Trust (not fear)

Posted by Eudaemonic Pie on Feb 09, 2002 at 15:32 (

Re: The ONE common denominator to all the above... (Sparrow)


Fair enough to look at fear. I agree with you that fear is a huge item.

I say this. I say that if we remove "fear" as the prime-key to our index of human knowledge, then we can keep all our knowledge under a better prime-key, namely, trust. Fear becomes secondary; fear is a subset of trust; fear is a healthy and measured function of distrust, a distrust of what cannot be shown or demonstrated as trustworthy in the first place. Trust, not fear, is why scientists demand such exacting methods of study; and trust, not fear, is why scientists demand the most brutal and rigorous forms of peer review (not trusting mere ‘authorities'). Religionists have no such equivalents. Religionists prey on fear without returning to you any self-critical and objective measures for how to distrust religion. Every good scientist bar none publishes his/her findings withing a larger context of published uncertainties. Religion doesn't.

I certainly can't prove trust formally (any better than to point at science as a whole). I don't even want to try to "prove" trust (or free-will, blah, blah, blah). Trust is an epigenetic sense. It's like love. You either have it or you don't. So, in my experience, in real life, in commonsense, and in science, fear is never a stand alone variable. Trust. And in science, it's measured-trust which always exists in a context of uncertainty (not fear) ....

Take it away ...

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]