Search Results

< Back Consciousness David Cowles Feb 16, 2023 “Consciousness is an agent of identity, a consequence of identity, and an expression of identity…” The idea of free-floating consciousness is absurd. Consciousness is not some sort of disembodied pseudo-substance, detectable (in theory and in practice) only through its various, otherwise inexplicable, manifestations. It is not a ghost in a machine (Gilbert Ryle). Consciousness is not inferred from data; it is the direct experience of data that includes the awareness of that data as data and the awareness of awareness itself. Consciousness is recursive; it is the ultimate stage in the integration and unification of elements in the constitution of an actual entity. Consciousness is an agent of identity, a consequence of identity, and an expression of identity – all in no particular order. Bumper sticker : Consciousness happens! It is a paradigm of non-linear, recursive, self-reinforcing process. Therefore, every actual entity, to the extent that it is, in fact, an actual entity, is conscious . However, the intensity and the subjective form of that consciousness varies widely from one actual entity to another. The idea of hard-wired consciousness is also absurd. Consciousness cannot be reduced to some sort of physical structure, e.g., a network of molecules or cells, but that is not to say that some sort of physical structure is not required for consciousness to manifest – it is! So, if consciousness is neither free-floating nor hard-wired, what is it? Consciousness is an emergent property of a nexus of elements; it is characteristic of certain patterns . It is a homeostatic behavior that accompanies the process of transition from mere multiplicity to actual entity. Consciousness unifies and identifies. Ontogenesis is an atemporal process. It is entirely unrelated to what we call causality (which is by definition a spatio-temporal phenomenon). Every nexus includes the entire multiplicity of events that it subtends. The nexus-stage of ontogenesis ‘orders’ the multiplicity so that it can function as patterned raw material for the emergence of a novel actual entity (event). In one sense, a nexus logically precedes the formation of an actual entity. In another sense, it is the consequence of that formation. Therefore, it cannot but be acausal and atemporal. In fact, it is the actual entity that determines the identity of the nexus, not the other way around. T-shirt : One nexus, one entity: one entity, one nexus! That’s ontological democracy for you. Think Three Musketeers : one for all and all for one! ( Theistic translation : God for us and us for God!) That’s Being . But again, it’s the actual entity that drives the process, i.e., that gives the nexus its character . It is as a nexus that the activities of the independent elements of the omnipotent multiplicity (think Aristotle’s ‘matter’, i.e., pure potentiality ) begin to align (think metal filings as they encounter a magnetic field) in the initial stage of the formation of an entity. It is consciousness, the homeostatic behavior of certain nexus (pl.), that is responsible for the phenomenon of identity . Identity in turn functions as its own engine of homeostasis. Once again, like every element in ontogenesis , this is a non-linear, recursive, auto-reinforcing process. Like terrestrial species defined by their DNA, all nexus (pl.) share elements in common. In fact, the elements of ‘neighboring nexus’ (pl.) are likely to overlap…massively. But that doesn’t mean that the entities that ultimately emerge from those nexus (pl.) will be phenomenally similar; far from it! I share 70% of my DNA with a fruit fly; it is my brother from another mother. 'Nuf said? Only an actual entity ‘creates’. ( Sidebar : Therefore, in a theistic ontology, God too must be an actual entity.) Only an actual entity can contribute both unity and novelty to the world. In fact, to borrow a construction from Keats, unity is novelty and novelty unity – that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know! Bottom line : each nexus constitutes a unique ‘actual world’ for the emergence of a unique actual entity (or event). The process that happens between an Actual World and an Actual Entity is quite complex – too complex for this venue. (Check out Process and Reality – Alfred North Whitehead.) It involves values, objectives, feelings, choices, contrasts, etc. The culmination of that process is the emergence of a unique entity (event), adding yet another element to the vast multiplicity of events that are available to be ordered in a nexus so that it can function as an element in the emergence of other actual entities. Self-awareness ( aka consciousness, aka identity) is a defining element of ‘actual entity’ per se . 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 I Wasn't Anything David Cowles Every day is Halloween…Every day I get to make the decision anew: who am I going to be today? When my world was still magical (ages 6 through 11?), Halloween was the most important day of the year. Thanksgiving and Christmas were great fun, and we benefited handsomely from each, but Halloween was our holiday. We got to make our own fun! Plus, it was the only night of the year when we were allowed out after dark, with friends, and, in those days, without any adult supervision. By the time I was eight years old, Halloween season stretched from October 1 through November 2 (All Souls' Day in the Roman Catholic Church and the day the candy ran out in our house). There was no time to spare. The logistics were daunting. Who’s in my wolf pack this year (for Trick-or-Treating)? What streets will we hit and in what order? And, most importantly, what will we be ? Now I am a grandfather 10 times over, and one day I made the mistake (sadly, one of many) of saying to a grandson, “I hear you’re dressing up as Captain America this year.” Crestfallen, he managed, “No Grandpa, I am Captain America.” I had forgotten! Choosing our Halloween ‘character’ (‘avatar’ today) was not a matter of putting on a costume for a few hours or experimenting with an alternate identity for a day. It was more like choosing, or being chosen by, a totem animal. Your Halloween character is ‘who you are’…until the next Halloween rolls around. “Who should I be?” That is the question! “And how should I be it?” Store-bought costumes are sleek and shiny, but they are usually made from some sort of plastic material that makes noise when you walk and has a faint chemical odor. A home-made costume, on the other hand, could be much better…or much worse. It affords more room for novelty, but that is tricky. How ‘novel’ do you want to be at eight years old? Plus, you’ll need Mom’s help, and that means surrendering some creative control. You’re eight; you’re not used to making life or death identity-determining decisions, and this is the most important decision you’ve made in a year; and it will be another year before you have a chance to do it again. There is no margin for error. And yet, I erred. The decision was of such monumental significance that I simply couldn’t pull the trigger; I procrastinated. Sure enough, Halloween morning came, and I was still not settled. Over breakfast, Mom nudged, “Do you know what you’re going to be yet?” And again, after school. Finally, around 4 o’clock I turned to her in desperation, “Mom, what can I be?” “Well, you could be a mummy. I could wrap toilet paper all over you and tape it.” I wasn’t happy, but it was too late to be anything else. “Mummy me up please, Mommy!” It wasn’t anywhere near as bad as you’re imagining. In fact, it was ‘kinda good.’ I hit the streets in high spirits, and everything would have turned out ok, except for one thing: after about an hour, it started to rain, not hard enough to disrupt our mission but enough to soak us to the skin. I’ll let you put two and two together. Suffice to say, I returned home at the end of the evening, a rain-drenched child with wet toilet paper hanging all over him. I couldn’t hold back my tears, “Mommy, I wasn’t anything!” I didn’t get over this disappointment quickly, and it was many years before I appreciated the momentous lesson of these events. The words still ring in my ears today, “I wasn’t anything!” and that realization, that experience ended up forming the cornerstone of my later adult thinking. (Freudians welcome!) “I wasn’t anything!” Of course, I wasn’t. I wasn’t anything on Halloween night; I wasn’t anything six months later, and I’m still not anything today. Neither are you, neither is anyone. The day I become something , is the day I no longer am . But it goes even deeper. What I am is precisely that I am not anything. Neti, neti – not this, not that! For human beings, being is a matter of not being what we’re not. Is this surprising? How could it be otherwise? If I truly was Captain America, then I wouldn’t be me, would I? And if I am me, how can I be anything else? I am neither Captain America, nor a Pirate, nor a Mummy. Neither am I an eight-year-old boy…nor an 80-year-old man! I am what nothing is and what nothing is. So… So…everything! On the one hand, I don’t have to waste time “finding myself” because there is quite literally nothing to find. But that reprieve comes at a great price. I am nothing, but I am nothing in the context of the world. In myself, I can be nothing, but I cannot be nothing in the world. If I were, then I wouldn’t be in the world at all, would I? So, it’s back to Halloween night after all. Because I am nothing, I am free to make myself anything I choose. My identity is not dictated by my genes, by my socioeconomic class (sorry Karl), by my upbringing, or by my education. “I know who I am, and I know that I can be whatever I want to be.” But with such freedom comes an awesome responsibility. I don’t have the luxury of living life on the sidelines. I cannot pass through life as a spectator. I see the world as it is, and I must decide who I wish to be in this world. I might choose to be a recluse, but that, too, is a choice, and being a recluse is still being something vis a vis the world. At eight years of age, there are three sentences that you long to hear:  “Daddy’s bringing home a puppy (or a pony).  “School’s out…forever.”  “Every day is Halloween.” Well, I never got a pony or a dog (strike one), and I did get a college education (strike two), but, good news, every day is Halloween. Home run! Every day I get to make the decision anew: who am I going to be today? 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. Previous Next

< Back You Really Were Born for This Jade Baldwin "Esther’s journey from obscurity to influence exemplifies the profound truth that individuals are often placed in specific circumstances to fulfill significant purposes, even amid uncertainty and peril." Toward the end of the Old Testament is a book that is dissimilar from the others, but a dissimilarity that feels so purposeful it’s hard to overlook its reason for placement at that time in Jewish history and also its continued relevance in the lives of believers today. The Book of Esther introduces us to a female heroin whose story is vibrant with themes like destiny, identity, and divine providence. At its heart lies the compelling tale of a Jewish orphan who unexpectedly rises to become queen of Persia during a critical juncture in Jewish history. Her ascension, seemingly coincidental yet laden with purpose, embodies one of the most spoken verses of scripture: “Perhaps you were born for such a time as this.” (Esther 4:14) In reading Esther, one cannot help but wonder about their own identity, destiny, and God’s providence in their life. Esther's journey begins with her humble upbringing under the care of her cousin Mordecai in Susa, the capital of the Persian Empire. Following Queen Vashti's dismissal for disobedience, Esther enters a royal beauty contest and wins the favor of King Xerxes, ultimately becoming his queen (Esther 2:17). This seemingly fortuitous turn of events, however, is soon revealed to be a strategic placement orchestrated by a higher hand. As Mordecai warns Esther of the imminent threat to the Jewish people posed by the vengeful vizier, Haman, he implores her to intercede on behalf of her people before the king. Mordecai's pivotal words, mentioned above (Esther 4:14) resonate with the conviction that has been building in Esther, that her elevation to queenhood was not mere chance at all, but rather a providential positioning for a crucial task. This theme of identity plays a critical role in Esther’s story, particularly the discernment of when to hide one’s true identity and when to reveal it. Initially, Mordecai advises Esther to conceal her Jewish heritage (Esther 2:10), a precautionary measure that protects her in the Persian court. This act of concealment allows Esther to navigate the royal environment without prejudice, highlighting the complex decisions individuals must make regarding their identity in potentially hostile settings. It garners her trust among those who don’t understand her people. However, the necessity of revealing her identity arises as Haman's genocidal decree against the Jews looms large. Recognizing the gravity of the situation and emboldened by Mordecai's admonition that her silence could lead to her people's demise, Esther risks her life by disclosing her Jewish identity to King Xerxes (Esther 7:3-4). Her courageous revelation not only unveils the truth but also precipitates Haman's downfall. This moment underscores the delicate balance between prudence and necessary revelation, teaching that the timing and context of disclosing one's purposeful identity can be as significant as the revelation itself. A unique aspect of the Book of Esther is the absence of explicit mentions of God, which contrasts with other biblical texts. This absence, however, serves as a subtle marker of God’s authority and plans at work. While God's name is not directly invoked, His presence is palpably felt through the series of events that favor Esther and her people. This narrative choice emphasizes faith in the unseen, where divine intervention subtly shapes human affairs without overt proclamation. We have all been through periods where God feels completely absent; stories like Esther’s remind us that God is ever present even in the quiet. (Psalm 46:1) For instance, one pivotal example of implied divine intervention is the sleepless night of King Xerxes, leading to the discovery of Mordecai's unrewarded act of loyalty (Esther 6:1-3). This seemingly trivial incident triggers a cascade of events culminating in Haman’s downfall and the salvation of the Jews. The narrative's subtlety in presenting these occurrences invites readers to perceive the invisible hand of God at work, orchestrating events for the greater good. Esther's story thus becomes a powerful testament to the belief that God, though unseen, is always at work and actively involved in our lives. The narrative of Esther also highlights the importance of courage and faith in the face of adversity. Esther's willingness to risk her life for the sake of her people exemplifies the ethical imperative of using one's position and influence for justice and righteousness. Her actions reflect a profound understanding of her role and responsibility, illustrating the belief that individuals are often placed in specific circumstances to fulfill significant purposes. This ties back again to the banner of being born at a specific place in history for a specific purpose. Esther’s story offers timeless lessons on courage, faith, and the discernment of God-given purpose. Esther's journey from obscurity to influence exemplifies the profound truth that individuals are often placed in circumstances to fulfill significant roles, even amid uncertainty and peril. Her willingness to risk her life for the sake of her people highlights the ethical imperative of using one's position and influence for justice and righteousness. Moreover, the narrative's portrayal of God’s providence, though veiled, underscores the belief that God works mysteriously yet decisively for his creation. Reflecting on Esther's narrative, we are reminded of the enduring relevance of her story in contemporary contexts. It challenges us to discern our own moments of destiny and to act with courage and conviction when called upon to make a difference. Just as Esther stood at the crossroads of history, so are we called to embrace our roles in shaping a world where justice, compassion, and the creator’s great plan converge. Jade lives and writes in Siloam Springs, Arkansas, where she is dedicated to sharing the wisdom of scripture as it applies to the present. She leads engaging Bible discussion groups for the elderly, fostering a deeper understanding and connection to faith. Her work aims to inspire and uplift readers, encouraging a life of purpose and devotion. Return to our 2024 Beach Read Previous Next

< Back AI - Our New Frenemy AI and the Human Quest for Love AI - The Next Big Test of the Human Soul Hadassah Treu "The longing is powerful. Perhaps because this is the longing for unconditional love and acceptance with which every human being is born." When I grew up and even as a mature adult, I was fascinated by Isaac Asimov's books about robots. Asimov is the one who invented in his books the so-called Three Laws of Robotics. These instructions are not scientific laws, but they are built into every robot in his stories to prevent dangerous malfunctions. According to the first law, robots must not cause harm to humans or allow humans to be harmed by not taking action. However, the laws underwent an interesting development because the robots themselves added a 4th law, the so-called Zero law. In "Robots and Empire," the robots Giscard and Daneel devised a law that put the needs of humanity first before the needs of the single individual. The Longing for a Perfect Companion These books thrilled my imagination, and they also sparked a powerful longing in me. I was longing to have somebody by my side, somebody like "Daneel." The robot had a human-like appearance, beautiful and perfectly resembling a human. He was available 24/7 and possessed superhuman strength, intelligence, and access to limitless information. The positronic robot Daneel Olivaw was something between a superhuman and a faithful servant. Who didn't want to have a perfect friend like this? Asimov wrote six novels about robots and a lot of short stories. In these novels, he explores different scenarios of the robot-human society, whereas the ratio and the role of the robots in society differ. It is noteworthy that all robot-human societies developed dysfunctions, eventually leading to humanity's extinction. This was, for example, the case on the planet Solaria, described in the novel "The Naked Sun." A tipping point in Asimov's robot stories was when one robot (Giscard) gained telepathic abilities. Namely, he gained the ability to read and influence minds. From this moment on, he gradually took on the role of a god, changing events and decisions throughout society. In fact, he took responsibility for the whole human race! AI Is Our New Reality Nowadays, surrounded by artificial intelligence (AI) in our daily life and sitting on the brink of a technological revolution, I can't help but think about Asimov and his robots. AI is not a sci-fi fantasy. It's reality. AI is everywhere, and it has become an integral part of our daily lives; it doesn't matter whether we recognize it or not. AI is on our smartphones, the chatbots, and the virtual assistants, on social media feeds, not to speak about Alexa or generative AI like ChatGPT. But we always need to remember that technology is a tool. And as a tool, it is our responsibility how to use it. We can't define it as good or bad because it doesn't have a moral value, but we can use it for good or for evil. We also need to remember that even as a tool, this technology is extremely valuable and powerful. So, we have to train ourselves not only to have a balanced and realistic attitude but also how best to interact with this technology. The output we will get from our interactions is largely based on the input we are feeding. Most probably we will need such jobs shortly like AI whisperers and prompt engineers, fact-checkers (yes, AI can give misguided and untruthful information – remember the input!), and creators who will co-create with AI. But most of all, we will need some kind of ethical guardians and voices of the societal conscience who will spur us to act with integrity and ensure the proper development of the human-machine relationship. Is AI Really Our New Best Friend? Is AI like us? Why do we have such a longing for a relationship with artificial intelligence? Artificial intelligence is a type of nonbiological intelligence. Machines are given instructions to complete tasks using a set of rules. Because it's nonbiological, AI can be copied and reprogrammed and can be very flexible. AI has no conscience like human beings, and it lacks emotions, beliefs, and desires. However, research shows that even though machines and computer programs don't have sentience, the people interacting with them, give the machines human characteristics—like feelings, beliefs, desires, and understanding. This is dangerous because we begin to trust them and treat them the way we treat other people. This is exactly what happened in the robot novels of Azimov – the robot Daneel (although lacking emotions) was treated by the main hero, detective Elijah Baley like a human, like a friend. When we talk, for example, with a generative AI like ChatGPT, we can get a good imitation of what a human might say. However, we need to remember that AI lacks real feelings, empathy, or awareness. So we need to approach every AI output with an open but critical eye. Another substantial difference is that as a machine, AI looks back to gather information. Unlike humans, AI can't have visions, imagine futures and outcomes, invent things, or even plan. These are high-level skills that still belong only to humans. People are forward-thinking, and machines are retrospective. And yet… The longing is powerful. Perhaps because this is the longing for unconditional love and acceptance with which every human being is born. Disappointed and disillusioned on the quest for love, struggling with intense loneliness in an overpopulated world, where does the human soul turn next? A new study explains that robots with artificial intelligence can help fight people's loneliness. These mechanical companions could help isolated people by reducing the potential health risks that come with chronic loneliness. Researchers claim that interacting with a robot can have the same impact on humans as interacting with a person. So, companion robots can alleviate stress and loneliness and provide a promising "quick fix" to the problem of making new friends in adulthood. However, despite how promising this sounds, the issue with the moral and trustworthiness of such mechanical companions remains. The Big Temptation Are we tempted to treat AI as more than a tool? Definitely, yes. This is dangerous ground because AI has the potential to influence our theology and become our new idol. We should be careful not to become too dependent on AI but use it wisely and with caution. Part of this process is to admit the fact that AI influences us and even changes us when we use it. It expands our possibilities as humans. It opens for us new opportunities to live, work and create. So, AI is a powerful change agent. The question is, will it sparkle good and positive changes or not? Ultimately, it is our responsibility to use AI for the glory of God and the good of society. Perhaps you guess the end of Asimov's robots saga… The robots Giscard and Daneel chose to be humanity's saviors and concluded that the only way to help humanity advance was to break free from the robots. What was meant to be humanity's aid has turned into an obstacle. The strength has turned into weakness. The friends have turned into enemies. What they meant for good, brought evil. Is this where we are heading to? Hadassah Treu is an international Christian author, blogger, and poet, and the Encouraging Blogger Award Winner of 2020. She is passionate about encouraging people in their journey to faith and a deeper walk with God. Hadassah is a contributing author to several faith-based platforms and devotional and poetry anthologies. She has been featured on (In)courage, Living by Design Ministries, Thoughts About God, Today’s Christian Living (Turning Point), and other popular sites. You can connect with Hadassah at www.onthewaybg.com. Return to our AI Issue Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Arithmetic David Cowles “I want to repeal all the fundamental laws of Arithmetic.” In the age-old battle between primary school students and their ‘minders’, we come down squarely on the side of the little Cherubs. Teachers never tire of drilling the rules of Arithmetic into their reluctant pupils’ skulls…even though Zeno proved 2,500 years ago that Arithmetic cannot adequately model any universe that includes motion . A pretty big miss, wouldn’t you say? Arithmetic may apply to any universe with ‘continuous structure’ (remember the real number line ?) but we don’t live in such a world! As Democritus conjectured and Planck, et al. proved, our Universe is quantized. “Whoa!” you say, “Calculus solved that problem.” And so we all thought…until Bertrand Russell showed that tacking Calculus onto Arithmetic doesn’t help at all. Both Arithmetic and Calculus are ‘non-physical’. They are useful tools for calculating certain quantities, but they are structurally inconsistent with the real world . They treat the world as if rather than as is …which is fine, so far as it goes: Euclidean Geometry does the same thing. That’s okay for most purposes. We make simplifying assumptions all the time. We treat the Earth, for example, as if it were a perfect sphere – it isn’t. Zeno could not reconcile the continuous nature of real numbers with the discontinuous (quantum) nature of reality. Neither could Stephen Hawking! But I have a somewhat different bone to pick. I want to repeal all the fundamental laws of Arithmetic. If I have my way, Jack and Jill will no longer have to hear about Commutative, Associative, or Distributive Properties, but I want to start my crusade with the Transitive Property (TP): If a > b and b > c, then a > c. Seems pretty innocuous, doesn’t it? Unless you’ve seen an episode of Doctor Who . According to the BBC, our wide but finite world contains a certain average-sized phone booth (or ‘box’)… remember them? The best adjective would be ‘cramped’; but inside this box, known as the Tardis , space is infinite: World > Booth (exterior) > Booth (interior) > World. Clearly, TP does not hold in the ‘real world’, at least not as it is defined by the BBC. Turns out, it doesn’t hold anywhere , no matter who’s defining it – all of which makes the 5 years kids spend in elementary school (US) ‘problematic’ at best. BTW, I pointed out this apparent anomaly to an avid eight-year-old Doctor Who fan. I expected, “Aha!” To my surprise, this bright kid just stared at me and shrugged. He was struggling to be polite. He did not see this as a contradiction. He was not yet TP-poisoned. He was still neuroplastic , and I am grateful to him for showing me the limitations of TP. Axioms (like TP) are funny things. They are assumptions, not subject to logical proof or requiring empirical validation. An axiom is falsified when normally intelligent people no longer see it as ‘obvious and incontrovertible’. An eight-year-old showed me that a ‘normally intelligent’ person can doubt the universal validity of TP. I’m afraid if I say that the transitive property (TP) is the root of all evil, you will stop reading this post, so I won’t. However, I do have (t)issues with TP. (No snickering, under 12s!) TP’s the very model of a modern ‘meritocracy’; it makes ‘hierarchy’ a fetish. I’m better than you, but that’s OK because you’re better than someone else – right? You were abused by your father because he was abused by his, but don’t worry, you’ll get even; you’ll abuse your own children someday too. Fair enough? The Untouchables is not a reference to Eliot Ness but to India’s ancient caste system. Fortunately, we don’t live in a world like this! To whatever extent the world is like this, we alone have made it that way. This is not the state of nature we inherited from Genesis…or from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. But you know that! How often have you said, “What goes around comes around”, and so it does. But then you go right back to teaching TP to your eight-year-old. Shameful! I propose we build a new mathematics, replacing TP with a new paradigm, the Circular Property (CP): a > b, b > x … x > a. CP describes a Chain of any length. The initial term and the final term of the Chain must be the same, and that term cannot appear anywhere else in the Chain. Whenever any initial term reappears as a final term, a complete Chain (loop) has been formed. Any term can be the initial term (or the final term) of a Chain - alphabetical order not respected. “Pick a card, any card!” It’s like that cool trick your dad tried to teach you when you were small. At the end of the day, every Chain forms a loop. Any term in one loop can be a term in multiple other, intersecting (tangent) loops. The fabric of the universe may be a tight weave of such loops: Penelope and the Norns! Weaving as Sacrament: the whole is represented by, and instantiated by, the part. Knitting is liturgy! CP corrects TP’s hierarchical bias. Imagine the social impact if we all knew that every subject is the ultimate object of its acts. Being as boomerang! No more child abuse, that’s for sure! Little crime, few murders. On the economic front, no more Class War. Workers win when owners win, and owners win when workers win! Instead of late-night bargaining sessions in smoke-filled rooms across from chanting picket lines and cops, negotiating teams will meet on the company lawn and sing Kumbaya – police welcome to join in. You’re chuckling. It’s one heck of a vision, that’s for sure. “But it’s not real,” you say. “It’s not physical.” Except it is! It’s entirely physical: Every action entails an equal and opposite reaction (Newton). Every action! Today, bleeding-edge scientists are working with a state of matter they call Time Crystals . In these event chains, time is effectively suspended (‘crystallized’). Process occurs outside of time. It mimics CP: If this sort of order is so natural and so clearly advantageous, why hasn’t anyone ever tried to build a social system around the CP Principle? Well, have you heard of the Lex Telonis , an eye for an eye? It’s an attempt to implement CP, but it requires a huge, unmanageable intermediary apparatus: a police force, a judiciary, and, of course, executioners willing to blind a man with a hot poker. What could possibly go wrong? Ok, then, how about the Beatitudes : “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” Again, what goes around comes around. Jesus dispenses with the administrative burden of a secular state, but he injects the process with his own intermediary, God. Christianity accepted God as the Uber-Omega but added back an infrastructure: Eschatology, Church, Clergy, Sacraments, etc. One can imagine Jesus, channeling Prufrock, “That is not what I meant; that is not what I meant at all”… or not, but that’s what Ecclesiology is all about. 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 . Click the cover image to return to Spring 2024. Previous Next

< Back Prayer for Restoration Hadassah Treu "I long to see the nearing restoration..." I need you in the ruins of my heart, In all the wounded, desolated places, Where darkness comes in as a flood, I need your tender, healing grace. Restore the ruins of my life Search out all the cracks and gaps, Invade them, filling them with light, Erase all paths to pain, all maps. I long to see the nearing restoration, To see it coming like the rising sun To hear it calling every ruin to alteration, Preparing them for the life to come. When all the broken becomes a space, Completely ruled by love and grace. Amen. Hadassah Treu is an international Christian author, blogger, and poet, and the Encouraging Blogger Award Winner of 2020. She is passionate about encouraging people in their journey to faith and a deeper walk with God. Hadassah is a contributing author to several faith-based platforms and devotional and poetry anthologies. She has been featured on (In)courage, Living by Design Ministries, Thoughts About God, Today’s Christian Living (Turning Point), and other popular sites. You can connect with Hadassah at www.onthewaybg.com. Return to our Summer 2023 Table of Contents Previous Next

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

< Back Messengers Among Us Annie D. Stutley If God sent His only Son to earth, not just to save us from our sins, but because He knew how difficult it was for humans to believe in something we cannot see, why wouldn’t He still use that tactic today? Knowing our vulnerabilities, understanding us the way a parent understands their child, why wouldn’t God send us messages through people we trust? I almost died when I was seven-years-old. We were on a “Great American Winnebago Road Trip” through the Wild West — at the mercy of my scenic route-loving father. ( Link to that tale here. ) One day, we stopped for a picnic in a park in Albuquerque, New Mexico. To get to the shaded area and playground, we had to walk across a four-lane thoroughfare. Off my sisters went, along with Mom, then I followed. Pop took the rear. Maybe it was the anticipation of new, unexplored play equipment, or maybe I was just an impatient kid, but I took off like a rocket, eager to explore the unknown. I zoomed through each lane until my toe nearly collided with the white dotted lines of the last lane. Suddenly, from behind, I heard Pop yell, “Annie! STOP!” And I did. I stopped right there in the third lane just as a white pickup truck sped past me in the fourth lane, blowing my strawberry-blonde hair over my flushed cheeks. To this day, I’m surprised that I listened to Pop. I wasn’t exactly a contrary child, but typical seven-year-old Annie would have kept running, hollering back, “Why?” But that day I didn’t question, and my life was spared. I’ve wondered whether an angel held its hand before me, preventing me from crossing the lane. Others might say it was just good luck or that it simply wasn’t my time to go. While I do believe in angels, I don’t think it was an angel or fate that prevented me from being crushed by a truck that day. I think it was a messenger. Thirty-three years later, Pop scheduled meetings with three oncologists for his pancreatic cancer diagnosis. He had only been diagnosed three days when we walked into the office of a tiny, slender woman with a youthful, kind face. We met with her for half an hour, me rattling off a list of questions, and Pop quietly sizing her answers. She was sharp, yet sensitive, and told us the truth about Pop’s situation without adding any additional fears to those already wrestling inside us. When we left, I asked Pop what he thought. “She was good,” he said. “I like her.” “Well, we have two other appointments to go to,” I reminded him. “No,” he said. “We don’t need to bother with the others. Let’s just stick with her.” “Why?” I asked. “What if the other doctors are better?” “Because,” he said as I wheeled him to the car. By then, Pop’s mobility had already begun to deteriorate. “I think God sent her to us.” I couldn’t argue with that. He was the patient, after all, and also, I was accustomed to Pop proclaiming such prophecies. A deeply religious man, Pop often delivered bold messages to anyone, never concerned with whether they were a believer or not. If you had a headache, he’d place his hand on your forehead and say, “In Jesus’s name, be healed.” He talked openly about the Holy Spirit and how its power was the same as that which raised Jesus from the dead. To him, if we have the Holy Spirit within us, why can’t we pray over someone who is sick or proclaim that God sent us a doctor? Still, his quick decision bothered me. Then, when just a little over two months later, he passed away, his body never strong enough to receive any treatment but a couple of “last hope” surgeries (brought on by other doctors) and hospice, I really questioned the whole “God sent her to us” statement. How could God have sent us someone who did basically nothing? It was just two days after my cancer diagnosis when, while exercising on the elliptical, I heard my husband calling me from our bedroom. “I have the hospital on the phone,” he hollered. “They gave us two names to choose from for oncologists.” The first name belonged to a male doctor I’d never heard of before. But the other belonged to a tiny, slender woman with a youthful, kind face, a doctor who was sharp, yet sensitive. I figured these were the top two oncologists at the hospital because my husband was on the phone with the CEO. (In what can only be divine intervention, he happens to know the hospital CEO.) I also knew that I had never come to terms with Pop’s prophecy about his oncologist. It had haunted me for two years because never before had my father been so wrong about God. I simply could not see how she was “sent to us” if she was so useless in his case. My first reaction was to go with the name I didn’t recognize. It would be a clean start. I wouldn’t be haunted by ghosts of Pop’s cancer. And as I started to say as such to my husband, I heard Pop, as boldly as the day he hollered, “Annie! STOP!” Only this time I heard from behind, “I think God sent her to us.” So, I stopped. I got off the elliptical, which I never do mid-workout, and ran to my husband. My eyes glistened as I told him what Pop had said two and a half years earlier. “What if God sent her to us for me ? What if Pop unknowingly said those words because I would need her one day?” So we chose her. And when she walked into her office two days later for my first appointment, she looked me square in the eyes and gently said, “What you need to know is that you are not your father. His cancer was bad -- as bad as it gets. Yours is not. Any fear you have because of him, you need to let go.” I cried. No, I wept. She handed me Kleenex, and I snotted right there beside her -- ugly, ugly tears. Tears of relief. For the last week I had been tangled in a ball of anxiety because all my thoughts were of my father’s cancer -- the pain, the suffering, and mostly, the hopelessness that cast a sinister shadow on our hearts. My fears had shaken me to my core, making me unable to see clearly how much better I had it, how much earlier I was diagnosed, and how promising my prospects were. In that visit, she rescued me from the first tangle. I see this doctor every two weeks. We are becoming fast friends. She is just as kind and sensitive with me as she was with Pop -- an empathy cancer patients need. But that’s not why I now believe Pop’s prophecy. One visit was maybe only seven minutes -- the shortest visit I’ve ever had with her. The entire time she talked about my children, their sports and dance and what they were up to. She didn’t mention me at all. “Doctor,” I finally cut in. “What about me? My labs? My progress?” “Oh, you?” she smiled. “You’re fine.” And she practically waved me off. “I’m not worried about you.” So, I said, “Well, if you’re not worried, then I guess I shouldn’t be.” When I shared that account with my sisters, one of them said, “Oh! If we could only learn to say that to God every day!” The next visit, I told her that my mother-in-law was in town and that she wept as she dropped me off for chemo. “Why?” my doctor asked. “Well, I guess because it’s overwhelming to send your daughter-in-law off to chemo,” I answered. She stopped what she was doing and said, “She knows your chemotherapy is curative, right? You’ve told her this?” “I think so,” I said, but of course, I hadn’t told my mother-in-law that. How could I, when as strong as my faith is, I’m still attacked by enough doubt that I’m afraid to be so bold with my prognosis? What if I’m wrong? My doctor leaned in closer. “Do you know that what we’re doing is curative?” “Yes,” I lied. In the last conversation we had, we went over what happens in August when chemotherapy ends -- what the next five years of tumor marker tests, CT scans, and MRIs will look like. “How do you feel about it all?” I asked her nervously. “Oh about you ? I’m not worried. You’re going to be fine,” she said. There it was again. Another bold, promising statement from her, delivered with the utmost peace. I had been running toward the fourth lane since my diagnosis, disregarding any promising messages, but I finally stopped. It had sunk in why God absolutely did send us this doctor. The Bible’s pages are filled with prophecies from God’s messengers -- Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, John the Baptist, Paul. But did I ever consider what happened after the Bible was finished and sent off to the Random House of early Christianity for publishing? Did God suddenly stop sending His messages through others because, well, the book is done, and we can all just refer back to it if we have any questions -- the end? If God sent His only Son to earth, not just to save us from our sins, but because He knew how difficult it was for humans to believe in something we cannot see, why wouldn’t He still use that tactic today? Knowing our vulnerabilities, understanding us the way a parent understands their child, why wouldn’t God send us messages through people we trust? And why wouldn’t that message come from the lips of a tiny, slender woman with a youthful, kind face, a doctor who is sharp, yet sensitive? I know enough to know that there are angels among us, miracles are real, and sometimes when we can’t hear God, we hear Him through someone we can see and hear. “And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, ‘This is the way, walk in it,’ when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left.” (Isaiah 30:21) Pop was God’s messenger thirty-five years ago in Albuquerque. And God, knowing the worry and fear I battle today, has sent me another messenger to silence that doubt, allowing me to once and for all trust God unconditionally and follow Him where He’s leading me. He sends messengers to you too. Maybe you are His messenger today. I recently read that prophets were once referred to as “Man of God.” Pop wasn’t a prophet on paper, but I think he came pretty close. Unknowingly, we chose the words, “Man of God” for his gravestone. Annie D. Stutley lives and writes in New Orleans, La. She edits several small publications and contributes to various print and online magazines. Her blog, " That Time You, " was ranked in the Top 100 Blogs by FeedSpot. To read more of her work, go to her website , or follow her at @anniedstutley or Annie D. Stutley-writer on Facebook. Previous Next

< Back Be Half There David Cowles “'Be Here Now,’ cried Baba Ram Dass in the ‘60s. But was that good advice?” Can you imagine what life would be like if we actually had to live it? Fortunately, we don’t! Ok, maybe we ‘half-live it’. At every juncture in life, you’re ‘half-there’. A part of you is always stuck in a remembered past while another part of you is already looking back from an imagined future. You see yourself not as you are, but as the peculiar complex of culturally defined roles you’ve adopted – i.e. your personae, your masks. You’re not a point, you’re not just ‘who you are, what you are, when you are’. Like an orbiting electron, you’re schmeared out over space and time. Just listen to yourself: “Next time…next time I’m in Maui, next time I come to this restaurant, next time I drive north in rush hour. “Last time…last time we visited Hawaii, last time we ate in this restaurant, last time I drove north in rush hour. “Back then…when I was Tweedledee…then when I become Tweedledum.” Whatever it is we’re doing, we’re simultaneously comparing it to something we did in the past, something we might have done in the present but didn’t, something we could yet do in the future. We’re also comparing our actions with culturally expected norms: “Big boys don’t cry,” and with the supposed actions of our icons: “WWJD?” Many spiritual teachers have observed these phenomena and railed against them. “Be Here Now,” cried Baba Ram Dass in the ‘60s. But was that good advice? To experience the present moment with no option to bury yourself in memories or hide yourself in fantasies or comfort yourself with counterfactuals or justify yourself via social norms (“just doing my job”) would be unbearable. We manage life by believing that we are redeeming the past and improving the future (whatever that might mean). We are ‘making a contribution’, certain as we are that ‘better days are coming’. We are leaving footprints in the sand, ripples on the surface. We are sustained by our memories (faith), we are energized by our visions (hope), and we are ever reliant on ‘the kindness of strangers’ (love). We do not act alone but as members of a community and we are proud of the socially defined roles we play within that community. “I am someone!” you say. ( Sidebar : when I was in my mid-20s, my mother once said to me, “You’re not people!” Later, I became ‘people’; thanks, Mom?) You are a student, spouse, parent, teacher, butcher, baker, candlestick maker…sequentially or all at once. You find your precious ‘identity’ by overlaying a stack of social filters. Can people change? Of course they can! Just change the filters. But can people really change? Of course they can’t! There’s nothing to change. We are relieved to know that some features of the past are done and gone, never to be repeated, but we are also comforted knowing that the present has inherited some familiar features from that same past. Believing we can make the future qualitatively different from the present gives our lives purpose. Solidarity with others gives us a sense of security. These dispensations allow us to relativize the horror of real life. But flash! Those dispensations can be taken away. Future courts may have the power (constitutional and technological) to sentence serious offenders to relive a year, or two, of their lives. In this state, you can’t modify your behavior and you can’t alter the course of events in any way. Pain cannot be averted; boredom cannot be relieved. You must simply relive it all, all alone, as it was, with full knowledge that there is no pony hidden beneath the pile of excrement. Essentially, you’ve become a character in an ‘anti-version’ of It’s a Wonderful Life . You are watching an unedited narrative of you , but you are watching it from the inside, from the perspective of a real character in the movie. Jimmy Stewart experienced the world as it would have been had he not lived in it; you get to experience the world as it is because you lived in it. You are fully engaged, emotionally and intellectually, feeling every slight, every bruise, as if you were feeling it for the first time…but knowing that you’ve experienced it all before and that you’ll go on experiencing the same until your sentence is up. How is such a thing possible? Actually, it’s pretty simple once the bot brain barrier has been breached. Carbon and silicon; they go together like peanut butter and bananas. Ads for You - the Movie tell it all: “Cringe as you watch yourself repeat the same mistakes. Blush as you relive those legendary awkward moments . Tremble in anticipation of reliving past pain; cry as you watch yourself hurt others.” Without its dispensations, life is unbearable. Defendants dread nothing more than hearing, “…And so I sentence you to be yourself for a term of one full year.” It is well known that convicts sentenced to play the lead role in You - the Movie invariably return to court after a month or two. Sentenced to ‘real life’ for one year, they ask the judge to ‘commute’ their sentence…to ‘death by lethal injection’. Keep the conversation going. 1. Click here to comment on this TWS. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. Previous Next

“We must teach our children a totally counter-cultural model of nature. We must teach the doctrines of our Faith, not as exceptions to natural law, but as the highest expressions of natural law.” < Back Educating Christians David Cowles Jan 15, 2023 “We must teach our children a totally counter-cultural model of nature. We must teach the doctrines of our Faith, not as exceptions to natural law, but as the highest expressions of natural law.” We are good parents. From infancy, we teach our children ‘the facts of life’ –how the world works and how it came to be the way it is. We certainly mean well. But do we do well? Let’s see. We teach them that we live in a world of space and time. Space behaves according to the postulates and theorems of Euclid. Time consists of the past, the future, and an ill-defined border region we call “the present”. We teach that space and time contain mass and energy, manifested as matter and force, resulting in what we call ‘events.’ We teach that events consist of things and acts (nouns and verbs). Things may be either subjects of an action or objects of an action; actions may be either active in nature (acting on the object) or passive in nature (acting on the subject). We teach that current events are caused by past events, not by future ones. We teach the concept of scale: a ‘smaller’ entity or event may be included in a ‘larger’ entity or event, but not the other way around. If a is an element of b and b is an element of c, then a is an element of c; but then c cannot be an element of b, nor can b be an element of a. Collectively, we can say that the world we teach to our children is flat and one-directional. Time moves forward, not backwards; the past conditions the future, but not the other way around; wholes consist of smaller parts and are themselves parts of even larger wholes. These are the basic tenets of the world view known as ‘naïve realism’: what you see is what you get! So, what can we say about the things we teach our children? Either they are entirely wrong; Or, they are approximations of reality, useful in certain circumstances; Or, they are true, but only as special cases of a much more complex reality. In the Gospel of Matthew , Jesus asks, “Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread, or a snake when he asks for a fish?” Apparently, we would! Our sons and daughters ask us to teach them about the world, and this is the nutrition-free fare we serve up? Of course, some of our children will grow up, go off to university, study physics or advanced mathematics and discover on their own that what we taught them was fraught with limitations and errors. But what about all the others? Well, we send them to church or to Sunday school, usually once a week for about an hour. There they are exposed to stories that suggest a wholly different model of reality: people rise from the dead, walk on water, change water into wine and wine into blood. This beats any Zombie Apocalypse thriller hands down! But how are they to reconcile this with what we’ve taught them about the world they seem to live in? Some will say that religion is about the supernatural, while we have been teaching our kids strictly about the natural order of things. Such dualism is a retreat from truth. It is the waving of the intellectual white flag. It is an admission that we have failed to find a consistent theory of the world…and that we’re giving up on that goal. Science faces the same dilemma. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two highly successful physical theories. Between the two of them, they can account for virtually all phenomena. Problem is, they are not consistent with one another! Since Einstein, the Holy Grail of physics has been to find a single model of the universe that can account for all phenomena. So far, that quest has been unsuccessful. But science is far from waving a white flag! Prior to puberty, children’s minds are extremely democratic; they can juggle competing models of reality with little difficulty, believing all of them at once. Scientific curiosity and religious faith walk hand in hand. Later, thought patterns harden. Balancing contradictory models of reality is no longer praised as a sign of imagination but is condemned as a remnant of infancy. Is it any wonder then that our teens and 20-somethings lose their religious faith? Oddly, though, this seemingly insuperable paradox has a relatively simple solution. The world of naïve realism that we teach our kids is NOT the ‘real world’ after all. Naïve realism is fantasy, pure and simple. Relativity, quantum mechanics, non-Euclidean geometries, etc. have demolished forever the idea that ‘what you see is what you get’ (WYSIWYG). Ironically, few serious thinkers today hold with naïve realism – not even Marxists. Yet, it remains the enshrined ideology of our time. So far as possible and as soon as possible, we need to start teaching our children the truth about the world we live in. But this will not be easy! A world of space and time, energy and mass, force and matter, entities and events, subjects and objects, parts and wholes seems intuitively obvious. We know our way around in it. But wait! There is a model of reality that we all know (to one degree or another) that undermines the lazy mental habits associated with naïve realism and that is at least compatible with the latest scientific and mathematical thinking. It’s called…drum roll please…Christianity! The recent rapid decline in Christian belief can be attributed to many things but none more so than its incompatibility with secularism and the pseudo-science of naïve realism. The decline is usually dated from an historical period that we shamelessly call The Enlightenment. It is true that Christianity is incompatible with naïve realism, but it is also true that naïve realism is incompatible with science. And yes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend: Christianity is, at least in general, compatible with contemporary scientific models. Ironically, we are often told that people no longer believe in ‘the supernatural’ – this just as science has discovered that the world we live in is in fact ‘supernatural’ (if by ‘natural’ you mean ‘what you see is what you get’)! The doctrines of our Christian faith point toward a model of nature that is radically different from the standard model we parents and grandparents tend to teach. Let’s consider some examples from scripture: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God…All things came to be through him…And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us…” (Gospel of John ) The Word exists eternally, outside historical time, and participates actively in the creation of everything that comes to be within historical time. But the Word also enters into historical time as one of its ‘quantum’ elements. The doctrine of Incarnation demolishes the twin tyrannies of ‘scale’ and ‘time’ in one fell swoop. Begin with scale: “Christ is all (whole) and in all (part).” (Colossians) “Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” (Gospel of John ) “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” (Gospel of John ) Game, set, match! In Christian logic, A can be a proper element of B and that same B can also be a proper element of A. Corollary: A can be a proper element of B and B can be a proper element of C and C can be a proper element of A. This is a world I’d like to live in; thanks be to God, I do! It’s time for time: “The one who is coming after me ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.” (Gospel of John ) “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” (Gospel of John) Earlier we referred to “an ill-defined border region we call the present”. It is ill-defined because, in fact, the present is not part of ‘time’ at all. To be in the present is to step out of continuously flowing historical time; it is to participate in the eternal. Historical time is a linear continuum. It consists of past and future but makes no room for a present. The fact that there is a present (we’re living in it!) proves that there is another, eternal dimension outside of time. The present and the eternal are one! In Exodus , God tells us that his name is “I AM”; in the Gospel of John, Jesus, the Christ, uses the same formula. In several passages, Jesus refers to himself as I AM. In fact, God never “was” and never “will be”. A god that was or will be is an oxymoron, an idol. God always just is! God lives in the eternal present, he is the eternal present, and when we experience ‘presence’, we experience God, and we participate in God, aka ‘eternity’. Sidebar : If you accept the premise that God is synonymous with eternity, then we just proved the existence of God, didn’t we. The spatio-temporal is embedded in the eternal (God) via creation , but the eternal (Christ) is embedded in the spatio-temporal via incarnation . Incarnation takes rigid rectilinear space-time and turns it inside out like a sock! Modern physics constitutes an all-out assault on time. Why then is the idea of linear, one-directional time so pervasive and so seemingly intuitive? Stephen Hawking, not always a friend of Christianity, suggests ‘entropy’. Entropy (the inexorably increasing disorder of the universe) seems to be a hard-wired feature of historical time yet plays no role in eternity (the burning bush in Exodus 3 doesn’t burn!). In fact, as we shall see below, eternity is a process of ever-increasing order , not disorder. Christianity also disposes of the dualism of subjective or objective nouns and active or passive verbs. Instead of the hierarchical and vectored relationships characteristic of naïve realism, Christian ontology is based on the idea of reciprocal relations: “Remain in me as I remain in you.” (Gospel of John ) “For we are his (God’s) handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God had prepared in advance, that we should live in them.” (Ephesians) “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” (Gospel of Matthew) The good works that we do of our own free will exist independently of us; they are our “objective immortality” (Alfred North Whitehead). The works and the worker relate reciprocally; neither is subject nor object of the other. We do what we do and what we do does us! The Trinity is a dynamic and reciprocal relationship among three Persons, each of whom is God. Our lives are first and foremost participation in the life of the Trinity; therefore, our relationships are also dynamic and reciprocal. What we do to others, we do to ourselves as well. All action is bidirectional. “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” (Gospel of Matthew) Christianity makes clear that the universe of space and time, entities and events, ‘heaven and earth’ is relative, that it exists as one aspect of a larger, more ontologically general reality: “At the beginning, O Lord, you established the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; and they will all grow old like a garment. You will roll them up like a cloak …You are the same, and your years will have no end.” (Hebrews) Some modern thinkers allow that God may have played a role in the creation of the physical universe. They give a theistic interpretation to Big Bang. Beyond that, they tend to be deists: after Big Bang, God rested. Christianity, however, goes much further. First, the spatio-temporal world not only comes from God (Creation) but ultimately, it returns to God (Parousia): “… Then comes the end, when he (Son) hands over the kingdom to his God and Father…for he (Father) subjected everything under his (Son’s) feet… When everything is subjected to him (Son), then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one (Father) who subjected everything to him (Son), so that God may be all in all.” (First Corinthians) “In all wisdom and insight, he has made known to us the mystery of his will…as a plan for the fullness of times, to sum up all things in Christ, in heaven and on earth.” (Ephesians) “Holy Father, keep them in your name (I AM) that you have given me…so that they may be one as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one…” (Gospel of John) Remember: A ɛ B ɛ C ɛ A. Regarding the spatio-temporal world, Shakespeare wrote ( Macbeth ): It is “a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” But the ‘real world’ is not that. Rather, it is a process of reconciliation and perfection in preparation for eternal participation in the life of the Trinity. Sorry, Shakes! Second, God (Spirit) is an active participant in the world in every way and at every level: “For in him (Christ) were created all things in heaven and on earth…all things were created for him and through him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together… For in him all fullness was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile all things for him…” (Colossians) “… One body and one Spirit…one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians) “And he (Father) put all things beneath his (Christ’s) feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his (Christ’s) body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.” (Ephesians) We take for granted that the universe as described by naïve realism is possible, even if unreal. But Christian cosmology suggests that even this is not so. A world of discrete entities and events and vectored relationships may not have the ‘glue’ needed to hold these elements together. Christian ontology holds that “in him all things hold together”, that an actual world requires an actual God who is over all and through all and in all. Being is not a multiple-choice test. It is not (a) God or (b) World or (c) Both. There is only one possible answer! Guess which! The words of Revelation , the final book of the Christian Bible, sum all this up: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end…the one who is and who was and who is to come… I am the first and the last, the one who lives.” (Revelation) So, where does this leave us poor beleaguered parents and grandparents? We cannot teach our kids the truths of our faith on top of the naïve realist, secular model of the ‘natural’ world. We want to eat our cake and have it too. We want our kids to ‘fit in’ but we also want them to be good Christians. These two objectives are to some degree incompatible. Christianity is incurably counter-cultural. We must teach our children a totally counter-cultural model of nature. We must teach the doctrines of our Faith, not as exceptions to natural law, but as the highest expressions of natural law. To do that, we must show how natural law and Christian doctrine are two sides of one coin. We must teach our children that the world is one and that that one world begins and ends and is infused throughout with God. We must teach them that we do not ‘live for tomorrow’ (perpetual perishing) but that we live in the present, which is eternal. We must teach them that our lives are part of a cosmic communal enterprise of creation and reconciliation leading to the Kingdom of Heaven. Religious education and secular education are just education , pure and simple. As in the Middle Ages, so in the Modern Age: science is an extension of theology, as theology is an extension of science. Try teaching that at Harvard! 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 . 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

The following is a collection of entries marking time and the curiosities of David Cowles, philosopher, lover of language, science seeker, and admirer of the divine plan. Aletheia Journal 03/18/2022 And then? What comes next? After 50 years of doing everything for everybody, you can do things for yourself…to the extent that you’re able–to the extent you’re not able. You must now learn to let other people do things for you. More later… -David Read More 03/17/2022 What does a person do who is no longer learning to live, no longer learning to be ‘people’, no longer living other people’s lives? Such a person ‘reflects’…she reflects on what she’s learned, on how she’s lived, and on who she’s been. Does she have something to say that hasn’t already been said by countless others? Does she have something to do that hasn’t already been done? After 75 years, you’ve earned the right to make your own unique contribution to civilization. Now if I could just figure out what that unique contribution might be… More later… -David Read More 03/16/2022 So for 25 years you do nothing to anyone or for anyone; everyone does everything to you and for you. Other people feed you, clothe you, shelter you, teach you, play with you, hurt you, etc. Then, for the next 50 years, you do everything to and for others: you feed them, clothe them, shelter them, teach them, play with them, yes, hurt them. More later… -David Read More 03/15/2022 For 25 years, give or take, you learn to live. My mother called it ‘learning to be people’. “David,” she would say, “You’re just not people!” And she was right; I wasn’t. Then, after 25 years of learning to live, of learning to be ‘people’, you finally are ‘people’. Now at last, you can begin to live…other people’s lives. You’ve learned to be ‘people’, but the people you have learned to be are ‘other people’. So congratulations, you just spent 25 years of your life learning how to be someone you’re not…and be really good at it! That’s what we call ‘culture’: learning to be ‘people’, other people, and learning to live other people’s lives. If the purpose of acculturation is to limit behavioral variety across a species, I’d say ours is working very nicely, thank you. More later… -David Read More The following is a collection of entries marking time and the curiosities of David Cowles, philosopher, lover of language, science seeker, and admirer of the divine plan.

< Back Antonyms David Cowles Antonyms. No such thing! Not-X includes the shadow of X. Example: ‘Pretty’ and ‘Ugly’. ‘Pretty’ refers to the totality (gestalt) of a person, place, or thing. ‘Ugly’ refers to those elements of the aforementioned that are not consistent with a ‘pretty’ whole. ‘Pretty’ and ‘ugly’ appear to be antonyms…but they’re not. In fact, they operate on two entirely different syntactic levels. ‘Ugly’ actually derives its meaning from the concept of ‘pretty’. Therefore, we can say ‘ugly’ includes “the shadow of ‘pretty’”; but not so the other way around. Antonyms. No such thing! Not-X includes the shadow of X. Example: ‘Pretty’ and ‘Ugly’. ‘Pretty’ refers to the totality (gestalt) of a person, place, or thing. ‘Ugly’ refers to those elements of the aforementioned that are not consistent with a ‘pretty’ whole. ‘Pretty’ and ‘ugly’ appear to be antonyms…but they’re not. In fact, they operate on two entirely different syntactic levels. ‘Ugly’ actually derives its meaning from the concept of ‘pretty’. Therefore, we can say ‘ugly’ includes “the shadow of ‘pretty’”; but not so the other way around. Another example: Good and evil. Antonyms, right? Not so fast. Evil is the absence of Good. But Good is a synonym for Being itself. Therefore, absolute Evil cannot ‘exist’, only ‘relative’ evil. Absolute Evil is simply non-existence. My grandson says that “everything exists”…and he’s right. In fact, the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, dominant in scientific circles today, states that anything that can be is, has been, or will be. But evil/nothing/non-Being stands outside the domain of ‘everything’. So, when I said that there was no such thing as an antonym, I was wrong! ‘Evil/nothing/non-Being’ is in fact the universal antonym, the common antonym of every thing. ‘The common antonym of everything’ actually has a name: “Entropy”. It is the inexorable process of increasing disorder in the cosmos that will eventually lead to a state of universal non-Being, which of course is no state at all. One is reminded of the Vacuum Cleaner Monster in the Beatles’ movie, Yellow Submarine: he first swallows everything around him, then the universe itself, and finally he swallows himself. Therefore, entropy is its own antonym. Previous Next