Doctrine & Science of the Trinity I

If falsifiability were indeed the test of scientificness, then I’d put the entire structures of our proposition on this foundation of ‘wide speculation’ that there is trinity in the heart of the smallest unit of reality.? The implication of this would be that we have come from philosophy into science and then to theology back to science. In essence, we will be vindicating Francis Bacon’s prediction 1 that our probe into the core of reality would only bring us back to God from whom some of us intend to flee. Before we continue with our discussion, we should, as a matter of urgency, extinguish the misgivings of those readers who may wonder if we are not implicitly advocating absolutism and imperial assuredness that is known to be every power seeker’s interest in ‘unverifiable’ things. Far from it. We do not consider it obligatory for clergies to hammer civic duties on the pulpit, neither do we think it necessary for political leaders to preach what is alien to the laws of their countries even when it is clearly desirable. While we hold separation of these two expedient, we seek to make extrapolations from certain beliefs for the benefit of the society. We will explain the Christian doctrine of Trinity not mainly in the theologically sense but in the sense which we can find pragmatic the same way we might have explained the Eastern practice of Yoga in physiotherapy. To the science enthusiast who might feel amused or uncomfortable by this unusual epistemology we are about to introduce, I’d say; “Have I not suggested natural sciences to lead the way for social sciences. How fair is it then, if we decide to reject the works of the laboratory or imaginations of gifted persons of figures as our last bus stop of knowledge? If we can trust in the speculations of our minds (a practice which Descartes, Einstein and even Karl Popper approve 2) in understanding the principles of reality, how much more the transcendent, how gratifying can it be if we start our scientific method of deduction from the point of highlighted scriptural principle?

?If I must appeal to the ego of the naturalistic scientists, I’d put my argument this way; that they stand a good chance of being taken more seriously, as they ought to, if they can let the world know the truth of their business that they are not gods but only investigators of the work of God. They are better off assuming the role of nature’s consummators than taking upon their shoulders, a wearisome rivalry with the scripture. They should take a cue from the Law profession, which had cleverly managed to align itself with the invincible, not pretending to be what it is nota . Science may want to consider abandoning arrogance for the ever-surfacing truth of reality that it might attain the height for which it is meant; after all, it had not really won the war for the soul of human societies which it had waged against transcendentalism for so long, sometimes unprovoked. No, this is not to sacrifice objectivity by which it is so elegant, this is not achieving prominence in the altar of subjectivity but simple wisdom in which lies no serious risk.

?Even though Stephen Hawking and the likes are at the moment busy trying to fathom the infinitely complex Theory of Everything that they hope would render rationality to every reality, we believe it is important for nations to consider the non-numerical and deceptively simple Theory of Everything, which I will attempt to show as being responsible for the success of many world powers and economic hubs of the past, sometimes without them knowing.

Our argument here would be multidirectional but not confusing. We will weigh the possibility of probing reality from different viewpoints. To the atheist, we ask; how can we follow the pathway of this awesome spontaneity to imitate the models by which reality had attained balance? To the pantheist, we ask; how can we subscribe our social policies to the heart of the grand cosmic reality, which we know to be moderately consistent? To the deist, we ask; how can we keep moving from the point where the great designer had finished before trusting everything to our hands? Finally, to the theist, we ask; how can we know the principles of God as regards human society? Being a self-conscious author who struggles to speak clear grammar, I find it extremely exhausting to adopt all but one of the mentioned viewpoints. I must not extenuate the language of my mind for what cannot be conceived in the mind is perhaps useless for deduction process. Linguists and indeed, experts of Critical Thinking and Communication would understand when I say that I trust my mind better when it is not ‘stuttering’ but no one would understand better than who in his work, Dialogues, attempted to study the truth by quizzing. The most solvable question of reality to the product of reality itself is the one that I have posed to the theist and I will advance our proposition herewith.

?The Greek mythology naturally becomes our immediate point of interest because we expect a culture that has produced so many grand philosophies to have equally synthesized the most plausible explanation of the nature of God. Unfortunately, we find that we may be expecting too much as we find among the ancient Greek chief god, the persona which cannot account for the apparent stability of the cosmos. Zeus, as represented in Hellenistic mythology seem too emotional to be responsible for reality 3. We begin to loose faith in any report that tries to affirm a Parkinson disease patient as responsible for a painstaking process.? We do not want to take the Romans serious because they have borrowed too much from the Greeks, taking Jupiter as their own version of Zeus, whom we have already doubted. Looking through the history of the ancient imperial powers, we encounter a more defendable culture in the teachings of the early researchers of truth of the days of Roman glory.

Justin Martyr, as presented in history, was an intellectual who we can safely presume to be contemptuous of absoluteness. His faith was not blind; his idiosyncrasy was not churchy 4, yet he testified (implicitly) to the reality of Trinity when he said that God begot (logos) proceeding from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit.? Ever since the pioneer bearers of the doctrine of trinity had ‘laid down’ the tradition, most people had stayed away from discussing it for the fear of possible falsification of the truth, which they believed their faith rested upon. The few who try to talk about the doctrine cannot but obfuscate, often becoming defensive. Seemingly, no one is really sure about this highly precarious theology upon which the faith of a third of the world’s population is supposed to be built.

a Law proffessors Howell, Allison and Henley wrote in a text, Business Law by Dryden press in 1979, “The law is not an exact science and never will be.”

1.????????? Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English lawyer and pioneer of modern??? philosophy of science is credited with the following statement; A little science estranges a man from God. A lot of science brings him back.

How Now Shall We Live, Charles Colson & Nancy Pearcy, Tyndale House publishers, Illinois, USA, 1999, pg. 69

?

2.????????? In defending speculation of the mind as a valid deduction scientific method, Karl Popper quoted Einstein as saying; every discovery contains an irrational element, or a creative intuition.?

The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl R. Popper, The Anchor press Ltd., 1972, pg. 32

?

3.????????? Zeus is shown in Homer’s epic as falling in love with several women.

"Homer." Microsoft Encarta 2009 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2008

?

4.????????? Justin Martyr was a philosopher before he embraced faith and he continued with his philosophy as a believer. He believed that every thing that was rightly said belonged to his faith, that every truth was God’s.