The Trinity is a prism which refracts two faces in the third. In the two previous posts on this topic, I had tried to explain this refraction.

Exhibit A discussed how a Monistic Materialism was alienating the public because of it's arrogance and lack of empiricism, where "lack of candor" is understood to be "lack of open inductive logic because of prior commitments". Even while scientists preen themselves on their "empiricism", their hidden agenda is preventing them from admitting contrary observations. Therefore Exhibit A demonstrates the danger of hiding one's priors, of denying final causes, of not permitting purpose to be discussed.

Exhibit B discussed how a protozoan infection of the brain changes the way a rat senses fear, and by implication, how infected humans respond to fear. This demonstrates that material causes can influence the immaterial mind, even such classic mental states as "will" and "fear", which is evidence that the Gnostic dualism which gives the spiritual dominance over the physical is at least some of the time, incorrect. Therefore Exhibit B demonstrates the dangers of a dualism that does not put the material on equal footing with the spiritual.

In this post, I discuss the Trinitarian approach to science by using it to tackle a controversial subject: how to pick a President. (And if that can't get your blood pounding, you'll need the AED.)

Can't wait for 2008?
Well let's group the ways in which one makes decisions about the electoral worthiness of candidates:

1.  1) What the candidate says about himself/herself, promises to do, etc.
   
2.  2) What others say about the candidate.
3.  3) What the candidate did (as in voting records).

The first is a deductive approach, evaluating the political position, the ideology or the character of a candidate. The second is far more important than we like to admit, but it involves other's opinions, and is again, an application of the deductive method. The third is empirical, and attempts to match various positions or ideologies to the actions of a candidate. Now of course, speech is an action, so we could combine (1) with (3), but often with press releases and the web, it isn't even clear whether the candidate composed the sentences that are attributed to him/her.  Now in the best of all possible worlds, these three are in agreement, the candidate speaks forthrightly, the pundits agree it is clear, and the actions of the candidate reinforce the verbal message.

But that was a half-century ago or more.

Today we have spin. The classic quote was Senator Kerry's, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."  Today actions and words are so contradictory, it is very hard to find a consistent meaning. By selective quotation a candidate can be a hawk or a dove, in favor of Kyoto are against it, a protectionist or a free-trade advocate. To make matters worse, the internet and Lexis-Nexis never forget, and a thousand bloggers relish the opportunity to proclaim every inconsistency. What do we do?

   Ad Hominem (monism)
This is the most popular viewpoint today, judging from the record of debates both public and in private. We decide if the candidate is worthy of the message. When Jim Dobson commented about Fred Thompson, "I don’t think he’s a Christian. At least that’s my impression.” he was making a statement about the candidate's worthiness. And likewise, when the NOW supported President Bill Clinton, despite his reputation as a philanderer, they did so for exactly the same reason, he manisfestly supported a materialist worldview. In this approach, the actual words of a candidate are less important that the type or personality of the candidate himself.

Many people wonder why there seems to be a double standard, why William Jefferson is allowed to  serve in Congress despite a $90k stash in his freezer, but Duke Cunningham was thrown in prison. The standards aren't double, merely materialist versus moral. Senator Clinton isn't being harassed by Code Pink for being immoral, just for not being consistently materialist. For purists in both parties, the messenger must be worthy of the message.

   Pragmatic (dualism)
A second approach is to value the message over the messenger. Proponents will say, "Well politicians are always making deals. The point is not to find the most pure expression of materialism or Christianity, the point is to find the politician who can accomplish the most, since ideologues will only spin their wheels in DC."  Such people will look for actions, the number of bills passed, the calamities averted by their candidate. For pragmatists, the cardinal sin is inaction, an adamant refusal to negotiate.

For example, a candidate who is "personally opposed to abortion" but allows exceptions for "rape, incest and the life of the mother", is considered a pragmatist. The same sort of argument might be used in foreign policy contrasting ideologue "neocons" with pragmatic "realists", or in economics contrasting "free trade" with special interest "protectionists", or on illegal immigration contrasting "Minutemen" with "amnesty".  I think with a little reflection, you can pick out the ideologue position and the pragmatic position. The ideologue is the consistent Monist, the pragmatic is the inconsistent Dualist.

  The Debate
But the confusion doesn't end there, often we are Monist about some issues, and Dualist about others. We Mix-and-Match issues, so that a fellow might be strong defender of the Iraq war (Monist), but a weak defender of the Culture war (Dualist). Or conversely, a strong opponent of the Iraq war (Monist), but a weak defender of gay marriage (Dualist). There are even websites that attempt to profile each candidate and "match" preferences to the candidates. In the 2000 race, such a website had me most closely aligned with Alan Keyes, a black, Catholic, conservative Republican with a snowball's chance. Should I have voted my (Monist) heart, as the Constitution Party proclaimed loudly, or voted my  (Dualist) head, as the Republican party  and Hugh Hewitt recommended?  It's a debate the Libertarians have been having for decades.

By now I hope you see how the problems of science are problems of society in general. There are purists in both parties, who admire a Monist consistency. There are pragmatists in both parties who admire a Dualist realism. And everyone has a different selection of Monist and Dualist issues, those that cannot be compromised, and those that can.

So throughout most of the Middle Ages, the Church reigned supreme over matters of substance, with a Monist reliance on deductive theology as the arbiter of the Real. Thomas Aquinas' doctrine of Transubstantiation was a classic example of the Church interpreting how observation could not detect the real substance of the bread and wine, but only deduction from scripture could be trusted. The transition to an inductive approach occurred during the Renaissance, with a particularly fruitful time when both were more or less in balance, resulting in the tremendous advances of the Enlightenment. By the 19th century as illustrated in the Deist William Paley, but really beginning with Isaac Newton, a Monist inductive approach to knowledge dominated. Immanuel Kant however, did not want to be a Deist, so after reading David Hume, concluded that Dualism could save his atheistic deductive philosophy. If he had but waited for Charles Darwin, he might not have been so hasty, for evolution made monist materialist atheism finally respectable. Thereafter Kant's dualism became the accepted approach for deductive deism (even theism!) to escape the evident atheism of monist materialism.

The 20th century is full of aborted attempts to bridge this Kantian gulf between philosophy and science, between belief and experiment, between Christianity and Materialism. Fundamentalism began the century with a rejection of materialism by an appeal to evidentiary theism, but ended with a young-earth dualist rejection of inductive empiricism. CS Lewis began with a firm faith in deduction, but in a famous debate with a philosopher where he attempted to demonstrate the superiority of rational theism, doomed himself by a reliance on Greek dualism. The monist Vienna Circle attempted to show how a deductive approach based on empirical foundations could remove theism but instead spawned Kurt Goedel and Thomas Kuhn who proved the very opposite. A faint echo of their monist positivism is still heard in Karl Popper's "falsifiability", but it is a criterion without teeth, a palestinian cease-fire that is de facto dualism.  A brilliant philosopher like Ludwig Wittgenstein began with monist atheist Bertrand Russell and the positivists, but ended with Analytic Philosophy, the dualist rejection of deductive certainty, with no answer for the marvellous successes of science.

So today, in reading scientist Francis Collins autobiography, the principle impression I get is one of pervasive dualism, one that enables Francis to hold on to deductive faith, purpose, and belief, while simultaneously treating inductive biology, chemistry and physics with thoroughgoing materialism. Is this the best a Christian can do? If so, then it is better to remain an atheist until after one has deciphered the code, until after winning the Nobel Prize and election to the National Academy of Science, and then get the baptismal lobotomy. That's also the message I get from Mike Adams battle with the UNC administration. I am reminded of all those Pacific Garden Mission "Unshackled" radio programs, or Sunday evening services where a sinner would give his testimony. The lesson I learned was not the one intended, rather that one achieved far more acclaim and money for having a lurid conversion story to tell, than being a good kid all along.

So by the end of the 20th century, Materialism stays, Dualism plays.

Trinitarian Politics
There is a problem to both purity and pragmatism, and it is particularly acute in politics. That is, the politicians know the criteria are out there. Therefore they spin.  They attempt to phrase their answers in a way that meets the criteria, they attempt to cast their votes in a way that satisfies the largest group of people. It isn't enough to ask "what is the right thing to do?", but rather they ask "How does this play in Peoria?"  A little reflection should reveal that this problem is insurmountable. If one were to add the criteria "Politicians must not play to the public perception." then the politician will act in a way to appear indifferent to the public perception. The recursion can get so deep, the nuance so nuanced, that one has no idea whether a candidate believes what he says or even does what he did. This may explain the paradox mentioned in an earlier blog, that the religious affiliation of candidates are inversely correlated to the religious behavior of presidents.

This recursion problem, however, is not unique to politics, but permeates science and religion. Recursion is how Kurt Goedel stopped cold the positivist assault. Recursion is why Thomas Kuhn said scientific progress only occurs when scientists die and take their theories with them (and why death is the required product of sin.) Recursion is why materialists can't handle "mind". Recursion is why Wolfgang Pauli said QM drove him crazy, despite his Copenhagen dualism.  Recursion is what undermines Monism and causes Dualism to devour itself. Recursion is the evidence of the divine, the odor of the holy.

If our politics cannot be reduced to a checklist of senate votes, if our politics cannot be boiled down to a statement about abortion, it is because humans are made in the image of God, they are sub-creators and stewards of His creation and not brute beasts that can only react.  Therefore, their future is not determined by their past, and their response depends upon our response, just as God is not determined by His past, but adjusts His response to ours. (And if you think God is impervious to supplication, then you and I differ on the meaning of prayer.)

How then shall we vote? (The book that Francis Schaeffer was going to write next.)

Can we read their minds, or look into their hearts? Even if we could, it might not tell us what we wanted to know. Who, in November 2000, could have foreseen 9/11 or predicted President Bush's response if they had? Who, in 1860, could have foreseen the carnage of the four-year Civil War, or predicted President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1864 if they had? Am I saying that one chooses a President by character, since the future is so unpredictable as to make actions nearly irrelevant? No, for neither Bush nor Lincoln was chosen for their warlike temperament, though they both presided over a war. Not only are actions poor predictors of the future, but even character strengths are unreliable predictors. Abe may have been the stubbornest president in US history, but surely such stubbornness is a fault more often than not. I am reminded of Bull Halsey's stubborn belligerence that was nearly fatal in the naval battle of Leyte Gulf during WWII. If our character strengths predict our behavior, then our enemy can use them against us, whether it be the Japanese, the opposition party, or the enemy of our souls.

Well then, am I advocating a thoroughgoing dualism, a practicality that weighs each situation and attempts to decide on the most favorable outcome? No, once again let us look back at 1860. The Civil War was the product of increasing tension over slavery and an unworkable Missouri compromise.  The second world war, in Winston Churchill's words, was "the preventable war", the war caused by Neville Chamberlain's appeasement. The path of least resistance is guaranteed to destroy, if not us then certainly our children. It is an option only for the childless and the aged, for the epicurean and the slave.

But if it is neither the path of least resistance, nor the path of personal purity, what is it? Like science, like God, it is the Trinity. We test our theories in the fire of experience, we look for guidance outside ourselves. Recursion is only defeated when something outside the system intrudes. Jesus prayed not just because he wanted to set an example for us, but because he was insufficient without the Father and the Spirit. The coherence of the Trinity is not found in each Person separately but in the whole, therefore Jesus prayed "not my will but yours be done". The Trinitarian path is Augustine's spiral staircase, letting our knowledge inform our faith and faith our knowledge, all the while moving our feet by the power of the Spirit.  It is the coherence of God's plan, the leading of the Spirit in history, the discovery of that which is essential to US history, not my Social Security benefits, my access to Mexican gardeners, nor my son's desire to serve his country. We must set our sights on the future, and yet not so far that we stumble over our next step. We must set goals and virtues and then evaluate whether they are effective or a hindrance. Small government may be desirable, but can it contain the Islamic terrorist threat? Church affiliation may be desirable, but like Lincoln, might it also hinder the functioning of the executive branch?

I know this destroys every deterministic approach to politics, for just as it undermines statute-based Monism, so it also undermines pragmatic path Dualism. Neither the end nor the means is sufficient, but we must pass them through the fire of the Spirit. We must test and retest each criterion against the unrolling tapestry of the present to decide our next step. The marvel is that when we take this venture out into the unknown, He is there to hold our hand, to direct our feet one step at a time, and the buzzing confusion of duelling dualities dissolves like the morning mist in the noon-day Sun.