Faith and Science

Faith is hope and belief in the goodness or trustworthiness, of a person, concept or entity. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

Faith always comes first because when we are born we have little experience or grasp on reality so we have faith in our parents to feed and protect us, and to do right by us.

In this statement the word 'right' is taken to mean ethical behavior and not competitive agenda. I point this out because many people do not disambiguate sufficiently the various meanings of the word.

The word "ambidextrous" is derived from the Latin roots ambi, meaning "both," and dexter, meaning "right" or favorable. Thus, "ambidextrous" is literally "right / favorable on both sides." The term ambidexter in English was originally used in a legal sense of jurors who accepted bribes from both parties for their verdict. A good friend of mine always claimed he was ambisinister - or equally left handed. In historical terms the word "left" seems to have a bad reputation.

I take this editorial digression to make it clear when I say 'right' and 'left' I am really using just labels for competitive or right agendas and collaborative or left agendas and no deeper meaning. Any double entendre that may appear from time to time, I prefer you consider it ironic or comedic.

Science always comes later. After we develop the faith in our parents to feed and protect us we innately begin to explore and test the world - we touch things, we put them in our mouth, we try new things and develop opinions about what works best for us.

So what does this have to do with agendas?

My theory is that faith-based reasoning tends to favor competitive or right agendas, while science-based reasoning tends to favor collaborative or left agendas. I don't (yet) know of anyone else who has put forth this theory so I cannot support it by citing any references. Consequently I will have to try to evolve support it in the narrative of this blog.

What is the point of putting forward such a provocative theory?

If the theory is correct, it can help better explain in terms of agendas the current state of the world, our politics and our social and environmental situations. If the theory is not correct, well this just becomes yet another intellectual misadventure.