Search Results

Explore Aletheia Today's Groundhog 2025 issue: where philosophy, theology, and culture intersect. From Mark’s Gospel to Parmenides, faith, and love—thought-provoking insights await! Mythology and The Beatles We All Live in a Yellow Submarine “The occasional dragon notwithstanding, we hardly ever see monsters in Liverpool anymore.” Eleanor Rigby “The Beatles were true revolutionaries. They called for the overthrow of the existing social order, replacing it with… a secular version of Galilean Christianity.” I Am the Walrus “Popular music is a treasure trove for the philosophically curious.” Dante and the Yellow Submarine “Yellow Submarine did for the Divine Comedy what West Side Story did for Romeo & Juliet…but I very much doubt the Beatles had any idea what they’d done!” Imagine “John’s Utopia is a 20th century version of Friedrich Nietzsche’s flat universe.” Science and the Yellow Submarine Part I Yellow Submarine is much more than just a delivery vehicle for the Beatles’ 1960s musical repertoire. The film addresses important ontological and cosmological issues, and it offers some truly remarkable scientific insights in the process. Science and the Yellow Submarine II In this issue of ATM, we will finish our journey. We will visit all the remaining “seas” (I promise), plus Pepperland itself. So, hang on tight! Readers React What's the buzz about? Our readers' reactions to Aletheia Today... Additional Reading Can't get enough of Aletheia Today's content? Check out the books that inspire our magazine.

< Back Shroud of Turin David Cowles Apr 12, 2026 “This article has nothing to do with the Shroud of Turin!” 1750 words, 8 minute read The piece of cloth known as the Shroud of Turin allegedly bears the image of Jesus of Nazareth. However, carbon dating suggests the item is only 700 years old and for 500 of those years it has been kept under lock and key. Yet in the course of testing the cloth, researchers found that it was now, or once had been, home to a virtual Noah’s Ark of life forms native to various spots on the globe. But this article has nothing to do with the Shroud of Turin ! Rather it’s about the way influences propagate in our world. A March 30, 2026 article in New Scientist summarized recent findings: “The sources of genetic material include domestic cats and dogs, farm animals including chickens, cattle, goats, sheep, pigs and horses, and wild animals such as deer and rabbits. The team also found traces of some fish species, including the grey mullet, Atlantic cod and ray-finned fishes. “Marine crustaceans, flies, aphids, and arachnids like dust and skin mites and ticks were also identified. Some of the most common plant species whose DNA was preserved on the shroud are carrots and various wheat species, as well as peppers, tomatoes, and potatoes – plants probably brought to Europe after explorers began travelling to Asia and the Americas… “The team also found human DNA from many individuals who have handled the shroud, including the 1978 sampling team… (but) nearly 40 per cent of the human DNA found on the shroud is from Indian (Indian subcontinent) lineages…” Astounding! *** We imagine ourselves living on a grid . Blame Descartes for this - his system of rectilinear coordinates, etc. Also, the Apostle John for his concept of logos (pattern, scaffolding, weir). Hold Homer accountable for Penelope’s endless weaving (Laertes’ shroud), and praise Mondrian for Broadway Boogie Woogie - all manifestations of life on the grid ! We must blame ourselves too! We have worked the notion of grid into every nook and cranny of contemporary culture. The football field is a grid iron . A superannuated hippie is said to ‘live off the grid ’ and we are concerned today about the strain that AI is putting on the electrical grid . Grids are useful. They allow us to keep track of process by imposing a strict order of operations, designating (arbitrarily or otherwise) certain events as causes and others as effects. When we need to write (or re-write) history, the grid hands us a pre-recorded tape. When we need to fix a problem, the grid provides a schematic that lets us quickly zero-in on the trouble spot. But all this convenience masks a serious problem: this is not how the real world works…not even close. But we’re used to that! We manipulate the material world based on patterns given to us by Euclidean Geometry…even though there are no straight lines or smooth curves in nature. This is not mere sophistry. It has a critical relevance to contemporary civilization. The Cartesian grid may be an appropriate model for the repetitive, atomized motions of an industrial Technosphere, but it breaks down utterly in today’s information rich, holistically inclined Cybersphere. *** The Shroud of Turin turns out to be a better model of real process than anything Descartes or Newton could have imagined. Just look at the record it has kept of its journey through spacetime. The cloth we have today includes traces of the many humans who have touched it and the multiple life forms that have been touched by it, across continents and over centuries. Change does not occur in uniform increments, and it is rarely vectored; more often, it bursts forth like dye packs in a robber’s satchel, tainting everything in its reach. Heraclitus (5th century BCE) is celebrated for linking being with process, process with flow, and flow with water. But even water has viscosity; it resists its own flow. When your favorite rugrat spills milk on the kitchen floor, it does not immediately cover the surface and flow into the adjoining rooms. Instead it creeps along, running in rivulets, inexorably but gradually carrying out its annoying mission. It begs for Bounty (or Brawny )! But paper towels, no matter the ply, are useless in the face of dye packs exploding into a medium of low, no, or below zero viscosity. Below? Below zero? So, negative viscosity! Is that a thing? Turns out, it is, and it applies here. “Show me!” you say? Ok, how about RCW 86, the remnants of a white dwarf star that exploded c. 180 CE. It has expanded with a velocity highly atypical of supernovae. The current consensus: RCW 86 is exploding into an ultra-low density (viscosity) ‘cavity’ in space. *** What kind of world do we live in? Does change evolve at a measured pace, like spilt milk, allowing us to anticipate and manage its course? Or does change erupt, often violently, without warning, and in ways we could not possibly have predicted? The Shroud of Turin is many things; among them, it’s its own historical record. We’re not unfamiliar with this phenomenon. According to accepted physics, all the information associated with a Black Hole resides on its surface. That is one book you can only judge by its cover! The cover is the book…well-suited perhaps to today’s short attention spans. Same for the Shroud. Its entire record as an historical artifact lives on its surface. And when we take the time to look, we realize that the cloth is not an object, subject to a chain of custody (chain = grid), but a whirlwind (negative pressure) attracting influences from every corner of the world. Anthropocentric as we are, we have arbitrarily set the viscosity of water to be 1.0. On that scale, the viscosity of olive oil is 80: it is 80 times more resistant to flow than water. Best wean Junior off milk: “Let him drink oil!” At the other end of the spectrum acetone is 70% less viscous than water: an acetone spill spreads even faster than water from Junior’s sippy cup. But we’re not done yet! Exotic materials like liquid Helium and Quark-gluon Plasma have viscosities approaching 0. And when viscosity is negative, the rate of dispersion accelerates over time. According to most current models, the phenomenon we’ve labeled Dark Energy exhibits negative viscosity. If confirmed, that negative viscosity will ultimately…and literally…rip apart the universe and every particle in it. Of course, the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be obeyed; therefore, an input of energy from an external source is generally required. According to (Anthropic) Claude, “True negative viscosity is forbidden in equilibrium systems. But effective negative viscosity — where an energy-driven system behaves as if its viscosity were negative — is a real, experimentally confirmed phenomenon… and it tends to produce the same striking signature: order and large-scale structure spontaneously emerging from chaos .” It is as though you were watching your dad’s 1950’s home movies…backwards. Surprisingly, there are a number of real world phenomena that appear to exhibit negative viscosity. The two dimensional event horizons of black holes (above) exhibit negative viscosity, as does the turbulence within Jupiter’s GRS. (The latter feeds off energy injected by smaller ‘storms’ in the planet’s atmosphere.) Closer to home, imagine some bacteria suspended in a drop of water. They swim around like kids in a backyard pool; nothing to see here! But now add more bacteria to the same volume of water. When the density of bacteria in the water reaches a critical tipping point, the random motions of the individual bacteria coordinate…like synchronized swimmers at the Olympics. Once synchronized, the individual bacteria inject their proprietary energy into the ensemble. Result : the bacterial suspension itself behaves as if the viscosity of the medium was negative. And speaking of the Olympics, how about those cyclists? Cyclist B camps out in the wake of Cyclist A. Cyclist A experiences the medium (air) as resistance while that same medium delivers acceleration to Cyclist B, allowing the latter to conserve energy. *** Our models of the everyday world assume substantial positive viscosity (resistance): Ideas disseminate subject to the resistance of various unexamined assumptions ( sacred cows ); empires expand and revolutions spread subject to the resistance of existing geo-political structures (institutions). But what if, on a more fundamental level, micro-influences spread unimpeded? What if the foreign particles that litter the surface of the Shroud and record its history have effectively disseminated in a medium of ultra-low (< 1, 0 or even < 0) viscosity? Is that possible? Answer #1 : Yes, the Shroud itself functions as an ‘accelerator’? The travels of the cloth inject additional ‘outside’ energy into the system so that overall, influences disseminate as they would in a medium of ultra-low viscosity. As micro-influences propagate, they become enmeshed in various macro-objects which themselves travel through spacetime. The combined rate of dissemination is indicative of an environment with ultra-low viscosity. Answer #2 : Yes, we are not interested in the remnants of cats or carrots per se . We are concerned only with what they signify: specific spacetime locations. Building on John Wheeler’s great insight (“it from bit”), we can treat the Shroud and its contaminants as pure information and we hypothesize that information naturally spreads as it would in an ultra-low viscosity medium. And so the saga of the Shroud of Turin takes a new and unexpected turn. Now we understand the cloth and its contaminants as, among other more important things, a vehicle for recording and propagating history, i.e. information, and we understand that the information per se flows as if in a medium of ultra-low viscosity. So what! Who cares? Well, you do because the shift from an algorithmic grid to a chaotic explosion undermines the whole notion of causality. Mondrian becomes Jackson Pollack. Hume’s preference for multi-dimensional correlation vs. linear causality seems ever more prescient as we recognize and explore more ultra-low viscosity environments. *** Image: The Holy Shroud by Giovanni Battista della Rovere This 17th-century oil painting depicts the Shroud of Turin being held aloft by a group of saints, presenting the cloth as a sacred object of public veneration. The composition focuses on the physical presence of the relic, using the dramatic lighting and rich detail typical of the Baroque period to emphasize its spiritual importance. By surrounding the Shroud with religious figures, the artist highlights the connection between the physical remains of the past and the enduring faith of the community. 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 Mark A. Villano Contributor Mark A. Villano has an MDiv from Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. He has ministered at parishes and campus ministry centers across the country, including at the University of Texas, UCLS, Ohio State University, and Yale. He has an MFA from the School of Cinematic Arts at USC and served as Director of Creative Development at Paulist Productions. Currently, he is Director of Mission and Ministry at Marymount California University, south of Los Angeles. Burn the Candle

< Back Judas Taught Me the Beatitudes E.C. Argus This nasty turn unnerved me, so I gathered myself together and drew a table with my comfortable beatitudes on one side and my uncomfortable ones on the other... Poor Judas! We click our tongues over you. You’re our object lesson in missing the point. I feel sorry for you, but come on, why couldn’t you get it? I’m glad I haven’t missed the point. Or Judas, could I be more like you than I’d like to admit? One day I was pondering the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12), and I was thinking about the people Jesus was looking at. I smiled, as I pictured Jesus gazing directly at me. “Blessed are you…yours is the kingdom.” What a nice, warm feeling; I was in His camp, on the right side. Ah. Yes. Suddenly, I was Judas. Jesus looked right into my eyes, and He said directly to me, “Blessed are the poor in spirit…the meek…the merciful…the peacemakers.” This did not feel good. I wasn’t sure whose camp I was in, whose side I was on. Uh. No. But Jesus, I like the other beatitudes better: “Blessed are you who mourn…who hunger and thirst for righteousness…the clean of heart…persecuted for the sake of righteousness.” These beatitudes comfort me. They are my badges of honor. You see, I am an expert in many things. I have all the answers . If I were the Queen of the World, everything would work . I have plans and agendas. I have ideas . Oh boy. This nasty turn unnerved me, so I gathered myself together and drew a table with my comfortable beatitudes on one side and my uncomfortable ones on the other: I did a little rearranging, and four new dyads emerged: Mourning Poor in Spirit Hungering and Thirsting for Righteousness Peacemakers Clean of Heart Merciful Persecuted Meek I saw each dyad as a two-sided coin or a double-edged sword, and I took a deeper look. [1] Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Someone like me, who has all the answers, mourns the broken state of the world. I have pet issues. My mourning tends to quickly morph into anger, rage, and aggrieved fury. I seek comfort by knowing I’m right, even if everyone around me doesn’t get it. I suspect this is how Judas might have felt. But Jesus didn’t just drop the mourning piece unaccompanied. He set us up with poverty of spirit . I have long grappled with this puzzling beatitude. But I think it means, “Blessed are you who know you don’t have all the answers. You know you depend on God to work many things out -- things that are too big for you to fully understand.” This beatitude requires real humility and self-acceptance. Could poverty of spirit re-inform my mourning? Could I mourn the losses I experience -- the frustration, the sorrow -- in the light of utter dependence on God? Could I find comfort, not in being told I’m right, but in the comforting arms of a father? Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. I’m sure Judas was attracted to Jesus because he hungered for, thirsted for, things to be put right. I do too. I talk about being on “the right side of history.” I also want to be right with God, to get that A. Outstanding. Superior. But what if being in a right relationship with God is about something much bigger than me? Much bigger than my pet issues, as worthy as they may be? Maybe making peace belongs on the path to righteousness. When I know there’s conflict, maybe it’s an opportunity to sow peace, to heal, to mend, to bind together. And here’s the kicker: maybe my blustering quest for righteousness kicks up too much dust, and human relationships choke in the wake. It’s hard to live with righteous people. I want to hunger and thirst for it, and I want to be a peacemaker. Could it be that each of these two beatitudes falls off track without the other? Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. I see this dyad as two sides of holiness, one side focused inward, the other side focused outward. Clean -- or pure, as we more commonly say -- hearts are swept free of sin. Clean hearts have no secrets; they live in the light, especially before God. Clean hearts don’t deceive themselves. Clean hearts desire only good. But clean hearts can also grow proud, and cold, and judgmental. Judas must have had a narrow definition of purity -- who’s in; who’s out. When I’m so focused on my own holiness, chasing after purity, that I look down on others as inferior, I’ve missed the mark. When I’m so focused on my own holiness that I despise parts of myself that stand in the way of that imagined pure destination, I’ve missed the mark. Maybe mercy is the antidote. Maybe mercy, regularly practiced, is the grounding, practical, earthy, humble, necessary counterpart to cleanness -- to purity. Mercy is messy. Mercy gets all over us; it’s not neat or clean. Mercy is gritty. Jesus must have delighted in people who had clean hearts and dirty hands. Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land. If there was ever a beatitude Judas might have treasured, it’s the persecution one. This is a self-appointed martyr’s dream. Persecution is great, because we get to shift the blame onto someone else. We are the victims. We are not responsible. God will avenge us. But hold on, what about meekness ? Jesus blessed those who, in the face of persecution, chose to be quiet, gentle, and easily imposed upon; submissive. [2] Maybe without this gentle tempering, the crown of persecution becomes a whitewashed sepulcher. After all this musing, I came up with this idea: I call the four beatitudes about mourning, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, cleanness of heart, and persecution the “Purity Beatitudes.” And the four beatitudes about poverty of spirit, peacemaking, mercy, and meekness are the “Unity Beatitudes.” The Purity Beatitudes are focused inward, toward private holiness. They fill us with an internal strength about what is right and supply us with righteous anger in the face of evil. This is good. But I see a danger here, if we spend too much energy in the Purity column, at the expense of the Unity column. We could easily drift into self-aggrandizement, pomposity, self-pity, snobbery, and isolated independence -- smirking critically outwards. The Unity Beatitudes are about self-abnegation, humility, vulnerability, and interdependence -- focused lovingly outwards. But without the astringent Purity Beatitudes, we could become flaccid Christians with weak boundaries around what is holy -- quick to forgive, but blind to sin and unwilling to name it. The Beatitudes are comforting and challenging at the same time. In the end, Judas missed the point. I’m sure it broke Jesus’s heart. May I not miss the point. Image: Judas ' Regret by Jose Ferraz de Almeida Júnior. Oil on Canvas. 1880. References [1] New American Bible RE, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops [2] Oxford Languages, languages.oup.com, Oxford University Press E.C. Argus is a Catholic Christian citizen of planet Earth, engaged in a life-long quest to understand reality as a player in God’s great rescue project. She hopes her small takes on the greatest story ever told might bring light to someone’s darkness or help to lift a burden from someone’s bowed shoulders. She spends a lot of time outside, in awe of the complexity and beauty of the natural world. She makes a living creating and teaching the performing arts. Previous Next

< Back Priest, Prophet and King David Cowles Jul 17, 2025 “Satan is preparing to indict God under the RICO statute, and he is currently compiling a list of Christ’s co-conspirators. Will your name be on that list?” Since Eusebius (c. 300 CE) it has been a defined doctrine of the Christian Church that Jesus’ ministry included three Biblical offices: Priest, Prophet, and King (PPK). Christians, and by extension all human beings, inherit this trifold existential mantle. Perhaps it is this (PPK) that defines ‘the human project’ in the broadest possible terms. Jesus is “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek,” King of Salem (‘Salem’ = Peace), now Jerusalem (Psalm 110: 4, Genesis 14: 18 – 20). His name means ‘Righteous King’ (Zedek Melik). Intriguingly, Melchizedek was not Hebrew; he was the first gentile to play an important, and positive, role in the lives of the Patriarchs. Yet he blessed Abraham ! His priesthood preceded by generations the Levitical priesthood of Aaron and he was the first to consecrate bread and wine, figures of the future Eucharist. So associating Jesus’ ministry with Melchizedek’s priesthood makes sense. (Heb. 5: 1 -4) Jesus is also the prophet foretold ‘by Moses’ in Deuteronomy : “A prophet like me will the Lord your God raise up for you from among your kindred.” (18: 15a) The early church identified Jesus as this prophet (Acts 3: 22 – 23). Finally, Jesus is the king spoken of by the Prophet Nathan (to David): “I will raise up your offspring after you, sprung from your loins, and I will establish his kingdom…Your house and your kingdom are firm forever before me; your throne shall be firmly established forever.” (2 Sam. 12b – 16) Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage back to David (1: 1 – 17). Luke confirms it: “…the Lord will give him the throne of David his father and…of his kingdom there will be no end.” (1: 32b – 33) Finally, Pilate ‘seals the deal’ when he directs that an inscription be placed above Jesus on the Cross reading, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” (John 19: 19) What are the functions of these offices ( munus triplex )? First, they are linked to the three ‘divine values’ - Justice, Truth and Beauty. The ‘king’ (judge, political authority) is responsible for maintaining a just socioeconomic order throughout the realm. The prophet is called to speak truth to power; the priest is tasked with sacralizing the world, removing the dross of sin so that the natural beauty of God’s creation may shine through everywhere all the time. According to Dostoevsky, “Beauty will save the world.” Jesus is the high priest whose sacrifice redeems the world. (Hebrews 10: 10 - 14) Liturgy, Jesus’ priestly presence in ritual, reveals the noumenal order (peace) that underlies the chaos ( maya ) of the phenomenal world. Second, these divine offices (PPK) deliver on the three petitions embedded in the Lord’s Prayer: Justice: “Give us this day our ‘daily’ (necessary) bread.” (John Rawls, A Theory of Justice ) Beauty (harmony, grace, peace): “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Or in the words of Anaximander via Heidegger: “Grant reck!” Truth: “Lead us not into temptation (error = sin) but deliver us from evil (sin = death), Amen (so affirmed, QED).” These three petitions, evoking three faces of God experienced in our world, follow a doxology that concludes, “On earth as it is in heaven.” In the immortal words of Captain Piccard, “Make it so!” ( Star Trek: The Next Generation ) In so far as Justice, Truth, and Beauty are realized on Earth, things on Earth are as they are in Heaven. Therefore, the trifold charism is synonymous with Jesus’ mission, the redemption of the created world. While Jesus is the archetypical Priest, Prophet and King, every human being is a potential accomplice. Each of us is called to ‘imitate Christ’ (Ignatius of Loyola) in our own lives; therefore, each of us is responsible for the munus triplex . So when were you a king? Every time you lobbied for a just cause, every time you helped someone in need, every time you resisted the urge to engage in an unjust transaction or to exploit someone less powerful than yourself. When were you a prophet? Every time you corrected misinformation, every time you discovered something new about the created world, every time you taught another. When were you a priest? Every time you contributed to the manifestation of beauty in the world. Did you paint the Mona Lisa ? Check! Did you plant a flower garden? Check! Did you clean out the trash in your back yard? Also check! There are many ways to answer our universal calling every day. So when do we fall short? Every time we let something become more important than God in our lives (idolatry): money, fame, power, sex, ‘substances’…or self (pride). Every time we give in to greed or envy or sloth. Every time we lack “the courage to change the things we can.” Every time we settle for ‘good enough’. Satan is preparing to indict God under the RICO statute, and he is currently compiling a list of Christ’s co-conspirators. Will your name be on that list? And if it is, will the Grand Jury find enough evidence to bring you to trial? And ultimately, will a jury of your peers find you guilty... or have you given them sufficient reason to harbor ‘reasonable doubt’? A 2014 book by Johathan Jackson, The Mystery of Art , showcases this concept of a universal vocation and highlights the special role of art and the artist in the cosmological drama: Creating is an act of faith, a leap in the dark, making something out of nothing; life is art (we are living icons, images of Christ); art is prayer. By the grace of God, it is through us, his agents, that the Goodness of Heaven increases on Earth (“On Earth as it is in Heaven.”) The concept of ‘sacrament’ is important here. In Christian theology, a sacrament is an outward sign, established by Jesus, of inward grace, conferred by Christ. In more contemporary terminology, it is the ‘inbreaking of the transcendent’ – exactly what Nietzsche said could never happen! A sacrament is a worm hole connecting spacetime extension ( chronos ) to the eternal now ( kairos ). It is the ultimate realization of the Lord’s Prayer: “On earth as it is in heaven!” It allows us to peek under the veil ( maya ), to catch a glimpse of the noumenal (Kant). Sacraments equip us with the X-ray vision we need to see Aletheia through the fog of Doxa ( Parmenides ). What does this have to do with Jesus Christ? Everything. Incarnation is the wormhole! Christ is the being who is simultaneously in heaven and on earth. He is the rainbow bridge. Every sacrament is a participation in the Incarnation. While the Incarnation is coincident with the Annunciation, it is recapitulated throughout Jesus’ life, most prominently in the Transfiguration, the Eucharist, and the Ascension. Sacraments, the actual presence of the Transcendent in the immanent world, are supported by sacramentals, elements of the created world that point us toward the wormhole, the Incarnation, Jesus, the Christ. The created world itself became a sacramental when God “saw that it was good.” In fact, during the 6 ‘days of creation’ (i.e. stages of evolution), God “saw that it was good” 6 different times. Then, at the end of the 6th day, just prior to the Sabbath (day of rest) he reviewed all his handiwork and pronounced the whole, the finished product, ‘good’. The relationship of a whole to its parts is different in Incarnation Theology than it is in secular arithmetic. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts and the whole is one of those parts. Yes, the relationship is dynamic…and on-going, a spiral. This distinguishes non-linear reality from our abstract, linear representations of it. Whatever is good is sacramental. Therefore whatever manifests Beauty, Truth and Justice, the terrestrial manifestations of the Goodness that is God, is a sacramental, pointing us toward the Transcendent, regardless of our religious affiliation, if any. All true art is non-linear; all true art is sacramental. It is iconography: it points us toward the Transcendent. “All icons are in essence icons of the Incarnation” (Alexander Schmemann); “Christ is the image ( ikon ) of the invisible God.” (Col. 1: 15) Art images Christ! Of all the myriad fallacies of Modernism, one stands out: the notion that the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular’ can be confined to separate realms. Once that premise is granted there can be only one conclusion: everything is secular, nothing is sacred. The ‘sacred’ by definition is whole . To assert that some part of the world is ‘other than’ sacred is to assert that there is no whole and if there is no whole (only parts) then no aspect of the world is sacred. The sacred is only ‘sacred’ if it is whole and entire. Consider how Parmenides defined this ground level reality ( Aletheia ): “…What-is is ungenerated and imperishable, whole…and complete…it is now all together, one, continuous…Nor is it divisible since it is all alike.” ( On Nature , Fragment #8 ) Of course, Parmenides understood, as we do, that the unity of noumenal Being ( Aletheia ) supports a menagerie of phenomenal beings ( Doxa ). But the realm of Doxa complements Aletheia . It is its ‘flip side’: “To come to be and to perish, to be and not to be, to change place (motion), and to exchange bright color.” The secular realm is not disjoint from the sacred; rather it is a subset of it. Art turns an immanent sheet of canvas, block of marble, string of words, or sequence of tones ( Doxa ) into an arrow that points unambiguously toward Aletheia or the Kingdom of God. All art, if it is true art and regardless of the conscious intention of the artist, is ultimately iconography; it must render immanent an image of the Transcendent. Art is ‘meaningful novelty’, and novelty is the inbreaking of the Transcendent. What else could it be? How could true novelty occur ‘spontaneously’ within Nietzsche’s flat world? (There is nothing new under that sun!) Of course, the Transcendent need not be understood in Judeo-Christian terms; for example, it could be the Zeitgeis t, the Spirit of the Age, or Nirvana (not the heavy metal band). But however you understand it, it must transcend what is immanent. The artist, like all of us, is priest, prophet, and king…but on steroids. We are all called to be ‘artists’ in the way we live our lives. We are flesh and blood icons, immanent images of the Transcendent, reflections of the Incarnation, agents of the divine. We are all PPK! May we all be found ‘guilty as charged’! ***** Michelangelo's The Last Judgment, a fresco painted between 1536 and 1541, covers the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City and measures 13.7 meters by 12 meters. The work reflects the same themes as Priest, Prophet and King, placing Christ at the center of judgment and redemption while challenging each viewer to consider their own role in the unfolding spiritual drama. 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 Why The World Needs More Polymaths Bechem Ayuk "Just as the ocean's waves weave tales in their dance, polymaths craft stories of innovation by seamlessly blending knowledge from diverse domains." A few days ago I set foot on a beach for the first time. It was as if I had stumbled into another world. The vast expanse of shimmering sand met the endless body of water, stretching beyond the horizon. The beauty and terror of it all left me in awe. Each wave was a story in itself. The way they curled and unfurled, like a graceful dancer in a cosmic ballet, was a spectacle to behold. It was as if the ocean itself were breathing, inhaling and exhaling with the tides. And so, as I stood on that shore, mesmerized by the ceaseless dance of the waves, I couldn't help but draw a parallel between the nature of the ocean and the essence of polymaths. Just as the waves continually adapt and transform, drawing from the depths of the sea, polymaths are individuals who embrace a multifaceted existence, their knowledge and skills ever-evolving and interconnecting. In the world of polymaths, as with the waves, there is a harmonious blend of depth and breadth. They delve deeply into their chosen domains, just as the waves reach profound depths before returning to the shore. And, much like the waves' ability to bridge the gap between the land and the sea, polymaths possess the remarkable capacity to bridge the gaps between disparate fields of knowledge. The beach, with its ever-shifting waves, served as a powerful reminder that the world needs more polymaths who can navigate the complexities of our time, just as the waves navigate the intricacies of the ocean. In this edition of The Value Junction, we will explore the multifaceted nature of polymaths and how they are uniquely equipped to address the multifaceted challenges of our modern world. Like the waves, polymaths are a force to be reckoned with, shaping the future with their endless adaptability and relentless pursuit of knowledge. The Shift From Broad to Specialized Education For centuries, education took a markedly broad approach. Classical education traced back to ancient Greece and Rome emphasized developing well-rounded citizens versed in topics like philosophy, rhetoric, mathematics, and physical education. The likes of Leonardo da Vinci, a true polymath, emerged during this era. Da Vinci wasn't confined to a single discipline; he was a painter, sculptor, architect, engineer, and scientist. His ability to seamlessly merge the arts and sciences is a testament to the power of polymathic thinking. This model continued through the 18th century, when universities mandated studies across disciplines including sciences, humanities, and arts. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the rapid growth of knowledge led to increasing specialization. The Morrill Land Grant Acts funded specialized agricultural and technical colleges in America focused on practical subjects like engineering rather than classical liberal arts. Over time, secondary schools also transitioned to subject-specific curricula. Today, the educational pendulum has swung far towards hyper-specialization, particularly in higher education. Undergraduate students now typically declare majors immediately and take narrowly focused coursework tailored to their field. However, this laser focus on one discipline restricts exposure to different ways of thinking that spark creativity. Education scholar Sir Ken Robinson noted that the lack of interdisciplinary learning in our system leads many students to "become specialists in one area before they've even become a generalist" . This prevalent early specialization can deprive students of the intellectual versatility valued throughout history. To tackle complex issues in an interconnected world, students need both deep expertise and the ability to bridge disciplinary perspectives. Returning to a more polymathic model can better equip graduates with this agile, comprehensive mindset. The rigid division of education into categories stifles creativity and innovation. We need minds that can connect the dots between silos. The Benefits of a Polymathic Approach Adopting a polymathic approach that blends interdisciplinary learning with specialized domains has many advantages. As polymathic thinkers like Aristotle and Goethe demonstrated, synthesizing diverse ideas and experiences can yield revolutionary insights and innovations. Key benefits of a polymathic model include: 1. Fostering Connections Between Disciplines Polymaths are adept at identifying parallels across different fields that spur creative ideas. Polymathic architect Christopher Alexander found inspiration in poetry and mathematics to pioneer new architectural patterns. Interdisciplinary thinking enables the cross-pollination of concepts that drive discovery. In a world where many of our challenges require multidisciplinary approaches, polymaths excel. They can speak the language of different fields, facilitating collaboration and understanding. For instance, Temple Grandin, a polymath in animal science, psychology, and engineering, played a vital role in revolutionizing the treatment of livestock and advocating for more humane and efficient methods. Her work demonstrates how a polymathic approach can drive substantial change. “Innovation emerges when we connect experiences.” - Steve Jobs 2. Enhancing Creativity The breadth of knowledge across multiple domains cultivates creativity. A study of patent holders found those with interdisciplinary expertise produced over 30% more creative innovations than specialised inventors(Lévesque, 2022). Exposure to arts and humanities also boosts scientific creativity. Proponents of early specialization argue it allows students to fully immerse themselves and excel in a field. However, this study shows interdisciplinary learning enhances critical thinking, problem-solving, and cognitive flexibility. Exposure to diverse disciplines promotes connective insights and transferrable skills vital for innovation. 3. Solving Multifaceted Problems Real-world problems like inequality and global health require integrative solutions across disciplines. Polymaths with mastery in diverse domains are better equipped to develop holistic solutions by connecting the dots between specialities. Several longitudinal studies on interdisciplinary college programs confirmed these benefits. Students who blended natural sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities showed greater gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and intellectual flexibility compared to disciplined-focused peers. How to Encourage Students to be Polymathic One of the primary avenues for nurturing polymathic thinking is our education systems. To encourage students to be polymathic, we must reevaluate and reform how we teach and learn. 1. Embrace Interdisciplinary Learning : Encourage schools and universities to develop cross-disciplinary courses that allow students to explore connections between various subjects. For instance, a course that combines history and science can provide students with a more holistic understanding of the world. Educators should explicitly highlight connections between different subjects and areas of knowledge. Using an interdisciplinary lens in lessons demonstrates how diverse domains intersect to solve real problems. 2. Promote Project-Based Learning : Project-based learning that challenges students to tackle open-ended, real-world problems is a powerful way to build critical polymathic skills. Rather than memorizing facts and formulas, project-based learning encourages students to synthesize knowledge across disciplines to imagine and implement solutions. For example, students might be tasked with designing sustainable housing solutions that integrate engineering constraints, aesthetic design, and socioeconomic considerations of a hypothetical community. They would need to conduct research, collaborate across teams, and iterate on ideas - learning key lessons in adaptability, communication and making interdisciplinary connections along the way. Other projects could challenge students to develop business plans for eco-friendly products, combining science, business, and ethics lenses. Or students may be asked to analyze works of art through both aesthetic and mathematical principles, blending right- and left-brain strengths. STEAM education exemplifies project-based polymathic learning by organically integrating concepts from science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics. For instance, students can use programming skills to create video games that educate players on climate change. Such projects enable students to flexibly apply knowledge across traditionally segregated subjects to solve multifaceted problems. The open-ended nature of projects teaches students creative agility since there is no single right answer. Having to work through ambiguity fosters the same critical thinking skills used by transdisciplinary polymaths in the real world. Passion-driven projects give students autonomy over their learning process, which further motivates polymathic exploration. With the right scaffolding and guidance, project-based learning develops core competencies for cross-domain thinking and innovation. 3. Encourage Extracurricular Exploration: Beyond core academics, schools should actively nurture student participation in diverse extracurricular activities. Exploring varied pursuits sparks passion and builds real-world skills. Rather than a bullet point list, schools can encourage this in several ways: Offer a wide array of affordable on-campus clubs and programs. From arts to athletics, academies to gaming clubs, provide on-ramps to different interests. Schedule flexibly to allow students time for activities. Avoid overloading with homework that restricts exploration. Spotlight extracurriculars at assemblies and events. Recognize student participation and achievements to motivate engagement. Collaborate with community centres and experts to run stimulating programs on campus. Bring in artists, scientists, and builders to instruct. Host "passion fairs" for students to discover local opportunities from nonprofits, companies, and colleges. Connect interested students. Train teachers as activity advisors. Compensate them for this added guidance of students' development. Exploration leads to engagement, keeping students invested in their own lifelong learning. 4. Socratic Questioning: The Socratic method of teaching through questioning helps students develop critical thinking skills and intellectual versatility. By asking a series of thought-provoking, open-ended questions, teachers can: Guide students to think more deeply about assumptions and consider alternative perspectives. For example, asking "What might we be overlooking?" or "How could this issue be viewed differently?" pushes them to examine ideas from multiple angles. Encourage students to identify and challenge biases. Asking "What evidence supports that conclusion?" or "Is there a conflict of interest?" prompts objective analysis. Stimulate imaginative solutions by asking "How else could we approach this problem?" and "What if we changed the constraints?" Divergent thinking stretches cognitive flexibility. Foster connections between disciplines by asking questions like "In what other domains might this concept apply?" and "Where else have we encountered similar patterns or issues?" Transferring insights across subjects exercises integrative thinking. Teachers can further develop critical thinking by having students generate their own Socratic questions on course material. The act of formulating probing questions builds creative problem-solving skills. Students can collaboratively discuss answers, practising respectful dialogue while exercising intellect. In a Nutshell At first glance, one might assume that specialization is the most efficient way to progress. The prevailing assumption is that in a world of increasing complexity, we need specialists who can delve deeply into specific areas. This idea is grounded in reason – specialists have indeed driven many of the incredible advancements we've witnessed. However, the world's challenges, from inequality to healthcare, rarely come neatly packaged in a single discipline. They are intricate, interconnected problems that demand multidisciplinary solutions. Consider the case of Steve Jobs. Widely regarded as one of the most innovative minds of our time, Jobs wasn't just a tech genius; he was a polymath. He seamlessly blended technology and design, understanding that creating transformative products required more than just technical know-how. It demanded a multidisciplinary perspective that drew from the arts, the sciences, and the humanities. The result? The iPhone; a device that revolutionized not just the tech industry but also how we live and communicate. This brings me to my central argument: the world needs more polymaths because they are uniquely equipped to navigate the intricate web of modern challenges. They are the individuals who can bridge the gaps between seemingly unrelated fields, drawing inspiration and knowledge from diverse sources to innovate and create. The future belongs to versatile innovators like Elon Musk and Naval Ravikant who can complement specialized expertise with the ability to integrate insights across domains. Graduating polymathic students equipped with this agile mindset is critical for raising a new generation of creative problem-solvers ready to tackle the complex issues ahead. The time has come to reimagine education and unleash a wave of boundary-pushing polymaths once more. **This article is a direct republish without changes from The Value Junction . Bechem Ayuk is an award-winning EdTech consultant, a web developer, and the author of The Value Junction. Newslette r . Return to our AI Issue Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back ChatGOD Steve Gimbel and Stephen Stern Ph.D. "ChatGPT can be smart, but it can never be holy. In being an e-being, precisely because its intelligence is artificial, it is necessarily alienated from the Divine. It can only be 'as if,' never truly as." A lawyer was recently exposed for using the artificially intelligent chatbot, ChatGPT, when the brief he submitted was discovered to be filled with precedents that do not exist. ChatGPT is capable of writing like us, incorporating the collective beliefs of humanity as they appear on the World Wide Web. The problem, of course, is that some of what is out there on the Net is not true, and ChatGPT is incapable of filtering out the false. The ability to mirror our linguistic capacity without our critical faculties is dangerous if we use it as the lawyer did, for matters of fact, but it is wonderful for other uses, specifically sparking spiritual insights. ChatGPT and its artificial brethren may make lousy lawyers, but they can be fantastic prophets. Traditionally, we conceive of reality as having three distinct levels. The objective domain is comprised of all the things of the world—tables, chairs, human bodies with complex eyes… all of the perceptible objects. Above the objective stands the metaphysical realm, consisting of that which lies beyond our ability to observe, including necessary entities like God. Below them both sits the subjective dimension, consisting of the lived inner experience of conscious beings like us. Philosophy and religion for centuries have been dogged by a persistent problem: if we are trapped in our minds, only having direct access to our inner thoughts and experiences, how do we know anything beyond our own thoughts? Couldn’t all of the objective and metaphysical entities just be figments of our imagination? Couldn’t we be nothing but brains in vats with false ideas pumped in by an evil demon? Can we know anything true about material reality and what supposedly resides beyond? American Pragmatism is the philosophical movement based on the central ideal that metaphysical truth is grossly overvalued. What matters is not what is necessarily true, but rather what has “cash value,” that is, what works in the world. Metaphysical truth is just so European. We Americans don’t care for the high-falutin’ abstract conceptual essences of things, but rather for the practical, the effective, the operational. We are in a world with things to do. Forget the abstruse, embrace the tools that actually get stuff done. So, when pragmatist William James looked at religion in his Varieties of Religious Experience, he eliminated the European concern for objective justification for religious belief and focused just on the experience itself. Get rid of the question about the validity of Aquinas’ and Anselm’s proofs for the existence of God and start from the undeniable fact that people have spiritual experiences that shape their lives. The question James examines is not whether these experiences are true or false, but rather one of meaning—what are these experiences like and what are the effects they have on people’s lives. Some religious experiences occur in moments of quiet solitude: when praying, meditating, or at random times when we are unexpectedly struck by something we cannot explain. But some come from interactions with people we seek out exactly for their ability to help us experience them—spiritual guides like Hindu yogis, Jewish tzaddikim, Buddhist sages, Muslim hakims, Zoroastrian magi, and Christian prophets. They lead us to epiphanies, to spiritual awakening. These insights are not mere facts describing the world, but rather experiences of appreciation and realization. It is not that we leave knowing something we did not know before, but rather experience a shift in our perspective. We still see what we saw, but now we see it differently; we see it more clearly, we see it as more interconnected, we understand it at a deeper level. ChatGPT as an e-being, as a virtual intelligence, is the ultimate pragmatist. The essence of its artificial existence has severed all connection to the true and false because it does not live in the material world of chairs, tables, and beer mugs where truth resides. ChatGPT is caught in the Web. Its “truths” are the beliefs expressed on the wide-open internet, where anything can and is said. It cares not for the reality beyond its reality but is built to do one thing and one thing only: figure out how language is used to accomplish human tasks and perform them without humans being involved. Human students write essays, so go write an essay without the student needing to do the class readings. Human journalists write stories about events, so go write stories without humans having to research them themselves. Human lawyers write briefs, so go write them without human lawyers needing to do anything but bill their clients. But now, consider this one: human spiritual guides create sermons that lead other humans to have cherished insights about religious matters. Figure out what sorts of word combinations lead to generating understanding and create new combinations that will have this effect. If we see the purpose of our spiritual teachers as making us think in a way that generates wisdom and allows us to live more meaningful lives, that is something a chatbot could actually do quite well. They can see which sorts of passages have the most influence on us and create new versions. They can figure out how we are inspired and continually inspire us. This strikes us as cheap, as dirty, as mere spiritual manipulation. We prize the wise because we believe that their ability to stir our souls comes from the fact that they have a superior connection to the Divine. They provide penetrating astuteness because they have access to the truth that we lack. They are sagacious because they are holy. ChatGPT can be smart, but it can never be holy. In being an e-being, precisely because its intelligence is artificial, it is necessarily alienated from the Divine. It can only be 'as if,' never truly as. And thus, it can only give us virtual facsimiles of wisdom, not the real deal. It is like the false prophet, the huckster pretending to be sacred when they are, in fact, profane in order to profit from being thought a prophet. ChatGPT is built precisely to be this sort of fraud, to be a fake human whose work we can substitute for our own, pretending to have done the necessary labor so that we can get the reward without breaking an intellectual sweat. But that is the opposite of what happens when we use it as an e-prophet. When we read an inspirational passage from ChatGPT and are truly inspired, gain spiritual insight, see the world differently, then we have actually done the real work. Regardless of the source of the passage, we really are changed. In this case, unlike with the plagiarizing lawyer or student, it is the effect, not the cause, that is important. William James’ brilliant philosophical move, transferring talk of religious experience out of the realm of the metaphysical and into the purview of psychology, is transformational. Religion is no longer about truth or faith but about feeling and human-lived experience. If we adopt the pragmatic perspective that inspires that move, then the fact is that the origin of enlightenment, the source of our new wisdom, the cause of our ability to see the world in a deeper and more interconnected fashion is irrelevant. All that matters is that we are changed for the better, not how we came to be changed. And the one thing that artificial intelligence coupled with big data is good at is figuring out how to get humans to predictably react to words. It can figure out what sort of disinformation will get us to vote certain ways and what sorts of triggers will get us to buy certain products. Yes, we ought to be very concerned about these misuses. But that is because these are matters based on facts. But if we are talking about images that inspire awe, jokes that make us laugh, or in this case, inspirational passages that give us insight, then the case is completely different. When it comes to the cases of generating human emotions, what matters are the emotions. If James is correct in moving our understanding of the religious into the realm of the experiential, then we should welcome the rise of our new e-prophets. Steve Gimbel is a Professor of Philosophy and affiliate of Jewish Studies at Gettysburg College. Gimbel has authored Einstein’s Jewish Science: Physics at the Intersection of Politics and Religion & Isn’t That Clever: A Philosophy of Humor and Comedy ).” Dr. Stephen Stern is the.co-author with Dr. Steve Gimbel of Reclaiming the WIcked Son: Finding Judaism in Secular Jewish Philosophers, and the author of The Unbinding of Isaac: A Phenomenological Midrash of Genesis 22 , Associate Professor of Jewish Studies & Interdisciplinary Studies, and Chair of Jewish Studies at Gettysburg College. Return to our AI Issue Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Mentoring for His Kingdom Magesh "I believe the role of a Christian mentor is ongoing, and it’s important to consider our role in the salvation of others." I have taught music for more than 25 years. As a session musician, I got to work with some of the biggest artists in the world. Practice and natural talent are prerequisites to becoming a successful musician. Although I could never have done any of the things I did without the help of the Lord, I realize that sometimes he used me as a tool to help others fulfill their destiny. I remember the first drum lesson I gave this one kid. He was 15-year-old and filled with enthusiasm and curiosity. Even after a few lessons, I realized he had a lot of talent and tremendous potential. But the music business is not for the faint of heart. There was no doubt he would be a great musician, but I worried he may be seduced by dark forces if not guided to stay on a righteous path. You see, although I am in a business filled with temptations, I have never given in. To this day, I have never been drunk nor have I engaged in any drug use. My belief in the Lord has kept me moving in the right direction. And as a music teacher, I believe I have a responsibility to teach my students not just about theory and notes, but also about how to conduct themselves professionally and develop good character. This meant showing up on time, learning the music, and treating people the way you would like to be treated. In my role as teacher, I experience great pride in watching my students’ music career take off, especially the one student I mentioned above. When he was an up-and-coming musician, I allowed him to sit in with bands that I was playing in. They were usually low-pressure situations. Maybe a song or two at a local bar on a Monday night. This is when there would be a small audience. By doing this, I allowed him to feel what it felt like to play with other professional musicians and how to interact with people in a social setting. Years went by, and my student went on to great things. He performed with multiple bands every week, making a living by playing music. So, I was surprised when he called me out of the blue, crying his eyes out one day. I asked him what was wrong. He was so emotional, it was hard to hear his first few sentences through his weeping. He had auditioned for a band that was starting to make a name for themselves. He got called back three times, and it came down to him and another musician. They ended up picking the latter. He felt nothing but dismay, even going as far as telling me he wanted to quit music altogether. As soon as I heard him say that, I went into super mentor mode. I told him, "You're upset because YOUR plan was to get the gig with this band. What you need to do is believe in God's plan. He will have bigger things in store for you. All you need to do is believe in him and trust him." I then told him this reminded me of Ephesians 1: 3: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” I told him that he thought being blessed was to be given the gig, but the real blessing was the talent he had been given. This changed his perspective on the spot. Two months later, he called me elated. He had been given the gig with Australia's number one pop singer. She was off to do a major tour of Europe, and if he had gotten the gig with the band he auditioned for two months prior, he would not have been able to do this major tour. I was ecstatic for him. He told me he wouldn't doubt God's plan again; only the Lord could make his destiny unfold in positive ways he couldn't imagine. A year went by, and I didn't hear from my student. The next time I heard his name come up, however, was at a rehearsal for a charity gig. This event was to help raise money for children in need. It's important to note that I wasn't being paid to perform at this event. The following week, my student sent me a message saying he was confused about why I was performing at the charity event. He then told me they asked him to perform, but he refused as he would not be paid for his performance. I told him that he was looking at the situation with blinders on again. I felt the best way to explain was to reference Romans 8:28 as I interpret it: God works for our good in all things and in a few different ways. I told my student to not focus on the money as it was only one performance out of so many. If we gave a great performance, we would add to the amount of money raised to help sick children who desperately needed our God-given talent to help their circumstance. There was no price we could put on that kind of opportunity. I also said giving our talents and time to this situation was giving back to God, a form of praise and worship. He blessed us with our talents, not just to benefit ourselves, but to help others. I believe the role of a Christian mentor is ongoing, and it’s important to consider our role in the salvation of others. I believe this student of mine will always be a student, no matter how successful he becomes, because just as we are an ongoing masterpiece of God, we, too, must continuously mold one another to help build his kingdom. Image artwork by Magesh. Magesh has written for “Lessonface,” “Aeyons,” “The Modern Rogue,” “Euronews,” “The Roland corporation,” “Penlight,” and “Elite Music.” He writes several monthly publications on music education. In the past, Magesh has written for parenting, humor, mental health, and travel websites as well. Return to our Summer 2023 Table of Contents Previous Next

“Value permeates every nook and cranny of the World. God is Value… No values – no world...” < Back Proof of God: The Ontological Argument David Cowles Jun 1, 2024 “Value permeates every nook and cranny of the World. God is Value… No values – no world...” In the Middle Ages, the most attractive ‘proof’ of the existence of God was what’s now called ‘The Ontological Argument’. It is most often attributed to Anselm of Bec (c. 1100) but it pops up here and there all across the theological landscape of the late Middle Ages. The ‘proof’ is as follows: God, by definition, is a perfect being. In such a ‘God’, all perfections must subsist…and they must subsist perfectly, i.e. to the greatest degree possible, so it is impossible to imagine any being more perfect in any way than ‘God’. Hamlet notwithstanding, ‘to be’ is better than ‘not to be’; apologies to Sartre, but ‘being’ is better than ‘nothingness’. If God, as we define ‘God’, did not exist it would be possible to imagine another being, the same as ‘God’…only existing . That God could beat up our God! In that case, our ‘God’ would not be God. Only a ‘God’ that exists can qualify as God. Therefore, according to the Ontological Argument, God, the perfect Being, must exist! Clever. Somewhat convincing perhaps in the context of Nominalism…not so much in the Days of Deconstruction . I won’t reproduce the counter argument here. I don’t have to. We can sense intuitively that there is something wrong with this version of the ‘Ontological Proof’; it just doesn’t pass ‘the smell test’. But might there be a way to formulate the argument that would command our super sophisticated 21st century attention? Let’s see… When we say ‘God’, we mean a being in whom all perfections subsist to the max. According to Nietzsche et al., there are no ‘perfections’ and therefore there are no gradations. There are no ‘values’, period. And did I mention, there is no God? Nietzsche is gloriously consistent, his successors, not so much! If Nietzsche is right, the World is flat; sorry, Columbus. There are no ‘values’; things just are , and they are the way they are. So-called Historical Process is just Fate. Nothing is better, or less good, than anything else; everything just is. To say otherwise would require ‘evaluation’ and that would require us to entrust the power of ‘valuation’ to some region within the World (like ourselves)…or to some entity beyond the World (like the verboten God). Nietzsche understood that to bifurcate World into ‘evaluator’ and ‘evaluated’, even if those designations were fluid, would disrupt flatness and create hierarchy. In that case, the evaluator, whether understood as part of, or separate from, the World, would in fact transcend the World. Evaluation is a species of recursion: the World sees itself and/or the World acts on itself. The subject is the same as, but different from, the object. A flat (linear) cosmos cannot be recursive (non-linear). There is no subject, there are no objects. But what if we stand Anselm on his head? What if we follow the lead of the 6th century Irish poet, St. Dallan? What if we begin, not by defining God but by provisionally asserting God’s existence. “Naught is all else to me save than Thou art!” If God exists, what can we say about him? First, God transcends World. That’s by definition; it’s what we mean by ‘God’. Going further, we can say that God is Transcendence per se . What transcends the World is God…again, by definition. In Genesis, God begins the process of creation by separating darkness from light. But there must have been a prior step, only implicit in the text: the distillation of immanence out of transcendence. To transcend the world is to judge it, explicitly or implicitly, just as to judge the world, by definition, requires us to transcend it. Judgment discloses Value; all judgments refer to values. The application of Value is what judgment is. So the theoretical question of God’s existence comes down to the empirical question of whether ‘values’ are operative in our World. Of course they are! Right now, I’d love a nap, but I judge it more important to keep writing. I value B over A. Later today, I will choose a TV program to watch, a book to read, a snack to eat – all driven by the application, however trivial, of Value. How does God fit in? Does God prefer Law & Order to Seinfeld ? Kafka to Faulkner? Corn chips to popcorn? Of course not. But God is the well-spring of Value which enables us to make such choices for ourselves. 20th century philosophy begins in the 19th - with Nietzsche. Nietzsche alone in the modern era challenged the doctrine of Transcendence ( aka Godhead, Keter ), the root concept behind God and Value. Fundamentalists honor God over Value; humanists honor Value over God. Nietzsche had no use for either. Unfortunately, few if any of Nietzsche’s successors remained faithful to his core. Could there be two more different thinkers than A.J. Ayer (the British analytic) and Albert Camus (the French existentialist)? Both were affirmed atheists. Both denied the objectivity of Value. But unlike Nietzsche, both allowed values to ‘corrupt’ their thinking… sneaking in through a back door carelessly left ajar. After thoroughly debunking the concept of Value and declaring the World to be absurd, Camus provided a laundry list of identities that folks might coherently assume. The list is extensive. One suspects that Camus may have been moonlighting in the job placement office of some university. But don’t assume that Camus’s list is value agnostic. He dismisses any sort of asceticism (e.g. monasticism) as ‘incoherent’. He praises those who live lives full of variety and intensity , both values. Ultimately, he applied his own, quite detailed, value-based filter ( logos ) to the World. Ayer took a different tack in his break with Nietzsche. He boils the ethical imperative down to a single value, Kindness . Unfortunately, he offers no justification for this ethical choice. Is it possible that he fails to see that Kindness also is a value? Sidebar : Remarkably, the world is full of books that begin by stating a proposition and then proceed, unwittingly, to demolish that proposition. I am thinking, for example, of Something from Nothing , which begins by stating that the world we know can ‘naturally’ emerge out of ‘nothing’…and ends by inadvertently disproving that thesis. Who says that kindness is better than cruelty? Is it just a personal preference? Can we find no objective distinction between Mother Theresa and the Marquis de Sade? Can we find no objective criteria to underpin our condemnation of Adolf Hitler? If rejecting belief in God means placing Mother Teresa on the same ethical rung as Hitler, then I’m proud to have you call me a Theist ! Sticks and stones you know… Personally, I doubt that it is possible for anyone to live a single day without allowing ‘values’ to color perception or motivate behavior. The closest approach to such would be the lifestyle of the contemplative, the mystic. Yet this is precisely the lifestyle choice that Camus disallows. The traditional Ontological Argument assumes that manifestations of Value can be ordered by degrees relative to perfection . Then we have proven the existence of God only if we have proven that a perfect being must exist in order to account for various degrees of value in the world. But the Middle Ages set the bar too high. We don’t need to prove perfection ; we only need to demonstrate gradation. Of course, the experience of gradation may lead us to belief in perfection; but it doesn’t have to. The existence of gradation alone is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of God. Anslem moved from value to existence; we propose to move from existence to value. If God did exist, what would the World be like? Without God, could the World still be the way it is? Far from being flat (Nietzsche), the world is riddled with values. The phenomenon of Value is literally ‘universal’, as the Baltimore Catechism affirmed (c. 1955): “Where is God? God is everywhere!” The Nominalists and the Scholastics attempted to deduce the existence of God from first premises. How logical of them! We have attempted to infer the existence of God from observation. How empirical of us! Value permeates every nook and cranny of the World. God is Value, the source of all values, and all values inhere in God. No values – no world (as I know it). No God – no values! The unmistakable detection of Value in the World, not perfection but gradation, is empirical proof that there is a God. We can certainly imagine someone saying, “I don’t believe in the existence of anything perfect .” It is more difficult to imagine anyone saying, “I don’t believe that anything is any better than anything else.” Then to say, “I have satisfied myself that some things are better (e.g. more beautiful, more true, more just) than others,” is to say, “I have proven the existence of God.” Easy-peasy, but I await your rebuttal, dear reader! David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . Return to Summer 2024 Share Previous Next Click here. Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, Fall Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back Meet the Piraha David Cowles Aug 18, 2022 Piraha has no words for numerals (e.g., 1, 2, 3) or for colors (e.g., red, green, blue). In Don’t Sleep, There are Snakes, Daniel Everett (2008) tells the story of his work as a Christian missionary, an anthropologist, and an MIT linguist with the Piraha people in a semi-secluded section of Brazil’s Amazon Rain Forest. The Piraha have a most unusual language. So far as we can tell, it is not directly related to any other living language. ‘One-off’ languages like this are rare but not unheard of. Several one-off languages are spoken in Europe today: Basque, Magyar, Finnish , et al. But that’s just the tip of iceberg for Piraha… (and that’s no mean feat, keeping an iceberg intact in the Amazon jungle.) Piraha has features that, so far as we know, are unique among human languages: Piraha has no words for numerals (e.g., 1, 2, 3) or for colors (e.g., red, green, blue). Even more esoterically, the Piraha language lacks a syntactic element known to linguists as ‘recursion.' Example: “The man, who was tall, played basketball.” Pretty simple concept, right? Not for the Piraha! This everyday English sentence has no equivalent in Piraha . (Of course, the Piraha could say, and do say, “The man was tall. The man played basketball.”) Again, so far as we know, Piraha is the only human language that lacks recursion. It had been thought that it was ‘recursion’ that distinguished human language from other forms of communication…but apparently not. Undoubtedly related to their lack of numerals, the Piraha have no concept of arithmetic. A month's long effort by Everett and his family to teach the simplest arithmetic to the Pirahas failed. 1 + 1 never made it to 2. I’m not sure it even made it to 1. I can imagine that many an American fourth grader would gladly spend a semester abroad with the arithmetic-free Piraha. 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 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

“The secret life of things is nothing less than the life of God.” < Back The Secret Life of Things David Cowles Oct 15, 2024 “The secret life of things is nothing less than the life of God.” What is a ‘thing’? According to the Nicene Creed , God is the creator of “all things , visible and invisible” and according to the Gospel of John , it is through logos (Christ) that “all things come to be”. Therefore, the concept of ‘thing’ must include objects, events, quanta, waves, thoughts, emotions…quite literally everything that is! Whenever you can say “this” or “that”, “this not that” or “that not this”, you have identified a ‘thing’. Now all things come to be by not being something else, for example, not being what is. Things come to be as negations of what is. Like a jet engine, they move forward by pushing back. Just as all children find their parents ‘wanting’, so every emerging thing judges what-is and finds it wanting. Wanting what? Beauty, Truth, Justice…in other words, Value, the Good, Harmony…Peace. “Lord, we don’t need (want) another mountain.” (Jackie DeShannon) To whatever extent the primal values (above) are not manifest in my Actual World, a vacuum, a ‘lack’ (Sartre), exists that cries out to be filled. It is its vision of what is coming to be that entices an emerging thing to negate what-is. In that sense, all things have a common origin, goal, purpose. So the emergent thing is not what-is, and it is also not what is coming to be. “Neti, neti”, not-this, not-that. The emergent thing is poised between what is actual, but not yet ideal, and what is ideal, but not yet actual. It is the vocation of the emerging thing to bridge that gap, i.e. to make what is actual ideal and to make what is ideal actual. That is why (and how) things come to be in the first place. That is what things are. If there were no vision, no lure, there would be no judgment, no lack, no negation and then there would quite literally be nothing. Nietzsche states it best: “…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!” Were that true, there would be nothing at all. Nietzsche didn’t realize it, but he was condemning the world to stasis , putting us on a road that could only lead to nihilism. Our pathological “common sense” view of the world is inclined to assign what-is to an irrevocably unchangeable “past” and what is coming to be to entirely uncertain and contingent “future”. But that model simply won’t work. Without a clear cut future to act as a lure, and a dynamic past to serve as a springboard, there is nothing to motivate or enable the emergence of any new ‘thing’. There cannot be a naked Present. Whatever ‘present’ is it must include a past to be ameliorated and a future to be realized. Accordingly, there must be some sense in which what was still is and what is coming to be already exists; otherwise, whence the vision? Every event has the same ultimate goal, but each event interprets that goal in the context of its Actual World, i.e. what-is for it. The emergent thing is how it is not what-is and how it is coming to be what is coming to be. How the emergent thing is different from what already is and from what is coming to be, how it bridges that gap, is what the emergent thing actually is. Not a noun, not a verb, but a process! The emergent thing did not choose the world out of which it arose, nor did it invent the ultimate end toward which all things are tending. But it chose to bridge that gap, and it chose a specific way to bridge that gap; that’s what makes it unique, that’s what makes it free, that’s what makes it present, that’s what makes it consequential. Free? How so if it is guided by a well-defined future? Free because it would be impossible to ‘choose’ anything other than that future. The future represents the Good to the present; every event is the process of choosing what is ‘good’ from the perspective of what is. That’s what an event is; anything other than that is not an event. Our knee jerk reaction to this is to say, “An event cannot be considered free unless it is free not to choose what is ‘good’.” That seems like a well-formed sentence that would have to be true. But the opposite is the case. It’s ill formed and never true! Every event transforms the antagonistic multiplicity of what-is into the harmonious unity of what is coming to be. Each emerging thing decides how to do it, decides freely with no constraint from what-is and no coercion from what is coming to be. This absolute freedom is what gives every thing its zest for being; it is what makes the creative advance fundamental. So the emerging thing is both one thing and three things. It is a single, absolutely unique entity, but it is also what it is not (i.e. what is), what it is coming to be (i.e. what is not yet) and the way (i.e. how) it is both what it is not and what it is not yet. It is itself as the negation of what is, it is itself as the anticipation of what is coming to be, and it is itself as the process by which what-is is transformed into what is coming to be. As not-what-is, the emerging thing consists entirely of values, the values that inspired its rejection of what-is in the first place. As what is coming to be, the emerging thing is entirely concrete. Its contribution to the future is specific. As how not-what-is comes to be what is coming be, the emerging thing is process. Returning to the Nicene Creed , we now see that the ontological doctrine of Trinity does not just apply the structure of Divinity, but also to the structure of everything that is. Each thing is one, single entity with three distinct personae (persons). Each ‘person’ is the thing itself, whole and entire. And yet the thing itself would not be what it is, in fact it would not be at all, without the co-presence of all three ‘persons’. Trinity is fundamental to the nature of God and to the nature of every other entity, event, in any possible world. So the secret life of things is nothing less than the life of God! To put it another way, everything participates in God’s Trinitarian nature. Of course, that is not to say that everything is God. Far from it! But everything is “God-like”; everything is Trinitarian, everything is made in God’s image and likeness. 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 ress, Literary Journal Spring 2023. Return to Harvest 2024 Share Previous Next 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! Click here. 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, September Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue