A Monday night.

Doc is working at his weathered wooden desk in the basement of the library. A Nina Simone album plays softly on his old stereo system. Jack enters from the stairwell and knocks gently on the door frame as he walks in.

DOC: Good evening, Father.

JACK: Come on, Doc. I’ve told you not to call me that.

DOC: What do you have for me tonight?

Jack pulls a bottle of whiskey from his satchel and sets it on Doc’s desk.

DOC: Good man!

JACK: You have the glasses?

Jack pulls up one of the two chairs opposite the desk and removes his coat before sitting.

DOC: Go on, take a seat.

JACK: I also have this. It’s a first edition of Jude the Obscure.

DOC: Jack! Thank you so much.

JACK: It’s not in the best shape, but I thought you’d want it.

DOC: I look forward to reading it. It has been decades.

JACK: (sighs as he settles into his chair) It’s been a hell of a day. Another young one died, and I was unsuccessful in securing housing for a refugee family.

DOC: Ah, I’m sorry to hear that. Truly. How are you holding up?

Jack shrugs and lifts the glass in a resigned gesture of a toast. Doc obliges and they both take a sip.

JACK: Where did we leave off?

DOC: Getting right to it, eh? You sure you don’t want to talk about your day?

JACK: As usual, I have been looking forward to our conversation, particularly the prospect of letting go of everything from earlier. That stuff was difficult, but it is what it is.

DOC: You know I hate tautologies.

JACK: Sometimes that’s all one can say.

DOC: I suppose so. Though, as Wittgenstein said, “Whereof one cannot speak…”¹

JACK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. That strikes me as a good policy. So let’s remain silent about all of that.

DOC: Hah, very well. (Stretches and leans back in his chair.) I think we were arguing about whether Yahweh is properly understood as god.

JACK: Ah, yes. You and your traditional theism.

DOC: Says the freaking priest! (He laughs.) Explain to me what you were starting to get into before we had to close up shop. I think you were saying something about the Greek or Roman gods.

JACK: Right. The point I wanted to make was that it doesn’t make any sense to say that Ares, for example, is the god of war or ruination, or that Chronos is the god of time.

DOC: But isn’t that precisely what they are the gods of?

JACK: Well, sort of, but importantly no. They are gods of men—sorry, of humans. 

DOC: Don’t be politically correct for my sake.

JACK: I’m not. It is genuinely something I am trying to work on. I hate that it has become so ingrained.

DOC: Anyways, at the very least they were thought to have dominion over those aspects of reality, no?

JACK: Sure, that seems clear enough. (Takes another sip.) Let me put it this way: it’s misleading to say they had gods of chaos, time, war, wisdom, and so on. Rather, they thought these things were, in themselves, divine, or gods.

DOC: Alright, but that seems like a distinction without a difference.

JACK: I don’t think so. It’s a really critical point. Let me explain: what is the Greek word for love?

DOC: Well, there are a few. “Philia” is the one that obviously comes to mind. But also “eros” and “storge.” And, of course, “agápe.”

JACK: Right. Let’s focus on Eros. You’ve read Plato’s Symposium, right?

DOC: Yeah.

JACK: Well, you know how they are singing praises to love?

DOC: Yes, they were too hungover from the previous night, so they thought that would be a better use of their time.²

JACK: Indeed. Now, do they use that term in the book?

DOC: I don’t follow. I mean, of course they do; as you just said, that’s what they are praising.

JACK: Ah, but they don’t! The word “love” is our word, it’s an English word. What is the Greek word?

DOC: Oh, well, it is eros.

JACK: Right. So, imagine you are a Greek-speaking person. How would you translate the claim, “Eros is the god—or demigod or whatever—of love”?

DOC: Hey, I didn’t say I spoke Greek!

JACK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. My point is that “eros” just is the word for love, so to say that Eros is the god of love would be like saying Eros is the god of eros.

Doc leans back in his chair.

DOC: Ah, I see. Yes, I understand that.

JACK: So, the broader point I wanted to make was that for the ancient polytheists, gods were personifications of universals—or universals qua persons—like love, justice, wisdom, and time.

DOC: Sure, but again, where’s the disagreement? I guess I don’t see the broader point.

JACK: It’s the idea that it is love itself, understood as a person who is in some sense identical to the universal, which is divine in their view.

DOC: Okay, but how is that different than saying that the deity Eros governs or has dominion over love?

JACK: Well, in some sense it isn’t different. I don’t remember how we got on the topic yesterday, but I wanted to shake up the way we typically talk about polytheists. I think there is something more sophisticated going on than we typically give them credit for.

DOC: Hmm. Yesterday, you mentioned Plato, and you’ve now claimed that Eros is a universal. Are you suggesting that Eros is a Platonic form?³

JACK: Yes, that is close to what I have in mind. I suppose I should put what I’m speculating about in terms of a question, rather than an assertion. Basically, I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to think of the relationship between Eros—the demigod—and particular loving relationships as being similar to the relation between a Platonic form and the particulars that participate in it.

DOC: That is an interesting question. (Pauses.) Or maybe by de-personifying the gods and making them into abstract universals, Plato was trying to introduce a better way of understanding the relationship between universals and particulars.

JACK: Yes! I think that might be right. By stripping them of agency or personality he was—

The door to the stairwell on the floor above them opens and slams shut, interrupting Jack. He looks at Doc and gestures at the bottle.

JACK: (Whispering.) Should we hide that?

Doc waives his hand in a dismissive gesture.

DOC: Nah, it’s perfectly legal.

They hear a student talking, presumably on her cell phone.

MICK: Whatever. I can’t come in. I have class at that time.

Jack and Doc sit in silence waiting for the student to leave. After a moment, they hear her walking down the stairs.

MICK: I can’t skip. That’s not how this works. You’ll need to find someone else. 

After ending her phone call and letting out an exasperated sigh, she notices the open door and peaks her head in.

MICK: Oh, hey. Sorry about that. I didn’t know there was an office down here.

DOC: It’s quite alright. Most people don’t. I think the administration has forgotten about me.

He laughs and Mick looks around, taking in the piles of books and papers. Jack and Doc exchange glances and continue to wait for her to leave.

MICK: Hi. I like the music. My name’s Mick.

DOC: Good to meet you, Mick. I’m Terry, but most people call me Doc, and this is Father Jack.

Mick looks at Jack and the bottle on the desk.

MICK: You’re a priest?

JACK: Indeed I am. But please just call me Jack. We are allowed to drink, you know.

MICK: Hah, yeah, I know. In my experience some of you might drink a little too much.

Doc laughs loudly.

DOC: Oh, I like this one! What brings you down to the bowels of Daggart?

MICK: I was in the stacks and got a phone call. What do you do down here?

DOC: I’m the archivist.

JACK: What he means is that he spends an hour or so each day reading the diaries and papers of dead donors and professors, and then files them away. The rest of the time he spends reading and writing whatever he pleases—all on the dime of the regents.

DOC: Hah! You’re not wrong.

MICK: That’s a sweet gig. I like the vibe down here.

DOC: Well, some windows would be nice. But, yeah, this is home. Would you care to join us, Mick?

MICK: That depends on what you’re up to.

DOC: (gesturing to the bottle) Well, you’ve already discerned the principal activity. But beyond that, we were just discussing the intricacies of Greek polytheism.

She looks to Jack.

MICK: Seriously?

JACK: Afraid so. We’re boring old men.

MICK: That’s not boring. It just wasn’t what I was expecting to hear. I’m actually really interested in ancient religions.

DOC: Is that so? Well, Jackie was supposed to be explaining how God isn’t really a god, but he ended up talking about the ancient Greeks.

MICK: What’s that mean? “God isn’t god”? And can you really say something like that, being a priest and all?

DOC: Well, in fairness, he’s a very unorthodox priest. His type gets away with all sorts of things.

MICK: Huh?

JACK: Ignore him. What do you find most interesting about ancient religion?

Jack leans over and clears a stack of papers from the other chair and offers it to Mick. He places the papers on top of another stack on the desk.

DOC: Watch it, you’re messing with my filing system.

Mick takes a seat.

MICK: I don’t know much, but if I’m being honest, I just like knowing that there were alternatives. I know you’re a priest, so I don’t mean to offend you, but I haven’t had good experiences with religious people. Sometimes I wonder if things went wrong and we would’ve been better off worshipping nature or whatever.

JACK: No offense taken. I think I understand. If I’m being honest, I used to think the same thing. When I’m frustrated, I sometimes still find myself thinking that.

MICK: Yeah, I definitely don’t think you’re supposed to say that!

DOC: This guy is a puzzle wrapped in an enigma. I don’t even think he’s a theist! 

Jack rolls his eyes and shrugs.

JACK: It’s complicated.

MICK: Well, this I have to hear!

JACK: Oh, I don’t really know myself sometimes. But what I tend to think is that people mean different things when they talk about “god” or “gods.” That was the original point I wanted to make, Doc. Similarly, people mean different things when they refer to theism and atheism. And so, yes, in some sense, I’m not a theist.

MICK: But you’re a Christian?

JACK: Yes.

MICK: I guess I don’t understand.

JACK: I think it was a guy by the name of Stephen Roberts who once said that the only difference between a theist and an atheist is that the atheist disbelieves in one more god than the theist. What he meant is that everyone is an atheist in some sense. If you don’t believe in—oh, I dunno—Anubis or whatever, you’re an atheist with respect to Anubis. The people we call atheists are just people who don’t believe in any gods.

MICK: So you’re an atheist?

JACK: No, not really. I don’t think either theism or atheism straightforwardly apply to me.

MICK: Aren’t Christians by definition theists?

JACK: It depends what you mean, but in our society I feel compelled to emphasize the atheistic part—what we deny—at least occasionally.

Doc snorts.

DOC: “Occasionally” my ass.

JACK: Well, the occasions do come up more than I would like. Everyone these days talks as if God is an individual being, a person.

MICK: Um, yeah. Isn’t that what they are supposed to believe?

JACK: In my view, the least wrong way to think of God in human terms is as a complete act of love. Moreover, God isn’t a being, but the ground of being, or being itself. My faith is that the ground of all being is love.

MICK: But you pray to and worship God?

JACK: Yes, but I don’t think I mean by that what most people do.

DOC: You’re definitely going to need to explain yourself. I may be “gay as a daffodil,” as the saying goes,⁴ but I think I might be a better Christian than you!

MICK: Uh… Oh! I knew you looked familiar. Have I seen you at the Lamplighter?

JACK: Haha, presumably so. He’s a real barfly. And he steals lines from Freddie Mercury. (Pauses.) I think this goes without saying, Doc, but you shouldn’t concede any ground to the right-wing political definition of what it means to be a “good” Christian. Nor any political definition for that matter.

Doc shrugs, but it is not clear whether it indicates resignation or acknowledgement.

MICK: So, wait. You’re telling me that I walked in on a priest and gay guy drinking whiskey and arguing over whether god exists? It’s like the set-up to a joke! And the priest is the atheist!

JACK: Not an atheist and not a theist.

Mick shakes her head in disbelief.

MICK: This is amazing.

DOC: So, since you frequent the Lamplighter, can I assume that you’re of age? Gary isn’t easily fooled by fake IDs.

MICK: Yeah, I’m twenty-two. I’m a graduate student.

DOC: Care to partake?

MICK: I wouldn’t object.

Doc pulls open his drawer and produces another glass. Jack pours her a shot.

JACK: What are you studying?

MICK: Gender Studies. But I’m not letting you off the hook. I need to hear more.

DOC: Me too. But first, a toast: to obeying the principle of non-contradiction!

He raises his glass in a toast and Mick furrows her brow in confusion as the three of them clink their glasses.

MICK: What do you mean by that?

DOC: Well, the good priest here has said he is neither a theist nor an atheist, and I believe that amounts to a contradiction. But as we all know, one cannot be rationally committed to a contradiction. So, he must either commit to one and give up the other, or explain how he isn’t trapped in a contradiction.

JACK: Challenge accepted, my friend.

Jack takes a long sip and smacks his lips as Mick settles in, pulling her legs up to her chest and wrapping her arms around them.

JACK: I don’t think the relationship between theism and atheism can be understood as a contradiction. It isn’t like theism asserts “X” and atheism asserts “not-X.”

MICK: That’s certainly what it seems like the relationship is. Isn’t atheism just the rejection of theism?

JACK: There are at least two distinct issues. First, the various systems we denote as ‘theistic’ are too complicated and varied to fit neatly into a simple category. There are a vast number of different theisms, and I don’t think we can easily identify something substantive that they all share in common, beyond simply the nominal commitment to something that is divine—usually expressed through the use of the word “god.” But people mean different things by “god.”

DOC: I think you’re being too hasty there. Everyone—except you—agrees what a god is: it’s a supernatural person. Even the ancient polytheists believed that.

JACK: Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics didn’t.

MICK: I’m not familiar with them.

JACK: The Stoics were an ancient Greek school of philosophy, and they had a materialist conception of reality. They viewed the cosmos as a material universe—there is nothing outside of it. They didn’t think there was anything but nature. So, they didn’t accept the natural-supernatural distinction, but they did think that every material thing, including the universe itself, had a rational principle that governed it and made it what it was. The word that they used to talk about the rational aspect of a thing was “logos,” which means reason or word.⁵

He takes a drink.

So, they thought the universe or cosmos as a whole has a logos. This was, in their way of thinking, god. But it is totally impersonal. It’s not a person, but sort of like a principle. It’s certainly not a subject in the way persons are ordinarily understood. Similarly, for Plato and the classical theists, god is being itself, or the ground of being.

MICK: How can their principle be a god if it isn’t a person?

JACK: For the Stoics, it is what governs and synthesizes all things. Everything that exists owes its existence to it, and it unites and harmonizes everything into a single whole, a cosmos, a universe.

DOC: But surely the classical theists like Aquinas thought of god as a person?

JACK: Nope, not really. Again, God isn’t a being, but rather, being itself. God is not an individual subject with properties in the way you and I are.⁶

MICK: Hmm. Okay, I guess I can see that, or at least accept it for the sake of argument. But I’m not sure how one could worship a “god” of either sort.

JACK: Yeah, for the Stoics, that’s a complicated issue. Basically, they think proper worship of the cosmic Logos involves living one’s life in a rational way. So, in other words, exercising one’s own logos, or reason, in a way that imitates the divine Logos.⁷

DOC: I want us to talk more about Stoicism sometime, but, like Mick said, we’re not going to let you off the hook. I think I see what you’re saying so far. Not all gods are personal gods, so theism is a term that picks out diverse viewpoints. 

JACK: Right, but the point is much more precise. What I am driving at is that the word “theist” is an equivocal term; it doesn’t have a single, univocal meaning. So, when someone says they are an atheist tout court, they are not being precise; there is no single principled way to be opposed to every different conception of god.

MICK: (chuckling) What does “toot court” mean?

DOC: It’s a fancy Latin term that just means “without qualification.”

JACK: Yeah, sorry. Anyways, that’s just one of the two points I wanted to make. The other is this. Both theists and atheists typically share a common assumption: namely, that any conception of divinity or holiness or sacredness necessarily implies or refers to a god.

DOC: Sure. Isn’t that what those terms mean? “Sacred” and “holy” just mean pertaining to god.

JACK: That’s one way to define them, but I think they are another set of equivocal terms. At the very least, they have meant different things at different times. Since we are partly concerned with how we speak about and relate to ancient wisdom traditions, I favor tethering our understanding of their meaning to how the terms used to be understood. For instance, the word “holy” probably comes from an ancient word that meant to be whole and healthy. And “sacred” comes from a word that meant to set apart. So, if we adopt those definitions, there can be things which are holy or sacred that have nothing to do with a god, understood as either personal or impersonal. We don’t need to assume they have a divine or supernatural origin.

MICK: Okay, let me make sure I understand what you’re getting at. You’re saying that theism and atheism can’t be understood as standing in a contradictory relationship because theism is a term which is too complicated, so one can’t simply declare one is opposed to all things that have been called “theism”?

JACK: Yes, in part. But the second point I wanted to make was that atheism is also too imprecise of a term. I can put it as a question: Does atheism reject that there is anything that is holy or sacred, where this means there is nothing that is whole and healthy and nothing that is worthy of being set apart or revered?

MICK: I see. Before this conversation I would’ve said that I was an atheist. You’re starting to make me wonder if that’s what I should be saying. But yeah, I do think I would’ve said that there is nothing that is holy or sacred, and yet I would’ve also said that there are things that are worthy of reverence or being set apart and respected.

JACK: Right! That’s my point. Setting up theism and atheism as contradictory requires that we simplify a complex array of beliefs, values, and practices to the point of confusing issues that need to be dealt with in their particularity. Now, I certainly grant that if we specify what we mean—in other words, if we peg a specific and clear meaning on each—then someone could say they are theist or atheist in that precise sense.

They all take a drink.

Basically, when I’m asked to declare whether I am theist or an atheist, I want to respond by saying, “I decline to answer.” I know that to most people who describe themselves as theists, I would be viewed as an atheist, and most people who are atheists would think of me as a theist.

MICK: Dude. You’re kind of blowing my mind. I’ve never heard a priest talk like this.

Doc slaps his leg and laughs.

MICK: So, how do you conceive of God?

JACK: Well, as I mentioned, like the classical theists, I don’t think god is a being. But as a Christian—and I admit that this gets me into tricky terrain—I trust that god is love.

MICK: Is that the same thing as saying love is god?

JACK: Yes, that’s how I mean it. It has taken me awhile to get comfortable saying it, but that’s what I believe and trust in. God is love and love is god.

DOC: Okay, but hold on. When you say love is god, what does the word god mean?

JACK: Well, I want to say that the claim made in First John—namely, that god is love—needs to be taken as an identity claim. So, in a sense, god means love.

DOC: You are a frustrating man.

Mick laughs.

DOC: So, in your mind, do you think the claims “god is love” and “love is god” are equivalent in a way that is analogous to “a bachelor is an unmarried man and an unmarried man is a bachelor”?

JACK: Hmm. Maybe?

MICK: That doesn’t seem right. A bachelor is an unmarried man by definition. But god is not love by definition.

JACK: That’s a fair point. I certainly don’t think that it’s true by definition. The concept of “god” doesn’t necessarily contain within it the idea of love.⁸  We can imagine a supernatural being that is not loving. Indeed, people often do—they think of god as hateful and whatnot—and that gives rise to all sorts of problems. (After a pause.) I suppose I should say that I think the term “god” is best defined as that which is ultimately holy, or as Paul Tillich put it, the matter of ultimate concern.⁹ What I trust in is that it picks out love, specifically, agápe.

He finishes off his glass and pours another.

Do you know what the Morning Star and the Evening Star are?

DOC: They both refer to Venus, right?

JACK: Yes. Notice that all three are different terms. Someone could talk about the Morning Star without realizing it is the same thing as the Evening Star, and they might not realize that both are names that were used to refer to Venus.¹⁰ It took work—work on the part of astronomers—to reveal that these names all refer to one and the same thing. I think a similar thing can be said about God and love. People can speak about a Zeus-like being without thinking that god is love, and they can speak about love without thinking that it is God—or as I prefer to put it, without thinking love is divine or sacred in itself.

MICK: That makes sense to me. I haven’t thought about it that way, so I’m not sure I agree yet, but I think I understand what you’re getting at. I guess at this point I wonder what it means to pray to and worship love? Also, maybe this seems silly, but I think it would follow from what you’re saying that when someone says “I try to love all people,” they mean, “I try to god all people,” which is absurd.

DOC: Yes, I am also wondering about that. And, of course, I’m still wondering how the hell you were ever ordained.

JACK: Hah! I think most of my parishioners wonder that, too. (After taking another sip.) So, let me take the second point first. I acknowledge that we can’t substitute the word ‘god’ for ‘love’ in every sentence without running afoul of grammar. But there are equivalent turns of phrase that capture what I mean. I think it would be appropriate to understand the claim, “I try to love all people,” as meaning “I try to make present in my relationship with others what is holy.”

MICK: Hmm, okay. That makes sense.

JACK: Now, to answer your main question, I need to first ask you a few questions.

MICK: Okay, I’m game.

DOC: Me too.

JACK: What do you think it means to pray to God and to worship God?

DOC: Well, worship is what people do in church: proclaim the gospel, affirm the creeds, participate in the sacraments, and so forth.

MICK: Yeah. I’m not terribly familiar with the details, but worship is ritualistic, formalized piety, or something like that. I guess I would just add that it has something to do with having a specific kind of mindset. And I assume praying means asking god for things.

JACK: Do you know what Saint Paul said proper worship consists in?

MICK: Haha, no, I couldn’t tell you.

JACK: He said it consists in loving other people. More specifically, he said it consists in making yourself into a living sacrifice, to practice agápe, which refers to unconditional love.¹¹

DOC: So why all the bells and whistles? The incense and songs?

JACK: Well, properly understood, those are part of the liturgy, which means the work of the people, the shared sacramental activity of those who have been baptized. The liturgy is supposed to be our form of thanksgiving, and it is supposed to be an effective means of continuously forming and reforming us into people who can then go out and engage in proper worship. Arguably, the most important part of the liturgy is the end, where we say, “Go now, into the world, to love and serve the Lord.” The real worship takes place outside the church doors.

MICK: That’s interesting. I’m not sure the people I grew up with who were Christians thought about it in that way.

JACK: Perhaps not. That doesn’t mean they were correct.

MICK: Man, I would love to have you talk to them and tell them that!

JACK: It usually doesn’t go over so well.

DOC: What about prayer?

JACK: Oh, right. So, what you talked about was what we call petitionary prayer: asking God for things. To be completely honest, I have misgivings about that form of prayer, or at least some of the ways it is conceived and practiced. I think a better way of thinking about prayer is in terms of trying to bring your own mind and intentions and desires into alignment with god—

MICK: Which is to say, with love.

JACK: Right. I think of all prayer, or all proper prayer, as ultimately having that aim. That having been said, I don’t think petitionary prayer is wrong, but I do think it can be undertaken without that intention, and that is problematic.

MICK: Does it really make sense to petition love if love isn’t a being that can respond? Since you say god and love are identical, and since love isn’t a thing, you seem to be implying that god isn’t a real being.

JACK: What do you mean when you say love isn’t a thing?

DOC: You’re far too young to be that cynical!

MICK: Yeah, well, maybe, maybe not. But I didn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, just that it isn’t an entity. Love is a feeling that entities experience, like pleasure and pain. Feelings aren’t things or beings, but they are real experiences.

JACK: Okay, I see. I sort of agree with you in that love isn’t a thing in the sense of a substance, but I don’t think it is an emotion or feeling, at least not necessarily. It usually has an emotive dimension, but it is chiefly a kind of relation between people—a way of being.

MICK: But isn’t the feeling of mutual care and attraction necessary to that relation?

JACK: Care, yes. But again, that’s not just a feeling. Care is relational, and it is best understood as a practice with attitudinal or dispositional dimensions, though, of course, it also has felt dimensions.¹² Attraction is important to conditional love, but it isn’t necessary for unconditional love or care. Moreover, even conditional love can survive loss of attraction, or at least the transformation of attraction from something that is very physical to something that is much different. And I think we can and should love people who we are, in some sense, not at all attracted to.

MICK: Ah, yes, I definitely agree. Attraction isn’t necessarily a felt, physical reaction, and a physical reaction isn’t necessarily the cause of attraction. (After a pause.) I’ve recently been reading about how the way we talk about love and attraction is structured around allosexual assumptions and prejudices. Asexual people don’t experience love and attraction in the same ways that allosexual people do.¹³

DOC: That’s a fascinating insight. We should add that prevailing conceptions of love have patriarchal dimensions baked into them as well. And don’t get me started on the ways love is put into service for racism and jingoism!¹⁴ The idea that one can and should love one’s country or heritage or race has always been unsettling to me. We need to add talking about that to our to-do list.

MICK: Oh, that’s interesting. I’m sure you have a very different set of rich experiences to draw on.

DOC: Rich? Impoverished? It is complicated.

Mick looks at her phone.

MICK: Dang. In a bit I will have to get my stuff from upstairs before the library closes. Can we return to the issue of praying to love?

JACK: Yes, well, I admit it might not make sense and it is something I often think about and puzzle over. But here is one way of thinking about it: when I pray to love it is more like meditating on the nature of love, trying to discern what love would require, so to speak, and trying to bring my thoughts, desires, and actions in line with that.

MICK: Oh, sure. I can see that.

JACK: I think there’s a better way to put what I have in mind, but I will need to collect my thoughts. Maybe that is where we pick up next time?

MICK: Do you guys do this often?

DOC: Every night, dear.

MICK: (hesitantly) Can I crash again? I’ll bring a bottle.

JACK: Deal.

DOC: And don’t think of it as crashing.

MICK: Hah, okay, but I don’t want to intrude on something that you want to keep private.

DOC: The only reason it has been just the two of us is because no one else has wanted to join!

JACK: Truly. It was really nice meeting you, Mick, and I would like to hear more about your perspective on religion.

MICK: Well, at this point, I don’t know what my perspective is. You have really given me a lot to think about.

DOC: You’ll join us tomorrow?

MICK: For sure! Thanks so much for letting me join you and being so welcoming. And thanks for the drink.

Jack and Doc raise their glasses in farewell, and Mick exits.

DOC: Well, that was a nice surprise.

JACK: Yes, indeed.

DOC: You know, I don’t think you’ve adequately explained why the bells and whistles are necessary. I don’t have any interest in defending a non-liturgical tradition, but I have to confess that I find it all a bit theatrical and superfluous—particularly if it is intended to be a way of orienting people to love.

JACK: You said theatrical; I suppose I would admit it is dramatic.

DOC: I think you’re trying to make another distinction without a difference.

JACK: You may be right.

Jack finishes off the last of his whiskey.

JACK: But I think I need to meditate on the issue before I respond. Hold me to it tomorrow.

DOC: You know it. Have a good night.

JACK: You too.

DOC: And you know what? I love you.

JACK: I love you too, my friend.

As he leaves, Jack sees Doc reach for the Hardy book. Jack smiles and looks forward to unwinding with a book himself.

Notes

1. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Courier Dover Publications, 1998), Prop. 7.

2. Plato, Symposium, trans., Nehamas and Woodruff, in Complete Works., ed., Cooper and Hutchinson (Hackett Publishing, 1997), 457ff.

3. For a useful summary, see David Macintosh, “Plato: A Theory of Forms,” Philosophy Now 90 (May/June 2012), 6-7.

4. Lesley-Ann Jones, Love of My Life: The Life and Loves of Freddie Mercury (Hodder & Stoughton, 2021).

5. For a concise yet detailed account of Stoicism, see Marion Durand, Simon Shogry, and Dirk Baltzly, “Stoicism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition), eds., Zalta and Nodelman, .

6. So-called classical theists, like Aquinas, acknowledge that god is personal but, unlike those who are now known as theistic personalists, they do not hold that god is a person in the normal sense. For a contemporary articulation of the differences between these two views, see Igor Gasparov, “Two Accounts of Deity: Classical Theism versus Theistic Personalism.” Sophia, July 3, 2023.

7. Runar Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality (Oxford University Press, 2010), 28 and 65.

8. According to Immanuel Kant’s analytic-synthetic distinction, a proposition of the form “A is B” is analytic if the predicate term, B, “is contained (though covertly) in the conception A.” His example is that the very idea of extension is bound up with the concept of a body, so the claim, “All bodies are extended” is analytic. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Meiklejohn (Barnes & Noble Publishing, 2004), Introduction, sec. 4.

9. Tillich wrote, “Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned: the dynamics of faith are the dynamics of man’s ultimate concern.” Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (Zondervan, 2001), 1.

10. This example of how two terms can have the same referent but different senses was developed by Gottlob Frege (1892). See Frege, “On Sense and Reference” in Meaning and Reference, ed., Moore (Oxford University Press, 1993).

11. Letter to the Romans 12:1.

12. See Nel Noddings, Caring, a Feminine Approach to Ethics & Moral Education (University of California Press, 1986) and Virginia Held, The Ethics of Care (Oxford University Press, 2006).

13. Angela Chen, Ace: What Asexuality Reveals About Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex (Beacon Press, 2020).

14. See Grant J. Silva, “Racism as Self-Love,” Radical Philosophy Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (2019): 85-112.