Trust a Person or Group: Look to Trinity

[Guest guest]

Hello Folks

 

Evolutionist Ken Miller will tell us that our disappointment with some

scientists (e.g., Dawkins, Dennett) is not reason enough to not trust science

more

broadly. One would think that religion might fear science, of course Teilhard

de Chardin knew better.

 

Trust at this level relates to a spiritual healing between science and

religion, between mind and body. And for this healing we will use mere words

that

follow the trinitarian logic. Healing is as much a mystical experience. You

should look at the following narration as an example of a much bigger miracle.

 

Miller forgets that there may be no reasons for trusting, valid or not. How

does science define trust? Up to a point we should look for reasons for

trusting, but beyond that point there are no reasons as trust must also relate

to our

emotional certitudes that simply affirm. These certitudes have no reason,

they just are, balanced at the critical point of phase change.

 

People will prefer a profession (say chiropractors, Traditional Chinese

Medicine, or the highly paid medical doctor or attorney), or they will find

disfavor with some of them as groupings. Republicans mistrust democrats,

democrats

mistrust republicans. There is no reason for this mistrust, but thank God it is

there. While there may be no reason for these unworthy-prejudices or

grateful-judgments, some of these preferences can be entirely valid with a good

sensibility to the difference between right and wrong. For example, Yin and Yang

relates to the practice of Taoism, which relates to ethics.

 

Reason (like high wages) tend to work in the negative by taking, while

affirmation has to do with the emotion of giving and being grateful. But you see

this grounding affirmation has no reason. And if we restrict ourselves to

Miller's reasons, our reasons will become completely disconnected from reality

because Miller's reasons do not explain the difference between right and wrong.

How

could they? The issue is balanced is at the critical point. You see there must

also be an affirmation somewhere to evaluate the critical point, there must

be an expression of gratitude even at the group level. And ignoring induction

thereby not having a reason for not trusting does not explain the critical

point, otherwise we could naively accept some " good " Nazis with open arms and

not

discriminate to the whole because of the actions of a few. In fact, people do

make such inductions thereby rejecting the whole of the Nazis, we don't need

to collect more data. That Nazis showed no affirmation with our core emotions

is all that we need to know.

 

There is no reason to open up ourselves to suspected groups of charlatans

that are unable to give, and there is no sacred, highly paid, or proud

profession

that is above this unrelenting scrutiny. Why do you think malpractice

premiums are so high? I don't believe group preference, right or wrong,

necessarily

has a reason. But at the transcendent level the tension that is discovered is

real, it is self certain and not imagined, we find it balanced at the critical

point, and the tension waits for the trinitarian logic where it can be put to

good use. The self-certain tension signifies Trinity, as it does the Tao of

Yin and Yang.

 

The truth is that people don't need a valid reason to hold a group preference

while maintain a responsible citizenship, and the regular person does not

care to look for a reason and is uninterested in collecting more data. So Miller

saying there is no reason for not trusting does not buy him, or us, anything.

People will make judgments, they will vote and disagree, but there is no

reason to explain their deep emotional qualities. These qualities just are.

 

I am a scientist. But I am disappointed by the overreaching I see in science,

where science pretends to become philosophy. There is no reason for my

feeling, but I see science getting a bad name. And that makes me sad. So I vote

to

accept Darwin fish with the Jesus fish, but also to teach the trinitarian logic

so the two can coexists. My vote affirms my core emotion. I don't need to

collect more data, I have seen enough of the run-on reasons that never end,

going

on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

 

Why would no reason for not trusting translate into a reason for trusting?

This leap has no reason. And the entire profession can be flushed down the

toilet, and the judgment can be based entirely on preference with no reference

to

reason. On the other hand, the trinitarian logic does not make any of these

leaps, if there is no reason one looks at the preferences that are

sense-certain,

and then permits the preferences their expression in words. If there are any

inconsistencies the trinitarian logic will show them without second guessing

them. That is how to release the tension of mistrust, and to paint a work of

art, the Darwin fish and the Jesus Fish married into love as the confirmation of

Trinity.

 

Atheists do have beliefs, and that they lack theistic belief is another way

to say that they have made a judgment based on their emotional certitudes that

are felt deeply. Their certitudes no not have a reason either.

 

Natural selection does not need a reason. If it continues to adapt into a new

identity it will soon look just like teleology. Natural selection can become

a tautology, and it does not need a valid reason, it just is. And Miller will

tell us that there is no reason to refuse this tautology. But you see,

Miller's reasons work in the negative. What is missing is the grounding emotion

that

affirms, and to this emotion Miller can only say " that there is no reason. "

 

In the closing paragraph of " The Elegant Universe " , Brian Greene writes on

the human struggle to understand, he writes of the scientific progress in the

last century and earlier: " ... As we collectively scale the mountain of

explanation, each generation stands firmly on the shoulders of the previous,

bravely

reaching for the peak. " And I guess Miller will tell us that there is no reason

to refuse such a mountain of explanation leading to this lofty and proud

peak. But you see, this reason works in the negative, the mountain of reason is

missing the grounding emotion that affirms. Without proper affirmation, Greene's

mountain of explanation will implode under its own wait, and while the canard

collapses Miller will scream " there is no reason for this implosion. " I will

remind both Greene and Miller that they forgot the trans-reason, they forgot

the grounding emotion that affirms, an emotion that does not have a reason. To

stop the public from revolting against such an ugly mountain of explanation

science need only adopt the trinitarian logic. The solution is easy, otherwise

the train wreck will be ugly.

 

I believe my above analysis to be a valid application of the trinitarian

logic, where reason and emotion are married. But note that this logic relates to

healing more generally, where trust is an issue and we need to look for a

change in our life.

 

 

 

Stephen P. Smith

Soon to be author of " Trinity: The Scientific Basis of Vitalism and

Transcendentalism "