God and is based upon the private experience of God's love. Source: This originally appeared in Metacrock's Blog and is seen here without any edits. Notes [1] "Faith," The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms,SECOND EDITION, Revised and Expanded,Donald K. McKim ed.,Louiscille Kentucky:John Knox Press, 2014. https://www.mybibleteacher.net/uploads/1/2/4/6/124618875/the_westminster_dictionary_of_theological_terms_by_donald_k._mckim__z-lib.org_.epub.pdf [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid. [5] Mark Hansard, "Faith and Reason, Part 2 Augustine," Intervaristy: Emerging Scholars Network, (August 18,2018) https://blog.emergingscholars.org/2018/08/faith-and-reason-part-2-augustine-summer-2018-series/ [6]Shawn Floyd,"Aquinas Philosoph8ical Theology,"Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy, https://iep.utm.edu/thomas-aquinas-political-theology/#SH3a [7]An excerpt from "An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans," Luther's German Bible of 1522 by Martin Luther, 1483-1546. Translated by Rev. Robert E. Smith from DR. MARTIN LUTHER'S VERMISCHTE DEUTSCHE SCHRIFTEN. Johann K. Irmischer, ed. Vol. 63 Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), pp.124-125. [EA 63:124-125] https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/martin-luthers-definition-faith [8]J. W. Maris, "John Wesley's Concept of Faith," Christian Library taken from Lux Mundi 2010 https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/john-wesleys-concept-faith https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408765 Joseph Hinman's new book is God, Science and Ideology. Hinman argues that atheists and skeptics who use science as a barrier to belief in God are not basing doubt on science itself but upon an ideology that adherer's to science in certain instances. This ideology, "scientism," assumes that science is the only valid form of knowledge and rules out religious belief. Hinman argues that science is neutral with respect to belief in God … In this book Hinman with atheist positions on topics such as consciousness and the nature of knowledge, puts to rest to arguments of Lawrence M. Krauss, Victor J. Stenger, and Richard Dawkins, and delimits the areas for potential God arguments. Click above to return to Winter 2024. Previous Next

< Back The Resurrection Promises More Than Heaven Annie D. Stutley So much of Easter focuses on conquering death itself, but overlooking the freedom that the resurrection offers 'this' life, skips a sizable chunk of the miracle. In my family we knock our Easter eggs. Knocking eggs, egg pocking, or egg paquing is an Easter tradition that came to my part of Louisiana via the Cajuns. The game is pretty simple. It’s man-to-man, egg-to-egg. Players face off, each one with a hard-boiled egg in their fist, and they knock the ends of their eggs together. Whoever’s cracks is the loser. The game keeps going until it’s down to one Champion Egg. We’re unsure of the origins of the first egg knock in my family, but we’ve done it on Easter Sunday as long as anyone can remember. And my father, Pop, held the record not for the highest number of Champion Eggs, but for the most notorious egg pranks. Among the most infamous was the year he and my uncle dyed one raw egg. Just before dinner, they snuck the trick egg onto one of the egg and candy nests of the dining table's place settings. Unfortunately, they chose the nest of one of Grandma’s special guests, a lady who was wearing an expensive long chiffon dress. When she knocked her egg with her neighbor, the yoke dribbled onto her gown and slithered between the pleats of pastel chiffon. Grandma was furious and promptly marched into the kitchen, grabbed an egg from the fridge, and cracked it over Pop’s head. He didn’t pull that prank again, but while the rest of the family played by the rules, he would use anything–a robin's egg candy, the back of a stainless steel spoon–attempting to fool the rest of us into thinking it was a real hard-boiled egg tucked in his grasp. Of course, we were never fooled, but we laughed with him anyway. He engaged in this buffoonery year after year, the incessant clown he was, and we came to look forward to his mischievousness: “what would Pop use as an ‘egg’ this year?” So the first Easter without Pop’s shenanigans was one I dreaded. Egg knocking has been around for centuries and is common in Europe, especially France. Its origins trace all the way back to Ancient Greece, and in the Greek Orthodox church, the eggs are dyed red to symbolize the crucifixion of Christ. The cracking of the shell when the eggs collide symbolizes Christ’s resurrection from death. The egg, then, is a reminder of rebirth–the new life in Heaven that awaits those who believe in Christ. That first Easter without my father was a rather agonizing time in which to grieve. All the talk about life after death, resurrection, and the gates of Heaven opening for a new life, the awaiting of new bodies–that was heavy stuff when my loss was so raw. My entire life, Heaven had been a no-brainer, a second-nature belief. I went to Catholic school; my parents were part of the charismatic renewal. There was no question Jesus was the Messiah and that he died on the cross for me to have eternal life. But that talk was before I had a horse in the race, a stake in the game, before Heaven absolutely had to exist. That Easter, as I dropped dye tablets into vinegar and water to dye four dozen eggs, everything was at risk because the person who meant everything to me was somewhere out there. For the first time, I had to face where that somewhere is...or isn’t. For Christians, Easter is the holiest day of the year. Doctrine is written around the idea of Jesus taking the sins of mankind and dying with them so that death would no longer be a loss, but a victory. Try taking that in when all you want is to see someone again. It’s either a comfort or an inner trial. What did I believe after all? This question consumed me as I approached that Sunday; as I watched my kids tear through their baskets of toys and chocolates; while I listened to my pastor preach about the ultimate miracle and God’s promises; and as I picked up a hard-boiled egg and wished with all my might that Pop was there, tricking me with a walnut or something posing as an egg. Easter is the ultimate miracle–the Great Ta-Da–the promise that something better is waiting. But what about my miracle that I prayed and prayed and prayed for back when I pumped my father with every homeopathic treatment I could find after the doctors gave up? I didn’t get my miracle. How could I not then question everything that once came easy when everything was suddenly so damn hard? Grief is unquestionably a way to feel proximity to the person we miss. The more I hurt, the more it was as if Pop were near. And as much as grief exhausted me, I couldn’t let go because, and I admit this freely, I didn’t know for sure where Pop was. His death weakened my faith. Boy, would he hate that. But I also think he’d understand, because the mystery of faith is revealed through an entirely personal journey to get to its truth. Faith isn’t a doctrine, a philosophy, simply tossed out and accepted unquestionably...without a little pain even. Countless heroes and “sheroes” in the Bible underwent moments of disbelief, pain, and suffering before reaching their ultimate partnership with God, from Abraham to Esther to Mary to Paul. Abraham doubted God enough to bring about Ishmael when God didn’t produce His promises fast enough; Esther doesn’t even speak of God because she was so distant from Him in her miserable circumstances; Paul fought against God with brutality before his profession of faith; and Mary, sweet, immaculate Mary, was rattled by the news of the baby in her womb enough for Gabriel to say, “Do not be afraid.” Yet, on the other side of “afraid” was joy. On the other side of waiting was promises. On the other side of feeling abandoned was renewal, and on the other side of sin was forgiveness and life–yes, both eternal and here on Earth. In the years following that difficult Easter as I was forced to explore my beliefs to find peace, I underwent even bigger trials. Were I to have a book in the Bible, my synopsis would go something like this: “In the midst of a global pandemic, she was diagnosed with stage three cancer. In the midst of debilitating chemotherapy and during the recovery of major surgery, she found her mother’s body in her guest bedroom. She buried her mother while fighting off painful cancer side effects, and had to console her three young children, not just about the fate of their grandmother but her own mortality as well.” Yet on the other side of that story was faith, hope, and a future I don’t doubt anymore. With my life on the line, my resilience shattered, my children looking to me for guidance, it seemed an appropriate time to soften my heart and seek the truth. So much of Easter focuses on conquering death itself, but overlooking the freedom that the resurrection offers this life, skips a sizable chunk of the miracle. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is basically documentation that Jesus’ sacrifice was meant to empower us here before we go there . “I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being.” (3:16) We’re invited to accept the same power that raised Jesus from the dead, not “when we get to Heaven” but in the here and now. The resurrection gives us long-term hope, but for the short term, Jesus left his spirit to go before us always, an invitation to enter the greatest relationship of all time. The gift of the resurrection is such that we can live without guilt, without fear, without anxiety, without doubt because “the Kingdom of God is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17) Heaven is just beyond our fingertips. Once we realize how close we are to the immeasurable joy of it, that leap of faith isn’t so scary after all. Something as big as life after death deserves introspection, time, and patience. After all, if faith is so easy, why does someone have to die to provoke a conversation about it for so many? If I knew that Easter what I know now, would I have buried my head in my mother’s shoulder and wept as I did after all the eggs were knocked and all the lamb consumed? I’d like to think I wouldn’t have. But I do know I questioned everything because I have experienced unconditional love. Pop hung the moon in my world, and I was the apple of his eye. I know what it means to be positively spoiled with love. I’d rather have loved and hurt from the loss of it than to never have loved at all. And I suppose just saying that was one small step in the bigger journey toward my examination of faith. The Champion Egg that year went to my oldest son, Billy. Five years later, this year, he had the Champion Egg again. Like Pop, he’s charmingly disorganized, generous beyond measure, artistic, a serial goofball, and he has an inner light that radiates a room. Pop was still with us this Easter, especially when my son’s winning strategy was suspect. Pop was there as we pranked the grandkids with fake eggs. He and Mom were there in each one of us as we sat in comfortable chairs and simply absorbed the scene, a pleasant refresment in hand. Our loved ones do live on, both here and there, kingdoms at hand. I believe that. Annie D. Stutley lives and writes in New Orleans, La. She edits several small publications and contributes to various print and online magazines, most noticeably Mississippi Magazine and Worklight . 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 Holy Days 2023 Table of Contents, Previous Next

Science and Religion should assist each other in pursuing the truth. Science can be too closed to the life of the spirit, the mind, imagination, thought, and creativity. Religion can be closed to anything new that threatens its perception of reality. < Back Jesus Meets Mister Spock Fr. Timothy Joyce, OSB, STL May 28, 2022 Science and Religion should assist each other in pursuing the truth. Science can be too closed to the life of the spirit, the mind, imagination, thought, and creativity. Religion can be closed to anything new that threatens its perception of reality. I am still surprised when I hear people express their belief that the Catholic Church is opposed to science. The story of Galileo Galilei (1564- 1642) is a shocking one to many people, who deduct that the church has always been and continues to be against science. There are, indeed, some Christians who oppose science but not the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II apologized for the church’s treatment of Galileo in 2000. Earlier than that, he spoke often of the importance of science. Did you know that it was a Catholic priest who uncovered the theory of the hot Big Bang story? The Church sponsors conferences on science and religion. The Vatican has its own observatory in the hills outside Rome. In our country, there has been a growing anti-intellectualism and an increasing suspicion or even rejection of science. We live in an age when people think they can make up their own facts. Truth is not important. Some people, including politicians, reject truths they do not like and make up their own facts. Subjective belief in making my own truth is openly expressed. This is sad for the fabric of our society. Maybe the Church has, in the past, demanded we accept too many doubtful truths, but today it upholds the truth and upholds science. Of course, you wouldn’t always know this if you listen to some local homilies and talks. The teaching of the Vatican is not gotten down to all our parishes. Science and Religion should assist each other in pursuing the truth. Science can be too closed to the life of the spirit, the mind, imagination, thought, and creativity. Religion can be closed to anything new that threatens its perception of reality. Science can document the what and the how of our universe, but Religion struggles to define the why of it all. Both may be tentative in some areas at times as new discoveries and insights develop. So, we need to keep studying, listening, learning. Saint Thomas Aquinas said that if we wish to know God, we should study the world. The Psalms already preached this, “The heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth the work of God’s hands.” (Ps. 19:2) And Saint Paul wrote to the Romans, “What can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world God’s eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.” (Romans, 1:19-20) Monastic Scribe XXVI: April 29, 2022 Thanks to science, we now know so much more about this world than we have ever known before. The vastness and intricacies of the cosmos just blows our mind. And all adds to the majesty and beauty of God. Our God is a great Mystery and calls us into a life beyond what we can imagine. But we have to adjust some of our old images. The universe was not created in six days, but has been evolving for almost fourteen billion years. The three tier universe which is the base of the world view in the Bible now cedes to vast, uncountable galaxies. All of this challenges us to reimagine, much more meaningfully, the beginning of humankind, Adam and Eve, original sin, the Creator God, the incarnational God of Jesus Christ, the life giving Holy Spirit, as well as pain, suffering and the problem of evil. There is nothing to fear here. Our faith, seeking understanding, is deeper and more ennobled than we could have imagined. A deeper faith leads to a deeper hope and a deeper love, as we are overcome with awe and beauty at God’s creation. Evolution is not a theory but the way that God, since the beginning, has been creating and continues to create. We are called to take part in that evolutionary creation. Evolution means God is a God of the future, a God of promises. We believe in this God, and therein is our hope, no matter how bad things seem in our world. Not just the earth, but the entire cosmos, is God’s creation and our concern. The “new cosmology” or simply “the new story” is the tale of an expanding universe, always in motion, growing, incalculably vast. A century ago, we thought our Milky Way was the only galaxy, but now we know there are billions of galaxies. Black holes and black energy are the latest mysteries of this story. And we are part of this story. Our bodies are made of the very stardust that is found in all creation. Quantum mechanics shows us how everything and everyone is connected. It shows us how we can touch each other from a distance. I am not a scientist and certainly not a mathematician. I don’t comprehend all the details, nor can I differentiate all the categories of subatomic matter. But I don’t have to understand the details. I rely on scientists to explain things. But my view (my philosophy) of the cosmos, which comes from religion, adds meaning to all of this. I have enjoyed reading Teilhard de Chardin, Thomas Berry, John Haught, Ilia Delio, Elizabeth Johnson, Laurie Brink and others to get a better picture of what Monastic Scribe XXVI: April 29, 2022, this beautiful cosmos is all about. I recommend these authors to you. I urge all my readers not to be afraid of science, but to embrace it and open your mind to a fuller comprehension of what God does for us. It will also give deeper incentive to work on climate change and care of the environment. We are creating with God, but often have been destroying creation. Is this new for you? Is it exciting for you? You can let me know at: joycet@glastonburyabbey.org. Republished with minimal edits and permission rom glastonburyabbey.org. 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.” Image: Leonard Nimoy as Spock, holding a model of the USS Enterprise , in a publicity photograph for Star Trek: The Original Series. Full caption and source here . 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

“And so they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were filled with awe, while those who followed behind were afraid.” < Back Mark’s Diary – Notes for a Screenplay David Cowles Sep 1, 2024 “And so they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were filled with awe, while those who followed behind were afraid.” Narrator : (Quoting Isaiah) “Here is my messenger whom I send ahead, a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare a way for the Lord; make straight his path’.” Direction : As the Narrator is reciting Isaiah, the words are captioned in white letters across a black screen. Scene #1 : John is baptizing pilgrims in the waters of the River Jordan. Jesus approaches and is baptized. Chorus (of 3): “This is my beloved son on whom my favor rests.” Scene #2 : Jesus is praying alone in the wilderness, wrestling with the temptations of Satan. Learning that John has been arrested, he enters Galilee, proclaiming the Good News to everyone, everywhere. Jesus : “The kingdom of God is at hand! Repent and believe the good news.” Scene #3 : As he walks along the shore of the Sea of Galilee, Jesus recruits his first apostles, Simon (Peter), Andrew, James, and John, fishermen and merchants from the local bourgeoisie. Jesus : “Come, I will make you fishers of men.” Scene #4 : On the Sabbath, Jesus enters the synagogue at Capernaum, the major city in the region, and teaches the rapt congregation with authority. (We don’t hear the specifics of the teaching.) As he is speaking, an obviously troubled man interrupts and exposes Jesus’ identity: Chorus : “I know who you are, holy one of God.” Jesus : “Silence! …Come out of him!” Direction : Jesus is piqued at the interruption and at the untimely disclosure and, knowing it to be the work of demons, Jesus cures the man just to silence him, but it’s too late. He’s created a stir! It’s early days but already, things are not going as smoothly as expected. Scene #5 : Jesus takes refuge in Simon’s house where he heals Simon’s mother-in-law as well as others from the town. Before dawn, Jesus slips out, hoping to pray alone, but Simon et al. soon follow. Scene #6 : Now Jesus and his tiny band roam the hills of Galilee, sticking mainly to byways and speaking only in rural villages. Along the way, Jesus meets and cures a leper, and swears him to silence. Jesus : “Show yourself only to the priest.” Narrator : “But the man went out and made the whole story public, until Jesus could no longer show himself in any town. He was forced to remain in deserted places, but the people continued to come.” Direction : The Gospel of Mark includes numerous instances of Jesus performing miracles, usually swearing his beneficiaries to silence that they often break. We have staged a few of these miracles but the Director should feel free to stage additional miracle stories from the Gospel as she sees fit. Scene #7 : Jesus and his disciples are walking through a corn field; it happens to be the Sabbath. The scene suggests Van Gogh’s Wheatfield with Crows . The apostles are picking, peeling and eating ears of corn. Chorus : “Why do they do what is forbidden on the Sabbath?” Jesus : “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Son of Man is sovereign, even over the Sabbath.” Narrator : “So the Pharisees began plotting against him with the partisans of King Herod to see how they could do away with him…Then Jesus went up into the hill country and called the men he wanted, and they joined him. In all, he appointed 12 to be his companions.” Scene #8 : As Jesus and his followers continued on their way, Jesus takes the opportunity to teach: Jesus : “Nothing is hidden unless it is to be disclosed, the measure you give is the measure you will receive…and more besides. The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed , the smallest of all seeds…Once sown, it grows taller than any other plant and forms branches so large that birds can settle in its shade.” Scene #9 , Narrator : “Once more, a crowd has gathered around Jesus so that he’s had no chance to eat. His family set out to take charge of him for people were saying that Jesus was out of his mind. When his mother and his brothers arrive, they remain outside and send a message into Jesus.” Chorus : “Your mother and your brothers are outside asking for you.” Direction : Jesus is mortified at being summoned home for supper as if he were a little child. Angry, he looks for an opportunity to regain lost dignity. Jesus : “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?... Whoever does the will of God is my brother, my sister, my mother.” Direction: But the damage has been done. Chorus : “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us? Narrator: “So he could no longer work miracles there…he was taken aback by their lack of faith.” Jesus : Let’s cross over to the other side of the lake. Direction : Here for the first time a map of the region appears on the screen. As the film continues, the map reappears and Jesus’ movements are tracked. Map : Jesus travels across the Sea of Galilee from Bethsaida on the northern shore to the Decapolis, a group of 10 Greek speaking towns on the Southeastern shore. Scene #10 , Narrator : “As Jesus stepped ashore, a man possessed by demons, who cut himself with stones, came up to him.” Jesus : “Come out of this man!” Narrator : “Now there happened to be a large herd of pigs nearby. The demons went into the pigs and the herd rushed over the cliff, into the lake, and drowned, and the spectators begged Jesus to leave the area.” Scene #11 , Narrator : “So Jesus crossed back over to Gailee. Upon his arrival, Jairus, the leader of a local synagogue, approached him.” Jarius : “My little daughter is at death’s door. I beg you, ‘Come, lay hands on her, cure her, save her life’.” Jesus sets out but midway, messengers arrive. Chorus : “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Rabbi further?” Jesus : “Do not be afraid. Only have faith.” Narrator : “He allowed only Peter, James and John to accompany him to the leader’s house where there was a great commotion with loud crying and wailing.” Jesus : “Why this wailing? The child is not dead, she is asleep.” (Chorus laughs derisively.) “Get up my child,” and she rises. Scene #12 , Narrator : “They set off secretly by boat, searching for an isolated place. But when he came ashore, Jesus saw a great crowd.” Chorus : “This is a lonely place, and it is getting very late. Send the people off to the farms and villages to buy themselves something to eat.” Jesus : “Give them something to eat yourselves. How many loaves have you?” Chorus : “Five loaves, and two fish as well.” Narrator : “Jesus took the five loaves, looked up to heaven, said the blessing, broke the bread, and gave it to the disciples to distribute. He also divided up the fish. Those who ate numbered 5,000 and they ate to their hearts’ content. 12 large baskets full of scraps were gathered up at the end. “Then Jesus left this place and went to the territory of Tyre.” Map : Jesus route to Lebanon (Tyre), 50 miles northeast, a 3 day journey at that time. “He found a house to stay in and would have liked to remain there unrecognized, but that was impossible. On his return, he went by way of Sidon and the Decapolis to the Sea of Galilee…” Map : Jesus’ route through Lebanon, Syria and Jordan is incredibly circuitous. He ends up back at the Sea of Galilee but now he is back on the Eastern Shore. Emphasis should be placed on how much distance Jesus keeps between himself and his native Galilee. Scene #13 , Narrator : “…There Jesus fed another 4,000 pilgrims with 7 loaves and several fish; this time 7 baskets of scraps were collected.” Direction : The disciples are murmuring among themselves. They appear bewildered. Jesus : “Do you still not understand? Are your minds closed? When I broke the 5 loaves among the 5000, how many baskets full of scraps did you gather?” Chorus : “Twelve.” Direction : Here the map can morph or flip into a blackboard/whiteboard. As the Narrator speaks, the following image gradually appears on the screen: ‘5 loaves/5000 people →12 baskets’ Jesus : “And how many when I broke the 7 loaves among the 4,000? Chorus : “Seven.” ‘7 loaves/4000 people → 7 baskets’ Jesus (exasperated): “Do you still not understand?” Direction: Tensions are clearly on the rise. Jesus is testy, the disciples are squabbling among themselves, and everyone is growing restless. Chorus : “We have left everything to become your followers.” Jesus : “There is no one who has given up home, brothers or sisters, mother, father, children or land for my sake who will not receive 100 times as much… and eternal life.” Direction: But like Washington at Valley Forge, Jesus realizes he can wait no longer. He must act…or risk losing his followers. It’s now…or never! Jesus : “Now we are going to Jerusalem where the Son of Man will be given up to the chief priests and the doctors of the law. They will condemn him to death and hand him over to the occupiers. He will be mocked, spat upon, flogged and killed; but three days later, he will rise again!” Narrator: “And so they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were filled with awe, while those who followed behind were afraid.” Director’s Note: This scene should be staged to suggest Kerouac’s On the Road , Ken Kesey’s ‘Merry Pranksters’, etc. As they proceed, crosses may barely be seen punctuating the far distant skyline. Curtain 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 dtc@gc3incorporated.com Return to 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 Groundhog Day David Cowles Jan 31, 2023 “You are not Joey...there are no magic kingdoms in your future. No, you are face-to-face with the darkest days of winter.” December 25, Christmas Day. We’ve been looking forward to it for months and it didn’t disappoint: presents and ribbons and trees and presents, Mall Santa and Real Santa and carols and cookies, and…did I mention presents? Later that afternoon, since you’ve successfully resisted your spouse’s (or parent’s) repeated pleas to help clean up, you find yourself with nothing to do. In fact, you’re bored…bored on Christmas! Is that even a thing? While you’re speculating on the metaphysics of boredom, you happen to look out the window… And it’s dark, real dark, the windowpane’s ice cold. The ground is frozen solid, if not snow covered, and you suddenly realize you have nothing to look forward to now until spring (Easter) – not like Joey across the street whose parents take him skiing every weekend and whose grandparents are taking him to Disney World in February. You are not Joey! (How often do you have to remind yourself of that each year?) No, you do not have to face ski lodges, hot cider and cocoa, and there are no magic kingdoms in your future. No, you are face-to-face with the darkest days of winter. Poor you! You happen to live in a liturgically impoverished culture. We celebrate just four points on the calendar: the two solstices (c. 6/21 and 12/21), days of maximum (or minimum) daylight; and the two equinoxes (c. 3/21 and 9/21), days when the durations of light and dark are equal. Think of that! At equinox, no matter where you live on the globe, north or south, pole or equator, the sun rises at 6 AM and sets at 6 PM (adjusted for the modern convention of time zones). It’s a marvelous thing. But I digress… Like most cultures, we cluster our important religious and secular holidays around the times of these astronomical extremes; we call them Christmas, Easter, Midsommer (July 4 th ), and various ‘early harvest’ festivals. But none of this relieves the tedium of long cold winters. Had you been born into a liturgically richer culture, you might be celebrating eight points on the calendar rather than just four. Many cultures recognize what we call Cross Days as major feasts. Cross Days occur, roughly, on the days that bisect the four intervals between solstice and equinox. Although our culture doesn’t recognize these Cross Days as ‘major feasts’, their shadows are still all around us. Halloween, for example, bisects the fall equinox and the winter solstice. Similarly, May Day in the spring. The remaining axis (2/1 and 8/1) is a bit more problematic. Lammas Day, August 1, is celebrated in the Celtic and Jewish traditions. February 2 is celebrated in Celtic tradition as Imbolc (Lambs’ Day, also St. Brigid’s Day), in Christian tradition as Candlemas (the presentation of Jesus in the temple), and in secular tradition as Groundhog Day . You know the story. The groundhog emerges from his hole and assesses prospects for the coming weeks. If he sees his shadow, then it’s back underground for another six weeks of winter; but if he doesn’t, then get ready for an early spring. Call it what you will, February 2 is a pivot point in the celestial calendar. It occurs right in the middle of the darkest, coldest period in the North American almanac. It is a time when hope is in short supply. We need something to keep us going. (Teacher friends of mine say that February is by far the hardest month for class management .) Are we there yet? No, but we are halfway. February 2 marks the end of the end and the beginning of the beginning. If nothing else, it delivers a psychological boost. We’re desperate for good news. We hope that the Groundhog will deliver but, if not, we’ve still enjoyed his festival. 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 Consultants Wanted-Join Our Team Nov 29, 2022 Our goal: Heal the World! Our strategy: Think differently! Our tactic: Point! We don’t teach, debate, argue, or persuade; we just point. We show the world as it really is, not as it’s been pre-packaged for us on Madison Avenue, in Harvard Square, and by Hollywood. We point, and we rely on the world to do the rest. Check us out: www.aletheiatoday.com . “We’d all love to change the world.” (The Beatles) You can! If you have mad skills in any of these areas, join us: Branding, Social Media, Data Analytics, Curriculum Development (for secondary schools), Revenue Generation (advertising and/or ecommerce), Website Enhancement . Aletheia Today™ (AT) publishes Aletheia Today Magazine™ (ATM) 8 times a year and Thoughts While Shaving™ (TWS) twice-weekly, both online. We foster the ongoing convergence of science, philosophy, theology, culture, and spirituality in the 21st century. Do you share our commitment to promoting intellectual convergence in our increasingly fragmented world? Join us! Pay: As we are growing, compensation will necessarily be modest. So, we welcome consultants looking for a side hustle to their regular day job and are open to pay negotiation. Still interested? Sendus a short note telling us why you might want to join our team and what specific skills you would bring to our enterprise. PLEASE, NO RESUMEES. Email us at editor@aletheiatoday.com . Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back AI and the Borg Collective David Cowles Sep 19, 2025 “AI treats Sally as the intersection of a bunch of sociological variables…(but) Startrek’s Borg Collective takes ‘post-modern Sally’ to a whole other level” A number of jurisdictions are using AI to identify people who may potentially be involved in criminal activity. Unlike the sleuths we follow faithfully on TV, Detective AI does not zero in on a potential suspect’s actions in order to detect hints of socially deviant behavior. Instead, it focuses almost exclusively on an individual’s sociological markers. An unemployed individual, Frank, who suddenly pays cash for a Beverly Hills estate, is behaving in a way that may, or may not , indicate criminal behavior, even if the crime, Mr. Capone, is nothing more than tax evasion. Of course, there’s no proof that any crime has been committed. Frank may have received a large inheritance from a long lost uncle. But on the surface, Frank’s behavior is suspicious, and so we are generally comfortable with Detective O’Malley (or AI) ‘looking into it’. Sally, on the other hand, is homeless. She has never in her life so much as shoplifted a pack of gum, but her demographics fit a profile that has been highly correlated in various studies with criminality. Did I mention she was ‘unhoused’ and without any ‘visible means of support’? She falls into a particular age group, has a particular level of education (or lack thereof), a certain work history, credit score, etc. And, of course, she happens to belong to a certain ethnic group (insert your favorite target here). While Det. O’Malley would have no reason even to interview Sally, AI has flagged her for ‘aggressive’ law enforcement follow-up. Justified? Or not? It is true that Sally’s demographic characteristics, when combined, have a higher than average correlation with criminal behavior. While that certainly doesn’t mean that Sally is a criminal, does it justify ‘keeping an eye on her’? Long before true AI, the IRS used such a model to pick out taxpayers (or non-payers) for audit. Supposedly, a certain number of taxpayers are randomly selected for audit each year and an additional number are targeted based on income level, lifestyle, occupation, audit history, etc. Is such a selection process justified? A truly randomized selection process would be fairer, but it would hardly ever catch serious tax cheats, and it would raise very little revenue for the taxing authorities. On the other hand, auditing only ‘high-fliers’ would encourage ‘low visibility’ individuals to consider themselves immune. So, the traditional audit selection criteria have a lot going for them: They catch a lot of cheats and raise a lot of revenue in the process. They discourage those who might be tempted to play in ‘the grey zone’. They even encourage folks to over-report income and under-deduct expenses so as not to attract the auditors’ attention. Finally, they make sure everyone knows that no one is exempt from oversight. It’s hard to imagine a more efficient algorithm…but does that make it fair? Back to Sally. AI treats Sally as the intersection of a bunch of sociological variables. The apparent assumption, stated primitively, is that if you add up all of the influences in Sally’s life, you should be able to predict her behavior with a tolerable degree of accuracy. Of course, much hinges on your definition of ‘tolerable’; what can you tolerate ? Do you require a level of conviction that puts the matter beyond any reasonable doubt (criminal standard)? Or will you settle for anything above a 50% probability (civil standard)? Or will any correlation over ‘merely random coincidence’ satisfy you? But regardless of your level of tolerance, there is a bigger problem: Sally’s sociological markers don’t include Sally . There is no allowance for Sally’s agency. We have ‘post-modernized’ Sally, reducing her to the sum of her influences. It is not Sally who acts, it is her poverty, ethnicity, etc. that act through her. And yet, it is Sally who will ‘do the time’ if convicted. Fair? At the other end of the spectrum, the model of community displayed by Startrek’s Borg Collective takes ‘post-modern Sally’ to a whole other level. While AI threatens to turn Sally into the sum of her sociological influences, the Borg model reduces Sally to a simple quantum in a complex meta-mind. Effectively, the Borg hijack Sally’s brain, her ‘compute power’, and deploy it in service of an agenda that has nothing to do with Sally and has no concern for her welfare other than, perhaps, keeping her alive long enough to maximize her return on the Borg’s investment. Sally’s fate is that of post 20 th century humans generally. She is caught between two lines of fire. On the one hand, her unique personality has been outsourced to a series of external influences: Freudian parenting, Jungian archetypes, Marxist class. On other hand, her personhood has been co-opted by a disinterested meta-mind for its own, possibly nefarious, purposes. Sally’s agency has effectively disappeared. She is doubly relieved of responsibility. First, her behavior has been accounted for solely as the intersection of influences: nothing uniquely ‘Sally’ required. She is de trop , redundant, white noise. She is a ghost in her own machine. (Ryle) On the other hand, her behavior is dictated by her compulsory service to the collective Borg identity. Sally is the prototypical Nazi commandant; she is ‘just following orders’. To what can I compare 21 st century Sally? Shall I compare her to a summer’s day? I don’t think so. How about a cell in an animal body? On the one hand, she is a product of her nuclear DNA, her mitochondria, and the proteins they produce; on the other hand, she is a cog in an organelle whose sole responsibility is the well-being of its meta-organism. Close, but still not quite. A cell in an animal body probably retains a smidge more agency than our hapless Sally. We may be witnessing Stage IV in the evolution of life on Earth: (1) RNA/DNA and the prokaryotic cell, (2) the eukaryotic (nucleated) cell, (3) the multicellular organism, (4) the collective. There is a contrarian view. There is a model in which there is only Sally. It is Sally who synthesizes her environmental influences into a single organism, and it is that organism, in voluntary association with others, that shapes the behavior of her society. Interestingly, this view achieved its most coherent expression c. 100 years ago as the apex of British Empiricism (Alfred North Whitehead) and the heart of Continental Existentialism (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre). Both schools celebrate the absolute sovereignty of the individual over her identity and destiny. According to Whitehead’s Process Philosophy , the individual designates her Actual World, sorts that World, judges it according to Transcendental Values, and adjusts it according to Subjective Aim, i.e. the individual’s vision of ‘herself in the World for others’. In its purest form (Sartre), the existential self is solely responsible for his own choices, his own actions. There are no influences, unless we lay claim to them, and there are no intended consequences, unless we identify with them. The Devil makes no one do anything and no one is ever ‘just following orders’. "We are the World", we make be what comes to be, we alone are responsible. Ironically, the sovereignty of the individual is probably best recognized today in Judeo-Christian spirituality. From Hasidic Judaism (and Kabbalah) to Evangelical (‘born again’) Christianity, the focus is first on our personal relationship with God and then, in the context of that relationship, on our liberating, peacemaking role in the World. In both traditions, we are commanded to love God unreservedly and to love others as ourselves. This is a powerful antidote to the fragmentation and collectivization of the self. Who’d a thunk it? ( Hairspray ) Judeo-Christianity has become the counter culture of the 21st century, our last line of defense against the Borg Collective. So buckle up! “There’s rough seas ahead.” ( Yellow Submarine ) *** Edward Hopper’s Night Windows (1928) captures a fleeting, voyeuristic view through an illuminated apartment window, where a woman bends over in a private domestic moment. The stark contrast of warm interior light against the dark night sky heightens the sense of quiet intrusion, evoking themes of solitude, secrecy, and the subtle tension of being watched. 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 Memory and Time David Cowles May 2, 2024 “Patterns persist! More generally, 'pattern' per se persists.” A recent article (4/23/2024) by Allison Parshall in the New York Times confirmed things we’ve known since childhood…and suggested others. Ms. Parshall reviewed the results of some recent studies comparing our subjective sense of time with its objective measurements: “Study participants looked at images for varying lengths of time, and then held down a key to indicate how long they felt they were looking at the image. For images that are inherently more memorable—a person’s face, for example—participants thought they looked at them for longer than they did. And they also remembered these time-warping images better the next day.” We all know that a minute can seem to pass by in a few seconds when we’re fully engaged in some project. We also know that a minute can feel like an hour when we’re in pain or when we are waiting for something time sensitive to occur (e.g. water to boil for pasta or the bell to ring at the end of a school day). In the first case, we say that time is compressed (‘blue-shifted’); in the second, that time is dilated (‘red-shifted’). Coincidentally, we use the same terms when discussing the motions of galaxies vis-à-vis Earth. When an object is moving toward us, the wave length (time) is compressed; when the object is receding, time is dilated. So what’s new in these findings? First, the subject’s experience of time dilation/compression tends to form a pattern. By reviewing past behavior, experimenters were able to predict whether a new image would be ‘red or blue shifted’ by a given subject. More interestingly, those patterns persist across subjects. For example, experimenters found that most participants ‘red shifted’ images of human faces as well as images containing fewer but larger objects. Even color mattered. Red images, conveniently but coincidentally, tend to be red-shifted and vice versa. Most interesting, however, is the relationship between time dilation and memory. Red shifted images turned out to be more memorable than blue shifted ones. Essentially, memory is a function of felt, subjective time, rather than measured, objective time. Bottom line: patterns persist! More generally, ‘pattern’ per se persists. Ms. Parshall conjectures that the relationship between memorability and time dilation is recursive. An inherently more engaging image will trigger time dilation which in turn will make us more likely to remember that image. In turn, we are more likely to time dilate those images that most closely resemble better remembered images. The local, mental process Parshall documents is recapitulated, physically, on a cosmic scale. In the first seconds after Big Bang, the cosmos was reasonably uniform. However, slight variations, possibly attributable to Heisenberg Uncertainty, appeared in the primordial CMB (‘Cosmic Microwave Background’). Inflationary expansion amplified those variations. The universe we know and sometimes love began as the amplification of fundamental uncertainty. As the universe expanded it cooled, allowing energy to manifest as massive particles (e.g. electrons, protons, neutrons). Faint variations in the CMB became ‘seeds’ for the formation of matter. In our patch we have massive discontinuity: matter, stars, solar systems, galaxies. These would not have formed, nor would living organisms, without something to offset the indiscriminately expansive force of Big Bang. That ‘something’ is Gravity! While inflation expands space, gravity contracts it. One quantum of mass requires c² quanta of energy (e = mc²). But note, gravity does not tend toward the restoration of the primal CMB. On the contrary, the attractive force of Gravity turns micro-fluctuations in the CMB into stars, galaxies, and eventually, black holes. Gravity ‘balances’ the expansive force of Big Bang, but gravity is a function of mass. More massive objects are more attractive, so they tend to accrete more matter over time. At the moment of ‘creation’, the universe was uniform - within the limits imposed by uncertainty. The push and pull, warp and woof of process, has given us a world consisting of unimaginably massive objects (or singularities) and terrifyingly expansive space (vacuum, void). The force of cosmic expansion should be offset by the force of gravity. But instead of returning the fledgling universe to its pre-Bang state, gravity has given birth to an enormous and largely empty spacetime, pock marked by gigantically massive celestial bodies. If Big Bang is the thesis, Gravity is the antithesis. The synthesis, the world we live in, bears little superficial resemblance to either. The first comprehensive work of Christian Systematic Theology is the Gospel of John. It begins, “In the beginning was the logos .” (The Greek ‘ logos ’ is usually translated as ‘word’ – not wrong, but excessively narrow. ‘Pattern’ better captures the universality of logos .) John tells us that logos was with God, ab initio , and in fact was God. All things that come to be, including life itself, come to be through logos . As we noted above, pattern is what’s substructural…and this is why the mashed potatoes we serve on Thanksgiving are lumpy…and proud of 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.

< Back Nihilism David Cowles Oct 8, 2021 Nihilism comes in two flavors: Ontological Nihilism (“Nihilism of Being”) and Ethical Nihilism (“Nihilism of Value”). Shakespeare (anticipating post-Enlightenment science: bootstrapping, heat death, entropy, etc.) would be an example of an ontological nihilist: “We are such stuff as dreams are made on.” (The Tempest) Nihilism comes in two flavors: Ontological Nihilism (“Nihilism of Being”) and Ethical Nihilism (“Nihilism of Value”). Shakespeare (anticipating post-Enlightenment science: bootstrapping, heat death, entropy, etc.) would be an example of an ontological nihilist: “We are such stuff as dreams are made on.” (The Tempest) Nietzsche (anticipating much of 20th century philosophy: Camus, Ayer, et al.), would be an example of an ethical nihilist: “There exists nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, condemn the whole…But nothing exists apart from the whole!” (Twilight of the Gods) For the Scholastic Philosophers of the Middle Ages (Aquinas, Maimonides, et al.), this dichotomy posed no problem because they regarded Being and Value (Good) as synonymous. Since ‘to be’ is self-evidently ‘good’ (as opposed to ‘not to be’ – sorry Hamlet), Being and Value were understood simply as different ways of looking at the same phenomenon. Today, however, this view has few adherents. Modern philosophers do not regard ‘being’ (or existing) as a ‘quality’ of that which is. Heidegger spoke for all of modernism when he separated his world into two elements: Dasein (that it is) and Wassein (what it is). Out of an entirely different philosophical tradition, Alfred North Whitehead anticipated Heidegger when he divided his cosmos into ‘eternal objects’ (what it is) and ‘actual entities’ (that what-it-is is). Yet Ontological and Ethical Nihilists end up in the very same place…which is ‘no place’ and ‘no thing’. Connecting Ontological Nihilism to ‘nothing’ is easy; connecting Ethical Nihilism requires an intermediate step. The Ethical Nihilist does not preclude the existence of ‘something’ per se. However, that something has no origin and no destiny. It has no purpose or meaning; and it reveals no necessary connections, no pre-ordained order. Whatever appears as ‘order’ is entirely subjective and merely accidental. It is chaos, pure and simple, and parallels the state of things prior to “Fiat Lux” (Genesis): “…without form or shape with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind.” So perhaps we should reevaluate the views of the Scholastic philosophers. We may at least say that Value is a pre-requisite for Being. Being per se discloses Value and Value per se necessitates Being. 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 Nature of Motion David Cowles Jun 9, 2021 Death. It is the mother of all our fears. Fear reflects our vulnerability and, ultimately, our mortality. Pain, however horrible, is ultimately bearable; death is not! And yet, no one has ever experienced death and no one ever will (the definition of death is “the absence of all experience”). What we think we know about death comes entirely from external observations of other organisms (including loved ones). Death. It is the mother of all our fears. Fear reflects our vulnerability and, ultimately, our mortality. Pain, however horrible, is ultimately bearable; death is not! And yet, no one has ever experienced death and no one ever will (the definition of death is “the absence of all experience”). What we think we know about death comes entirely from external observations of other organisms (including loved ones). 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.