Habs Boys – Veritas Summer Term 2024

VERITAS

Journal of Theology and Philosophy

Issue XII Seeking Understanding Spring Term 2024

Middle & Upper School Contributors

James Pannick

Rafi Ritterband

David Tchernitser

Mateo Pavlov

Ben Forrest

Lucas Argent

Eitan Rahamim

Moksh Pandya

Lior Arram

Nazim Khan

Aarush Bahel

Lower School Contributors

Kushagra Arora

James Taylor

Sid Mittal

Aadi Bagchi

Arhaan Choudhary

Aarush Ruparelia

Laksh Khanna

Zac Tager

Adan Thomas

Jai Darbari

Harry Kutock

Theo Mortlock

Ragha Singla

Nathaniel Lock

Kiran Sidhom

Benjamin Rosenfield

Archie Cohen

classic question for those who wrestle with the relationship between science and faith, Eitan Rahamim and Moksh Pandya argue that the creation stories of Judaism and Hinduism, respectively, are not as odds with science as some have proposed. Meanwhile, Lior Arram criticises the curious Omphalos hypothesis that the world was made only recently with the appearance of age.

Concluding our contributions from the middle and upper school, two papers wrestle with ideas which emerged from the Christian intellectual tradition. Nazim Khan criticises the common atheist conception that the universe is a brute fact, reviving Saint Thomas’ cosmological argument from contingency and defending it from recent criticisms. Finally, Aarush Bahel explores the life of anti-Nazi theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and considers what relevance his life may have as a role model for Christians today.

From the lower school, we have an extremely impressive range of short papers. Some boys have offered introductions to faith positions, all the way from the ancient religions of Egypt, Persia, the Middle East and India through to Norse religion, agnosticism and ‘Sillyism,’ illustrating that even a popular YouTube religion can provide a stimulus for profound reflection on faith.

Some lower school students have taken this opportunity to double check whether they exist, interacting with theories of reality and The Matrix, while others decided to offer reflections on faith. They mull over what it is like to explore faith at Habs, and even dip into the debate about faith schools. In doing so, we think they show a sensitivity and wisdom beyond their years.

As two new teachers to the school, it has been our utmost delight to witness the wealth of talent among the Habs’ Boys’ community. The contributing pupils have only confirmed to us that the relevance of Theology and Philosophy for seeking understanding extends well beyond the classroom.

Dr Nelson & Miss Yool

Fides Quareans Intellectum

Dr Nelson

Fides quareans intellectum. ‘Faith seeking understanding’ was Saint Anselm’s answer to the perennial question of the relationship between reason and faith. In his view, faith is not contrary to reason; rather, an encounter with God – through experience and relationship, creation and scripture - often spurs believers to understand the depths of themselves and the world around them.

As a boy, I would often walk up to Saint Mary’s Church, the highest point in Middlesex, which was consecrated by Anselm in 1094, shortly after his arrival with William of Normandy. Like the dreaming spires of Oxford, England’s oldest University, St Mary’s gothic spire points to heaven. In the medieval cosmos, these spires signalled that all our learning, like our prayers, are an attempt to reach the Truth. There is no strong divide between ‘prayer’ and ‘study.’

As I retraced his steps, I would often wonder what Anselm was thinking atop of the hill. In my late teenage years, my mind would turn over the scholastic’s ‘ontological argument,’ which claims that we can know God exists just by contemplating his nature. This argument is often considered in relation to the project of ‘natural theology,’ which asks what we can know about God through reason alone Lest we divorce this argument from Anselm’s personal faith, however, we must remember that he presents this ‘proof’ within his Proslogion, an ‘address’ or ‘word’ (logion) ‘towards’ (pros) God. For Anselm, the best theology was generated within the space of contemplative prayer, an embodied and personal devotion to the Truth.

This all sounds very quaint, I can hear a Habs’ boy riposte, but surely the relationship between faith and reason has become somewhat strained in recent years? In the late nineties and early noughties, the tide of atheism came in, and many came to share a new definition of faith, proposed by Professor Richard Dawkins, as belief without evidence. For Dawkins, religious belief disrupts scientific progress and is antithetical to the spirit of the Enlightenment, for it demands that we suspend our better judgement and believe things without empirical warrant. To believe is to leave our brains at the door.

Yet Dawkins is a biologist, not a historian, and few historians assent to the ‘conflict narrative’ of science and religion which he develops. Far from opposing science, the machinery of Anglicanism played a significant role in promulgating the theory of evolution; many of its earliest advocates were clerics. To be sure, evolution has posed a devastating challenge to the literal interpretations of Genesis which Dawkins naturally

no wonder, with this epistemology, that Dawkins finds God to be a delusion. I also find Dawkins’ idea of God – a thing to be detected scientifically within the universe – to be a delusion, too. For Dawkins to begin to critique the traditional conception of God, he must expand his view of what he considers evidence.

That the Gospel of John invites its readers to broader their horizons of evidence – to widen our sense of what it means to have a rational faith – is embodied in Thomas’ response. Previously, Thomas has claimed that he would only believe if he could thrust his hands into Jesus’ side. In Caravaggio’s realist depiction, which lines this volume, we see Thomas doing just that. The Gospel of John, however, never claims that Thomas actually touched Jesus’ wounds; in the end, this was not needed. Similarly, we may at times find ourselves pleasantly surprised by the fact that what was for us previously a necessary condition for rational faith is met by something apparently weaker, yet wholly sufficient.

Could a Machine Think?

Shayan Dawreeawoo (12M)

Thinking is a complex multifaceted process, which entails consciously using our brains to cogitate about the external world around us. It is mind-dependent and involves the overall interpretation of sense-data (the content of our perceptual experience) in order to generate personal mental representations. As machines become more sophisticated, driven by the rapid developments of artificial intelligence, the interconnection between human thought and machine capabilities raises profound philosophical inquiry, inviting the question: could a machine could ever think?

Crucial to this question is a functionalist view of mind. In this essay, I will begin by explaining what functionalism is and analyse the functionalist perspective in relation to machine thinking. I will then proceed to scrutinize the ‘Turing test,’ which stands as a benchmark for testing a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent or indistinguishable to that of a human. Finally, I will explore the limitations involved in machine thinking, explained through Searle’s Chinese room argument, viewing it as pivotal in answering the question of whether a machine could think. To conclude, I will argue that that machines cannot think in the same nuanced manner as a human being due to a lack of genuine understanding and consciousness, which are essential components of thought.

To fully comprehend functionality, it is necessary to distinguish between two types of mental states. Mental states on the whole are categorised into intentional states and phenomenal states, each offering perspectives on the complexities of human cognition. Intentional states, such as desires and beliefs, represent objects and are characterized by the mind’s directedness towards these objects. These states are crucial for understanding how individuals interact with the mind-independent external world. Phenomenal states, on the other hand, refer to the subjective and qualitative aspects of consciousness, encompassing our firsthand experiences, such as sensations or emotions. As such, they are both private and indescribable, highlighting the unique nature of what it feels like to undergo these complex mental processes. The intersection between the two types of mental states is crucial to aid the understanding of human thinking, where thoughts (intentional states) are intricately connected to the subjective experience of consciousness (phenomenal states). To gain a holistic overview of the functionality of the mind, recognizing the distinction is pivotal to functionalism as described below.

Functionalism defines mental states as functional states within a system. For example, the functional role of pain is an unpleasant sensation that creates a desire for the pain to

stop and causes the system to move away from the thing that is causing it harm. Functions, however, need to be understood in the context of the entire mind. So, the function of pain, for example, is not simply to cause behavioral dispositions but also to cause other mental states such as the actual belief you are in pain, or a desire for the pain to stop. Functionalism therefore places key emphasis on inputs, mental states and, most importantly for the purposes of this essay, outputs. In the context of the question regarding a machine being able to think, functionalism becomes relevant because it shifts the emphasis from the specific physical components of a machine to the functions it performs. Therefore, we must extensively analyze whether a machine can replicate the functional aspects of human thinking. According to functionalism, if a machine system can perform the same thinking properties as human thinking would, it would be able to think. As a machine can emulate the functions of human thinking, functionalism posits that a machine can think.

A strong challenge to whether a machine can think like a human, however, is offered in the Turing Test, formulated by the highly influential computer scientist, Alan Turing. The Turing Test is performed by placing a human in one room and a machine in a different one. A human judge interacts with both the human and the machine without knowledge of which is which, and asks both parties a series of questions. If the judge cannot reliably distinguish between the two based on their responses, the machine is considered to have passed the Turing Test. The implication of a machine passing the Turing test is that it shows the machine’s ability to process human ‘syntax’ and ‘semantics,’ a step towards answering our question. Notably however, no machine has ever passed a universally accepted Turing test, demonstrating that machines cannot think in the same comprehensive way humans do. Indeed, even if a machine does eventually pass the Turing test, this would not necessarily establish that a machine can think in the same ways as humans do. It is a pragmatic test to show the outward appearance of intelligence rather than probing the internal mental states of the machine. The debate about whether machines can genuinely think involves deeper philosophical ideas that go beyond the scope of the Turing Test. To give us a deeper insight into the potential consciousness of machines, we might consider Searle’s Chinese room argument.

Searle’s Chinese room argument attempts to refute the functionalist approach to the understanding of minds, the approach which states that mental states are determined through their causal roles. Searle’s though experiment describes that there is a man, who only speaks English, locked in a room with only a slot through which to communicate with people from the outside world. Outside is a Chinese speaker who is eager to discover whether the person inside speaks Chinese and so passes messages into the room written in Chinese. The English speaker has several baskets containing Chinese

symbols and a rule book written in English which he consults to determine how to respond to the messages. The Chinese characters are completely meaningless to the English speaker, but nonetheless, because of the sophistication of the rule book, he can respond in ways which are meaningful to the Chinese speaker outside the room. In other words, the person in the room passes the Turing test and fools the Chinese person into thinking he is a fluent speaker of Chinese. From this, Searle contends that the Chinese room thought experiment undermines the notion that computers have intrinsic intentionality. If the person in the room does not possess intrinsic intentionality on the sole basis of following a set of instructions or programme, then neither could any machine. Referring to the idea of syntax and semantics described earlier, a machine does not deal with meanings (semantics) but simply follows rules of syntax. Thus, a machine can only ever simulate consciousness (accomplished through complex programming) but never duplicate it.

In the context of thinking, Searle’s Chinese room argument persuasively rebuts the functionalist perspective on machine-thinking. Its intuitive appeal and logical coherence render it a pivotal argument against the ability of machines to think. Whilst computers may emulate consciousness to a convincing degree, they cannot ever duplicate it. This results in the notion that machines will not ever be able to think in the same nuanced way as humans.

in order to progress its chess-playing ability, similar to what a human would do. Due to the similarity of processes and functions, and the fact that AI is only going to develop in what it can do, so much so that it may become able to mimic every function carried by out by something ‘conscious’, even potentially emotion, it is evident on a functionalist framework that AI seems on the road to achieving a total state of consciousness. This, including intransitive and transitive consciousness (under the functionalist theory), as AI is able to process and understand data, and under functionalism, once it is able to mimic all human functions, it could be considered ‘awake’. But is something really conscious just because it can mimic the actions – that is, the functions - of someone that is?

Argument from Biological naturalism

Functionalism provides the basis for a convincing argument that AI could become conscious if it is able to replicate the functions and processes of a brain and mimic something conscious. However, the biological naturalist would refute this, arguing that the functionalist theory does not provide a sufficient definition of consciousness. Biological naturalism is the antithesis to functionalism, as it claims that consciousness is rooted in the biological machinery of the brain. It posits that neurons, nerves, and impulses are the cause of our (humans’) consciousness, with all parts of the brain and human body working together, rather than the individual actions of each element. However, AI processes data and makes decisions using code, algorithms and databases, none of which replicates the biological processes of the brain. Therefore, the biological naturalist would argue that AI will never achieve a state of intransitive consciousness, as what makes something intransitively conscious is its ability to be aware of its surroundings, and ‘awake,’ which can only occur as a result of the biological subsections of the brain and body working together.

Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, this essay argues that AI will never be able to achieve a state of intransitive consciousness as there is insufficient evidence to support the functionalist idea that consciousness is rooted in the functions of the subject. Contrastingly, biological naturalism presents a much more convincing notion of consciousness by incorporating the intricacies and uniqueness of the human brain and what it means to be conscious. Therefore, although AI is able to recognise and process inputs (making it transitively conscious), this essay argues it will never reach an intransitive level of consciousness, where it could be classified as ‘awake’.

Incognito Ergo Sum

Rafi Ritterband (12H)

Chat GPT 4, the most advanced model, stated that it, “doesn’t have a subjective experience of consciousness or an internal felt sense of self – awareness,” in response to my question, asking if it was capable of thought. Yet, to think is “to believe something or have an opinion or an idea,” according to the Cambridge dictionary. Surely in answering this ambiguous question it would have had an idea of its response prior to responding? Furthermore, Chat GPT assumes that the ‘thinking’ condition necessitates the capability of introspection. If so, why is it unable to do so? Having an awareness of one's inability to be self-aware requires a degree of self-awareness; it seems counterintuitive to say that a rabbit knows that it cannot contemplate its own existence. This essay aims to answer the question “could a machine think,” ultimately concluding that more biologically inspired principles are needed within computation in order to fully replicate the complexity of human thought. In what follows, I will carefully consider Cartesian and Functionalist arguments, before outlining my own approach.

What is ‘Thinking’?

Before we decipher whether a machine is capable of thinking, we must first define what it means to ‘think.’ There are two key contrasting metaphysical positions regarding what it means to think: Cartesian dualism and Functionalism. The former posits that the mind and the physical body are distinct substances, in which mental events belong to a nonphysical, immaterial substance. For instance, if I say, “I thought of the Queen and I saluted,” the “I” that is the mind enacting the thought, is not the same “I” as the physical body that salutes. Contrastingly, the functionalist holds that mental states are characterised solely by their function, irrespective of their material substance, with thoughts being the result of an amalgamation of inputs and outputs.

Arguments for Cartesian Dualism

At first glance, the functionalist position lacks intuitive appeal. Since at least the Enlightenment, our ability to engage in higher-order cognitive processes such as reasoning, problem-solving, and abstract thought has been regarded as a characteristically human quality which sets us apart from other animals and machines. Our subjective first-hand experience of consciousness seems unique, ineffable and unrelated to our understanding of a computer that is only processing information. Therefore, Descartes’ central claim that thinking is fundamentally a non -physical

phenomena, tied to an immaterial mind or soul, seemingly discredits the functionalist premise that the material substance of the mind is irrelevant.

Arguments for Functionalism

Yet, the functionalist is able to successfully respond to this trivial objection, holding that our perceived higher human understanding is merely an illusion. Consider an advanced artificial system that can replicate the connections and functioning processes of a human brain. This particular machine may be able to produce true awareness and comprehension, despite being made of different materials. This functionalist argument is best illustrated by Stephen Law’s thought experiment in which he invites us to “[imagine] we were gradually to replace the organic neurons in your brain with artificial metal and silicon ones.” If each of these metal and silicon neurons carried out the same function as organic neurons, it follows that there would not be any change in our outward behaviour or introspective awareness. This acts as a severe objection to Descartes’s metaphysical position as the underlying material or our perceived “magical inner something” is not required for genuine thought and understanding. Overall, our strong intuition that thinking requires organic or human substance is founded on fallacious inferences and gaps in our understanding, providing us with no reason to accept Cartesian dualism as the correct position.

The Turing Test

Now that we have established that functionalism is the most accurate description of what it means to think, we must now consider if machines can meet these stringent standards.

A useful method of evaluation to determine if a machine is capable of human thought would be the Turing Test. This test entails three people: a computer, a human interrogator, and another human. Though he is aware that there is one human and one machine, the interrogator is unsure which is which. Both participants can be questioned via a text-only communication channel, and the interrogator can decide which is a computer and which is a person based only on the participants’ replies.

The machine is said to have passed the Turing Test if its replies are so similar to the human’s responses that it is impossible for them to be distinguished from one another. In order to pass the test, the computer would have to process inputs (the interrogator’s questions) and would have to produce intelligent outputs, such as replies. According to the functionalist, passing the Turing Test would show that a machine can play the same

functional role as a human mind and therefore that it is capable of thought equivalent to that of a human.

An Original Approach

It is true that Cartesian dualism does not offer a strong definition of what it means to think, yet it has also been show that functionalism falls short in this regard. The fact that humans can think and subsequently behave in an irrational and unpredictable manner, defying strict logical rules, points to a clear limitation in the functionalist position as this fact is overlooked by their acceptance of the Turing Test. The theory of computation holds that Turing machines and other computational devices function according to strict symbol manipulation and codified rules and whilst it is true that human rationality can be modelled according to such rules, human thinking often violates the principles of strict rationality. Our outputs are influenced by environmental factors and emotions in a way that machines are not. For instance, it is inconceivable for a machine to ‘overthink’ or become anxious, without us being able to trace it back to a particular malfunction in its algorithm. This irrational aspect of our mental experience seems to be crucial to human thought. Classical computational models based on symbol manipulation cannot fully capture human irrationality and therefore human thought as a whole.

Stephen Law arguably ignores some of the more fundamental obstacles to reaching true human-like versatility in machine thinking that are presented by the rigorous structures and logical presumptions that underpin contemporary computational theory by avoidi ng explicitly addressing issues like irrationality. To consider the non -rule-based aspects of human intelligence that transcend the traditional computability framework, his functionalist arguments might need modification.

Conclusion

Both Cartesian dualism and functionalism fail to provide convincing metaphysical theories in answering our question of whether a machine is capable of thought. Both approaches take too narrow of a definition, with the former confining thought to a distinctly human, immaterial substance, and the latter failing to account for the complexities of irrational human thought. Ultimately, advanced AI architectures could be created using innovative computing principles that are inspired by human irrationality by incorporating theories from cognitive science, neurology, and psychology. This sense of human irrationality could also emerge in machines when they enter a similar environmental context, as they become tangible robotic bodies.

Should Euthanasia be Legalised?

David Tchernitser (9H)

Euthanasia is defined as ‘the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.’ It is currently illegal in the UK, but legal in several European countries, Canada, and ten states in the USA. But is it ethical? Should it be legal to take another human life, even if they want it, and if you choose to undergo euthanasia, will you go to hell? In this article, I will examine various religious and philosophical ideas about whether euthanasia should be legalised, before offering my own perspective.

Religious Beliefs

Christians believe that ‘man is made in the image of God’ and because of this, suicide is inherently wrong, as it is disrespecting or defacing the body given to them by God, and disrespecting God himself, since they believe that it is ‘throwing away’ his p erfect body. Both Judaism and Islam believe the same, and prohibit taking one’s own life, while Islam claims that it is a cardinal sin, at the same level as witchcraft or murder. Most major religions believe the same, however, Jains believe in the practice of ‘Sallekhana,’ a voluntary death by fasting, which is acceptable under specific circumstances such as imminent death.

The major religions believe very similarly of helping someone to die as choosing to die. Christians believe that the deliberate action of killing should only occur at God’s command, and any who disobeys this will be subject to God’s judgement. Most major religions have very similar views and believe that helping someone to end their own life will result in dire religious consequences, discounting the other ethical and community consequences. Religious texts such as the Bible, the Quran and the Torah all have passages which either directly claim or imply that life is sacred and should not be ended in lieu of a divine command.

While the Abrahamic faiths take a clear stand against euthanasia, some religions, such as Buddhism, believe that whilst life should be preserved and appreciated, it does not need to be fully preserved, and a person does not need to go to extra lengths to extend it further, or keep a dying person to live longer if the treatment is difficult, long and painful. The Presbyterian Church of the U.S.A also are not completely opposed to euthanasia, or the idea of letting a dying person die. According to Abigail Ria n Evans, a Presbyterian minister, Presbyterians ‘don’t categorically rule out euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, the burden of proof rests with the person taking the position

in favour of these things,’ meaning that they generally believe that no harm needs to be done and God should generally decide when and how you die. But if, for example, a terminally ill patient would rather withdraw from treatment than undergo, you would not be condemned from God. However, this is only considered acceptable as it is different from voluntary euthanasia, and being killed by a doctor, as it is the illness rather than the withdrawal of treatment that is ending the patient’s life.

Overwhelmingly, it seems to us that euthanasia, by any means, is almost always believed to cause punishment to the patient and the doctor, and only under select circumstances is it somewhat acceptable.

Philosophical Perspectives

“Voluntary euthanasia occurs only when, to the best of medical knowledge, a person is suffering from an incurable and painful or extremely distressing condition. In these circumstances one cannot say that to choose to die quickly is obviously irrational.” Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher commonly known for his views on animal ethics, believes that euthanasia is permissible in certain circumstances. In his view, it must be fully voluntary – the conscious decision of an agent – and the person must be suffering from a condition in which they are incurable pain. This belief derives from Singer’s utilitarianism, which sees euthanasia as a means to minimize suffering or distress for the patient; even though it ends their lives, it will allow them to be free of the pain they are experiencing in the moment. Utilitarianism is an aspect of philosophy that would almost certainly support euthanasia, as it aims to minimize pain for the patient, even though it ends in the patient dying, and as an act of mercy to ‘free’ them from their pain. However, the euthanising of a specific patient could result in negative effects on people around them such as family, friends, or even the doctor or doctors involved, which overall could outweigh the benefits brought to the patient.

Alternatively, some philosophers who have a more absolutist view on ethics would argue against the idea of ending anyone’s life, no matter how much they want it, or how much pain they are in, as they believe that the act of killing someone is always wrong, no matter how justifiable it may seem to be. Thomas Aquinas would also agree with this view, as his ‘natural law theory’ effectively states that all humans have a reason given to them by God that they should use to flourish. This also means that euthanasia would not be ethically acceptable, following Aquinas’ teachings, as it would stop a human being from flourishing and living the rest of their lives. In this scenario, their lives are cut off early, which could stop them from understanding the reason for living that was given to them.

Some may argue that euthanasia is ethically incorrect as it ends in a loss of a human life, which is always wrong, no matter how much pain it stops, whilst others argue that it is circumstantial, and sometimes euthanasia should be used to relinquish the pain that a patient may be going through, whether it be physical or mental. Philosophy is a more divided on the ethics of euthanasia compared to religion, as there are equal arguments grounded in very different formulations of ethics.

Real-Life Examples

In 2018, Aurelia Brouwers, a twenty-nine-year-old Dutch woman, was self-euthanised after drinking a poison supplied to her by a doctor, even though she was not terminally ill. She was diagnosed by her doctor that she was allowed to end her life on basis of a psychiatric illness, as her doctor evaluated that she had gone through ‘unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement’ and that there was ‘no reasonable alternative in the patient’s situation.’ She was not the only case of euthanasia on grounds of psychiatric suffering, as in 2017, 83 people were euthanised because of it. The number may be small, compared to the 6,585 people euthanised in the Netherlands in 2017, but should she have died, or just have been left to her own devices?

Aurelia was not just suffering from short-term depression. She had a long history of mental illness, including depression from an early age, borderline personality disorder, attachment disorder and more. However, after asking her doctors, who knew her psychiatric history, she was denied by them. So, she applied to the Levenseindekliniek - the End-of-Life Clinic in the Hague, a place considered to be a last resort for those who are seeking euthanasia treatment when denied everywhere else. Her application was accepted, and two weeks later, she died. This was such a significant case because of how young Brouwers was, and with further treatment, it would have been very possible that later in life that she would not have felt such terrible pain. As well as this, people in serious situations where they may be feeling suicidal or depressed may feel that there is not a future available for them, and may not see anything ahead of the present, devaluing life for themselves. So then, when the authorities allow them to end it all with a glass of poison, this is just showing other seriously depressed people that they do not need to go through the effort of treatment to try to get to a better place. Instead, they can just get euthanised without much difficulty.

Personal Views

I believe, even though I am not fully educated on the subject, that euthanasia should be legalised in specific cases such as terminal illness, or pain, after an assessment by a knowledgeable doctor or expert. It may be also be permitted in situations where there

is no other easy treatment and euthanasia seems to be the only way out for these patients. Moreover, even though religions generally choose to stand against euthanasia, I feel that they should not majorly affect the outcome of whether someone chooses to be euthanised, as I believe they should not enforce decisions on matters of life and death. However, I do not believe that euthanasia should be legalised for psychiatric illnesses, as the pain may be as real, but allowing euthanasia for such people may be ‘devaluing’ the life of the patient, as it is enables them to leave this world whenever they want to; this could be fatal for individuals who may be able to recover if given the appropriate treatment.

Conclusion

Religion generally says euthanasia is that wrong, philosophy has arguments for either side, and we can see in real-life examples that it is a complex moral issue. We have seen that it has been allowed in a plethora of countries around the world, and mostly seems to have produced satisfactory results. The decision of whether it is ethical truly lies in the hands of each individual, as it is really a matter of moral beliefs about the value of life and the power of religion in one’s own choices. Whilst we may not have come to a definitive conclusion on whether it should be legalised, I have argued that it is permissible in certain circumstances.

free market system on moral grounds, as taxes and subsidies are required to account for the actual utility generated by a product. A tax or subsidy can account for external benefits or detriment to utility outside of an economic transaction. In the case of cars, a tax on car production or usage can reflect the negative external effects that cars have in the price. Thereby, car usage will decline to the amount which is optimal for the utility of society. A mixed economy involving taxes and subsidies on goods that generate utility outside of the direct consumer transaction would be ideal for the maximization of utility under Bentham’s hedonistic utilitarianism.

On the other hand, Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics might argue for a planned or mixed economy, involving government intervention with certain goods. Kant did not believe in the maximization of utility, but instead the categorical imperative, which creates duties that we must always abide by. Take the example of a product such as alcohol, which is damaging to a person’s health. According to the maximization of utility, the optimum amount of alcohol for a market to produce is the amount demanded by people. However, Kant would deem any output of alcohol to be too much, even if every individual took into account the detrimental effects alcohol had on their health. This is because of Kant’s law of universalization, which states that we should “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal moral law.” In the case of alcohol consumption, the maxim “I want to drink alcohol” becomes the universal law, “everyone ought to drink alcohol.” This universal law creates a ‘contradiction in will’ by impeding the achievement of my own ends in future, damaging both mental and physical health. Therefore, Kant would say that we have a duty not to consume alcohol in any quantity. We could therefore conclude that Kant would be in favour of a mixed economy, whereby some goods are banned entirely while others can be traded under a free market system. This system would best satisfy Kant’s idea of moral law and lead to a more moral society, in comparison to a free market system.

Alternatively, we can investigate some of the real-world effects that free market capitalism has had, and some of the likely pitfalls it encounters on moral grounds. First, in favor of the view that a capitalist free market system is immoral, we may point to the inequality and exploitation we see all over the world. Free market capitalism can lead to a race for low production costs and high demand through marketing. We can witness the contrast between sweatshops in Asia and South America, cobalt mines in the Congo and the luxury that others enjoy within these same countries. The passing on of inheritance between generations and the capacity for richer parents to pay for better education can lead to inequality becoming ingrained within a capitalist free market system. As opposed to free markets being meritocratic, we see that that they often lead to exploitation of cheap labour. By the measure of utility, or indeed the use of Kant’s

categorical imperative we can highlight the immorality and suffering that can be created by inequality free market systems.

Critics may point to a passage by Adam Smith that states that people are governed by self-interest: “Every man is, no doubt, by nature, first and principally recommended to his own care; and as he is fitter to take care of himself than any other person, it is fit and right that it should be so.” A market built on assumptions of self-interest and arguably greed is likely to produce outcomes of this nature. We see corruption in the real world and question whether fulfilling individual self-interest does truly create societal benefit.

On the contrary, free market economists can call attention to declines in absolute poverty over the last two centuries (see figure one below). If we take an outcome-based approach, the widespread influence of free market capitalism can claim responsibility for the improvements in living standards worldwide. Less poverty would suggest longterm utility maximization. Nevertheless, public services such as healthcare and education, which would certainly benefit society, are often underprovided by a free market system. Taxation and government can bring major improvements in these areas, contributing to declines in absolute poverty worldwide, once again showing the additional benefits of intervention in a free market system. When considering utility, many would argue that services provided by a government generate greater utility in their use than the sum of individual utility loss in taxation.

To conclude, the implications of inequality, issues with utility maximisation and exploitation within free market capitalism leads one to believe that a pure free market system has displayed large capacity to be immoral. Moreover, this may lead us to believe that a mixed market system may be better at maintaining moral standards and providing equality of opportunity. Free market capitalism rewards self-interest and even avarice, leading us to suggest that this cannot fundamentally lead to a more just society.

Figure 1:

Does Nihilism Undermine Ethical Decision Making?

Ben Forrest (12C)

Nihilism is the philosophical perspective that claims that life has no meaning or purpose. Furthermore, it denies the existence of any foundation for knowledge or any objective moral truth. The philosophy argues that there is ultimately no intrinsic value in human life. Anything that exists is simply subjective, including ethical frameworks which guide our decision making. In what follows, I consider viewpoints on ethical decision and take into account possible counter arguments from a nihilist which attempt to maintain that ethical decision making remain possible within their philosophy.

The first issue with the philosophy is that it leads of moral relativism. As nihilism is an anti-realist philosophy, denying the existence of moral truths, it means that any moral facts that are in the world are subjective and relative. The notions of good and bad for the nihilist have no inherent validity; instead they are simply social constructs without any grounding in an objective moral reality. This stance on moral properties means that there is no clear moral guidelines on how to act. While a philosophy like utilitarianism, for example, stands on the foundation that ‘’mankind has been placed under the governance of two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain,” nihilism provides people with no clear way of knowing that an act is right or wrong. Nihilism therefore opens the door to moral relativism. It means that ethics and what constitutes good or bad can vary drastically between people or cultures. Arguably, if it is consistently pursued, nihilism will result in chaos, as people would not have clear guidance on how to act; what may appear good in the eyes of one person may not in the eyes of another.

A second reason why a nihilistic philosophy undermines ethical decision-making is because the nihilistic view itself states that everything in the world is meaningless strips away any logical reason to be ethical and display good morals at all. From a nihilistic perspective, striving to be ethical ultimately achieves nothing and has no impact on the world as there is no ethical base upon which to ground any rules or law. This may result in everyone’s personal philosophy collapsing into ethical egoism, the claim that people ought to act in their own self-interest. As there is no need for an individual to make sacrifices and limit well-being for the sake of arbitrary ethical norms such as justice and rights. You are therefore able to do as you wish with no regard for others, since according to the nihilist your actions cannot be inherently ‘wrong.’

Whilst rejecting objective moral properties, a nihilist could maintain that there is value in ethical reasoning around harm reduction and around the prevention of suffering. One thing that cannot be denied regardless of your ethical standpoint is that humans are

capable of experiencing pain or agony. So even in a meaningless universe, it remains pragmatically and self-evidently desirable to avoided inflicting unnecessary harm or pain on yourself when it is possible to do so. Nihilist ethicists would examine moral theories such as utilitarianism or deontology not for their meta-ethical grounding but rather to derive rules and principles which may reduce net-harm and unpleasant experiences. Creating ‘moral’ guidelines to systematically lessen these harms throughout our limited time on earth would be the goal.

To flesh this out, part of Kantian deontology could be used to solve possible issues. As nihilism can often collapse into ethical egoism, a general rule could be established that states to treat everyone as an end in themselves and never merely as a means. Even if this is not ultimately binding on an individual, it will benefit one’s own self-interest in the long term. For instance, if it was in people’s self-interest to murder then it would hinder your ability to maximise your own self-interest if you were to be murdered; setting up these guidelines or acting as if Kantian ethics is true may therefore be beneficial. Acts of violence, cruelty, injustice, and other terrible experiences could be denounced not because they violate moral principles, but rather because they are ultimately self-defeating behaviours that lead to unfavourable lived experiences on a large scale. So, some sort of ethical guideline, even if it is not based on a solid objective foundation, may be useful as it will allow harm to be minimised and your own benefit to be maximised in the long term.

Finally, even if nihilism is correct in stating that there is no objective moral truth, human being still possess unavoidable and innate moral impulses which are the product of our evolutionary history. These are qualities such as empathy, compassion and f airness. So, people may still be able to make good ethical decisions making that is the best for them and society due to evolution and innate social qualities, even though there is not a foundational set of moral principles upon which to base their actions. The rejection cosmic meaning of nihilists does not automatically override the deep-rooted intuitions about ethical behaviour which we possess. These intuitions are an observable part of human nature so regardless of whether absolute truth exists or not, nihilism does not entirely negate the inner-drive for ethical reasoning, meaning that we can still be good ethical decision-makers.

To conclude, nihilism does present some significant issues for ethical decision making, given that there are no foundational moral principles to guide our actions. The philosophy also may also result in people not feeling the need to act morally, for the entire premise of nihilism is the denial of the existence of an objective morality and the meaning of existence. If nothing matters, then people may not feel the requirement to hinder their fulfilment of their own goals just to please others or conform to social

constructs. Instead, they may resort to acting purely egoistically. However, while for the nihilist there is no objective moral truth, some ethical decision making can be made through use of social constructs in order to minimise unnecessary harm which certain people’s actions inflict upon others. These social constructs can be followed by nihilists as it ultimately allows people to carry out their own actions and fulfill their desires without being hindered by the actions of other people. In short, nihilism does not fully undermine ethical decision making.

Can Nihilism Solve our Ultimate Quest for Meaning?

Lucas Argent (10C)

Throughout all of human history, the quest for meaning has been one of the most discussed and debated questions, and yet it still remains unanswered. From the musings of the classical philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle, to the answers of religion and even more recent ideas, posited by twentieth century philosophers, there have been hundreds, if not thousands of distinct separate schools of thought on the issue. It could even be argued that every individual throughout human history has had their own perspective and ideas, through the lens of their own human experience. One school of thought developed more recently, and brought to fruition by the nineteenth century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was that of nihilism: the rejection of generally accepted and fundamental aspects of the human condition, such as morality, knowledge or perhaps most famously, and the subject of this essay, meaning. The implications of such a Weltanschauung (worldview) can be wide and vast reaching, leading many people to reject it. More recently, however, movements have arisen which accept the fundamental premise of nihilism, but nevertheless grasp for a way to deny its rather miserable consequences. Since the ascendency of nihilism, it has been hotly debated as a result of its bleak implications for human life, with many viewing it as dangerous or blasphemous. This essay will explore the arguments for and against nihilism, and assess whether ultimately we can count on meaning.

The concept of existential nihilism is the idea that our human experience of life ultimately appears to lack inherent purpose or significance, beyond the framework of our own minds. Humans seem to live and exist without a clear goal or wider, longerreaching significance and importance. In the end, what we do and how we act will mean nothing, with the majority of our actions barely affecting our own lives, let alone having any broader sense of meaning. The universe is comparatively massive, and completely indifferent to our actions; it follows impersonal laws that have no respect for our human desires, wants or values. The decisions and choices we make that seem to us to be the entire world are in reality but a fraction, not even the tip of the proverbial iceberg that is the universe. This viewpoint is reinforced by the recognition of death and impermanence. Human life, for all its complexities and ambitions, is transitory and ephemeral. The entire history of the human race is less than 0.0015% of the time span of the universe, using our best estimates, let alone an individual human life. From a cosmic perspective, our individual lives are exceptionally brief, and everything we hold dear or seek to achieve is prone to decay and eventually, when we are no longer around to experience it, will cease to exist. The same is true of our memories and experiences. The existential argument holds that the universe's apparent randomness and indifference

make any search for ultimate purpose useless. If human existence is simply the result of accidental events and evolutionary processes, with no cosmic purpose, the search for meaning becomes a subjective rather than objective discovery. Life lacks an intrin sic and explicit purpose or meaning since the universe is impartial and random, not a realm designed with an end goal, a greater collective aim for humanity in mind. Human existence appears small in the grand scheme of cosmic time and space. Everything we live and work for is fleeting, causing us to realise that our aspirations are meaningless in the face of our unavoidable dissent into nothingness.

The argument for nihilism is further strengthened by the idea of scientific naturalism, which seeks to explain the universe as somewhere governed by a set of completely random and arbitrary rules, completely impersonal and indifferent to the goings-on of humans, not a place designed to cater for our insignificant desires and needs. This belief suggests that certain observable and discoverable rules define the universe, rather than relying on the supernatural and without positing that the universe was designed with humans in mind. According to modern science, human life developed from a series of biological processes guided by physical laws that govern everything about our existence. Our consciousness, emotions, and experiences, which could be more eloquently described as the human condition, are viewed as the result of evolutionary adaptations over millions of years to best select for self-preservation. This would mean that there is no intrinsic cosmic plan or purpose that informs or controls human existence, simply the random (or possibly determined, but still naturally selected) whims of the universe. This further suggests nihilism as ultimately all human actions come down to a biological impulse to stay alive, as this is what evolution would select for, as opposed to the pursuit of some cosmic purpose or common human goal. The pursuit of ultimate meaning is therefore understood as a societal mundane form of meaning, rather than a quest for ultimate and necessary cosmic truth. This idea of naturalism explains the thoughts and behaviours of humans using scientific principles and fundamentally rejects the presence of a supernatural or transcendent being or design and therefore undermines this source of meaning. Human goals and values, what many could describe as a personal sort of meaning, are viewed as the result of evolutionary processes rather than manifestations of a more important cosmic meaning.

It can be argued, however, that the argument for nihilism is inherently contradictory. That is, the argument inherently engages in concepts and structures of meaning, such as words and logic, to explain why such a meaning doesn’t exist - what it means for life to be meaningless. Nihilism, while asserting that life is meaningless, requires a framework that needs and relies about reason, logic and crucially the idea of meaning. Value judgements and meanings are required to posit a lack of meaning, creating a paradox within the argument. When a nihilist claims that life is pointless, they use language and

concepts that are fundamentally meaningful. The very act of making this claim presupposes a comprehension of what “meaning” and “meaninglessness” imply, so accepting the existence of a framework in which such contrasts are significant. This self-referential component of nihilism reveals its intrinsic contradiction: asserting the absence of meaning requires participation in a discourse that implies the possibility of meaning. However, perhaps more persuasively, nihilism's argument against meaning also relies on the human experience, how we think and feel and reason, all of which are subjective and personal human experiences which are necessarily loaded with meaning. For example, the idea that human lives pale in comparison to the immensity of the wider universe in terms of significance is based on a comparison of human goals and the wider universe a comparison that requires an understanding of meaning. Therefore, although nihilism questions traditional concepts of objective meaning, its entire survival is dependent on the use of meaning in discourse, and the subjective human experience, inherently fuelled by meaning of some sort. This paradox suggests that ultimately meaning must exist, for to argue against it is to assume a meaning.

Another convincing argument against nihilism is that meaning is inherently built into the human mind, a necessity that we need to survive. Coined ‘existential psychology’ by Viktor Frankl in Man's Search for Meaning, this provides a powerful critique of nihilism by highlighting the importance of having a meaning or purpose in human life, and in fact we struggle to function without one. Frankl suggested, following his own experiences as a Holocaust survivor and later clinical work, that the pursuit of something beyond our greater human comprehension, something akin to meaning is a fundamental human need rather than a theoretical issue. Frankl noted that people who can find some semblance of purpose and meaning even in the face of unspeakable agony or hopelessness were more likely to stay sane. For example, Frankl observed that prisoners in concentration camps who helped to relieve the suffering of others or attempted to maintain their dignity, people with a goal and a purpose beyond acceptance of their condition, showed much stronger signs of mental resilience and were able to keep going. This idea of existential psychology compellingly suggests that in fact we do have a need for meaning, and so it must exist in some form. It opposes the nihilistic claim that existence has no inherent meaning or purpose by recognising the innate human ability to create one’s own meaning even in the face of great hardship and its positive impact on psychological resilience.

In conclusion, the idea of meaning is a topic that could be endlessly debated and not one I claim to have solved in this essay. Based on the arguments I have presented, however, it can be suggested that in fact a greater purpose or grand cosmic truth, a collective human goal does not seem to exist. The irrelevance of our lives on a cosmic scale, the futility of our pain and the ultimate realisation that all of our experiences and

memories will be gone in a matter of decades, the blink of an eye on the cosmic scale, combined with the scientific suggestion of a harsh impersonal universe as opposed to a lovingly and carefully designed one, seems to suggest that at least. Interestingly, however, both arguments for and against nihilism seem to posit a human biological and psychological desire for meaning. Ultimately as humans we have and likely always will continue to create our own sense of meaning. The fundamental question comes down to whether or not this is in fact meaning, or simply a false desire created by evolutionary bias to keep us alive for as long as possible.

Does

Evolution

Make Genesis Redundant?

Eitan Rahamim (12H)

“The hinges in the wings of an earwig, and the joints of its antennae, are as highly wrought, as if the creator had nothing else to finish.” William Paley, and many other pre-Darwin philosophers and theologians accounted for the complexity of the universe by postulating the existence of an intelligent creator, a God. Paley used his analogy of a watchmaker to illustrate that, just as the intricate design of a watch necessitates the existence of an intelligent watchmaker, the complexity of the universe proves that an intelligent God must have designed it.

This theory encountered a significant roadblock in 1859, when Charles Darwin published ‘On the origin of Species’, and the theory of evolution and natural selection. He discovered that the apparent design of the universe could be explained by the fact that species become better suited to their own environment over time by the process of natural selection. He concluded in his autobiography that “The old argument of design in nature given by Paley, which formerly seemed so conclusive to me, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.” Attempts were made, initially by Robert Hicke, to resurrect the traditional teleological argument in the form of the finetuning argument. However, the account of Genesis in the Jewish Scriptures aligns with the traditional form of the argument, disproved by Darwin, far more than latter forms of the argument. Therefore, whilst natural selection cannot disprove God, it certainly seems that it provides strong evidence against religious belief.

In this essay, I will attempt to reconcile the account of Genesis with the theory of evolution in two ways. First, I will begin by suggesting that humans and animals bear a closer relationship with each other than is often perceived. Second, I will then contend that the key problem for the compatibility of Genesis and evolution – the reference to God making creation ‘according to its kind’ – is dissolved by a proper consideration of the biblical style.

Religious believers tend to preface the account of Genesis by claiming it to be a metaphorical and spiritual text rather than a literal account of creation. This idea is propagated by both leading Jewish and Christian theologians, who hold Genesis as a holy text. Maimonides explained in ‘Guide for the Perplexed’ that “The account given in the Torah of the creation is not ... intended to be completely literal” and Karl Barth claims that “We shall not analyze this statement (referring to genesis) as though it were a scientific or philosophical definition,” emphasising that Genesis is not a historical document.

would have been given their own day of creation. Being introduced on the same day implies a fundamental connection between them.

The actual wording describing the creation of humans and animals is also undismissably similar. Both Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 use the wording ‘the Lord formed’ and ‘from the ground’ suggesting a stark similarity between the creation of humans and animals. In fact, the only distinguishing factor between the method of the creation of man and the creation of animals in Genesis appears to be the fact that that God ‘breathed into its nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living soul (nefesh)’ (Genesis 2:7). Given the established propensity to read Genesis metaphorically, it is easy to understand this distinction not as part of the physical creation of man but regarding man's spiritual development; the nefesh indicates a person in their totality. In this case, man and animal would be described to be created the same way physically, as is shown by the theory of evolution, with the distinction referring to Gods cultivation of man's morality and accountability for its actions as opposed to a separate creation process.

This is supported by the fact that, in the entirety of the Jewish Scriptures, there is only one instance of an animal being held morally accountable - the snake in the story of the fall - while humanity is again and again subject to commandments and accountable for its misgivings. It is therefore logical that the distinguishing aspect of humanity’s creation does not refer to a physical process but rather the formation of a selfconsciousness and morality that is lacking in the other aspects of creation.

Upon a close examination of the text of Genesis, it is clear that there is far more evidence suggesting a similar creation of both mankind and the rest of creation than evidence separating mankind from other aspects, not only seen in the fundamental grouping of mankind and the animal kingdom together in the sixth day but also in the similar wording used describing creation. Although it is undeniable that there is a distinction, not only does it fail to suggest utter separation of humanity, reading it as an immaterial distinction not pertaining to the physical creation is far more consistent with the rest of Genesis and the Jewish Scriptures.

The final seemingly problematic phrase in Genesis is the description of creation as made ‘according to its kind.’ Whilst on face value this is entirely contradictory, examination of the style of biblical literature reveals that the Old Testament has a high propensity to name God as the direct cause of an occurrence to which he is the indirect cause. The writings of Thomas Aquinas explain how everything in the world has an immediate cause which produced it, which also had a cause, and so on, and going back far enough the first cause is reached, that is, God. For example, the immediate cause of a soldier's death in World War Two would be the enemy soldier who shot him; the cause of that

would be the command given to shoot, the cause of that being the declaration of war, the cause of that being underlying political tension and conflicting ideologies between countries, and so on.

Even if one disputed the existence of a God as the first cause, it is undeniable that there is long chain of causality for every event, with every action having both direct and indirect causes. The bible has a high propensity to omit the intermediate causes and ascribe something as directly caused by God when in fact God is only the first cause in the chain of causality. This is seen in many places, such as Psalm 147, which states ‘he (God) sends out his word and melts them’ (v.18). Whilst God does not directly melt snow, as is suggested by the text, God establishes the meteorological system and scientific causes which results in the phenomena.

In the same way, whilst God is not the immediate cause for the meticulous creation of species, as described in Genesis, God established the entire system of evolution in the first place which resulted in the creation of each species. Natural selection, therefore, is merely the mechanism through which God carries out actions. The omission of the existence of evolution in Genesis, supposing that God inspired the text, is also uncontentious; the literary style of the Scriptures was required to simplify occurrences due to the relative scientific primitiveness of its recipients at the time. Being a timeless text, the Scriptures were written in a way that was simplistic enough to be understood upon the grounds of earlier science, but contained sufficient nuance that later generations could accurately understand its message despite apparent conflicts.

This shows not only the compatibility of Genesis and evolution, but how the study of evolution and other biological phenomena can help enhance appreciation of the biblical narrative and the messages it attempts to convey.

Rethinking Hindu Cosmology in the Age of Modern Science

Moksh Pandya (10H)

Long before modern science practically every religion had its own version of cosmogenesis including Hinduism, a notion of the origin of the universe at a definite time. Most of them are based on the idea that an all-powerful God created a world of matter and man. These doctrines cohered with the view of a God or gods who should be invoked and thanked at another level. They were widely accepted because there was no better hypothesis to explain the existence of the world.

From a scientific point of view, these claims are untenable, as the findings of modern science spring from observations, insights, instruments, philosophical outlooks, and knowledge that was absent in the ancient world. However, the defenders of these claims contend that the philosophers and prophets of distant ages had other means of knowing than logic, differential equations, and the spectrometer- that the scientific insights in scripture are a testament to their divine origin. Though perhaps well-meaning, such claims essentially belonged to pseudoscience, not least because they are typically based on a narrower outlook and questionable translations of literary texts than on scientific papers. There is no solid evidence that ancient prophets or religious thinkers were privy to any revealed knowledge or scientific findings in advance of their peers although ancient thinkers did articulate many of the broad possibilities such as metaphysical, philosophical, and scientific ideas.

A Noble Prize winner, Dr Hauptman, said at a conference in New York that ‘Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science. This kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race.’ However, other scientists suggest that science and religion are two separate realms, ‘nonoverlapping magisteria’ (NOMA) as the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould put it. In Gould’s view, science only speaks with authority in the realm of ‘what the universe is made of and why does it work this way.’

Moreover, it is evident that many scientists believe in God. This is seen in a 1997 survey in the journal Nature, which suggested that 40% of scientists believed in God. Richard Dawkins, a revolutionary theorist at Oxford countered this by claiming that scientists who were believers in God did not claim evidence for their belief. These scientists claimed that there is no evidence to suggest that God does not exist, henceforth they believe in God. As per Dr Dawkins, this argument is weak. We know that there is no evidence against all sorts of things, but we don't waste our time believing in them.

In modern times, when science has made so much progress, it is easy to disregard Hindu cosmology and treat it as just an interesting story to listen to with no apparent scientific consequence. However, I want to challenge this dismissal, and explore whether Hindu Cosmology truly is of no scientific consequence in this age of the Big Bang Theory.

Human beings are curious creatures, and we are always interested in understanding our place in this universe. We are very interested in questions such as how this universe was created and what the future holds. Therefore, all the great civilizations in the past have had their own theories about how this universe came into existence and what the future of this universe is going to be. This is called the cosmological theory of these civilizations. In these modern times, we believe in a universe that is more than 93 billion light-years in diameter and contains billions of galaxies with each galaxy containing billions of stars and the sun is just one of them.

We have the Big Bang Theory to describe the origin of the universe in which we estimate that the universe came into existence 13.77 billion years ago. We believe this theory as it is consistent with our observations of the expanding universe which, when run back in time, will lead us to an infinitesimally small point containing everything present in the universe now. Remember, The Big Bang is a theory that is consistent with our current scientific observation; this does not mean that it is an absolute truth, for there are still many open mysteries associated with it. As an example, we know that not only are the galaxies moving further away from each other every day but also that this movement is accelerating over time, and we have no direct explanation for it.

Dark energy and dark matter have been included in the theory to deal with these inconsistencies. These are the rational explanations that scientists have put forward to explain things that they do not completely understand. We can see, then, that there are speculations in our current theory; this should lead us to respect those cosmological theories which came before it. In the past, we did not have all the scientific equipment that current scientists have to know what is going on in the universe, therefore our ancestors were just coming up with theories based on the limited knowledge that they had about the universe.

Traditionally, these cosmological theories were presented in the form of stories and Hindus were no exception to that. The only exception is that in Hinduism there are multiple theories of the creation of this universe as opposed to other cultures where there is just one. This may be an indication that Hindus are open to changing their theories based on new evidence. This is the reason why we have absolutely no issue with the theory of evolution while other religions have not been so receptive to it.

As we are all so confident about our cosmogenic theories in this age of science, we generally disregard previous mythical stories on the creation of this universe as superstition and I think that that's a big mistake. The reason why we disregard all these stories is that we do not understand them correctly. If we look at them at their surface value of course these stories won’t make any sense but if you go deeper and you try to understand the significance of all the different characters in their stories, then these stories will start to make sense.

The most popular creation story of the Hindus mentions that initially there was nothing; the world was underneath the ocean and Vishnu was sleeping on the ocean on Shesh Naag (A serpent). Vishnu then dreamt of creating this universe and a lotus sprouted out of his navel. After it had blossomed, Brahma came out of it, and he created this universe. If you are thinking that there is a real Vishnu in his human form sleeping on a serpent and a Brahma with four heads, you have missed the point. In this story, Vishnu signifies the consciousness of this universe, while the ocean signifies the unmanifested universe. Shesh Naag (The serpent) represents that which will be left when there is no space, time, and matter, and in which the universal consciousness will rest when the world is in its unmanifested form. Brahma is the process through which the universe came into existence from its unmanifested form.

If you look at the story this way, then the whole story becomes is coherent with logic and science. Scientists said that before The Big Bang there was no space, time, or matter, there was just a singularity where the entire unmanifested universe existed. This is very similar to the Hindu creation myth, saying that in the beginning there was nothing and the world was beneath the ocean in an unmanifested form; the only difference is that instead of a singularity we have an ocean.

The Big Bang Theory says that the singularity manifested into this universe. Hindu myth describes this something as the universal consciousness desiring to manifest the world. Again, this is not so different from the Big Bang. In the Hindu myth, Brahma comes out of a Lotus which is sprouting from Vishnu's navel and then creates the world; this is like the laws of this universe coming into existence in the Big Bang when the world was created. Furthermore, a lotus signifies birth in both Hindu and Buddhist traditions and therefore it is mentioned in the story as a metaphor for describing the birth of the universe; a ‘birth’ now elucidated, scientifically, in the Big Bang.

As you can see, the barebones of the story we hear today about the creation of the universe and what was told by our ancestors remain the same. It is just that in modern times, since we have a better understanding of the laws of nature, we have more details on the process itself. The underlying philosophy remains the same. Considering the

openness of Hinduism to assimilating new information into its traditions, we have absolutely no issue in terms of including the Big Bang Theory into our tradition. It also blends well with our theory. There is only one issue with the Big Bang Theory: it is incomplete. It tells you how the universe came into existence, but it doesn't tell you what was there before the Big Bang – if it makes sense to speak of a ‘before’ - and it also does not tell you what is going to happen in the future.

No one knows what is going to happen to the universe in the future as we do not have enough scientific information to conclude anything about what was there before the Big Bang. Therefore, here we must use logic. This is where the concept of a cyclical universe and Hindu cosmology becomes quite relevant. Therefore, let me introduce you to the three logical concepts used to arrive at the cyclical universe theory of the Hindus:

1. Whatever has a beginning has an end,

2. Any material thing cannot stay in one form forever it can only change from one form to the other,

3. For something to exist forever, it must go through cyclical changes.

If you agree with me on these key assumptions, let us consider how it applies to the universe. We believe that the universe has a beginning, the Big Bang, therefore it must have an end. The universe is also changing all the time; it is right now expanding however this expansion cannot go on forever as this expansion also has a beginning. This expansion of the universe is just a change of the universe from one form to the other, the creation and expansion of the universe is part of another process that has got to be eternal. If it was not eternal then, what was before that and what will be there after the process ends? The eternal process can only make sense if it is cyclical. Therefore the creation and destruction of this universe must also be cyclical. As you can see the entire concept of a cyclical universe is thoroughly rational.

If I were just to speculate and infer what to believe in and what is going to happen to the future of this universe, I would agree with the Hindu concept. If scientific evidence comes later showing that this is not the case, then there is absolutely no problem in Hindus also accepting that into their tradition. I think that it is true to say that conflict often arises when people with transcendental knowledge attempt to share and explain matters pertaining to this world to scientists and mathematicians. When they do this without having peered through a telescope or a microscope, made sophisticated calculations, or haven not used any other scientific tool to show scientists proof, they are bound to provoke the practicing scientists. Likewise, when people who have believed solely in proof and data blankly deny the existence or possibility of divine knowledge without going through vigorous discipline and demanding to get a glimpse

of such knowledge, they appear naïve in the eyes of the people seeking transcendental knowledge. The problem is when scientists and philosophers make no attempt to understand one another. It is only then that appears to be a conflict between Hinduism and science.

An Evaluation of the Omphalos

Hypothesis: A Flawed Attempt at a Literal Interpretation of the Bible

Lior Arram (L6S)

In this essay, I will be discussing the omphalos hypothesis, a theory about the beginning of the universe. The omphalos hypothesis, proposed by Philip Henry Gosse, suggests that the Earth was created six thousand years ago with the appearance of age. His 1857 monograph, Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, enjoyed two years of fleeting credibility before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species (1859) which put forward the widely accepted theory of evolution, explaining the development of life on earth. In what follows, I will argue that the omphalos position, held today by some young earth creationists, is severely flawed in a number of ways. For the purpose of this edition of Veritas, I will show that it is a mistaken attempt to reconcile faith with science.

Before I set forward my grievances with this view, I will briefly set out Gosse's evidence. Since the Omphalos hypothesis uses literal interpretations of Genesis, we must assume, for the sake of argument, that the Abrahamic G-d exists. Therefore, as Gosse puts it, G-d's “created works do flatly contradict the statements which seem to be plainly expressed in His word.” An example of G-d's words contradicting his world can be seen in G-d creating two distinct individuals, Adam and Eve, around six thousand years ago, which directly contrasts the theory that humanity evolved over tens and thousands of years. If one were to adopt a scientific understanding, one would be faced with the view that G-d must be lying. This creates a theological problem for Gosse and many other believers, since G-d is perfect and doesn't lie. Therefore, he is forced to conclude that scientists must be wrong. Gosse defends this claim by stating that “[e]ven if our observations be so simple, so patent, so numerous, as almost to preclude the possibility of mistake in them, and our process of reasoning from them be without a flaw, still we may have overlooked a principle.” In other words, there is always room for doubt in our scientific results. To take an example from evolution, there is a clear difference between seeing the fossils of a now extinct animal's skeleton and actually seeing the living animal. You can deduce that the fossils belong to an animal which was once alive through the process of reasoning. It is very likely to the point of probability that the fossils did in fact belong to a once alive animal. Yet there is no certainty because you never actually saw the animal; our conclusion may be correct yet nevertheless uncertain. Another idea presented by Gosse concerns the well-established lifecycle rotation of animals and plants. His idea is similar to the infamous question of whether the chicken or the egg came first. He proposes that the lifecycle, of a hawkmoth in this example, has no start or end. Therefore, the hawkmoth cannot come about

through a natural process such as evolution but, because G-d is supernatural, he could start the process and solve the issue.

Having learnt the arguments for the omphalos hypothesis, I will now explain how they face debilitating weaknesses. For the sake of argument, I will assume that the Abrahamic G-d does exist.

To begin with, there are many different arguments to think that the universe was not created with the appearance of age. The common belief among many scientists is that the universe began around 11.4-13.8 billion years ago. This is supported by the the big bang theory which, put simply, is the idea that the universe has expanded from an extremely dense singularity. While the exact origins of the universe remain a mystery, since the theory of general relativity breaks down at the universe’s earliest moments, there is much data to support the big bang. For example, the discovery of the cosmological red shift by Edwin Hubble in 1929 is a way of measuring the ongoing expansion of the universe. Whilst it is still possible for G-d to have created the cosmological red shift rather than it being a result of the big bang, there is no sensible explanation why G-d do that, especially since it would not be discovered until the Twentieth Century. This is especially detrimental to the omphalos hypothesis if you apply Ockham’s razor, the principle that among multiple competing ideas, the simplest idea which explains the data is often the correct one. It is simpler for the cosmological red shift to exist as a byproduct of the big bang than for G-d to create the universe and then create the cosmological red shift for some other reason.

Another flawed argument is Gosse’s assertion that we can't use physical evidence such as fossils as proof for how old the world may be because we have no certainty that they really existed. The problem with this claim is that Gosse assumes that the only two choices are his theory of a literal interpretation of the Bible and the common scientific view. Others have proposed competing theories that are similarly unverifiable and unfalsifiable meaning that whilst you can't prove that they are correct, you also can't prove that they are wrong and therefore must consider them. One of these theories is known as Last Thursdayism and it is the idea that the universe only came into existence last Thursday, everything you can remember before that is simply false evidence planted in your mind or in the world around you. The idea of Last Thursdayism is not a serious proposal for how the world came to be, but rather a challenge to show that there are other, just as plausible and irrefutable, theories for how old the Universe is. This means that even if science is wrong, it does not mean that Gosse is right.

As for Gosse's argument based on life cycles, this can be solved rather easily. The adult hawkmoth can't lay eggs if it was not first born, therefore the eggs must have come first.

water would have drained from the Black Sea and flowed into the North Sea. This process would have lasted for such a long time that people wouldn't even consider the fact that the land of the Black Sea was at one point covered in water. Eventually, so much water melted into the North Sea that its banks burst, and the water flowed back into the Black Sea in, for lack of a better word, biblical proportions. Pitman and Ryan estimated that the water would have moved a mile further into the Black Sea per day with waterfalls forming that were around 200 times the size of modern-day Niagara Falls. This entire event could very plausibly explain the flood story in the Bible and therefore attempts to that the events recounted in the Bible are scientifically accurate. If the flood story is correct then it could be argued that other parts of the Bible such as the creation story may also be correct.

However, does the evidence of the biblical flood match the scientific data? Genesis 6:17 reads ‘I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth.’ These words come directly from G-d, meaning that G-d purposefully brought about the flood. This implies that the flood came about through some supernatural means which contrasts the more scientific view that great flood actually came about through natural means. Whilst this doesn't outright disprove the story in the Bible, it does question the validity the accuracy, and therefore the word of G-d. However, something else which seems to undermine the validity of the flood story in the Bible is that it may be a fictional story and nothing more. The evidence for this is that the Bible is not the first place that a great flood story has been found. A Mesopotamian tablet with a poem called the 'Epic of Gilgamesh' written on it was found to have a story about a wise man called Atrahasis. In the story, Atrahasis was saved from a great flood after being warned by one of the gods to build himself a ship, much like how in the Bible, Noah is warned by G-d about the impending flood. In the consensus of modern scholars, the Genesis story was written at the earliest in the 7th century BCE, but the Epic of Gilgamesh was written during the 12th century BCE. These stories cannot both be true because that would mean that G-d has lied in at least in at least one of the stories, similarly, it is very unlikely for the Epic of Gilgamesh to be fictional but just happen to almost exactly predict what would happen thousands of years later. The most plausible solution is that the great flood in the Bible was a fictional story that was influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh.

In conclusion, despite the many attempts made to prove the omphalos hypothesis correct, the evidence weighs heavily against it. Gosse's evidence is weak at best and is consistently disproven by science. His argument that fossils do not prove that ancient animals or humans existed seems to crumble under the weight of modern scientific developments and the application of Ockham's razor. His argument in relation to life cycles is swiftly pushed aside by Darwin's theory of evolution. Even when science and the omphalos hypothesis are not completely incongruous, as is the case with flood

the dominoes which causes an ensuing physical effect on the bricks. Removing the primary cause, the mind, means the series fails with all effects uncaused. Thus, infinite essentially ordered series are impossible, with a primary cause a necessary component The second, accidental series, is characterised as ‘one to one’. This is a series in which all objects cause is independent of the previous members of the series. A family tree of fathers and sons are an accidental causal series. A son is not contingent upon the existence of his father to beget his own son. In this way, his causality is efficient without the existence of the previous cause. The inference in Aquinas’ argument that at one time there were no objects is untrue under an accidental causal series of objects as an infinite accidental causal series is most certainly possible. If no primary cause is required for the efficiency of subsequent objects, then no object in the series is left uncaused when the series tends to infinitude. Therefore, it is impossible to show with merely philosophical argument that the physical history of the universe is a finite one, due to the possibility of an accidental causal series.

The infinite accidental causal series may still, however, be logically impossible as William Lane Craig suggests. Aristotle struggles with the fact that an actual infinite series cannot be added to. Thompson’s lamp thought experiment elucidates this. If between time t0 and t1 a light bulb is switched on and off an infinite number of times, then the series would be an actual infinite as it is an infinite set that occurs within a finite boundary – a start t0 and end t1. At time t1, however, it is impossible to say whether the light bulb will be on or off. If the light bulb was off, then surely one more press of the switch could be added as: ∞ + 1 = ∞

This could be said for two, three, four… any number of presses and in this way the light bulb at t1 is nether on or off as we constantly switch between. This is absurd and the paradox shows that we can’t apply actual infinites to real observable sets with physical objects.

The infinite accidental causal series, however, is surely not the problematic actual infinite we have just discussed. The series has no beginning or end – no time t0 or t1. It extends to infinity but any portion of it is finite and is thus a potential, not an actual infinite.

Aquinas shows that the infinite accidental series can instead be disproved by considering the essence of an object. The essence of an object is the potentiality of its actual state’s “existence” and is not inertial, constantly supplied to an object. Thus a s shown in the third way in hindsight, not all objects could merely cause and cease since

a permanent source of esse must provide a sustaining esse to all of them, something that cannot be done by merely finite objects within time.

Instead, as Aquinas and many others propose, there must be something more: an absolute metaphysical cause that underlies all contingency. This absolute could not exist within time and space, as it could not be contingent or finite; instead it must be primordial, underlying physical reality. It could not even be infinite within time as it is immutable and temporality implies change. It could not be modified or changed as it is simple and indivisible by definition – the most basic distillation of anything – to the extent there is no difference between its nature and the fact that it is in the first place. This is God capital G.

Naturalists often claim physics and modern science will (at some undetermined point in the future) find a solution to the erroneous model of time and space that does not accommodate the problem of nature – why there is something in the first place. As we have established, it is impossible to have merely contingent objects. All modern physics, however, is limited to the observation of physical matter and its history, for instance, the relationship between various sub-atomic particles and their qualities studied in quantum physics. None of this research at all relates to the metaphysical nature of physical reality. It is all very well what the electron is and where it is, but physics can never explain why it is. This response shows a lack of understanding of the nature of God’s metaphysics; he is such a simple distillation of reality he does not exist within space and time and therefore cannot be observed by a physicist in his laboratory. Even if physicists understood the big bang to the highest degree, knowing the movement of every particle and the equations relating all properties, they would still not be any closer to understanding the motivation behind reality’s existence than they are now – and they could not as long as they held their grasp on the dogmatism that the universe ‘just is’. They would not and could never understand why there was a big bang in the first place.

Another response to the Thomistic cosmological argument is that if one component of the universe (object) cannot explain the others due to all of them being metaphysically contingent then perhaps the universe as a whole sums to an absolute thing that fuels the contingency of the other components (maintaining that nothing exists outside of the material reality of the universe.) It goes so far as to mention it is the compositional fallacy to assume that just because objects within the universe (components) are contingent the universe (whole) is contingent. Interestingly, this argument contradicts the notion the universe is a brute fact as it attempts to provide some sort of explanation for the components within the universe.

Putting its assumptions about the explicability of the universe aside, the criticism still does not succeed. If one compiled all physical objects into one ‘set’, one huge list of everything that ever was in physical reality, then that would be the exhaustive list of everything a naturalist would consider to ‘exist’. Within this set, however, everything would (by definition) have to be finite.

If one creates a set of all finite components in the universe then, assuming that the universe is merely a physical set, the universe could not be absolute – that itself would be an ‘emergent truth,’ the universe doesn’t possess all properties of its components –however it could not be absolute as an absolute being is one that cannot exist within space or time and is maximally simple, as shown above. If the universe were just a physical reality, then in even in whole it would inhibit time and space. This doesn’t, as Hume suggests commit a fallacy of composition as ultimately the universe Is material, finite, and extends in physical dimension. Additionally, when Hume argues that the universe can be reduced to its parts. Therefore, without metaphysical realities beyond the physical nature of the universe there could be no absolute entity. Naturalism would, again, have to be forfeited to provide ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’ as the explanation by definition involves a being outside physical matter.

Naturalists also respond that, while physical matter may be contingent, there may be laws and truths of a higher, elementary order that form some sort of ultimate reality. This is a contradictory assertion. If mathematical laws and truths did dictate nature, then scientific study would no longer be quantifying the observations of nature and instead describing them in their most basic and elegant form. Maths would not be discovered but found. In the same way a theist may think of Gods creative power dictating the happenings of nature, these laws would cause events metaphysically. Ultimately believing in the existence of such laws is tantamount to believing in a metaphysical creative power – God – and forfeits the naturalistic position altogether consequentially meaning the universe would not merely be a brute fact but instead “something” due to the creation of intellectual powers.

The idea that the universe exists as a brute fact, so common among modern atheists, is completely incoherent, as I have argued. Due to the metaphysical implications (or lack of them) in believing in the universe being a brute fact, atheists have attempted to defend the position by distorting concepts or forfeiting their first axioms altogether. The belief there are laws that transcend the reality of the universe may even be thought of as an interpretation of the nature of Gods mind – more a theistic than an atheistic assertion. The main point of this essay is that it is impossible for the universe to be a brute fact even using infinite models of causation. A merely physical reality is incapable of providing an explanation for itself for existing at all. It is not so much that we can answer

the question why is something rather than nothing in a purposeful sense, for instance if we were created because God desired humans to exist, but can do so from God’s simplicity. In a necessary sense there is something, that is clear, and to explain that is impossible if you believe that the universe is a brute fact because that is tantamount to belief in nothing. All attempts to do so end up needing a further metaphysical existence.

Is Dietrich Bonhoeffer a Good Role Model for Christians Today?

Aarush Bahel (12H)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran theologian, pastor, and triple-agent, who was eventually martyred for his opposition to the Nazi Party during their time in power. He was an early founder of the Confessing Church, which served to oppose Hitler’s Evangelical Church and was outlawed by Hitler in 1937. Bonhoeffer’s relationship to Christianity is very much a contested one. On the one hand, Bonhoeffer stood up against oppression and suffering and spread Jesus’ message of self-sacrificial love. At the same time, his personal faith led him to participate in a group which attempted to murder Hitler, an act which seemed to violate his own Lutheran principles. While the time we live in is quite different from Bonhoeffer’s, I will argue that his life and teachings can still be used as a model for Christians today.

At the heart of this topic lies the question: what does it mean to be a good Christian? In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis wrote that the primary aim of Christians is to become ‘little Christs.’ The Christian aspires to follow Christ’s teachings and embody his message. In the Great Commission (Matthew 28) Jesus tells the apostles to make believers into disciples of Christ and have them obey his commands. These are the criteria against which Bonhoeffer must be judged as a good model for Christians today. Did he follow Jesus’ teachings? Did he become a disciple of Christ?

The first question is whether Bonhoeffer followed the teachings of the Christian faith. In many ways one can see that he did. Bonhoeffer was alive in a time full of evil under the Nazis. Despite their oppression, Bonhoeffer stood up and spread Jesus’ message of love. Jesus said that all teachings can be summed up in two commands: love your neighbour and love God (Matthew 22). Bonhoeffer certainly did that: he created the confessing church, creating a space for Christians to pray and carry out their duty to love and praise God. The church also affirmed the Bible as the main source of authority and rejected government interference in the Church. Bonhoeffer was particularly exemplary, considering the context of Nazi Germany. Anyone who opposed Hitler and the party was assassinated in concentration camps; despite this potential consequence Bonhoeffer carried on his mission to spread love across Germany. So, his actions do align with the main teaching of Jesus, making him a good role model.

The issue is that Bonhoeffer did also commit various acts that go against teachings in the Bible. In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5, Jesus tells his followers not to be violent and ‘turn the other cheek’ if someone is aggressive. In the Ten Commandments, God also gives the commandment, ‘thou shalt no murder.’ Bonhoeffer seems to

disregard both of these teachings when he plots to assassinate Hitler. Under any circumstance, murder can be considered wrong, and Bonhoeffer’s assassination attempt therefore makes him a bad role model. Jesus teaches to abide by the rules of the state when he tells his followers to pay unjust taxes and ‘give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar,’ (Matthew 21). But Bonhoeffer seems not to follow Jesus by opposing this teaching and standing up against Hitler and the state.

This critique, however, implies a superficial engagement of Scripture. Mark 2 says that ‘Sabbath was made for man, not man for sabbath,’ which implies that teachings created by God were made for the betterment of mankind. Even Jesus found it possible to deny the Scriptures if it meant sacrificing one commandment to follow God’s will to love those around him. Joseph Fletcher argues that there are circumstances where the most loving action may not be to follow God’s word, which he supports with reference to Jesus’ teachings on the Sabbath. In this circumstance, Bonhoeffer can be justified to try and oppose and overthrow Hitler due to the mass evil he committed: persecuting millions of Jews and other marginalised groups in Nazi Germany. Further, Jesus’ teaching to abide by the state can be interpreted to show Jesus having a lack of value for the state. He does not see the actions of the state as significant. Instead, Jesus values following God and spreading his message. Bonhoeffer does this on the whole by spreading love in a time where love was so hard to find. He stood up and embodied the message and power of God, to spread love in a time of oppression. That is the fundamental message of Christ, and that is why Bonhoeffer should be considered a good role model for Christians.

Bonhoeffer also proved himself as a disciple of Christ. A true disciple of Jesus is someone who sacrifices in order to follow him; Jesus says that whoever wants to be his disciple ‘must deny themselves and take up their cross’ and follow him (Mark 8). Bonhoeffer believed that cheap grace was often practiced in Catholic tradition and the contemporary German Church. This is “grace without discipleship” according to Bonhoeffer. He argued that Catholics – and even many Protestants – do not have to do anything difficult to receive grace; they merely have to confess their sins and they will be forgiven and receive salvation. Instead, Bonhoeffer believed in costly grace, presenting it as necessary to “be prepared to suffer and sacrifice ourselves for Christ.” This aligns more closely with the discipleship Jesus is talking about in Mark 8. Bonhoeffer himself acted out costly grace when he returned to a dangerous Nazi state after going to the US in 1939. Bonhoeffer put himself in danger to show solidarity to the German people. This is Bonhoeffer’s understanding of solidarity, it is not simply about empathizing with others, but standing and suffering alongside them. This replicated Jesus’ suffering on earth and his sacrifice on the Cross for the sake of humanity. Bonhoeffer emulated these actions by returning to Germany and ultimately

sacrificing himself for the German people. This shows that Bonhoeffer embodied the idea of costly grace and was therefore a true disciple of Jesus.

Yet, it could be argued that Bonhoeffer plays less of a significant role today as a model of good action due to the fact that the conditions of the world have changed. The world today does not face the same level of hardship and suffering today as it did during the 1900s. Literacy rates are at their highest; division, segregation and racism at the lowest it has ever been; the world is safer today than it has been historically; healthcare is the most advanced it has ever been. The sacrifice of discipleship a rguably is not required anymore, and the idea of costly grace is not as relevant. Bonhoeffer’s emphasis on suffering made more sense in the context of the world he lived in, but not today. Following his example could be potentially dangerous. Christians could look to find suffering, in order to preach costly grace, in positions where it is not manifest. This just means they are looking for hardship in a time where it is not as prevalent.

However, this critique overlooks the fact that costly grace is deeply personal; what God calls one person to do in one age of particular hardship is not what he calls another in a different time. As Soren Kierkegaard, an existentialist theologian who deeply influenced Bonhoeffer, claimed, “Truth is subjectivity.” By this, he did not mean that all ethics is relative, but rather that what one is being called to do can only be known by an individual. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard illustrates this point with the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is called by God to sacrifice Isaac, a decision which, according to any ‘ethical’ perspective, looks insane. Yet to Abraham himself, it was known to be God’s will. In a similar way, Bonhoeffer was called to kill his own Führer, which many Germans would have viewed as crazed. For Christians today, this sacrifice may look different: it may mean simpler yet just as difficult acts of love –giving up the prospects of a good career to love others; setting up routines to help fight climate change, or setting aside one’s own desires to have a fulfilling relationship. All of this, Bonhoeffer would say, is part of the ‘costly grace’ which Christians need to display.

In summary, I think that Bonhoeffer is a good role model for Christians today. I have demonstrated that he has followed out the two criteria for being considered a good Christian. That is, to follow the teachings of Christ and be a good disciple. His ability to follow Christ as well as his solidarity and love for the German people, during a time of incredible hardship and evil, makes him a remarkable figure. He is rightly admired by many Christians today.

Faith at Habs: A Reflection

Kushagra Arora (7M)

In 1690, when Haberdashers’ Boys’ School opened, the school could be described as a Christian school, which is reflected in the traditional school motto of “Serve and Obey”. The influence of the motto can be traced back to the Charter of 1570, which echoes the Christian devotion of the Worshipful Haberdashers’ Company, which would have been interpreted as something along the lines of “Serve God and Obey the Ten Commandments.” However, in 2021, Habs changed its motto to “making a profound impact,” a motto that reflects the current inter-faith values and beliefs of the school.

Diversity

Jewish and Christian assemblies have been part of the fabric of Habs since the Second World War. However, it was the visionary leadership of the then Headmaster, Mr Keith Dawson (after whom the Year 9 Dawson project is named), that led to the introduction of Thursday morning faith assemblies in the late 1980s, reflecting the growing diversity of the student populace. This massive change in the school allowed students to understand more about different faiths and expanded their knowledge regarding the religions represented amongst the student body at Habs. With all of this, Habs became better than ever because it was such a mixed community, and people got together and became more social.

Habs eventually decided to introduce religious clubs and assemblies every week. One thing at Habs that I really like about their religious clubs and assemblies is that students are able to attend any faith assembly they like and can learn about other faiths, including, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Jainism, Islam, Sikhism, and Buddhism. As well as this, we also have Humanist assembly, which is an alternative to faith-based assemblies and unites students based on their humanity, trusts the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore atheist or agnostic in practice). Participation in religious and non-religious activities gave every student a heightened sense of spiritual wellbeing and a positive balance in their academic studies.

The Benefits of Religion

One of the main benefits of religion is that it also usually has a holy book that people use with rules telling you what you should do and what you must avoid. This allows you to develop a better sense of well-being and increases your discipline. Also, when

people are going through really stressful times, it is a good thing that religious individuals seek comfort in their religion and pray to their god(s). Adding to what I said earlier, religion can also help when you are going through some extreme loneliness because it helps you bond with other people who believe in the same religion as you and develops a religious individual's sense of belonging. Finally, scientific research shows that people who believe in religion are happier, healthier, and more engaged in their communities!

How does Habs display religion in a way to make people engaged?

In addition to faith assemblies, timetabled T & P lessons, and faith-based clubs, I wanted to discuss a first-hand experience that really highlighted how Habs displays religion in a way that keeps students, staff, and visitors engaged. Recently, this year, I was touring some visitors around the school, and when I went up two floors to go to the T&P classroom, I was fascinated by how many people were there and how long they were staying, showing how interesting Habs is making religion by showcasing faith from different perspectives. When people say their religious prayers at faith assemblies, it makes them feel comforted and peaceful and strengthens the sense of belonging amongst the student body, making them really feel at home. This, as I said before, makes Habs a perfect place where people different people unite and are bound and supported regardless of their personal beliefs, increasing our sense of community as Habs Boys.

An Introduction to the Ancient Greek Gods

James Taylor (7J)

The ancient Greeks believed in many different gods and goddesses, including many well-known ones like Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Aphrodite and Athena. All the gods and goddesses had different attributes and were worshipped for different purposes. For example, if the Greeks were going to war, they would worship Athena and Ares. Athena was known for her wisdom and war prowess and Ares was the god of war.

The gods and goddesses can be classified as follows:

The Big Three

The Big Three or Main Three were Zeus, Poseidon and Hades, the sons of the titans Kronos and Rhea. (Titans were immortals, but not gods, who ruled the Cosmos before the gods. However, they also had attributes and powers similar to those of the gods). The big three were seen as the most powerful gods on a lot of occasions, including in the war of the first generation of gods and goddesses against the titans. Zeus was the god of lightning, thunder and the sky. He was also the King of the Gods and used a lightning bolt. Poseidon was the god of the sea, horses, earthquakes, and storms. He used a trident. Hades was King of the Underworld and in command of all the souls there. He had a three headed dog called Cerberus and wore and used a cap of invisibility. The lightning bolt, trident and invisibility cap were all made by Cyclopes to aid the big three in the war against the titans.

The Olympians

The Olympians were seen as the major 12 gods and goddesses in Greek mythology. They were called Olympians because they met on Mount Olympus for meetings at certain times of the year. The Olympians were Zeus, Poseidon, Athena (goddess of wisdom and warfare), Ares (god of war), Apollo (god of music, medicine, prophecy, archery, healing, the sun, and poetry), Artemis (goddess of the hunt and wilderness), Hera (goddess of marriage, women, childbirth, and family. Also Zeus’ wife), Demeter (goddess of agriculture), Hephaestus (god of fire, blacksmithing, and forges), Aphrodite (goddess of love and beauty), Hermes (the messenger of the gods, and the god of trade, wealth, luck, travel, and thieves) and Dionysus (god of wine and fruit. He was a demigod but was made a god. He invented wine and was the son of Zeus). The goddess Hestia (goddess of the hearth) was one of the 12 Olympians but gave up her place to Dionysus to avoid a possible war. Notably, one of the Big Three, Hades, was not

considered to be an Olympian because the Underworld was too far away from Mount Olympus.

Minor Gods and Goddesses

There were many minor gods in Greek mythology, some of whom were important despite being less major. For instance, the goddess Nike was the goddess of victory but was very close to Zeus, and there is even a statue of him holding Nike in his hand. Another more minor goddess was Hecate. She was goddess of magic and witchcraft. She could help people cast curses and spells if good offerings were made to her. She could also summon ghosts. One more minor god was Pan. He was the god of the wild and nature and had the horns and legs of a goat.

Interesting facts

• Kronos, the titan, ate his children because his father, father of the sky, prophesised that Kronos’ children would overthrow him.

• Nike, being the goddess of victory, wanted to win everything no matter what. She had strong powers of speed and flight.

• Atlas, the titan, was punished by Zeus after the war against the titans and was forced to hold up the weight of the sky.

• The Olympic torch represents Hestia’s fire because it was said that she never let the fire in the home go out.

The Viking Gods: Their Evolution in Modern Times and Similarities with other

Religions

Sid Mittal (7R)

Introduction to Viking Gods

Viking gods were an important part of Viking life in about 800AD and they still have an impact today even though they are no longer widely worshipped, having been supplanted by Christianity. The Viking gods were split into 2 separate groups of gods, the Aesir and the Vanir. The Vanir are associated with earth and fertility and are the older gods while the Aesir are associated with the sky. The Vanir were led by Freyr and Freya, brother and sister, king and queen. They were the children of Njord. The Aesir and Vanir fought one another, but they reconciled and came to live together in Asgard, one of the 9 mythical Norse worlds including Earth (or as they call it, Midgard – literally “Middle Earth”). Heimdall was born in the sea and is the sentry of the gods. Odin is the All-Father and the God of War; his son is Thor, the God of Thunder. Loki is the son of 2 giants but is the foster-brother of Odin.

Viking Myths and How They Evolved

Viking myths and gods have had a massive impact on films, games, music and many more. They evolved quite a bit, for example in films. In the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), for instance, Thor is portrayed as a young man with blonde hair, while in mythology, he is red-haired and middle-aged. In myths, Thor is war-like and headstrong, while in the MCU he mellows down by the end of the first film. They might have decided to evolve Thor as they want a character that can solve everything. Loki, in the myths, we see him chained for eternity, with snake venom dripping on his skin until Ragnarök (the end of the world). He is chained for eternity because he kills Baldr who is the son of Odin. But this is never seen or mentioned in any of the films with Loki in it. This might be because they wanted Loki to evolve from villain to hero. As an example in the new Loki series, he is portrayed as a sort of hero who tries to be a villain. This fits Loki's character from the Norse myths a lot, where he features as both a villain and a hero. Furthermore, Ragnarök was meant to be caused by Loki and the armies of Hel who in Norse mythology is the daughter of Loki. In the myths Loki is more like a villain, while in the third Thor film, there was no Odin or massive armies, or any Gods and Loki was kind of helping Thor by destroying Asgard by releasing Surtur. In the film, he was like a hero. The film makers then gave a corny twist to the film by saying Asgard is its people not the land and they left the destroyed planet. They might have

changed Ragnarök to give a happier ending to the film rather than everyone is dead, and the cycle will start over again. This tells us that, in films, Norse mythology is often changed to include more heroics and villains evolve to becoming heroes, to show their good and bad characteristics.

Similarities to Other Religions

Norse mythology features similarities with other religions including Hinduism, GraecoRoman polytheism, Christianity, and many more. Norse mythology is similar to Greek mythology, as Loki and Hermes have remarkably similar characteristics. They both have winged shoes and are both tricksters and prankers. Hermes is clever and devises clever schemes to try not to get caught, e.g. making special boots so his footprints could not be seen when he was stealing Apollo's cattle. Loki likewise uses his cunning to achieve his objectives. Both deities also behave erratically, engaging in arbitrary behaviour. Loki also bears some resemblance to Prometheus in terms of their punishment. Prometheus had to be bound on a mountain with an eagle eating his immortal flesh until the end of time, while Loki had snake poison secreted onto his face, also while being bound. These represent the same trope, an animal causing eternal suffering (as Loki and Prometheus regenerate). Norse gods, like Greek ones seem to have a penchant for mischief. Lastly, there are also similarities between the Norse Ragnarök and the Christian Apocalypse, such as horned creatures, earthquakes, and fire. As Norse myths were not recorded in writing prior to the arrival of Christianity in Europe, however, we cannot be certain whether this is coincidental or the result of direct Christian influence on the text.

The Myths of the Ancient Egyptians

Aadi Bagchi (7M)

Spanning a period of more than three and a half thousand years, Ancient Egypt is argued as the longest-lasting civilisation in human history. To properly examine their gods and their religious myths, we must place them in the context of broader Ancient Egyptian culture and traditions. First, let us examine their origin – the Ancient Egyptian creation narrative.

How the world was created from an ocean

In Ancient Egypt, they believed that the world, or Ma’at, was created and risen from Isfet (the Oceans of Chaos) in the deepest layer of the Egyptian underworld; the Duat. Isfet and Ma’at were linked together and could not overcome each other. Over time, two immortal beings were created: Ra, who went up into Ma’at and became the sungod, and the snake Apophis, who lurked at the bottom of Isfet. This way, Ra and Apophis were natural enemies, and would begin creating creatures to do their biddings.

The birth of the Egyptian gods/goddesses from Ra’s sneezes and tears

When Ma’at was created, Ra was alone, but he wanted to change that. The first time Ra sneezed, he created Shu (air), and when Ra cried, he created Tefnut (moisture). Shu and Tefnut then combined to create Geb (Earth) and Nut (sky), and many other gods were created by Ra. From here, Nut and Geb tried to have more children, and Nut was pregnant with 5 babies. However, Ra didn’t want Nut to have her babies, so she cursed Nut, preventing her from giving birth on any of the 360 days of the year.

To overcome this, Nut and Thoth (god of wisdom) gambled with Khonsu for his moonlight, which was used to create 5 more days. This is why our calendar today has 365 days. Nut’s children were Horus the Elder (god of war), Osiris, Set (god of desert), Isis (goddess of magic) and Nephthys (goddess of water). Ra was furious with what had happened, and separated Geb and Nut by the air (Tefnut). This is why the sky and the Earth did not touch according to the Egyptians

Osiris is tricked into lying in a coffin

Soon after the birth of the gods, Isis married Osiris and planned to overthrow Ra. Isis poisoned Ra in his sleep and only let him stay alive if Ra gave Isis his throne. Ra was then banished from the world and retreated into the heavens. Osiris was given the

throne, and a massive party was held. However, Set was angry that Osiris was king, and laid a cunning trap. He encouraged Osiris to try out his newly made coffin, before sealing the lid, chopping him up into pieces and throwing him across the Nile.

Isis was very angry with this, and consulted Anubis (guide of the Underworld) for support. Anubis decreed that if Isis got all pieces of Osiris back, he could be reincarnated into the Duat. Isis, with the help of Nephthys, find all the pieces and Anubis wraps Osiris up in plaster and bandage, creating the first mummy. Osiris then becomes king of the Duat, and has a child with Isis known as Horus the Avenger.

For the next 10 years, it is said that Horus the Avenger and Isis are hunted down by Set. At the age of 10, Horus faces down Set in a battle that he wins, and Horus is crowned as the king of Ma’at. The Eye of Horus was a popular symbol in Ancient Egypt, meaning victory and vengeance.

The Sun is rolled by a dung beetle

The journey of the sun is an important part of Egyptian mythology. According to the Egyptians, the sun’s journey to the top of the sky is carried out by Ra’s first aspect: Khepera. Khepera was the aspect of the morning sun, and is generally represented as a dung beetle rolling it to the top. The sun is then brought down by Ra’s second aspect: Atum. He is one of the only gods in Egyptian mythology who doesn’t have an animal head, and is the aspect of the afternoon sun. When the sun reaches the horizon, it is taken over by Ra’s third aspect: Khnum-Ra, the aspect of the evening sun. Khnum-Ra then travels past Akhet (the horizon) through to the River of the Night on the solar barque.

The journey through the River of the Night is dangerous, as it is in one of the deepest layer of the Duat, where it is open to attack by Apophis and his demons. Traditionally in mythology, it’s said that Bastet (goddess of cats) or Set guarded Khnum-Ra through the journey, although sources vary. It is also debated whether Khnum was even an aspect of Ra, and is also described as god of the Nile by other sources.

The River of the Night was sealed off with twelve different doors, each representing an hour. As Khnum-Ra past an hour gate, one hour would be passed in the real world. When Khnum-Ra exits the River of the Night, he transforms back into Khepera, repeating the cycle.

In Egyptian mythology and culture, cats were highly worshipped to the point that you could receive the death sentence for killing a cat. They were believed to be magical creatures that brought good luck to anybody that housed one. This is why Bastet was heavily worshipped, and is often depicted as the defender of Khnum-Ra in the solar journey.

Fun Fact: In the Persian-Egyptian wars, the leader of the Persian army, Cambyses, had men paint cats on their shields and sent cats out into the battlefield to prevent the Egyptians from attacking. The tactic actually worked, and the Persians won the Battle of Pelusium because of it!

Along with this, cats were also the only creature other than humans who were mummified, and some bodies were kept in homes to ward off evil. In Ancient Egypt, cats were even treated better than some humans! Cats were also sacred, and most Egyptian temples had at-least one cat by the door.

Our favourite pharaohs are gods

Dating from around 3100 BCE, the pharaohs of Ancient Egypt declared that they were the physical representations of gods. They said they had control of the temples, and only high priests and the pharaoh could go in. Their deification also allowed the pharaohs to flout social taboos: Amenhotep I married his sister, while the famous pharaoh Rameses the Great married his own daughter. Since they embodied gods and goddesses, much like the other deities, they did not have to abide by human kinship restrictions on marriage.

Ptolemaic Takeover

In 332 BCE, Alexander the Great entered Egypt and promptly took over the country, facing little resistance as they both hated the Persians. When Alexander died, one of his generals, Ptolemy, declared himself pharaoh of Egypt, and began introducing Greek culture. He combined Osiris and Hapis (a sacred Egyptian bull) to form the new god Serapis, and started tearing up Egyptian lifestyle. This continued until the reign of Cleopatra (yes, Cleo was ethnically-Greek) from 69 BCE to 30 BCE, where the very known series of feuds between Mark Antony and Octavian began. Then Cleopatra killed herself with an asp and Egypt fell under Roman control, ending the longest-lasting civilisation in the world.

An Introduction to Zoroastrianism

Arhaan Choudhary (7R)

The core beliefs of Zoroastrianism lie in the choice that humans must make in the dualistic struggle between good and evil. This is because human beings have free will and must choose who they will follow: Ahura Mazda, or his nemesis, the evil spirit Angra Mainyu (also known as Ahriman). Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic pre-Islamic religion of ancient Persia founded by Zoroaster a prophet of Allah (the Islamic god) in the 6th century BCE.

The Holy Scripture of Zoroastrianism

Avesta, sacred book of Zoroastrianism containing its cosmogony, law, and liturgy, the teachings of the prophet Zarathushtra (Zoroaster). The extant Avesta is all that remains of a much larger body of scripture, apparently Zarathushtra's transformation of a very ancient tradition.

The Most Important Zoroastrian Festival

Nowruz is considered to be the most important festival in Zoroastrianism. The Persian New Year – one of the most important holy days for Zoroastrians. It’s observed in March as the return of the spring was seen to have great spiritual significance as it symbolizes the triumph of good over evil and joy over sorrow.

Prayers

Zoroastrians traditionally pray several times a day. Some wear a kusti, which is a cord knotted three times, to remind them of the maxim, 'Good Words, Good Thoughts, Good Deeds'. They wrap the kusti around the outside of a sudreh, a long, clean, white cotton shirt.

Why Zoroastrianism is such a small religion

The fall of the Sasanian Empire (651 CE) and the subsequent persecution of Zoroastrians by the early Muslims culminated in the decline of the religion as a whole. During this time, many Zoroastrians fled to the Indian subcontinent, where they were granted refuge by various kings. Recent estimates place the world's current Zoroastrian population at approximately 110,000–120,000 people, with the majority of this figure residing in India, Iran, and North America.

Rules and Values

The primary ethical value which Zoroastrians is to practice good thoughts, words and deeds. However, this clearly raises the question, what makes something good or evil? Good is considered to be anything which is life supporting conducive to order, harmony (asha) and peace.

Is there an all-knowing and all-powerful being in this religion?

According to the Zoroastrian creation myth, there is one universal, transcendent, allgood, and uncreated supreme creator deity Ahura Mazda, or the "Wise Lord" (Ahura meaning "Lord" and Mazda meaning "Wisdom" in Avestan).

Where do Zoroastrians worship?

Zoroastrian places of worship are sometimes called fire temples. Each fire temple contains an altar with an eternal flame that burns continuously and is never extinguished.

Prayers

from Zoroastrianism

During the Old Iranian period, the most prominent type of prayer were mantras, in particular the Ahuna Vairya, the Ashem Vohu, the Yenghe hatam, and the Airyaman ishya. These four prayers are composed in the Old Avestan language like the Gathas of Zarathustra. Historically, Zoroastrians are encouraged to pray the five daily Gāhs and to maintain and celebrate the various holy festivals of the Zoroastrian calendar, which can differ from community to community.

Aayush Ruparelia (7C)

What is Hinduism?

Hinduism is a major world religion originating on the Indian subcontinent and comprising several and varied systems of philosophy, belief, and ritual. It is a prehistoric religion but has no firm date to when it was founded. The true meaning of Hinduism emphasises dharma with its resulting rituals and social observances and often mystical contemplation and ascetic practices. Hinduism can be referred to as Sanatan Dharma, which means “way of life”.

What are the main beliefs of Hinduism?

A Hindu views the entire universe and everything in it as God’s. Hindus believe that each person is intrinsically divine and the purpose of life is to seek and realise the divinity within all of us. The Hindu belief is totally non-exclusive and accepts all other faiths and religious paths. Hindus believe in the doctrines of samsara (the continuous cycle of life, death, and reincarnation) and karma (the universal law of cause and effect). One of the key thoughts of Hinduism is “atman,” or the belief in soul. This philosophy holds that living creatures have a soul, and they're all part of the supreme soul.

What are the main scriptures and epics in Hinduism?

There are four main scriptures in Hinduism. The Sanskrit name for these scriptures is Vedas. There are 4 Vedas. The Rig Veda contains hymns about Hindu mythology; the Sama Veda consists mainly of hymns about religious rituals; the Yajur Veda contains instructions for religious rituals; and the Atharva Veda consists of spells against enemies, sorcerers, demons and diseases. There are also some other epics and stories that are actually true. These include the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, and the Puranas. The Mahabharata is an Indian epic where the main story revolves around two branches of a family. These branches where all cousins. They were called the Pandavas and the Kauravas, who in a war called the Kurukshetra War, fought for the throne of a kingdom called Hastinapur.

The Ramayana is an all-popular epic in South and Southeast Asia. It is the story of King Rama who must save his wife who was kidnapped by evil demon called Ravana. It also teaches some important Hindu teachings like follow the righteous path. The Puranas are stories about every single God. It is believed that there is over 33 million gods and

goddesses. The holy book is the Baghavad Gita. This is the conversation between Arjuna and Krishna during the Kurukshetra War. This conversation was about Arjuna telling Krishna how he doesn’t want to kill his relatives for just a piece of land.

There was a worker called Sanjay who worked for King Dhritarashtra. He had a boon that he could see thousands and thousands of miles away. Sanjay would then repeat everything Krishna had said to Arjuna to King Dhritarashtra as he was blind so couldn’t see what Sanjay was writing. This was then passed down from generation to generation. However, some villagers couldn’t understand so they decided to rewrite the entire conversation as a song. Nowadays, The Baghavad Gita is recited as a song, and you can still learn it today. There are 745 Verses in the entire Baghavad Gita. You can just imagine how long this conversation between Krishna and Arjuna.

Laksh Khanna (7M)

Many people consider Diwali as the most important Hindu festival. Diwali is known as the Festival of Lights and is celebrated over 5 days. The first day of Diwali is known as Dhanteras. On Dhanteras, people clean their homes, buy small gold items and worship the goddess, Lakshmi. The second day is known as Choti Diwali, which means “Small Diwali” and is celebrated by people decorating their homes with clay lamps and rangoli (patterns made from sand or coloured powder.) On Choti Diwali, Hindus remember how lord Krishna killed Narakasura with his Sudarshana Chakra. The third day of Diwali is called Diwali and is considered then main day. Families get together to exchange gifts, light fireworks and eat sweets. On this day, Hindus worship the goddess Lakshmi. The fourth day of Diwali is called Govardhan Puja and Hindus commemorate how Kishna lifted up the Govardhan Hill. It is also the first day of the Hindu new year. The fifth and final day is known as Bhai Dooj and is celebrated by sisters placing a tilak on their brothers’ head and the brother giving their sisters gifts. The day celebrates the love between siblings.

Diwali is celebrated to remember when Lord Ram returned from 14 years of exile. Hindus believe that Prince Ram (a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu) was sent away from his kingdom for 14 years. Along with Ram, his brother Lakshman and his wife Sita also came. In Ram’s exile, his wife, Sita, was kidnapped by the demon king Ravan. Diwali is the day that Ram returned his kingdom after killing Ravan. Hindus believe that when Ram returned to his kingdom, the people living their lit Diyas (clay lamps) and fireworks. That is why people light Diyas and fireworks now as well. Diwali is the victory of good over evil.

People who are not Hindus still celebrate Diwali by lighting up their homes, exchanging sweets and inviting friends. For Jains, Diwali is the “final liberation of Mahavira.” Sikhs call Diwali “Banhi Chhor Divas.” Banhi Chhor Divas marks the release of Guru Hargobind from a Mughal prison. “Newar” Buddhists celebrate Diwali by worshipping Lakshmi. Hindus in Eastern India and Bangladesh celebrate Diwali by worshipping the goddess Kali.

Fun facts about Diwali:

• The word Diwali comes from the Sanskrit word “Deepavali” which means “Rows of lit lamps.”

• Over 1 billion people over the world celebrate Diwali.

• Khil (rice puffs) and Patashe (sugar discs) are some of the sweets that family and friends share.

• Diwali is normally in October or November. In 2023, Diwali was on Sunday the 12th of November.

• People leave their windows open so the goddess Lakshmi can come in.

• Outside India, the biggest celebration of Diwali is in the city of Leicester (in the U.K).

Judaism

Zac Tager (7J)

Jewish people believe that there is an omnipresent invisible God. One of the main Jewish scriptures is called the Torah. It covers loads of stories that demonstrate how holy God is and how to become a better person. Jews use a Siddur to pray in the morning, lunch and in the evening. Each weak at the shul, Jews read a new Pashah and when each one has been covered there is a festival called Simchat Torah. There are also lots of other festivals that celebrate other things that are important in Judaism, such as Pesach and Yom Kippur.

Some Jews believe that God created the world and the story of Adam and Eve but others see things such as Adam and Eve as just a story that signifies how you should behave in real life. There are 613 rules in the Jewish religion but there are 10 main commandments that were given to Moshe:

1. You should have no other gods

2. You should make no idols

3. You should not speak the name of God in vain

4. Keep Shabbat holy

5. Honour your mother and father

6. You should not murder

7. You should not commit adultery

8. You should not steal

9. You should not lie

10. You should not covet

Jews believe in prophets who where people that were able to talk to God. The first prophet was Avraham who was also the first Jew. Lots of Jews also believe that Israel is the holy land. Jewish boys are supposed to wear a kippah to show that God is always above us. A kippah is circular most of the time and it is quite thin and small. Some other more religious and serious types of Jews such as Chasidics wear a big black hat as well.

Though there have been lots of incidents when Jewish people have been massacred or persecuted such as the holocaust most Jews still stick with God and stand beside it through everything they go through. Though lots of Jews believe in God, if you don’t it doesn’t mean you are not a Jew. No-one will stop you being a Jew just because of your beliefs because it means way more than that. One of the most important prayers is the Shema which is usually read in Hebrew out of a siddur but in English it is: ‘Hear, O

Israel: Adonai is our God, Adonai in One! Blessed is God's name; His glorious kingdom is for ever and ever! And you shall love Adonai your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.’

Agnosticism

Adan Thomas (7S)

Agnosticism is a philosophical belief where someone believes that some creator or ruler of the universe (such as God) is unknown and will probably never be known. Personally, I am agnostic. The reason why agnosticism is different from atheism is because agnosticism is when someone does not commit to following a god, but also does not deny the possibility that a god may exist. Atheism, on the other hand, is the firm belief that God does not exist. Agnostic people can believe in God, they are called agnostic theists. Agnostic theists can believe in one or more gods, but they believe that the god(s) they believe in are unknown and unknowable. Consequently, they also do not claim to know exactly what happens after death. Some believe that you simply stop existing, others believe something else.

Agnosticism came to be when the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) invented the word agnostic in 1869. He stated that “it simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." The agnostic symbol demonstrates how Salvador Dalí used a clear, precise, and legible style showing a smart symbol to represent agnosticism. Globally, there are at least 450 to 500 million estimated agnostic people (200 million of them in C hina alone), accounting for 7% of the world population. There are most likely more, as some atheists believe the same things as agnostic people, i.e. they do not have a firm positive belief in there not being a God. These people may think that there might be a God or there may not, much like agnostic people do. In the UK Census, 30,352 people said that they were agnostic, however the second most prevalent answer was ‘no religion’ with 22.2 million, which includes agnostics, atheists, and humanists (among others). The word ‘agnostic’ comes from the Greek word agnōstos which means unknown or unknowable. Agnostic people can have completely different beliefs from one another, and often do. As there are no rules as to what to believe, most agnostics simply hold their own philosophies and beliefs as to what happens after death.

There are strengths of agnosticism, which are quantified not based on hard fact and rule but a general guideline or observation. Strong agnosticism is the view that there may or may not be a divine being or deity and that their existence is unverifiable be yond subjective experience. Weak agnosticism is the similar point of view that there is likely no deity(s) however it may be revealed that there are; it is unknown but not necessarily unattainable to the human advances of science or comprehension. Fundamentally, it is the idea that a deity’s existence may be proved but it is unlikely. Apathetic agnosticism is the “on-the-fence” idea that no human debate can resolve whether deities exist or not,

Sillyism

Jai Darbari (7C)

Sillyism is a religion created by Max Fosh, a YouTuber with 1.6 million subscribers. The core of this religion is that to be silly is to be good! Sillyism was officially created so that he could have a funny photo on his driver’s license, but it brought people together under the umbrella of being silly, which can be done by everybody with no rules.

The Words of Sillyism:

“I will be silly whenever humanly possible. I will always sit at the front of the bus to pretend to be the driver. I will always ask my friend who puts too much sugar in his tea if he would like some tea with that sugar.

I will make all future dental appointments at 2:30. If you agree to this, You agree to be a silly billy. You may never be sad again, instead you must be silly. Let go of your fears and let your silly out.

The sacred place for pilgrimage is Silly in Belgium, which is where we get our holy item: a bag of dirt from Silly.”

Critics vs Me

People may say “what moral improvement does it have” or that Sillyism “lacks necessary spiritual or non-secular elements.” This is what I have to say to the first comment, Sillyism has an impact as on people's moral as everyone acting silly means that they will not feel so different. To the second comment, Sillyism may not have a religious basis, but it is more a way of life and thinking to make your life better.

Now some points on why it can make a difference in people’s lives for the better. It brings people together over one thing which is humour. Laughing is incredibly good for your mental health, and it brings joy to others. It also recognises difference and celebrates this. By finding the silly in everything it can help overcome life’s challenges and provides escape from seriousness.

Sillyism has the potential to last quite a while into the future with more congregations and with many more supporters as it slowly grows in believers and fans, but how far into the future will it last? Well, it all relies on a few key points which I will explain.

The first key factor is how many subscribers Max Fosh gains or loses since they make up most of his followers in Sillyism, so if he gains more that gives the religion a higher chance of survival while if he loses subscribers, he will lose followers to his religion which can slowly fail if there aren’t enough people to support it. The second point is that there needs to be engagement with the followers through event since if people do not think they are getting much out of being part of the religion they will quit.

Theories of Reality

Harry Kutock (7H)

The Infinite Universe

This theory suggests that we can only see until our cosmic horizon, an area where all beyond it is more than 14 billion light years away, so we cannot see it as light cannot travel faster than the expansion of the universe. It explains how beyond the horizon is an infinitely expanding yet infinitely vast universe which is beyond o ur human comprehension. If the universe is infinite, that means that everything that could exist in it by its laws would exist. This would mean infinite versions of you, me, earth and everything we can see. The size of this universe would be baffling to the human mind and would not make sense with its proportions and all of which it contains.

The Many Worlds Interpretation

This theory is based on the fact that every time something could happen, the universe basically flips a coin, with heads being yes and tails being no. From this, a new universe is created for tails, and new universes are being created in fractions of fractions of fractions of seconds, so in a second, an infinite number of universes are created, with some having differences so small they are indifferentiable. Some universes would have split off from the start, around the time of the Big Bang, while others would have split right…. Right now! In this theory, there is a version of you where you never existed and others where you became Superman or Superwoman, and others still have so many possibilities that it is impossible to think of them all, and that is just a singular person –you. In this theory, everything goes down a timeline path and splits into infinity within a second. Another version of this theory believes that all the universes are already there (following our laws of physics), and they each follow their own separate and individual path, some indistinguishable from the next. This has the same number of variations as the previous one.

Reality is a Simulation

This theory, as the name suggests, believes reality to be a simulation. From this theory, there are other sub-theories as to what exactly the simulation could be. The first subtheory theorises that reality is a game where advanced and immortal humans can play it using an incredibly advanced version of a VR headset. They would probably use this piece of technology to experience grief, pain, and emotion; they would probably pick a time period to be in, and they would live for years with the experience only lasting a

second. The second sub-theory believes that we are actually trapped in a simulation like the matrix. It believes that an incredibly advanced AI or a more advanced/alien civilisation store our bodies while keeping our minds unaware. The third sub -theory believes that the deity of the universe is a mere (omnipotent to us) child who uses our universe as a toy and knows little of our existence on earth as we are so microscopic comparatively. This could also prove that other universes exist as they would be toys for other children.

The Multidimensional Theory

This theory suggests that our universe is like a bubble with many other universes surrounding it, each going by the same laws of physics as ours. This multiverse would be infinitely vast and would have an infinite number of universes. Outside this infinite multiverse would be infinitely many other multiverses like it, with different laws of physics that their universes would follow. This concept is very foreign and incomprehensible to our human minds as these multiverses would exist “somewhere”, but we can never see or reach them due to the expansion of our universe. This means that, if true, we will never be able to verify this theory. Yet these multiverses would all exist within the three spatial dimensions we know. It is also possible that multiverses exist in higher (i.e. fourth, fifth, sixth, etc.) spatial dimensions. These would add axes beyond the familiar length, width and depth, which is very hard for humans as threedimensional beings to conceptualise.

In conclusion, there are infinite possible realities, and these are just a few. The concept of infinity appears very frequently in this, as the scale and possibilities are limitless, with some infinities seemingly smaller than others. Anything is possible, and nothing can be proven. There are too many possibilities, and we, as a race, can only speculate. We may be AI or a secret hive mind, but we may never know.

Theo Mortlock (7H)

There is a very popular theory that we are living in a simulation similar to the matrix. Many people think that this is plausible as we would never know about what is real or not as we are the test subjects in the simulation. Some theories imply that it loops over and over again since we could be in a computer in a person’s creation and the person in their world can be simulated by another human and that theory loops over again and again, so the simulation never ends. Another thing that connects to the subject of living in a simulation is like the film The Matrix (1999) and how we can escape the matrix and improve how we act in a simulation. In the film it shows us that robot took over humanity and made all humans go into permanent sleep and live in the simulation that they made making them totally unknowing of the terror that happened in their reality. This could be happening right now. In the film, Neo is chased by men in formal suits because they see him as a threat. See this could be the case in the world we live in right now. There could be someone that wakes up from sleep to find that we all live just to be kept away from the actual truth of human life.

There are many points about this subject that can all be correct, but we still do not know if we live in a simulation. We might never know but there is always a possibility that this could be the reality we live in, a universe modified to be what we know as our life, with all the planets we know and all the discoveries made, this could just be from the simple mind of another, more powerful being with maybe not the intention of imprisoning humans but using them as a test subject to see what would happen to a world controlled like ours with leaders and influence with the way of human progress growing every day.

The possibilities are infinite of the fate of where we live and if we are looked over by a superior species. The fact of living in a simulation may cause worry if we are being used in a way that we do not even know about since we have been in the simulation so long. Our bodies that we live in right now, the bodies that we use to see, feel, hear and taste could all be fabricated by the very creators of our existence. Another theory I just came up with just as a thought, is if the films main characters represent the holy trinity since one of the three main characters is called trinity and the other is the first to escape the simulation called Morpheus and the one to save humans from the agents is Neo. So, my theory is that Morpheus is the father since he started it all, Neo is the son since he is the chosen one and trinity is the holy spirit as she accompanies the son, Neo.

In conclusion, I personally don’t have one specific view on the outcome of this subject, but I would see this theory as likely since we do not have many true recollections of the origins of our thriving existence and if we are just the tiny code fitting together to make the huge simulation.

make people who they are, and to selectively look through people’s private information and only give them half of the story nowadays would be considered unacceptable in most scenarios, so something must have gone very wrong in the world outside for it to be considered acceptable at such a large scale. For this reason, I for one would be inclined to stay in the maze.

In the Matrix, the idea of the world as you know it being deconstructed and waking up in a planet riddled with the apocalyptic effects of artificial intelligence is an extremely controversial topic as many people would say that they would take the red pill , but when put into the same situation choose the blue pill. I for one would take the blue pill, as like many others would think I believe that if the truth is too harsh to face, there is no obligation to put yourself into a dangerous situation to look brave. Nobody will blame you if you take the blue pill as there is no consequence to this action. Taking the red pill could get you killed, or just put back into the simulator anyway, so what’s the point in taking the red pill if you just end up back to square one? People prefer to think of themselves as the protagonists in the world, but in reality most of these people are lying to themselves and are irrelevant in what happens in the universe and should therefore accept that their fate is humanity’s own fault for creating artificial intelligence in the first place.

Quotations:

"I Believe That, As A Species, Human Beings Define Their Reality Through Misery And Suffering" - Agent Smith, a computer program who is the AI’s way of keeping order inside the Matrix. This is an interesting perspective, showing the AI’s perspective on the rights that humans deserve. The AI believes that they are doing the right thing by locking humans away from reality, smothering their suffering in white lies.

“A prison you cannot see or touch. A prison for your mind.” - Morpheus, one who chose the red pill on the Matrix simulation. The viewpoint of a brave soul who decided to become a fighter against the AI. He believes that the Matrix is a prison that you are in until you die, much like a life sentence. This brings up the question of whether or not the life sentence is a moral consequence of one’s actions – people lose their sanity in jail, so would it be better to give them the death sentence and save them their suffering?

“They’re weeding us out, seeing if we’ll give up, finding the best of us. Throwing variables at us, trying to make us quit. Testing our ability to hope and fight.” -Thomas, on the scientists observing brain patterns in the group. Thomas encourages the group to not give up, that one day they will wake up and it will all be a dream, and anything would be better than staying in the maze. His viewpoint brings up the question of

whether it is worth their suffering by leaving the maze, to help the scientists find a cure and return their memories. In other words, how much would you be willing to sacrifice for the greater good? This again brings up the question: what would you really do in this scenario? Because again, it is a grey area and there is no right or wrong answer.

But who am I to give opinions? In these situations, one hopes to be courageous and take the red pill, but in reality, you have to question: is it really worth knowing the truth to put yourself into a dangerous situation? Thank you for taking the time to read this article, and I hope you will continue to ask yourself what you would actually do: would you really be the one to take the red pill?

Are We Living in The Matrix and Would You Want to Enter It?

Nathaniel Lock (7S)

After a tremendous film starring the great Keanu Reeves, people have pondered whether ‘the Matrix’ exists. The Matrix is a simulation that entertains our mind whilst we power the earth for robots after they overthrew the human race in a civil war. In this simulation, we are made to believe that we are living in a normal life, but we are actually giving electricity to the robots because we produce electricity than a battery. Even though we have no solid proof that we are in the Matrix there is no proof that we aren’t. We already know that robots can disobey human orders and do interesting things, such as Alexa, who listens to conversations even when they aren’t activated, additionally, one of the most famous examples is Ultron, who turned against the human society because he didn’t take his instructions from Tony Stark correctly and Sokovia was destroyed.

So, if we take into account that robots can disobey orders and gather personal information then the robot and human war could have already happened and we just don’t know about it, because we are in the simulation. In this simulation, the robots could be spies within the Matrix along with agents. However in the Matrix we see Trinity along with the other crew do some insane acrobatics, such as Neo, who dodged multiple bullets, and this obviously isn’t possible for us, of course this could just be because we haven’t unlocked such abilities, almost like a video game, the more levels you move up, the stronger your character becomes, and in the simulation, the more of it you understand the more things you are able to do. Additionally, many people every year disappear, this could be a crew like Morpheus’s taking people out of the Matrix.

However, if you were offered two pills, a red and a blue one, which would you choose, would you stay in the lie or, venture into the unknown? Having the mentality to enter a world in which you do not know can be frightening. Personally, I would take the blue pill and exit the sim, because it is only fair that we get to live in our world and not a program, so we should fight for freedom. On the contrary, if I was put into the situation, I may not make the same decision.

In conclusion, even though no solid evidence is available to show that the Matrix is in fact true, there is also no solid evidence to show that it doesn’t exist. This is similar to religion, we can’t prove that God is real, but we can’t prove that he is non-existent, so I chose to believe that the Matrix is real. And if I was asked the red pill or the blue pill, I would choose blue, because freedom is important. And no human should have to live under the oppression of robots (even though robots are very cool).

What is Faith? A Reflection

Kiran Sidhom (7C)

During my primary and secondary school life, I have learnt about lots of different faiths and religions. I have studied more about some religions than others and they include Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. I believe in Hinduism and Christianity as my mum is Hindu and my dad is Christian.

I have learnt more about Hinduism by going to Hindu assemblies and learning about the religion at home. In Hinduism, there is one God called Brahman and he is portrayed in different expressions as other Gods. They include Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and many more. I learnt about this in faith assembly as I didn’t know this before joining Habs. Everyone at Hindu assembly recites the Gayatri Mantra at the beginning and end of assembly and has helped me learn it.

In Hindu assembly, we have also learnt about different celebrations and one of those celebrations that we learnt about last week is Holi. Holi is celebrated at the end of winter, on the last full moon day of the Hindu luni-solar calendar month, marking the spring, making the date vary with the lunar cycle. It is usually celebrated in March but can sometimes be celebrated in late February. Like a lot of Hindu celebrations, the main message of the story of Holi is that good always triumphs over evil. Another celebration that I celebrate and have learnt about at home is Ganesh Chaturthi. This celebration is tributed to the god, Ganesh. During this festival, Hindus make statues of Ganesh (as Ganesh was born by being made out of clay by the Goddess Parvati) and most Hindus immerse it into the sea. As I do not live near the sea, we go to our local temple and the Hindu community joins as a group at the temple. Some people also stay up all night and pray. I haven’t done this before but some of my family members have. It usually falls between the 22nd of August and the 20th of September. The celebrations are held to symbolise the rebirth of Ganesh.

I have learnt about Christianity in T and P lessons and R.E lessons at my primary school. Christians have one God called God the Father and his son who is Jesus. They also have the Holy Trinity. The concept of the Holy Trinity asserts that God, the father, Jesus the son and the Holy Spirit act as co-creators of the same matter. The main festivals of Christianity include Christmas and Easter. Christmas is the story of when Jesus was born. People go to mass on Christmas Day and sometime attend midnight mass on Christmas Eve. It is usually celebrated with a Christmas lunch that consists of turkey and trimmings, spending time with family and lots of gifts. Most families also put up a Christmas tree. Ash Wednesday marks a time for those of the Christian faith to confess their sins and occurs 46 days (40 days and 6 Sundays)

before Easter and marks the beginning of Lent. Christians fast over Lent. Easter celebrates the resurrection of Christ and the sacrifice he made for all people. Good Friday represents the death of Jesus, and he how he was resurrected on Easter Sunday.

Another religion that I have learnt a lot about this year is Islam especially about Ramadan and I have learnt why Muslims fast and what Ramadan means to them. I thought that fasting was something Muslims did to show faith in God, but I realised it is also charitable and is one of the Pillars of Islam. During Ramadan, Muslims do a lot of charity work. They fast to feel what it is like to be poor and experience hunger. Every day, they break their fast at sunset with a date and some water. After Ramadan, Eid Al Fitr occurs and that is when the Muslim community joins together for a big feast and God forbids them to fast.

Faith is your belief and sometimes your religion. Everyone has a different faith and believes different things. Faith unites people together as a community and a religion. Every faith and religion help others and supports the people less fortunate than them. This is what it means.

A Reflection on Faith

Benjamin Rosenfield (7J)

Faith is a very broad term, for some it means religion and for others it might mean something completely different, for example science or having faith in one and other. A simple definition of faith is believing in something or someone but there are so many different faith groups (over four thousand in the world). Most faiths are linked to one another for example Judaism is linked to Christianity because Jesus (the founder of Christianity) was Jewish, and the Old Testament in the Bible is based on the Jewish Torah and Tanakh. To some people, faith is being part of a community and making friends; for others, it is about believing in God(s); for others still, it may involve both.

When you are in a community you feel that you are part of something special, that you have a purpose and importance, you are whole as a person. If you believe in God, you have someone/something to pray to when you have sinned; someone to talk to when you are upset; someone to listen to when you need help and support. But when some people are upset or need help, they turn to their family or their friends initially somebody they have faith in to help and support them. Other people might do neither of these, instead simply meditating on what is troubling them. This shows how broad the word “faith” is.

In Religions there are different branches of their beliefs for example in Judaism you have Reform, Orthodox and much more. My maternal grandparents are Orthodox, whereas my paternal grandparents are Reform and so is our household. Even though we have slightly different beliefs we all love and respect each other. We explore each other’s traditions for example whenever we go to my mum’s parents for Friday night dinner, we say grace after meals which means we say thank you to God for the food we just received but at our home we do not do this. We all believe in the same Religion but eat slightly differently and have slightly different traditions. We all have faith in one and other.

Another faith is Buddhism. Buddhists have completely different beliefs and traditions from Judaism, but we should all respect each other’s faiths and try to learn about them, so we have a greater understanding of the world. In Islam, you fast for a month called Ramadan and because of this Muslims may be tired and hungry but if we didn’t know this, we might have accidently taunted them by offering them food. This shows why it is important to learn about different faiths because if you didn’t know someone was fasting and struggling you wouldn’t be able to accommodate their needs.

Some schools only allow people of a certain faith for example there are Christian schools, Jewish schools and much more. Personally, I disagree with this because I think it is important to be around people of all faiths because when you get older, and you go to work there will be people with other faiths to you and it is important that you know to respect them, and you don’t think your faith is any way superior to others. On the other hand, it can be useful to go to a school of your faith, so you get days off for holidays within that faith and you feel that you are not alone if you are going through a period of time such as Lent or Ramadan.

Here are a few quotes that I found very interesting: "Faith is unseen but felt, faith is strength when we feel we have none, faith is hope when all seems lost." Catherine Pulsifer. I think this is a very moving quote as it is saying that when you are upset or struggling faith can give you hope, and hope can mean a lot in those hard times. "If you lose faith, you lose all." Eleanor Roosevelt. I find this short quote interesting because it tells us that if we lose faith our life will pretty much turn upside down and I think that this is partially true because if you never believe in yourself, you won’t feel that you ever succeed. "Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase." Martin Luther King, Jr. I find this interesting as it says you can do anything if you have faith. When I researched for these quotes a lot of them were all related to God which I found interesting because is faith just believing in God?

In conclusion, faith can mean what you believe it means whether that’s religion, science, community and much more. You should respect all faiths and beliefs even if you don’t believe in them.

The Meaning of Faith

Archie Cohen (7M)

Faith is a vital part of many people’s lives, inspiring and developing people’s belief in an omnipotent and omniscient creator such as GOD. I am Jewish, meaning I believe in GOD, who I refer to as HASHEM; however, people of other faiths may choose to worship many gods or even idols. I will be speaking about what my religion and faith have done for me and how I aspire to follow the rules of Judaism and keep learning to teach younger generations of my family yet to come. Traditions, festivals, community and prayer are the main factors in most religions, and without just one of them, it could affect the whole belief system in how I look at Judaism. From latkes at Chanukah to doughnuts at Purim, these are just two of the many examples of how Jewish traditions keep me close and connected with my faith, family and friends.

Since going to a Jewish primary school (SJPS), it has taken some getting used to as the rules set there were often different to those set at Habs. For example, it was compulsory to wear a kippah and tzitzit. However, since my first day at Habs – which was roughly eight months ago I’ve felt as comfortable as ever, attending religious assemblies, where I say prayers and speakers come in, having a ton load of fun at the Chanukah party and attending J-soc. These are just some of the engaging activities that I’ve attended in the school, and I wish for loads more to come!

Outside of school, I never fail to attend my bar mitzvah lessons. This is a vital time in a young Jewish boy’s life, as this is seen as the transition from a boy to a man (not officially yet in the UK, though). This is a physical event where I will read from the Torah, have a kiddush, and celebrate with practically everyone around me. However, this can also be a spiritual change as this is a time when your soul leaves your body and you repent for all sins up until this day, asking for a fresh start and overall forgiveness for there and then. From this day onwards, you are expected to take action on all things you have done wrong in the past and prevent them from happening in the future. Now, you’re probably wondering, what about the female transition to adulthood? Well, a fairly modern event is called a bat mitzvah. This happens at 12 years of age compared to a boy, which happens at 13 years old.

Faith is a profound inspiration to many lives across the world. Religion is a turning point for many, where people can put other things such as stress, anger and hatred and ask GOD for advice or whatever their needs may be. Community is another huge and very significant reason why many people choose to belong to a faith. My analogy goes like this: community is like a roundabout. If you keep circling around it and aren’t brave enough to open up and turn out of a lane then you’ll crash. However, when you turn, in

this case, to your community, you can open up and share your thoughts freely. It’s like turning out and making the right choice, being courageous enough to make that split decision and where you are going to take your thoughts.

Another crucial aspect of faith is the opportunity it provides to learn about different life skills and cultures. This knowledge is essential for those who wish to travel and understand the diversity that exists in the world. When you show an interest in learning about different faiths, it signals your respect for others and your desire to understand them. This, in turn, reduces the chances of disrespecting others and helps you appreciate and respect the beliefs of your friends and those around you.

Editors

Dr Nelson Miss Yool

Student Editorial Committee

Lior Arram (L6S2)

Shayan Dawreeawoo (L6M1)

Rafi Ritterband (L6H1)

Evan Ning (L6M2)

Kian Lakhani (L6C2)

Eitan Rahamim (L6H1)

Rahul Thapar (10J2)

Lucas Argent (10C2)

Nazim Khan (10S2)

Cover photo: The Incredulity of St. Thomas, 1603 by Caravaggio (Wikimedia Commons)