Philosopher - Scientist - Priestess - and the Christmas Conundrum.

Let us imagine a Christmas homily offered by a priestess in a cathedral: 

“This, my dear friends, is what makes Christmas so very special, that God himself became human on that night in Bethlehem. We have come to know the story that it is God’s son born to Mary - and born in the humblest of circumstances - the baby Jesus in a stable. We all know the story so well”, she continues, ‘But I wonder if we’ve forgotten the profound significance of the narrative that it is actually God incarnating. We might remain perplexed at the continued recounting of the virgin Mary giving birth without being inseminated by a man. Not only science but common sense tells us that’s impossible - it’s just another myth amongst so many other myths. But isn’t it astounding that God, any god, would actually choose to become a human being - among the poorest - and to be born among animals?” 

“Even if we don’t believe in God, in this age many don’t, maybe they consider themselves to be too sophisticated for that since this surely is a story for children at Christmas-time with just about the same significance as Santa Clause and reindeer. Even then should we not still at least be intrigued by the story?”

 “Historians point out that the Buddha was born in a royal palace from which he had to escape to find out about the condition of the world - and its suffering. But consider that in our Christmas story God already knows the condition of the world, and knowingly comes into it to take on its suffering and so to redeem it. Surely this is why the angels guided not only the humble shepherd to the stable, but also the noble wise men from the East - guided by the light.”

“Whilst the shepherds could bring no gift other than their adoration - and that was surely enough - the wise men could bring their more expensive gifts of frankincense, gold and myrrh. They in return would then receive the greatest gift possible - that of experiencing the presence of the divine. They could no doubt thereafter also declare, as Simeon would, shortly thereafter; ‘Now let Thy servant depart in peace - for mine eyes hath seen Thy salvation.’”. 

“Christmas, my friends, is therefore the ultimate love story. It is the story of the love of the creator for the created - who through incarnation became the revealed Christ. So we celebrate the mass of Christ - Christmas. And that is why it is right that we share that love, whether in the sharing of gifts, or simply in loving fellowship. Have a blessed Christmas.”

Imagine a philosopher musing on those words:

The ‘light’ that brought the Magi from the East; even today in India the Parsees would also be celebrating Christmas - was it not their antecedents who had anticipated the coming of a divine being? And what about this Christmas tree in the family home? Well, it had much to do with the winter solstice and the Roman practice of burning pine trees to bring light into the darkness - hence the tradition of Christmas lights. What was the meaning of ‘light’ in human affairs - enlightenment - consciousness? Then he wonders: “How many other legends are there of Gods becoming human beings?”

Back in the book of Genesis you will read about the sons of the gods finding the daughters of men ‘comely’ - they cohabited with them and produced giants, the Nephilim. In classical Greek mythology you’ll find the myth of Zeus wanting to incarnate and taking on the form of a swan to ‘cohabit’ with the young woman, Leda. And from that union would come, among other children of course, the famous Helen of Troy - the so-called face that launched a thousand ships. So it does seem that superhuman beings, Helen was known for her exceptional beauty, had gods for parents.”

Imagine pondering the idea of God taking on the humblest human form? Then turn to chapter one of the New testament Book of John;

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.And the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John…He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighted every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

As a philosopher he knows that the ‘word’ that was apparently there ‘in the beginning’ in the original Greek Bible was given as the ‘logos’. The Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, born some 500 years before Christ, used the term for ‘a principle of order and knowledge’. Other Greek philosophers used the term in different ways. Whilst Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse”, or "the argument", Stoic philosophers identified the term with ‘the divine animating principle pervading the Universe’. Now contemplate these various concepts; order, knowledge, and the divine animating principle pervading the universe. What this seems to suggest is that, at least for St John, God was not only the creative principle, but also the utmost potentiality, (the ‘Word’ being with God), and therefore ultimately enabling of existence.

Now return to the creation story as described in the book of Genesis:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light’: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.”

There does seem be to a consistency in these accounts from the old and new testaments. Of course from a religious perspective, it would be important for the narrative to do so since the Christian story essentially emerges from the Judaic tradition. It makes a significant point of correlating the prophecies of the coming Messiah to the virgin birth. So, in the book of Isaiah, you would find the prophecy:

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel - meaning ‘God with us.'"

The narrative of St John seems to emphasise the notion of ‘light’ from the creation story. The ‘light’, the ‘logos’, then taking on not only the human form, but, as the priest might have informed, also the entire human condition. Reflect again on the words of St John that those who received him, the symbol of the Light, could become the ‘sons of God’. Clearly St John emphasised something important when he said; “…born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” It suggests that Jesus’ lineage was not about being related to God in some carnal biological sense, but in the spiritual sense. So the Christmas story then also offers humanity the opportunity of becoming transformed in the ‘logos’, as Heraclitus had put it, as a new principle of order and knowledge? Is the conception of baby Jesus through the action of the Holy Spirit thus also symbolic of the Stoic’s concept of the divine animating principle pervading the universe and consequently informing the nature and being of the incarnate Jesus?

We might find ourselves disturbed and puzzled. Conventional science dismisses, with a certain degree of contempt, the case offered by the so-called ‘creationists’ - those who believe that the evolution of the universe had proceeded through some guidance of order and form. For contemporary scientists, creation is happenstance, some vast probability, albeit a profoundly puzzling one. Yet the very first manifestation in Big Bang theory, at least, is a flash of light. Astrophysics can still decode the traces of that original phenomena an estimated 16 billion years later. But what about the challenge posed to conventional science in the new physics?

Conventional science still struggles to reconcile the peculiarities identified in quantum mechanical experimentation. Its response is to dismiss the challenges presented to the conventional scientific logic as only applying to the world of subatomic particles. Einstein was apparently perplexed at the notion of ‘action at a distance’ - the phenomenon that events could have far-reaching and instantaneous effects beyond any identified mechanical causality. There still appears to be a duality in science. On the one hand there is the predictability and logic of the conventional material world, and on the other the apparent irrationality of the non-material subatomic world. What happens in that peculiar interface where matter breaks down into energy? Or conversely, where energy coalesces into matter? Is this the creative space - the creative moment? The scientist Maxwell was also perplexed when arriving at the notion of some ‘demon in the machine’. Is there some order and intelligence implicit in energy? Is this the stoics ‘divine animating principle’ that informs the universe?          

Imagine a conversation between the philosopher and scientist:

“I’ve been thinking about God and Christmas.” The philosopher begins. “Good gracious" the scientist responds, "you’re a philosopher, not a churchgoer. How come? ”

“Now here’s my challenge to you as a scientist, could you summarise in the time it takes to down a Guinness, what differentiates the new theoretical science, like for example quantum mechanics, from conventional science?”

“This is a big, if peculiar ask”, the scientist replies, “…but how on earth, or in heaven’s name, if you will, does this relate to God and Christmas?”

“I’m not sure”, he replies, “…but I recall there’s something about non-locality that disturbed Einstein, and something from the writing of David Bohm - something about a kind of ‘implicate order’?” The scientist replies after some thought; “Maybe let’s rather ignore Bohm, he’s not taken too seriously in scientific circles, but let’s see…”

He is interrupted by the philosopher; “But what was Bohm’s case anyway?”

“OK, Bohm suggested that in the universe there is an organised way in which things work, he called this the ‘implicate order’ – a kind of cosmic organisation. And then that cosmic organisation becomes manifest when its processes are converted into action. What was manifested he called the ‘explicate order’. Now this differs from the established scientific view in that in his particular view it is not a happenstance process that things ‘just tend to work that way’ with science then identifying those processes and thereby establishing the laws of physics. For Bohm it was apparently a pre-existent order. Furthermore they were not external laws governing the interactions of material entities – like Newton’s laws of physics governing motion and thermodynamics. Rather, he suggested, they were embedded, or enfolded, into the very nature of manifest being.”

“Wait a bit - help me here - how can I more easily conceive of that?” the philosopher now queries. 

“I suppose a simple idea to represent this argument might be the holding pattern in aviation. Multiple aircraft are stacked in a particular order as they approach an airport. The pattern itself, see this as a thought or design, might be considered as some sort of an implicate order – the order being implicit in the pattern. “So”, the scientist continues, “…the holding pattern is not a physical thing in the sky. The pattern becomes manifest – or explicated – when aircraft align to it and populate it with their presence and behave accordingly. Then the holding pattern might conceivably appear to become a physical entity.”

“Then the ‘thing’ would be a behaviour of the various sub-entities conforming to a particular pattern? The philosopher enquires. “This sounds like some kind of holistic phenomenon?”

“Indeed,” the scientist replies, “…but what is apparently so significant for you about that?”

“You’ll probably find this hard to digest - but here goes,” he replies, “…for better for worse - the Body of Christ.” “Good gracious - where are you off to now?” the scientist inquires incredulously.

“I’m thinking whether the Christ might too be a collective idealised human behaviour - but let’s hold that question - carry on, if you will, with the quantum mechanical conundrum.

The scientist continues: “You know very well that in the era of modern physical science materially tested proofs are required, or either theories validated by empirically tested mathematical formula that can then be applied in physics provided. There is little space left for consideration of religious or even metaphysical beliefs. Yes, your philosophical speculation might lead to the formulation of logical hypotheses, theories about how things might work, that might in turn be experimentally tested. But it’s futile to attempts to do that with notions of God.”

“I guess the closest science has gets to examining God is the experimentation relating the Higgs Boson, now identified in the Cern Large Hadron Collider. That is in popular non-scientific jargon related to the notion of a God-particle. We’re here looking for physical building blocks - like those aircraft in the holding pattern. So the empirical method, as you know, inductive reasoning from direct observation, aims to build up a case from the hard-tested data. As a philosopher you then might turn to the deductive method of reasoning where you develop a theory, or an intuition, and then seek evidence to support your hypothesis - I guess that’s what you’re attempting to do now”.

“But wait”, the philosopher protests, “hold with that, an important question now might be, given the scientific conundrum you’re describing, whether it possible, or even important, to apply both methods of reasoning, inductive and deductive in consort?”

“OK - let’s play along a bit. But let us stay with the proven data from discoveries in quantum physics. The word ‘quantum’ formulated by Max Planck as you know relates to a very specific measure of energy. This is the precise amount required to change the state of an atom. The basic hydrogen atom consists of a single proton that is positively charged, and electron that is negatively charged. There is in my view, a potential balancing point, or entity, commonly known as the neutron which has no charge. With a very specific input of energy, ‘E= hv’, the first strange phenomenon of quantum mechanics occurs. The hypothetical orbital of the electron around the nucleus, suddenly jumps to a new energetic state; into a slightly but very measurable wider orbital. The release of exactly that amount of energy will see the converse occurring.” the scientist intones.  

The philosopher responds:

“Does this not show that there appears to be a fixed structure in the nature of atomic energy interchange? And, if my rusty physics are correct, that this affects a key principle in bonding through ionisation without which molecular compounds could not emerge or constellate?”

“Remember, and this also a law of physics that there is an allowance for an infinitely small deviation – but, yes, the pattern holds.” The scientist replies.

“Could this then support the argument that there is a predetermining universal pattern to energetic interaction enabling the emergence of the physical world? Surely if there was no ionisation there would be no bonding? And I’ve read somewhere, correct me if I’m wrong, that recent scientific research has shown a pattern, known to the Greeks as the Golden Mean, and more recently identified as the Fibonacci sequence, to be identical to the structure of the ionisation process right at the very first atomic particle, namely, as you have indicated, that of the hydrogen atom?” the philosopher inquires.

“The hydrogen atom is, of course, the first identified fixed particle, or building block of matter. The other subatomic particles are far more ephemeral in existence,” the scientist confirms, “...this, from the atom upwards, is then the world of known physical laws. But the so-called hydrogen ionisation constant is still considered speculative.” 

“Given the ubiquity of that spiral formation, could it be that right at that interface of energy and matter there lies an intelligence – a ‘how to’ ratio described by Planck? Does the elegant creative pattern of that Fibonacci sequence that has been the source of fascinated inquiry by scientists, poets, composers and philosophers and been expressed in many artistic forms not speak to such a possibility? This, I want to believe” the philosopher continues, “… is so particularly because the pattern expresses itself manifestly throughout nature. Bohm’s ‘implicate order’ surely then might be addressing this feature – and, I’m wondering, might even, in turn, be substantiated by it. So this ‘explicate order’ could be talking to the emergence of our ‘experienced’ world.”

“Hang on there,” the scientist interrupts, “…let’s not get too carried away by order in the subatomic world. When we look at yet another defining feature of quantum physics we find Heisenberg’s stranger phenomenon of the uncertainty principle. He argued that you cannot measure both the speed and location of a moving subatomic particle. You cannot pin it down relative to any fixed state. It certainly cannot be measured in the normal physical terms of Newtonian mechanics – such as knowing the speed and potential effects of billiard balls moving on a table. You can’t easily talk about order at that level.”

The philosopher again interrupts; “Could the sub-atomic particle therefore not possibly be considered the product of the experience of an observation of what is essentially an event - rather than it being a fixed physical reality. For example, I’m thinking, sometimes we can ‘see’ a small whirlwind by the dust it circulates – we see the effects of the event. Maybe that is similar to the detection of a subatomic particle? In the holistic view all existence is ‘action’. I recall Einstein having said words to the effect that from now on there were no longer any ‘nouns’ only slower ‘verbs’.”  

“I’ll concede”, the scientist replies, ”…that the Planck constant feature does seem to offer evidence of some non-material organising dimension at the micro level of existence.”

The philosopher continues; “Might a more poetic analogy be that when you see the sparkle of sunlight reflected on an ocean wave you are not actually seeing a ‘thing’ but a reflection of an event in the wave motion of the ocean. For me the implication of this phenomenon, in conjunction with the first observation about the precise energetic nature of the quantum, is that there does seem to be potential structure in non-materiality. This surely must point to some kind of implicate intelligence, or at least pattern, over and beyond the physically manifest universe. Was it not Sir James Jeans who commented that the universe was looking more and more like some great cosmic mind?”

“I’m thinking about your view of the effect of observation,” the scientist replies, “…yet another peculiar, and even more intriguing phenomenon to consider is the known and scientifically proven effect of the observer on the action of the sub-atomic particle being observed. The phenomenon, a subatomic particle, appears to be affected by virtue of the fact that it is being observed. This, it is argued by some theoreticians, demonstrates that there is a real creative interaction between the observed and the observer. The physicist, von Neumann, even went further and argued that consciousness is necessary for the collapse of the wave function. But as a philosopher you should be aware that these are very strange phenomena from which it would be unreasonable to draw any hard and fast inferences.”  

“Even so,” the philosopher continues, “…let us first consider this possibility that we are able to function in the world, in this case look at its phenomena, because we ultimately function from the same enabling quantum milieu in which the totality exists. Then laws of physics enabling us ‘to observe’ are the same laws enabling the particle to exist and move.” He now rushes on breathlessly: “So surely we can conclude, and with some measure of scientific conviction, that we humans are not separate from this realm of patterned (intelligent) energy. Descartes surely got that wrong when he divided into separate provinces the realms mind and matter. I now am beginning to see that we exist within this realm of patterned intelligent energy because of its existence in the first place, whilst at the same time we continue to shape or influence its effects.” 

Now the scientist replies; “I think I’m beginning to see what you are driving at. The question is how we define intelligence? This finally brings us to the peculiar phenomenon discovered in quantum physics- it is called the principle of non-locality - and that was Einstein’s conundrum. In repeated experiments researchers have taken paired subatomic particles and separated them. They placed a screen between those separated particles which has been tested to be impervious to all information and energy exchange. When subsequently the state of one particle is altered by changing the spin, the state of the other adjusts simultaneously. This instantaneous correlation, action at a distance, takes place irrespective of the time or distance that has elapsed since they were separated. It defies scientific understanding of the known dimensions of space/time – including, as we have mentioned, the understanding of Albert Einstein himself.”

The philosopher interrupts; “Then surely this also indicates the existence of some singular timeless and spaceless domain, by implication?”

The scientist replies; “It’s a teasing question - hypothetically at the subatomic level there does appear to be a unified field of information. Since this information is therefore not held in the particles (they were disabled experimentally from exchanging information) it does appear to rather be held in a field, a quantum state, in which the particles then share. This could correlate to what David Bohm hypothesised as the potential domain of ‘unbroken wholeness’.

Now the philosopher again takes up the argument: ”For me this non-local feature of quantum physics points to something significant. Considering our observation of the non-materiality identified at the quantum level, it supports some suggestion of a correlation to a ‘spiritual’ dimension of existence. Here, I’m now thinking, it is indicated experimentally from work at the micro level of existence, and it holds the structure and pattern for the creative emergence of the physical universe. Not only then does this ephemeral domain hold all potentiality – anything that comes into existence will of necessity follow its processes - is that omnipotence? Furthermore, due to its timeless nature, it is, and this is the mind-boggling thought, not bound in time - it ‘knows’ all potentiality – omniscience. And since it ‘knows’ all being at once it is everywhere at all time - omnipresence. This ‘spirit’ dimension must therefore be ‘omnipotent’ - capable of actualising all potentialities - and it must also be ‘omniscient’ - as able to understand and hence hold all potentialities.”

The scientist interrupts, “I think the Guinness might be going to your head!”

“Maybe”, the philosopher concedes, “…but just let me recapitulate. The way I’m coming to understand our conversation is this: Firstly, in the original ephemeral substance of which the universe is constituted there is structure, or at least pattern – energy functions in very specific ways. Secondly, what we consider to be fixed particles might rather be seen as non-material events or interactions in an ocean of energy following organised patterns. Thirdly, our conscious observation is known to effect that ephemeral world, thereby demonstrating that we are not separate from it but are constantly engaged with it. Fourthly through our engagement with that world, consciously or unconsciously, its potentials are made manifest. We experience it, and through our engagement, it might very well experience itself. Fifthly, that domain of intelligence that reaches beyond space and time, as demonstrated experimentally, must be totally unified and all-knowing of its own condition, and hold the structure and pattern for all interactions that will follow in the creative process. And finally, as shown for example in the Fibonacci sequence, there is an identifiable deep elegance, even beauty, in the invisible process order of creation.” 

“You’re giving me a headache, I think.” is all the scientist can reply. After shaking hands they both part in deep thought.

Imagine the scientist confiding in his wife:

“We tried to re-examine evidence from theoretical physics that might increasingly demonstrate real tested phenomena capable of pointing us to the existence of what has been traditionally known as the spiritual realm. Science now seems to be confronting the same deeper mystery that philosophy has confronted through the ages. It now points to a deep, infinite, and creative phenomena at work in nature that we previously labelled as the work of God. St John’s ‘logos’, that was in the beginning with God and was God, and through which creation came into being, seems increasingly and compellingly real.”

“That belief exists in most religions.” she reminds him. “But John suggests that ‘logos’ becomes a person in the form of Jesus on Christmas Day. How can your speculations accommodate that?”

“I don’t know - I can’t think anymore.” The philosopher confesses.

Imagine a few hours later that Christmas night the philosopher meets privately, by arrangement, with that same young priestess in a chapel in the cathedral.

The philosopher recounts his appreciation of her compelling Christmas Eve message, and reports on his reading of the Bible from the books of John and Genesis, and his subsequent discussion with a scientist that very morning. So he asks; “How does the logos take on a human form?"

Silently the priest mouths the words of the Psalmist David to herself: “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord.”

Then she proceeds:

“Let us together re-examine those correlations of our Christian religious notions of God and the scientific evidence you’ve offered. It is clear from what you say that the elegant structured patterns that constitute the creative processes of creation pre-existed matter itself, since matter only flowed from the structured interactions of energy. Those patterns may be akin to some sort of DNA of existence – the original seed of matter, life, consciousness and, consequently, of humankind itself. You might now even begin to contemplate this as the divine masculine pattern – God the Father. But without the receptive metaphysical ‘soil’ what could those seeds have done? Is not the domain of unbroken wholeness described by Bohm, that which binds all, also the container of all – the womb of existence? Can you possibly see this cosmic womb as the Holy Spirit? And as such does it not of necessity suggest that it also represents the divine feminine principle - God the Mother?”

She waits expectantly as the philosopher contemplates what she has just suggested. This is not a line she has taken before. Then she continues:

“And might this union then not be an apt interpretation of the miracle of Christmas? And are we, the ultimate products of that union, us as humanity, not therefore also the sons and daughters of that Trinity? And since we are co-creative in the world, as you have just identified, are we not indeed that third part of the Holy Trinity, namely the Sons and Daughters - and God-like?”

The philosopher is astonished at not only the erudition, but also the profoundly provocative insights of this young vicar - does she indeed talk for the church? He has nothing to add.

She waits, and when he nods for her to continue, she goes on; “Now, about the word becoming flesh, consider that embedded in that pre-existent, or co-existent potentiality you have described is also fully enlightened personhood – an awakened humankind, importantly I will stress, as a potential. Such a quality of universal personhood therefore exists as a spiritual potentiality, and since it, the realisation of potential, is the ultimate outcome of the creative organising patterns you’ve described, it is also the originator of the patterns. As you saw St John wrote; “In the beginning was the Word (the logos as cosmic pattern) and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. Can we now with the grace of the Holy Spirit contemplate this personhood as the eternal Christ – from which our human form has emerged, as indeed explained by St John?

After some silence thought the philosopher finds his voice, “Yes, this is an astonishing possibility, there might indeed be a personified God, and yes too, since we are shaped by that pattern and are known in that pattern, that might also then be a Personal God working within and with all. And furthermore to that extent that the potential knows itself and thus drives for its own expression through that which is already in the creative process, we are its realisation, children of God.” Awed, he falls silent - in deep thought.

Now the young woman gently continues; “We each hold very particular unique individual aspects of the potentiality, and we also share so many features that make us a common humanity. It is in the bringing of that diverse expression and potential together that we continue creation. Some of that creation is beautiful, and yes, much of that is still, I can't think of a better word, deformed, but I want to stress, not in a judgemental sense.” 

“Yes” the philosopher confirms, “Whilst Aristotle did describe the notion of a ‘telos’ as the final outcome to a process, he also describes an ‘entelechy’. This was a creative moment, the the set of circumstances in which a potentiality could become an actuality. So, as you say, we too are defined aspects of that set of conditions, actually then as you might say, of God’s will, and by our creative engagement together we co-create the world.”

The priest proceeds quietly; “Might you now also be able to contemplate that the deep God-ness at work, works within us and through us, and as such it loves us – desirous of us taking up our place in the creative body and sharing in the reward of a deeper existence. That, at least, is why I believe. And this what is what Christianity means to me. It is about our loving Father, and our loving Mother and the loving Christ, as the fullest human expression of the entire potentiality. And since those patterns exist within us, and we in turn exist in those patterns, the Christ potential dwells within. That is why Jesus could declare; “I and the Father are one – if you have seen me you have seen the Father.” The apostle Paul talks to the Athenians about their statue to the unknown god and says: “I speak of a God in whom we move and have our being.” And, as you saw, St John writes that the Word becomes Flesh and dwells among us. So we too are indeed also the Word becoming flesh – as you identified - we are the implicate explicating – we are the potentialities actualising – even if still in our present state of humanity in a rather messy way.”

The philosopher sits in thought for some time and then concludes: “Yes, according to this Gospel story, at the appropriate time, the entelechy, someone comes to make the divine plan manifest - to show humankind 'how to live' in harmony with the divine plan. He then is the great teacher appearing in the humble Bethlehem stable as the embodiment of the Christ-being. But now I can see this message as not only having relevant to that historical context, in the framework of the Judaic Messianic tradition, and with its historical religious legacy, but carrying with it an even more vital universal message for all time.”

“And Christmas”, the young woman priest quietly concurs, “…is the supreme symbol of that message. And the greatest Christmas present is the realisation of what it truly means.”

 Then the philosopher asks hesitantly ; “Will you pray for me?”

The priest responds; “Let’s rather pray together - the prayer Jesus himself taught.”

After a moment of silence she begins;

“Our Father”

Now for the philosopher this describes the omnipresent potentiality of consciousness as the ultimate blueprint for enlightened humanity

“Which art in heaven” - he joins in.

Now he considers ‘heaven’ as representing Bohm’s implicate order; the ultimate domain of creative enablement through quantum potentialities – hence both the context and source of the ‘Logos’ - the ‘Word’ which was God and was with God.

“Hallowed be thy name.”

Now he recognises ‘hallowed’ as Holy; the reality of unbroken wholeness as demonstrated in quantum-space in which all is ultimately one and diversity becomes the instrument of the explication of the implicate – the Logos thus embedded in all of creation.

“Thy kingdom come.”

He now recognises this as a powerful invocation to the realisation of both a condition in time, and final outcome, to be established by the actualisation of the fullest human potential in consciousness

 "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”

Earth (the explicate) as it is in Heaven (the implicate); he now recognises the imminent ‘telos’ of existence and being, and humanity’s role in that, and the implicit personal commitment to its realisation.

“Give us this day our daily bread.”

The philosopher recognises that it is through engagement with the conditions of existence that the human soul comes to maturity and through which, in turn, creative potentialities are actualised. This he now sees in the context of Jesus’ declaration that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Father

“And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

He recalls the more appropriate reinterpretation of the Hebrew word for sin, namely ‘het’, as referring to erroneous thinking and behaviour. He now accepts that the invocation to forgiveness requires a recognition of personal responsibility for those thoughts and actions that do not work. It implies both a commitment to restitution, whilst at the same time holding a compassionate attitude of self-understanding as 'a being in learning’ and 'a becoming through evolution’. This attitude is indeed to be applied to others. This he now reviews in the context of Jesus’ declaration from the cross “…forgive them for they know not what they do.”

“And lead us not into temptation,”

This surely implies a willingness to be alerted to potential ego-based distractions and a commitment to redirecting efforts to God’s ultimate purpose - a 'being' within 'being'.

 “…but deliver us from evil:”

This points to the recognition of the collective field of human error, faulty, or at least insufficient paradigms, into which we are born and function. The ‘evil one’ is thus a symbolic human figure of this collective erroneous human field.

“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.”

This is a final recapitulation of the understanding that the infrastructure of the cosmos is consciousness. The ‘I Am’ is also the implicate order, in on-going explication, and it implies that the destiny of human evolution is the realisation of the potential embedded in existence. It calls for a further recognition of the eternal timelessness and spaceless-ness - and the omnipresence and ultimate omnipotence of Being.

Imagine the philosopher and the priestess sitting in silence for a short while and then finally parting. When he arrives back home he contemplates bemusedly what he has just experienced. Now his rational mind, trained in rigorous philosophical thinking, begins to question his insights. Has he been indulging in an anthropomorphization - attributing human form to that which is not human? Then again, in separating individual experience from objective existence, might he still be perpetuating in his own mind the subject/object dichotomy that not only troubles the existential phenomenologists, but presents the very troubling implications for scientists of the observer effect? Is it not in the very nature of evolution, this he regards as an ontological question, that humankind brings meaning to existence, and that meaning is then again enfolded in existence? This, he considers, is surely then an epistemological question. Ultimate, he reflects, it must boil down to ethics. How would his new insights influence his attitude and responses to the world and his fellow human beings?

Now his eye catches sight of a scrap of note paper next to the telephone. Wandering over he finds a note penned by his wife. “The scientist phoned whilst you were out. He said he would leave a recorded message for you.”

Retrieving the recorded message he hears these words:

“My dear friend, you have both disturbed and enriched my Christmas today. I am a scientist trained in understanding objective facts, notwithstanding the enigmas we briefly explored. You are a philosopher, apparently trained to apply rigorous logical thinking to any hypothesis. I guess a belief, and this must especially relate to religion, is a set of hypotheses that has become part of individual and collective identity. Surely the purpose of science is to pursue the facts, discover the laws and patterns, and develop practical applications, such as new technological possibilities. Surely the purpose of philosophy is to contextualise these scientific insights and to find further meaning for humanity. But I will concede - you are probably right; how can these two disciplines work together so that the beliefs with which people identify are more consistent with the scientifically revealed truths, and then comply in their application with compelling logic in the way we relate to each other and existence?”

There follows a long pause which leaves the philosopher wondering whether the scientist’s message has ended. Then the recording continues:

“Off the record, I must insist for professional reasons you'll understand, these are my concluding thoughts:

* We explore the universe in order to determine its nature. It follows then we might be able to reconsider our relationship and function within it and try to optimise that relationship.

* As we seek its operative principles, we call that the laws of physics, we might also consider how to adjust our behaviour to those principles.  

* Consequently we might even explore avenues for co-creativity so that we, humanity, might find additional purpose through participation in evolution.

And that’s about as far as I can go with you - Merry Christmas.”

With a deep sigh of contentment the philosopher murmurs: “That’s good enough for me - yes indeed, that’s good enough for me.”

The End